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

Pmanderson being tendentious, baiting, and uncivil with personal attacks (again)

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

---

• This thread was getting very long, I've taken the liberty of moving it to a subpage: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Call to close

Would an uninvolved admin please declare the result in this one? There's a large overwhelming majority in favor of a particular topic ban, and various opinions on a range of other block options. Everyone has had their say, and someone needs to say where it nets out. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The same proposal, on a subpage where no uninvolved editors will be attracted to it, has been made again and again, despite being opposed before. Now the discussion has dwindled chiefly to those who would like to use this civility complaint to silence opposition to the view that MOS must be authoritarian, that If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition.

Well, they have, whatever the admins decide. I will not comment on WT:MOS unless explicitly asked, for quite some time; I will join the rest of Wikipedia in ignoring the page, since I am not contributing to making it what it could be. They can have the maze of rules they have made up, as long as they leave those of us alone who are trying merely to write English, not reinvent it.

Let Dicklyon, who refers to others (not me) as having their heads stuck in the sand, join the editor who refers to posts as vomit, and the editor who assailed me so intemperately that he was threatened with a block if he ever made such posts again. Let them learn lessons of civility from each other; they have corrupted my good manners, as this discussion has made clear. I will be relieved to be free of their company. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some may think this exaggerated; but the proposal GWH mentioned below would, in the words of the proposer, leave me unable to justify my actions or to defend myself if challenged. I would appreciate anybody who defends that explaining how this helps the encyclopedia; or how my spending more time on this issue benefits the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Small point - If (this is predicated on the sanction going into effect) you were to be editing specifically to ignore MoS or to keep the prose you added to convey content in a specific format. Then you would be hard pressed to discuss/justify your edit without either breaching or acknowledging you had breached the topic ban.

If you were to be editing just to add legible content - and legible does not mean it meets the MoS - and were being reverted because you were not following MoS. You would have the right to say, politely, "I have added content, sourced content, sourced content that someone using Wikipedia can read. Yes, I wrote it how I feel it should be written, but I accept that once I place it, others can an likely will modify it based on their interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guide lines. If it needs to be copy edited, then by all means, copy edit it, at least the content will still be there."

- J Greb (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But most to the point: I will take away not to post in anger. I should not have done so, and I regret causing trouble to the community. Even though I calmed down before the next time I posted, harm was done to GTBacchus; I thank him for looking forward to working with me in the future (in the interim, we have discussed a title question here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The current tally on the subpage for topic ban from MOS is 24:3:1, on topic ban from Titles is 5:1. This is prime for uninvolved admin review and enaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Carcharoth has observed, at some length, the extent to which that majority consists of those who are already involved, and have spoken of me intemperately elsewhere. This is not the first time such people have used a civility complaint against me; the previous time was the complaint by the author of one of those proposals, that "anglophone" is somehow racist. GWH should remember that; he closed it himself with a Trout all round. I have done wrong; I shall avoid these people; but this is another of the same effort at silencing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That you have conflicts with some unreasonable people does not mean that everyone conflicting with you is unreasonable; nor does some people who are unreasonable or combative having !voted to topic ban you mean that everyone voting to topic ban you is unreasonable or combative. We can identify some potentially conflicted users, but there are a wide, wide variety of users who have never been in conflict with you who have reviewed the situation and responded. That you feel that "these people" are the problem and not you generally (having admitted having done wrong or not) isn't enough at this point. That was where it should have been at the RFC/U. Things not fixed well enough yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Literally, most of those (non-admins almost entirely) who endorse the proposal are, like the editor who wrote it, engaged in a content dispute; they wrote the sanction, they are impatient for Elen or somebody to impose it, and the author says that the purpose is to make it impossible for me to defend my edits. Plaintiff, judge, and jury; I should be thankful they are not also executioners. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I say close this thread without prejudice or consequence against Pmanderson. My advice to Pmanderson, try some new wiki-stuff (review a GAN for example). To the same extent I presume you may have negatively affected someone by your conduct, I believe you have endured like manner. Seek better association! They are out there! My76Strat (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. So all this got shuffled off to a subpage and a "consensus" developed? Before, the allegedly "passing" motion was at 13-3 on raw votes, but after hidden in a subpage, every !vote was for a ban. That smells fishy. PMA can inform you about our interactions - we don't exactly get along - but I'm commenting because this process appears to me fundamentally not just. The repeated new threads proposing censures were disruptive; indeed, another editor directly said so. Hiding that on a subpage is simply not just. Furthermore, the result - the allegedly "passing" "ban" - would seem to prevent PMA from discussion such as the most recent I can recall [1]; PMA and I were on opposite sides, but I don't see a problem with PMA's participation. What I see here, on the other hand, rather looks like a lynch mob. Also, as a matter of record, I don't think Elen of the Roads should close this discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Hiding"? How is it hiding? It's still clearly mentioned on this page. And putting it on a subpage means that edits doesn't drown in edits from other incidents, so it's actually easier to see if somebody has updated it. It's the opposite of hiding. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, Gimmetoo’s “interesting” post all suggests suspicious impropriety. The whole PMA thread grew long on this ANI page so User:Strange Passerby, who is a regular to this venue, moved it for the reason stated above to its own sub-page. No, that is not “hiding” the discussion of the incident; it is has been plainly titled right at the top of the list here with a big red question mark the entire time for anyone who cares and knows how to read can stop, stare, read, and click. Yes, a consensus developed over there. No, not every vote was for a topic ban, but the consensus is truly overwhelming. The only thing that smelled “fishy” was Locke Cole (someone who believes himself to have been victimized by mob rule on MOSNUM) visited the page and made arguments which didn’t find traction with the rest. His rationale for having dropped in on ANI for the first time since 2009 wasn’t credible to many and appears to have been the product of… uhm… something fishy. As for the “lynch mob” appearance to which Gimmetoo refers, I suppose that is what it looks like when an editor has been very disruptive for a very long time and then goes to an ANI where a very appropriate remedy was finally fleshed out. I am pleased to see that Elen of the Roads will close it out unless someone does so earlier. In advance, thanks. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Greg, I've seen threads FAR longer than this one survive on AN/I without being shuffled off to a subpage. At the very least, someone should have transcluded the subpage on to this page so people could see it here (while maintaining a separate edit history). The odds of anyone clicking through to that subpage diminished significantly once it was just a link on this page. And the alleged "consensus" formed once the MOS regulars had the place basically to themselves (neverminding what appear to be a handful of pile-on supports that, thanks to not commenting AT ALL don't seem to indicate any knowledge of the goings-on). Voting is evil. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Transclusion would have defeated the whole purpose of moving this action to its own subpage: freeing up room. You see, there was so much discussion and debate (what helped to make this quite distinct from a simple poll) that this page was getting too long in User: Strange Passerby’s opinion. Now, I don’t know the individual, but given that Strange Passerby is a regular around here and presumably knows what he’s doing and what is customary on ANI, I suspect he thought a big title at the top reading Pmanderson being tendentious, baiting, and uncivil with personal attacks (again) was sufficient to, as you say, make it so “people could see it here.” At least I can certainly see it (and presumably too most others) as well the link to the discussion page. PMA has had a full and fair hearing and the community has spoken with (nearly) one voice. Greg L (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's fantastic, but when all the sub-threads get lost on a sub-page (because the headings have all been moved) an idly passing by editor wouldn't have any knowledge of the large dispute taking place or know that additional input was necessary to reach a consensus amongst uninvolved editors. And I said it before, but apparently I need to say it again; I've seen discussions QUITE longer than this one (often times hundreds of KB of discussion) sprawl out here before being moved to a subpage. And even then, it's transcluded back so editors can see the discussion and participate if it's needed. Again: voting is evil, and even more so when apparently a good chunk of the "voters" are directly involved in the area of dispute... no, it's not the "community" that's spoken here, it's the MOS regulars voting out someone they don't want to deal with anymore. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, Locke Cole, but I believe I told you once before not to intentionally mischaracterize the situation for your own purposes. I am decidedly NOT an MOS regular, and there are many others who have commented which are not either. Merely because the discussion isn't going the way you want it to, doesn't mean you can just make stuff up to discredit the people who are on the opposite side as you. Again, I have commented in favor of topic bans against PMA, and I have never been significantly involved with the MOS, article titles, or indeed any conflict with him before. It is rude that you keep spreading this deliberate falsehood for your own reasons, and I will ask that you stop. --Jayron32 05:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that Jayron is not a MOS regular; I don't think Locke Cole intended to say so. But those who are pushing for the proposed settlement, who say specifically they want this rather than voting for the only action being polled for, are chiefly MOS regulars: Ohconfucius, who drafted it, and has been baiting me during the discussion; Greg L, who was threatened with a block for his intemperance; and Noetica, who is, I think, the most frequent editor of MOS. Has Jayron done more than !vote?

Ezhiki, who is deeply annoyed with me, opposes it in the poll; Carcharoth and Bkonrad have left statements concerned with the sweeping nature of this proposal - and the interpretation of the proposal; and that this will be used to harass me. If they are wrong, and this becomes, in wording or effect, an interaction ban between me, on one hand, and Ohconfucius, Noetica, Tony1, Kwamikagami, and Greg L on the other, that will settle this matter; if they are right, I will have little choice but to seek an amendment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To suggest that PMA has been victimized by a pack of partisan wiki-hounds ignores the clear evidence. PMA has enjoyed the benefit of one of the more protracted and thoughtful ANIs around. Nearly four days-worth of fruitless discussion transpired with plenty of “outside & uninvolved” editors weighing in on one proposal after another, up to the last loser of a proposal (“Alternative N: 1 month block for civility with exponential penalty”), which went down in flames because the community wisely thought it was not a proper fit for PMA’s circumstances and wanted the project to continue to benefit from what PMA brings to the table.

There was no solution in sight, which even precipitated an aborted move to close, until “Alternative N+1: Indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly” was proposed, which made so much sense, it received broad support from all corners of wikipedia. Note too that an uninvolved admin, User:Carcharoth, who had opposed all previous proposals, supported this new proposal.

Then that proposal went on to morph into still another proposal that was worded very precisely and which went on to enjoy a landslide of support because it made so much sense.

PMA has enjoyed all the protections Wikipedia has to offer to ensure he was proper protected from mob rule. Now it is time to institute the consensus remedy so that the community can contribute to the project without further disruption from PMA. Greg L (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)\

Yes, there was a landslide of support for the latest proposal from those involved with the Manual of Style, and non-admins with other old grievances against me. As it became clear that this was intended as a vague and catch-all proposal of drastically altered chatacter, the uninvolved admins objected; Carcharoth said (of this version) If things are not made clear now, you can be sure that Pmanderson will arrive at a discussion citing WP:COMMONNAME and claim it is a content/NPOV issue, not a style issue, and you can be just as sure that someone will haul Pmanderson off to a noticeboard and demand an immediate indef block; Bkonrad said that If Greg's interpretation below is understood to apply, then I Oppose.

Greg L's wish to act as plaintiff, judge, and jury may be understandable; but that is not the way ANI is supposed to make decisions. I am perfectly willing never to interact with him or his friends again; that will secure the MOS community against "further disruption from PMA." As he makes his demand for this proposal (and only this proposal) clearer and clearer, he provides evidence for such a request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing

I shall be able to close the discussion later this evening (although don't let me stand in the way of anyone who wants to do so sooner) Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1

Well after that copy editing, I introduced 'Bisque' as a background Div style (aid to reading), as this long tortuous discussion kept going off page. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And I removed it, because that's not normal practice here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A note to new readers: There are users who have commented inside of other user's comments. I have tried to indent them to avoid confusion, but may not have succeeded. lifebaka++ 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held.

For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced.

The accounts involved are:

• User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts.
• User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog.
  • Right... Please notice that I have a longer and more productive record as an editor here than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Any article that I edit is improved by the edit. Any article that he/she/it edits looks like it has been attacked with a chainsaw. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

    You have, as of a moment ago, 547 edits. I have over 43,000. That's sure an interesting definition you have of "longer". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford Cochrane, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing.

That's Julie Cochrane -- I have 3 novels out (co-authored). I am submitting a story to an anthology as one of a collection of people who have been solicited to submit stories. Submitting stories to open anthologies on series or subjects we like or find interesting---it's what professional authors do. I disclosed my association up front, and I note that instead of assuming my good faith, Wolfowitz is using the disclosure to imply bad faith on my part. My disclosure was not on my own talk page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, I put it on Jethrobot's talk page and mentioned in the Hell talk page that it was there. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The notice is on my talk page now. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Wikipedia disputes.
• User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles.

Really? Are you kidding me? The very first thing I ever said was "I'm a total newbie." I happen to be a SF/Fantasy reader and fan, and I like to look at wikipedia articles. When I saw the dispute on this author, a book of whose I once read and liked, it intrigued me -- enough to pull me in to contribute as an editor for the first time. Given that my interest in WP has led to me being called some sort of unethical sockpuppet, I'm really having a hard time believing that the principal of good faith means anything around here. I certainly have not seen Hullabaloo Woolfowitz exercise ANY in my direction. I have to say this newbie's experience of WP has been a real turn off. I doubt I'll contribute or be an editor any more if this is the sort of treatment newbies receive. Let me state this concisely: I've only participated in disputes involving Janet Morris, because I'm brand-spanking new and that's the first thing I EVER spent time on. Jeesh. Do I need to have somehow magically contributed to articles before I opened a WP account in order to get treated with a little good faith around here? I regret the snark, but I have to confess I'm really steamed at this treatment. By the way Cthu-Lou is my account also, but only continues to exist because I couldn't figure out how to delete it. This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• • user:Knihi has made a number of false statements here; most conspicuously, he did not "announce" his prior editing as Cthu-Lou in his first edit as Knihi [2], or anywhere else that I can find, until this posting, after the possibility of an SPI was raised. His first edit as Knihi did, however, toss barbs in Orangemike's direction. It's really remarkable how many people with grievances against OrangeMike showed up to argue over these articles, all claiming no coordination, canvassing, etc., especially when the central player has announced she's "keepingbuilding a file" on OM and his "cronies". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. You're being very literal -- I didn't mean my very first post, I meant up front. I'm pretty darn sure I mentioned it early on, and no, I'm not going to go hunting through all the conversations to find it. I can't even find some of the conversations. I just figured out how to find post history, but there were a lot of times I posted without being logged in. Once again, you are just assuming bad faith. As for these so called "barbs" can you link to them please, because I don't recall anything but trying to be polite and/or add some levity. I never even heard of OrangeMike until I got involved in these discussions. And is that what this is about? You think I somehow tossed 'barbs' at someone you know, so you wind up listing me as part of some sort of pernicious conspiracy. I'm really starting to feel like you're trolling me. Also I don't appreciate you using the rhetorical tactic of baldly claiming I made a number of false statements but then only listing one. If you want to go making claims about my truthfulness, I'd appreciate it if you enumerated them, giving me something specific to which I can respond.Knihi (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What you said was "This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi." It wasn't true, and it's a plain, straightforward factual statement. You claim that your only motivation is that you've read and and liked some of Morris's work, but by a curious coincidence the description you'vr given of yourself on-Wiki matches up to the self-description of a person who uses the screen nane "Cthu-Lou", who describes himself as a friend of one of the Lawyers in Hell authors, and has actually passed along requests for help from that author on the details of what might well be a "Heroes in Hell" story, and who also has social-network connections with User:UrbanTerrorist. It's also quite peculiar that your first post as Knihi teed off on OrangeMike over his conduct in deletion discussions, even though none of the AFDs you'd posted in as Cthu-Lou involved OM. And as a final note, you stated, above, that someone here has called you an "unethical sockpuppet." Who and where, pray tell? With an appropriate cite. I don't see anyone having done that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Ok. You caught me using inexact language. It wasn't in the very first post. I'm not exactly sure what you think you've accomplished, but clearly I was typing in a rush. In turn, I feel confirmed in not trusting to your good faith. It is quite curious to me you seem so concerned about this OrangeMike person and have yet to link to where I supposedly tossed 'barbs' at him. As for being called an "unethical sockpuppet" what I actually wrote was "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet" -- which is subtly different -- and I can certainly cite that. You. Here. As an "account involved" with "Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1" I find being included on this list and having to have this conversation as equivalent to "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet," and I stand by that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "inexact language." It's that you never made that disclosure, in your first or any other post, so far as I can tell, and you don't cite the post where the "announcement" was purportedly made. As for your claim that I didn't link to your comments regarding OM, the link is there, plain as day in my reply to your first post in this subthread, despite whatever motive you might claim for denying it's there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I remember making the post, even if I can no longer find it. Its entirely possible I made it to someone's talk page or somewhere else, like a message. *shrug* There's been a lot of typing around here. I don't think it proves anything substantive one way or another; but I guess you'd have to assume good faith to accept that, which seems in short supply. As for a link to 'barbs' I see a link to my opening post as knihi on a discussion but I don't read anything in there that is a 'barb' -- and, in asking for greater specificity from you, I don't have motives here, other than to categorically refute your blanket characterization of my comments. Which comment, specifically, do you regard as a 'barb' and why? And as for inexact language, I point you to the opening of your very first comment on my user account. It's been established that UrbanTerrorist not Janet Morris claimed to be "keeping a file"; so either you claim to know UrbanTerrorist's gender or you too made a mistake and used inexact language. I'm going with uncorrected mistake. Please note that I am offering you the good faith you consistently fail to offer me. Knihi (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, enough. Lots of heat, no light. lifebaka++ 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap
• User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead. User:Dburkhead

Interesting word choice. A brief, factual synopsis of the story in question, listing major characters and settings in order to link to Wikipedia articles on those characters and settings, is not "promotional." The term for what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is called "loaded language."user:Dburkhead

• User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher

I can assure you, and I invite IPs to be checked by any means available in order to prove this, that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been primarily (about 75%, I estimate) editing those subjects because they happen to be of interest to me at this time, the same reason (aside from fixing typos I happen to spot) I make edits in general. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Wikipedia disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse

Please do look at the thread directly, as it refutes the allegation of "canvassing" and is instead a request for users familiar with WP and/or Morris's work to contribute information to improving the articles if they can. I would note that this also substantially refutes allegations of attempts to WP:OWN the articles in question. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris.

For real? Participates? I used this account to post a few times then lost my password and got snarled in the lost password process. So I created the knihi account and my very first act was to announce this in the AFD we were having. I'd as soon see this account deleted. If it has more than a few posts to its name then someone other than me has been using it. And even if it were not me, Good Faith anyone? Why does contributing to only one article make you suspicious? Everyone starts with some article sometime. Forgive the redundancy but I really feel like being new is the same as being suspicious and good faith is out the window. Talk about a turn-off. Sheesh. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels.

I created this account earlier using one of my various "screen names" (http://coldservings.livejournal.com, http://www.coldservings.com) and had forgotten about it when creating the account I use now however user:ColdServingsonly participated in one discussion and never an any discussion in which user:Dburkhead participates thus the usual complaint of using "sock puppets" to create the illusion of more support for a position than truly exists does not apply in this case. As for whether either of these accounts is a "sock puppet" of Ms. Morris, you are welcome to contact me via one of my sites (both of which have been around a lot longer than this particular wikipedia controversy).user:Dburkhead

• User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike).

Well now, I suggest you double-check all of my edits. I've been on WP since 2004 and while I did work for quite awhile establishing author Michael Z. Williamson's page, I also did quite a few edits on other authors as well. I believe that one of WP's admissions (or perhaps it is desire, I am not certain) is for those who are knowledgeable to make edits, contributions and place cites. I happen to be a fan of science fiction and am very knowledgeable about the author pages I edit. I'm sorry that I don't "branch out" and edit pages I know nothing about but I, unlike others, believe that facts trumpet a consensus. Cordova829 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Principal pages involved:

• Lawyers in Hell AFD
• Talk:Heroes in Hell
• Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback
• Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback

There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here [3], then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation.

You know and not for nothing, but as an outside observer more interested in fair treatment of the original articles than these disputes, my opinion is that you have been pretty darned uncivil and hostile yourself. You also seem to take everything in the worst possible light. For example, Guarddog2 never said she was taking her dispute with you to the SFWA Grievance Committee. She said words to the effect that she was going to ask someone from their to weigh in. I took that to mean, because they would have expert knowledge on the topic (ie the difference between firs serial, reprint, etc. and how all that is handled in the industry), and since you'd been invoking the SFWA as an authority, it seemed that would be someone you'd actually believe. Your interpretation that this was a threat is...well, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But it wasn't how it read to me. For whatever that's worth. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [4]. Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc.

Wow. I guess can see how you took it that way, but I recall Urban Terrorist -- whom I agree should tone it down -- as saying, essentially, if one were willing to accept any source uncritically, one might as well trust the Protocols... He did not compare that particular reference to the Protocols. I think you may be way to close to this and hearing everything as hostile. Additionally, I responded to that very comment about incomprehensibility, that I for one didn't find it incomprehensible, nor did I have trouble finding good faith. Until accusations flew and everyone seemed to get angry at which point all I could find was bad faith directed indiscriminately. Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but what you just wrote is merely your opinion of events as well. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

l

The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally. Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President.

Now hold on here. Seems to me you're just asserting this stuff about "promoting the interests". It also seems to me someone else could have written what you just did, swapping the sides. Once these two groups are having editing wars, accusations like this are inherently one-sided. It could be equally flipped around and directed at you. And you'd both be being biased and unfair. For example, it's not a "simple factual statement" You make it sound like arguing about 2+2=4. Of course its nothing so simple. How could it be? You're claiming one thing, and the other side claims you're using a term incorrectly and oversimplifying matters. The use of the term has real impact and meaning and accuracy in all articles on collections, anthologies, and shared-universe fiction -- all of which are different art forms. I don't mean to start a debate here but I just can't let that kind of one-sided oversimplification stand. YOU see it as "bizarre" and about a "simple factual statement," but they don't. Also using terms like 'clique' or mentioning your belief she's "complaining about Silverberg" in a disparaging fashion are irrelevant and hardly civil.Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)?

COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Wikipedia policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Wikipedia policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Wikipedia's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz."[5] That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to try and answer Georgewilliamherbert's question with something other than "He doesn't! Their crazy!" (not that those words were literally used, of course). Before I do let me say first that I'm not an editor claiming Hullaballoo has a COI, but I can see why others might. For one he, like other editors in these discussions, has not stuck to a neutral tone, leading to the conclusion that he doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Hullabaloo has also, in my view, gone ahead and done the very thing WP:COI suggests not doing (from WP:COI): "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And yet this very discussion feels like just such a weapon (and as I've said elsewhere, I feel caught in the crossfire). His intensity and the mutual hostility have likely led opposing editors to feel that (from WP:COI) "he's got interests...more important to [to him] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" even if they don't have proof of such. Additionally the newbie's (like myself) may have confused prohibitions against "citing oneself" -- which Hullabaloo has not done -- with those against "original research" -- which he may very well have done. Finally, since WP:COI mentions that "...when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view...accounts may be blocked..." They might have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that Hullabaloo has a COI. My point in writing this is to balance what appears to me to be a sort of witch-hunt-like/conspiracy theory vilification of everyone who opposes Hullabaloo in this discussion. Just a way to support Good Faith and show these editors (myself included) can be wrong without being crazy or antagonistic. Knihi (talk)

This above statement seems to support Cullens summation of the COI-interest accusations against Hullaballoo. There is nothing that substantiates the accusation, only some vagueness about him not having "stuck to a neutral tone" (seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The COI is clearly on the other side of this conflict, not Hullaballos. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicely said User:Cullen328, but totally inaccurate.

The problems come from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whose tactics have included a wide variety of wild accusations and attacks, for which he/she/it has refused to provide any proof, even when asked repeatedly for it. I gather that the necessity to actually have to come up with proof is so terrifying that it has now decided to move the argument to another level.

I'm not assuming good faith anymore because threatening to write about us, expounding on your credentials, your associations, "knowing a lot of people," and saying that some editors (in general) are idiots in this Wall of text are disruptive and not helpful to your case. Only checkusers can confirm sockpuppets. Also, we can read your edit history just fine, thanks. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I disagree I've taken out the Collapse statement. I think that the information on who and what I am is very germane, since I've been accused of being a sock puppet, and I posted this as proof that I'm not a sock puppet. This would be the equivalent of my deciding to Collapse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz complaint so that no one could read it, and no one knew what he was complaining about. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book. Now let's take a look at the situation one step at a time, going back to when this started. Yes, I know everyone involved. I know a hell of a lot of people. If you want to go back to the Six Degrees of Separation theory, I'm two degrees away from George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other big names. It's not that I'm important. I'm not. Its just that before my body fell apart I used to be the Major Accounts Sales Representative for a company that manufacturers catalytic converters and other emission control products, and I spent a lot of time in Ottawa, Washington, and San Francisco, and I know a lot of people in government. You can still find my name on the California Air Resources Board, Industry Canada, West Coast Diesel Collaborative, and Western Regional Air Partnership government body websites, Environmental Defense, Manufacturers of Emissions Controls non-governmental organization websites, and on Forklift Action the Forklift Industry News website even though I've been out of work for nearly three years now. If you check the Diesel Particulate Filter article you will find that I started it and that most of the first 9000 words were contributed by me while I was working for a company that manufactured and sold the devices. If you look at the article on Selective Catalytic Reduction you will notice that I took the original article from 600 words to 3800 words, again while working in the industry. The article once again needs a re-write because some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry tried to come to a consensus rather than understanding the chemical reaction. Yes, I've removed the collapse statement a second time. The information is germane to my claim not to be a sock puppet, and therefore needs to be seen. As I've said several times, it appears that there are two sets of rules. One for the in crowd and one for everyone else. The in crowd can say what they want. They can make any accusations that they want. They can claim that long standing accounts are sock puppets without providing any evidence (as you will notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has provided none above). When one of those accused attempts to provide evidence it is claimed that it isn't germane, and that it doesn't need to be seen. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The point that I'm making is that I've been here a long time. I've never had any problems with anyone before this. Sure, there have been disagreements about how articles should look, and what should be included, but I've always been able to work them out with the other editors before this episode started.

It started when I decided to set up a page for the new book in the Heroes in Hell series, Lawyers in Hell. I did what I usually do, which is set up a junk page to get the layout right. Life intervened, and I didn't get back to it for a couple of days. When I say live intervened, my dog Sam had been hit by a bus. Beagles are tough little dogs, but they don't win against a bus. I did all of my writing with Sam curled up against me, and loosing him totally messed up my mind. When I came back, the page been deleted.

I wasn't in the best mood before I logged on. This put me over the edge. I found out who was responsible, and proceeded to tear a strip off him. Probably not the best thing to do, but I wasn't feeling at all good, and Orangemike caught the fallout. I later learned that Orangemike wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules when he deleted the article. I didn't know that at the time, accepted his explanation, and apologized.

I was in the process of reading up on the rule that he had told me I wasn't in compliance with (it isn't something that we have to worry about in Canada, we have rational online copyright laws) when someone else set up a page. I explained to that person the copyright issue, and they got it fixed. I then went back to Orangemike and asked for his help to make the page deletion proof. His way of helping was to tag the page with an Articles for Deletion. This wasn't exactly the sort of help I had asked for. It also wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules, but I didn't know that at the time either.

The Article for Deletion Discussion is fascinating reading, and yes, I'm including it in the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. At one point someone said, "The discussion is open to any Wikipedia editor," but when I made an effort to let some editors who I thought would have an interest in the AfD know about it, I was accused of canvassing. Meanwhile a series of editors who could have known nothing about it, unless they were told by someone who knew about the AfD kept showing up, and voting Delete. I found that rather curious.

At the end of the AfD it was decided that no consensus was reached. But all of a sudden there's discussion of a merge. Now unlike certain people who appear to live online at Wikipedia, I have a life. I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September! So I missed the merge discussion which was carried out with unseemly haste.

I did however have an argument with Orangemike about his setting up a Wikipedia article for a mutual friend, who while he is a nice guy, isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't AfD the page even though I would have been justified in doing so. I've known this guy longer than I've known my wife, and we are celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this weekend. But as I said, he's a friend, and I'm not an ass. I left the page. I do think that its curious that there are two standards. One for the insiders. One for everyone else.

OK, so the merge happens. Then I notice something curious. One page is left. So I decided to merge that one page (note that this probably isn't in the correct order). I merged the Gilgamesh in the Outback page into the Heroes in Hell page, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz freaks out. He claims that he's got solid evidence that Gilgamesh in the Outback is notable and that it would have existed without Heroes in Hell. I look at his evidence, and to me it looks like he's doing original research, and I say so.

This lead to the Dispute Resolution. Based on the comments there, it appears that the only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

I'll admit having little patience for idiots. I have less patience for chainsaw editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've made tons of corrections over the years on Wikipedia. A lot of them have been no more than minor grammatical fixes. Others have in some cases been fairly extensive. In no cases have I walked away from an article without improving it.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz works on an article the damage is incredible. He should be blocked from editing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On first impression - Everyone here is behaving badly and should stop it. On second impression, everyone here is operating in good faith, has disclosed enough to know what's at stake with COI - and are still behaving badly, particularly including operating in bad faith regarding the other participants, and should stop it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide solid evidence of where I have been behaving badly Georgewilliamherbert other than the short period where I have admitted to being short tempered for a very valid reason, I would love to see it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a specific example of my operating in bad faith regarding other participants, please bring it forward. I've made every effort to remain civil and stick to the issue(s) at hand. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Replying to a comment by Knihi above: I've gone ahead and tagged User:Cthu-Lou as a former account for you. If you still have the password for it, you should log on and change the password to something random (bang randomly on the keyboard for a bit) so that you won't have access to it any more. You shouldn't have any more problems from it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have the password, and your help is a relief to me. Knihi (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I clearly stated when I created guarddog2 that it was a single purpose page and that as Janet Morris I could be perceived as having a COI, and that I am unskilled in WP rules, regulations, and procedures, and don't have time to become expert. There was a previous discussion on many issues now raised anew here, which appeared on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of which I was informed by: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC> In relation to current issues primarily surrounding the HIH series, I have repeatedly been accused of not being me, and others have been accused of being me. In relation to previous issues in previous years: The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid) and the WP NLW page are discussed in a WP review and WP has that documentation, which can be reviewed by WP authorities at any time. I believe that the people named in this current review (some authors, some not) have all been forthcoming about their COI where they perceive it. All of these people trying to help with the HIH series issues, as far as I know, really exist. None are my sockpuppets, if I understand the term. All have their own computers and their own volition: I am not controlling any of them now,and have never controlled any group of WP editors. Some people have or may write for my series; some may never write or submit a story for HIH. I was trying to help in good faith, as I said on my talk page,to clarify a contentious situation, initially in a review that was called out as a "copyright" issue review, though that was later changed and broadened. It is worthy of note that if all of these new editors were treated with respect, they might become WP resources. It is also worthy of note that if all these young editors are disbarred, Mr. Wolfowitz will have much more control over the fate of the HIH page. My interrest in talking to the SFWA Grievance committee member I know was to find out what the process was in SFWA for attributing award-nominated works on ballots, and whether that process could have been compromised or was as simple as "first alphabetical listing when more than one publication" exists for the same year, or was, as I have previously assumed, the author's choice -- and if this were so, was that documentable. We discussed potential remedies for such confusions or confutations, given the increasing power of aggregators to correctly state or misstate history based on a small amount of information that becomes proliferate, whether correct or incorrect, and then is taken for true based on the number of times that information can be found on the internet. Guarddog2 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that Guarddog2 has acknowledged here that she is in fact the editor behind the Harmonia1 account ("my connection to Harmonia et al"), and has therefore been editing in violation of the indefinite block imposed on her last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing? Wasn't she just replying to you in an administrative forum? Is that "editing"? The term gets used a lot. I'd be interested in its WP definition *runs off to search WP*. Anyway, there weren't any guarddog2 edits to WP articles that I recall, before they all got merged. Can anyone check the record on that? But lets be real here, she could have easily said "my connection to Harmonia et al or lack thereof" as that's the tenor of the comment. Changing "the proper authorities know about this so I'm not going to speak about it" -- effectively 'no comment' -- into "Ah ha! Guilt has been admitted!" seems a bit of stretch, no? Knihi (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Knihi, precisely what I thought I said: this Harmonia issue was discussed and decided by WP years ago and interested parties can look at it, where I'm sure my connection or lack of same to everyone involved was decided by WP's rules to WP's satisfaction and is a matter of record. Also, when I said "new" (wherever that was) I meant it in the Webster's sense of "recently created," with no other connotation. Guarddog2 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BLOCK: A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page', except (in most cases) their own user talk page. The block is not limited to articlespace edits. Even if it were, Morris's contribution history as Guarddog2 began with articlespace edits. Your interpretation of her comment makes no sense, the "review" she refers to was conducted more than a year ago, well before the Guarddog2 account was opened; there's no way her statement here could be true, or even make sense, otherwise. (And she's referred to Guarddog2 as her "new" account, indicating she had an old one.) The phrase "Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid)" refers to her defense last year that the supposed socks were actually her colleagues at M2 Technologies, editing via the company servers, but not as part of their jobs (that's why "unpaid" is mentioned, and how would Guarddog2 have known that otherwise?) She deserves some credit for owning up to it, although she would have done better to make full disclosure before beginning to edit again. And think about this: if you were Janet Morris, owner of M2 Technologies, and discovered that somebody had been impersonating you on Wikipedia, including creating an account under your husband's Twitter handle, making edits relating to your business, etc., wouldn't you have entered ballistic mode very quickly? The silence here would be remarkable. Besides, as I recall, several of the alternate accounts last year occasionally edited via IPs by mistake, making it possible to associate them with Guarddog2's IP if she denied the connection and a full investigation was done. (But even I'm not cynical enough to assume that motivated her rather than a good faith disclosure.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually my interpretation of her comment makes perfect sense, given my knowledge of things, it just doesn't make sense to YOU. You have a different interpretation. I'm afraid you lost me with your speculations on what I might or might not do if I owned M2 Technologies as well as speculating on other people's motivations to be remarkably silent or not, but I do know that you can have a 100 people behind the right kind of firewall, and they'll all show the same IP. Who knows, while we are speculating on people's motivations maybe she fired whoever was impersonating her and got fed up with WP. What do I know? But whatever, dude - I probably shouldn't have engaged this as much as I did. You saying I made no sense just irked me. So. You caught Guarddog2 admitting outright she's Janet Morris (I'm assuming you accept that now and are no longer disputing it?) and editing a page you think she shouldn't have, before limiting herself to administrative issues. *shrug* Ok. Knihi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I just reread the Guarddog2 comment. She didn't say she was the editor harmonia1. She said she has a connection, nature unspecified to 'Harmonia et al' (and to go look it up if we wanted to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The connection and the possibility that they may share the same IP may not constitute sockpuppetry, but there may be a concern about editors engaging in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose or about editors who are closely connected (in the IP sense of the word) and edit with the same objectives. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We aren't going to take administrative action that one-sidedly decides anything here. There are several issues in play, which need reasonable and rational discussion (which has not been forthcoming from either side so far, for the most part).

The particulars of the credit and listing and so forth for the story are simply not worth fighting over this badly. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz should know this already; the relative newcomers here who are writers cannot be expected to know what Wikipedia norms and standards are, but they're not that different from other normal society, and the behavior here wouldn't be good in any other normal civilized arena.

There is a significant problem here that Wikipedia is really not even the right venue to resolve those. Wikipedia isn't a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're supposed to be a tertiary source, relying on secondary (and to some extent, primary and tertiary) sources we believe are reliable and which we can verify. The totality of the argument over credit and timing is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be getting into resolving here.

As I said, everyone calming down will help this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec with George, above)Okay, I just finished reading through all of this, and I only have a few things to say. First, Hullaballoo, you are failing to assume good faith for many of these users, especially those who have announced their conflicts of interest. Please stop, try to maintain a softer tone (and yeah, I understand why you are getting frustrated), and try to avoid silly disputes.

Second, UrbanTerrorist, you are continuously using veiled personal attacks and derogatory language directed towards those of us who care enough about Wikipedia to spend a lot of time here. You will stop if you expect us to want to help you, or you're likely to find your time here stressful, aggravating, and short.

Third, to all of those asserting that Hullaballoo has a conflict of interest, stop. He doesn't.

Fourth, to all of those asserting things about OrangeMike's intentions or interests, stop. You're throwing what he said hugely out of proportion.

Fifth, as is suggested in the dispute resolution noticeboard thread, all this arguing over who owns what rights and such needs to stop. To be frank, while such points might be important to all of you, no one who reads the article is going to care. Discuss what should actually be said, but avoid getting mired in minutiae.

Sixth, keep in mind that discussions on Wikipedia can, and often do, get heated. If any of you, for any reason, can't calm yourself down, please take several hours, days, or even weeks away before coming back. There is no time limit on anything that we're doing here, and typing out of anger can do far more harm than any resolution to this dispute will do good. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks lifebaka for summarizing that and stepping in so firmly. There are however two things I'd like to point out related to your 5th and 6th points. Caveat first: newbie here, not sure how things usually go. So that said:

6th point - I'm totally with you on anger doing no good (how could it?) and a great deal of harm; however, I've often felt in these discussions like there really is a time limit. I've walked away for a few days only to come back and hear that pages were deleted or merged. Maybe this is just me not understanding AFDs, but I entered the AFD on the Lawyers in Hell book expecting that it would run its course and reach consensus and then interested editors would get a chance to update the entry. Instead by the time the AFD on that one book was done, multiple pages on multiple books were called into question, deletes and merges took place like wild-fire on more volumes than I could keep up on, and I found myself feeling, "Wow. If you want to participate as an editor you'd better move darn fast around here or the thing you want to edit might vanish." I was also loathe to create new pages when I couldn't, in my opinion, get a direct response to the ideas I was putting out (the original discussion was around notability). Maybe its just a newbie error, but I had the distinct impression if I updated the articles they'd just get deleted anyway. Sort of like saying to someone who wants them deleted, "Well I'd update them like such and such? Would you accept that?" And not getting a yes or a no -- so why bother?

5th point - the rights argument is a boondoggle, no doubt. However IIRC it came about because if you decouple the short story from the book by calling the short story a mere reprint, you get to say the book isn't notable. A claim of non-notability for the book (with which I disagree strongly) may have been just one of the reasons that Rebels in Hell was merged (can't say from direct experience because I turned away from the discussion for what felt like a few days and boomf it was merged, but I trust jethrobot on that), but the whole discussion definitely felt to me like a mere strategy aimed at weakening the case for the book to have its own page. It is this fight over "the story is not a reprint in the sense that you get to take away that the book won a major award, because the shared universe is as much a part of that story as not" vs. "the story is a mere reprint developed independently, and the award goes with the story and not the shared universe book/world construct..." that is at the heart of this discussion. Rights and copyright and such are just the rathole that discussion ran down. So while WP is not a venue to dispute legal matters, legal matters were not really at issue until the arguing got out of hand and the "you don't understand what reprint means moron--yes I do, you a-hole" kind of arguments started flying (not that anyone said that stuff literally). A literary and a notability question was at issue, which does strike me as a WP issue. That's from where I'm sitting anyway.Knihi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On my sixth point, I was referring specifically to this philosophy, and I forgot that some people might not understand the reference. Sorry. Yes, things tend to happen quickly, probably as a product of how quickly things can happen (compare to the process of writing a paper encyclopedia), but you can always revive an old discussion if you have new points, new sources, or something similar. It's often difficult to keep track of, especially if you can't be on often.

As for being worried about doing things when you can't get an answer to a question, we suggest that users be nice and bold in editing. We're extremely forgiving of honest mistakes, and we're perfectly aware that our policies and other rules provide a near-vertical learning curve. Since most of them are (supposed to be) intuitive, we don't require that new users read anything before they start editing. Go ahead, do what you think needs to be done, use common sense, and don't worry if you make some mistakes. We can correct anything.

I'd also like to point out that the current status of an article shouldn't have anything to do with its deletion.

On the fifth point, the suggestion currently being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard seems entirely workable as a shortcut around the problem. I understand how the dispute started, and why it started, but neither of those things change that it needs to stop. As long as it does, everything's kosher.

I should also mention that it's best to never attribute any sorts of intentions to other editors. You can't know what's going through my head any better than I can know what's going through yours, and all too often users attribute intentions to each other in the nastiest parts of disputes. Stick to commenting on the strict facts; that is, something that can be objectively pointed to in a diff. lifebaka++ 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me lifebaka, but a quick perusal of my account would show that I've been here since 2005, and that I've made a lot of high quality edits. I will probably outlast Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. I also spend a lot of time here, and I try to make sure that the articles I'm interested in (mostly scientific and industrial in nature) are of the highest quality, in spite of the errors made by people who don't bother to check the sources.

As to Item Three, if that isn't the case, you need to consider what the problem might be then, because by his actions there is a problem.

As to Item Four, I am still talking to OrangeMike about this.

As to Item Five, in that case we should go ahead and merge the Gilgamesh article with the Heroes in Hell article.

As to Item Six, have you ever known a case on the net when discussions didn't get heated? I'm one of the old timers who thought SLIP was high technology. It was high technology back in 1991. If discussions didn't get heated, we wouldn't be online. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Item three: I'd suggest that we assume that Hullaballoo's problem isn't ours.

Item four: I've seen. He seems bemused, to put it mildly. Again, it was nothing and I suggest you drop it.

Item five: You could merge it, if users decide it's a good idea. Hullaballoo is right that it can be a standalone article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and that certainly doesn't mean it should be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just read this...mass...and a lot of it seems problematic, but the following quote from Guarddog2 jumped out at me: "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." Doesn't that appear to anyone else like a clear threat intended to intimidate editors into conforming to xyr preferred outcome in this dispute? Also, Guarddog2, could you please confirm what you meant about your connection to Harmonia? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that statement was not made by Guarddog2, but rather made by UrbanTerrorist per this diff. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That comment was made by UrbanTerrorist, who also uses his blog to disparage Wikipedians he's been in conflict with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And he's begun posting it on uset talk pages[6], not just here. If this were the NFL, he'd get flagged for taunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I got the two editors confused. So, if I understand correctly, the two questions (I have) are, 1) is it appropriate to us to block UrbanTerrorist for attempting to use external pressure to influence the debate, and 2) Guarddog2, what exactly is your connection to the Harmonia1 account? Or, perhaps the second question should be rephrased and asked to the community: does Guarddog2's statement count as an admission of block evasion? I'm not entirely certain it does; the sentence seems ambiguous to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: let me clarify, if I saw UrbanTerrorist's comment outside of this larger discussion, I would consider it threatening enough to warrant an immediate, indefinite block while we await clarification and/or retraction. To me, I see the threat as very similar to a legal threat--it is an attempt to intimidate, well, all of us, into being extra careful because everything we say or do is going to be printed in a grand expose. I have no problem if UrbanTerrorist wants to write such a book (I gather UrbanTerrorist lives in a country protecting freedom of speech and right to engage in money-making affairs, so, you know, go for it), but I don't see how xe can do that will still continuing to edit--the goals seem incompatible to me. I decline to do so now as I feel like discussion is still ongoing (and there is still the fact that this seems to be a much larger issue than just one editor). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there other issues here besides UrbanTerrorist's conduct, but their comments have sometimes been disruptive and unhelpful, and the threat to "write about us" pushes it over the line to a personal attack per WP:NPA#WHATIS. I support a block on UrbanTerrorist. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The threat to remove my editing privileges because of my wish to document what is already public (Wikipedia does after all document everything that happens here) seems to me to be incompatible with freedom of speech rights. As to myself I don't see it as a threat, but rather as an attempt to tell people how the online encyclopedia that so many of them rely on works. It might in fact encourage more to become involved as editors, something which I believe we would all regard as a good result. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, are you really a published author? Because an author would know that "free speech rights" have absolutely nothing to do with having one's words published by private organization. Wikipedia is a privately held non-profit organization, and has the right to forbid anyone from publishing in their space any time they want. They have vested the ability to make such a decision to the community of users; one thing the community has decided is that anybody using threats to influence a content dispute may need to be blocked. You declaring that you have a freedom of speech right to speak here is exactly like me going to your publisher and saying "I have a 30,000 word book that I wrote and you must print it because I have freedom of speech!" Now, if you had just announced on your user page that you were writing a book about Wikipedia, I'd be willing to believe you did it in good faith. The fact that you announced it here, in the middle of concerns about your and a whole group of related editor's behavior, and then afterward you specifically went to the talk pages of people that you're involved in the dispute with speaks strongly to me that this is not an attempt to "encourage more to become involved as editors", but rather to threaten those people considering whether or not your editing violates our policies and should be sanctioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Urban, the issue isn't that you threatened anything in particular, it's that you mentioned writing this book in some very... strange ways. First here, in the middle of a long and somewhat vitriolic comment, and then on the talk pages of users you've had disputes with. It's not exactly unreasonable for us to jump to the conclusion that you're using an implied threat of negative press in your book as a way to dissuade others from continuing the dispute. Regardless of whether or not this was your intention (and I assume it is not), you still are going to need to avoid talking about this book on Wikipedia, if only to prevent anyone from making the same mistake. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

TO: MODERATOR Just for clarification: it is my understanding that a possible solution to the subjects discussed on this page, and on this page [7], and on this page [8] is being attempted by uninvolved, neutral editors/admins. Does this place these 3 pages "on hold" so that there is time for that possible resolution? A short break to restore calm and civility might not be a bad idea.

I would also like to personally thank lifebaka for the very reasoned approach taken to the tenor of this page. Neither side is blameless. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka, thank you for reducing the heat on this page and giving people time to think and restore composure. I do want to say that my comment on the sockpuppetry accusations page, mentioned here by Mr. Wolfowitz, was not an admission of anything: I said that whatever that WP investigation found and decided is a matter of WP record: those who want to can look it up. That Mr. Wolfowitz misconstrued what I said was pointed out by several people on the other page, so what I said was clear to most readers. I consider that issue unrelated to the HIH discussion and am here only to discuss HIH. As to how the RIH page and GITO should be discussed on WP, it seems to me that any decision that lists both publications, as Dozcap and others have suggested, would be a good decision. As for when books were available, books ship well before publication date, may be in different stores quite a bit earlier, and must ship to reviewers at least three months before publication; Lawyers in Hell was available at least a month or two before the publication date from different outlets: book availability is not a horserace where a gate opens and the publications come charging out together; books and magazines are available at different times from different outlets, including direct from the publisher in some cases. Trying to determine exactly when and in what publication the story could be bought is a fruitless exercise and may require original research, while both editions in question say clearly July, 1986. Simply stating that the story GITO was published in IASFM and RIH in July 1986 seems an elegant and equitable solution to this long debate. As you say, cheers. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirection/Blocking of Related Pages to This/These Disputes

Er, why do I end up on this page when I attempt to access the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#NLT_violation.2C_possible_impersonation.2C_COI_combative_editing.2C_and_general_disruption_at_Heroes_in_Hell_and_related_articles Has it been rendered inaccessible and, if so, why? Why would the system redirect me to this "Harmonia" page from one having nothing to do with that old blocked account?

I was able to access the dispute page addressing the Gilgamesh in the Outback/Heroes in Hell, so why is the original complaint of "impersonation/COI/combative editing, etc." no longer available? Hulcys930 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hulcys, that thread was already archived (threads on this noticeboard are automatically archived by a bot if no one responds to them in 24 hours). You can find the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

• I just added a new entry to the old Harmonia1 sockpuppet investigation, to initiate a checkuser on Guarddog2 to see if Janet Morris's new account is an extension of Harmonia1. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I woulda, shoulda hoped some of the many rules and procedures here would have injected hard facts like that, vice the wild allegations and beliefs read above BEFORE generating such a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME built on ignorance of contract law and perhaps a few misunderstood rules. But since I was canvassed to come here from some trivial edit (I don't know the series, though have read Ms. J.C.), let me say that I find it perfectly normal behaviour for writer-associates to be of similar mind about the contract law in dispute. AHEM ... experience will tell. Ahem. There has certainly been a lack of common sense exhibited by the accuser. This is a tempest in a teapot and exactly the sort of spiraling feckless arguments over nothing much that drive good editors away. For the record, iirc each of the people who've self-identified above as writers have books on my shelf. I also recognize them from BAEN circles and related web sites. I trust the accuser will forgive me for reading a top publisher, and for contributing to articles about said associations here. SOME of us try to write about what we know. RECOMMENDATION: Close this discussion if the IP Check doesn't back up the finger pointing and penalize Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for lack of maturity, common sense and far too much poor judgment. He/She clearly has far too much time to snoop for suspect associations to present this matter over a trivial difference. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • A checkuser is likely to come back as declined for being stale on the master account; it's been over a year. We'll probably only have behavioral evidence to work on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
      • And that's why I didn't ask for Checkuser or open a standard SPI to begin with. I pointed out that last year, in a dispute over a subject related to one of Janet Morris's businesses, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with a group of SPAs claiming to be her business associates, engaged in inappropriate editing practices and were indef-blocked. I pointed out that in a current dispute, involving a different business project of Janet Morris, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with users identifying as associates of Janet Morris in that project, appeared to be engaging in the same inappropriate, off-wiki coordinated, editing in concert on a subject where they had COI problems. I also suggested that the user who claimed to be Janet Morris this year was likely to be the same user who claimed to be Janet Morris last year, and therefore appeared to be engaging in block evasion. For all of the caterwauling and invective directed at The Big Bad Wolfowitz, none of the editors involved have made any significant substantive comments about the behavioral issues involved, except to indignantly assert "I am not a sockpuppet," an accusation which I was careful not to make except in the case of the two accounts which both self-identified as Janet Morris. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if my stepping in to assist caused a problem...but can you identify where you stated that Harmonia1 self-identified as Janet Morris? I think I missed that, which was why I was willing to trust Guarddog2's claim that she had never edited Wikipedia before. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No complaints about anything either you or Binksternet have done with respect to the SPI, Qwyrxian. It's a complicated situation, and Guarddog2's comments haven't been very transparent. In the course of the SPI last year, one of the accounts identified as a sock of Harmonia1, "Elkoholic", identified herself in an unblock request as the owner of M2 Technologies, referring to it (more than once) as "my company" and providing some details about its operations. "Elkoholic" was identified by Checkuser as a sock/alternate account of Harmonia1. Harmonia1 also described herself on her userpage, saying "User has 60 horses, has written and edited fiction and nonfiction published in a number of languages, and is a defense contractor who provides long range strategic planning and other goods and services to government and industry in the national security area" [9]. This pretty clearly matches up to Janet Morris, and the 60-horse reference particularly matches up to Morris's description of herself in the Equine International profile of her and her husband cited in our Janet Morris article, content and citation added by Harmonia1 [10]. (Harmonia1 also admitted being closely associated with (and denied being) User:Tailertoo, who Guarddog2 acknowledges to be her husband, Chris Morris. Curiously, User:Ubter, who also edited in tandem with Harmonia1 on various Morris-related articles in 2010, also self-identified in this image upload [11] as Chris Morris. It's also interesting to note that while Harmonia1 did very little editing with regard to Heroes in Hell, she edited extensively with regard to a different series written by Morris, The Sacred Band of Stepsons -- a series which, not coincidentally, Morris was just about to publish a new volume in after a two-decade break. That is, to belabor the obvious, the same pattern of editing seen with regard to Heroes in Hell/Lawyers in Hell, and is one of the factors underlying my suspicions of concerted editing on her behalf in the current disputes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That is quite strong evidence, and thank you for providing it. I've put the question to Guarddog2 on her talk page to explain why her story now (as a completely self-identified Janet Morris) of never editing previously doesn't seem to match the very strong evidence from before that Harmonia1 was also Janet Morris. She did indicate that she'll be out of town for the week, so we may have to wait until next week for her response (if she provides one). Previously, I had thought that it likely that she was involved off-wiki in the previous situation but not actually Harmonia1, but now I'm leaning the other way. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So we have one editor who previously claimed to be Janet Morris. We have a new editor who claims to be Janet Morris, but claims to not be the previous editor. Neither editor has provided proof of identity. So my suggestion is this; block her per WP:REALNAME until proof is provided. I know that the policy is meant for usernames, but this is still the same situation as our policy because she's using her real name on her user page. I'll leave it up to you, Qwyrxian, since you're the one who has been involved, but this is my recommendation. -- Atama頭 18:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF NEVER-ENDING COMPLAINTS

This dispute started out by Mr. Wolfowitz using insulting language in the edit history of the Heroes in Hell series page edits. In fact, the very first exchange I had with Mr. Wolfowitz was when I added two sentences to the Heroes in Hell series page which he deleted 45 minutes later with the comment: "skanky promotional." (I do not appreciate being referred to as "skanky" because when I was raised, people spoke to others with civility - especially if they had never met the person). After I rewrote the two sentences to make sure they were completely neutral, he deleted them with the comment "Rv, this is just a naked plug by the book's editor, and has nothing to do with the book's "reception" or any other subject of an encyclopedic nature" [12] in essence accusing me of being Janet Morris. The "edit war" continued when Mr. Wolfowitz attempted to prove that a legal definition could be changed by "consensus" and a huge argument ensued wherein people tried (unsuccessfully) to explain the difference between "first serial" and "reprint" to Mr. Wolfowitz. When it became obvious he was not going to get what he wanted, i.e., a consensus to declare Mr. Silverberg wrote a short story set in a shared universe, BEFORE the shared universe was created, [13] Mr. Wolfowitz decided to start making accusations against everyone who did not agree with him.

Mr. Wolfowitz then decided to try to accuse several people of being Janet Morris, except of course, Janet Morris herself, and began a dispute accusing everyone who did not agree with him of all having COIs (all of which were disclosed by the users with no attempt to hide their identities) and of being sockpuppets or "meat puppets" (charming term) of Janet Morris, and all editors of trying to use Wikipedia for "promotional" purposes, from which it must be diligently defended.[14]

When that didn't seem to be working, Mr. Wolfowitz dragged up an old accusation of sockpuppetry of a person who is not even involved in this dispute and used that as "evidence" that Janet Morris had opened many accounts over the years (including the Harmonia1 identity) and was doing so again after having been blocked as Harmonia. Unfortunately, the people Mr. Wolfowitz is convinced are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris actually live in different states and countries. In the prior dispute, some did live in the same state and worked on different floors of an office building which was apparently how the vaunted CheckUser system decided they were all the same person.[15] If Mr. Wolfowitz knew anything about word usage, it would be easy to read different posts to know the same person did not write all of them.

Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing.

There was never any "good faith" assumed by Mr. Wolfowitz in the original edits to Heroes in Hell nor any of these disputes; his use of insulting and uncivil language cannot be contested; when anyone brings up something he can't refute, he simply ignores the question and goes off on another tangent of more paranoid accusations. It seems to be fairly clear that Mr. Wolfowitz has no intention of ever letting go of these disputes and if the Checkuser program (which is apparently considered flawed based on results of a Google search, like this [16]) does not uphold his accusations that we are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris, he will, no doubt, find something else to file a dispute about. A time-honored tactic of unscrupulous lawyers: if you don't have a good case, bury them in paper. I don't expect any of Mr. Wolfowitz' friendly editors to agree with anything I have said here. However, it is now part of the record. Hulcys930 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• That WikipediaWatch page is a blog, and anything can be said on it. Also, most of those checkuser concerns deal with a Type II error-- failing to find a [[[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] when they actually exist, not a Type I Error, saying there's a sockpuppet when there is no actual sockpuppet.

Second, your opinion about the other editors being "swayed" by Hullaballoo is ungrounded:

Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing.

Neutral, independent editors and administrators have come into this argument on their own, not through canvassing. If anything, it is other editors who agree with your sentiments who have been canvassed by the now-blocked UrbanTerrorist and others.

Third, accusations that the sock puppet investigation were not justified do not seem right to me. Guarddog2 stated an association with blocked user Harmonia1. Hullaballoo has also made a convincing argument that Harmonia1 is Guarddog2. Previous confusion over Guarddog2's identity dealt with errors in her own statements about various books and publishing issues, as pointed out by Hullaballoo.

Finally, while I agree that Hullaballoo has not always shown good faith, that doesn't mean his arguments or evidence are null and void. They are certainly not paranoid. Again, anything regarding this whole publication debacle needs to be verifiable. If it's publication rights, then a contract would be the definitive document. Barring access to that, we rely on reliable sources, which have been provided en masse in support of Hullaballoo's arguments. I have yet to see sources contradicting his statements regarding publication. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE

The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz (identified only by an IP address), by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors (and since this page is not a book/series/entity page, and all quotations are noted with attribution, there should not be a "copyvio" problem):

"Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article:

Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6]

You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context.

What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph)

"During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier."

The second paragraph described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters.

The third paragraph - again verbatim:

"It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that."

I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source."

ALL EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE SO THIS ISSUE CAN BE PUT TO BED.

There is an old saying: "You can't prove a negative." Most of the accusations brought by Mr. Wolfowitz and his fellow editors fall into the category of forcing the accused to prove they did NOT do something - thereby creating an impossible situation: that of "proving" a negative.

The earlier example of Mr. Wolfowitz' strangely intense desire to rewrite the Silverberg/Heroes in Hell relationship of 1986, by selective quoting and "creative" editing, highlights the problem that started this entire debate, leading to Ms. Morris creating an account solely for the purpose of attempting to straighten out the obvious misunderstanding of the situation in the dispute pages (as she repeatedly attempted to explain not only here but to various editors on their own talk pages) only to be accused of being someone already blocked from editing WP, and from there the debate degenerated into flying accusations and digging up ancient history to obfuscate the true issue:

Did Mr. Silverberg write "Gilgamesh in the Outback" for the series Heroes in Hell or did he write it independently to be printed in Dr. Asimov's wonderful publication, and then "allow" it to be used in Heroes in Hell?

That question has now been answered unequivocally. Without that dispute, the rest of these hundreds of thousands of words and unknown number of hours wasted would never have happened. (Yes, we all know the first serial of the story was printed in IASFM(v. 10, no. 6, Jun86 (whole no. 105) Created 1986; Pub.; Reg. 1986-05-08; TX0001821228 and the original was published in Rebels in HellDate of Creation:1985; Date of Publication: 1986-07-01 (both citations from Copyright WebCite queries from story page) two months' later and no one is arguing that. Mr. Silverberg's own description of his creation of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" must take precedence over simple statements of the dates of publication which only delineate the chronological order in which they were published - they do not prove for whom he wrote the story).Hulcys930 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Haven't we had enough walls of text already? Honestly, I think that concern that the term "originally published" also establishes intention of the author is very, very superficial and is largely unimportant to most readers. I doubt most readers will take that interpretation of the phrase. "Originally published" is only intended to signify the order in which the story appeared. Can we just leave it at that? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Before dismissing the above post, please go to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page and see the difference between what Mr. Silverberg reported in his interview and the way Mr. Wolfowitz has characterized the situation on the page.Hulcys930 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hulcys, a call for more eyes is one thing, but huge amounts of text here aren't going to solve anything. AN/I is a terrible venue for solving content disputes. Besides, the thread at WP:DRN already showed obvious consensus for a compromise. Has is not been implemented? lifebaka++ 13:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

CC NC = speedy? WTF?

The above too-rapid process {discussion and resolution here) brings up the troubling question: Why is CC non-commercial a reason for speedy delete? Why is time of such importance, when the license can quite easily be updated at the source (Flickr), and then reflected here? Help me understand. This is one kind of over-zealous process that sends new editors away. --Lexein (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not an administrator, but my feeling is that CC-NC is speedy deleted in the same fashion as any other file that does not have a compatible license. CC-NC doesn't necessarily come from Flickr either, so it should not be assumed that the source can be easily 'updated' (even it it's from Flickr, nothing guarantees the original uploader is ready to 'update' with a free license). Regardless, non-compatible license = delete, whether it's outright All Rights Reserved or CC-NC or any other non-free variant. Is it over-zealous? I don't think so, licensing requirements are made pretty clear on the upload form either here or on Commons, and new editors are not exempt from the rules. My two cents. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" can easily be updated at Flickr as well. The problem here seems not to be that CC-NC is speediable (definitely a word), but that files are being deleted without checking if they can be relicensed. However, I would imagine the turnaround for relicensing is not sufficiently rapid on average to consider making an exception for Flickr-hosted works. If you disagree, it'd be worth making a solid proposal. For what it's worth, I don't personally believe CC-NC is any freer than full assertion of copyright, but IMO that's tangential to your real point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: CC BY-NC is probably compatible with CC BY-SA to some extent. If it was CC BY-NC-SA, it'd be a different story. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(It was CC-BY-NC-SA at Flickr - see my reply below.) --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that "speedy" doesn't necessarily mean "very urgent". What it usually means that "A clear boundary has been crossed, so we don't have to spend a week haggling over it".

If a new article's only contents are "Jenny is cute :-)", it doesn't harm any third party, and probably doesn't even harm wikipedia because few readers would ever find it; but it is so clearly, definitely outside our rules that we can skip the whole AfD thing and go straight to pressing the delete button - even though that might dismay Jenny. If an image has a license incompatible with our current rules and there's no wiggle room for interpretation or discussion, then I'd be happy with going straight to the delete button.

Our other deletion mechanisms tend to involve a few days delay, but that delay is not there solely to allow something broken to be replaced with something working - the main purpose for the delay may be for community discussion, and the reprieve is just a fringe benefit for those who've created broken-but-probably-fixable things, who may then be able to turn the content around whilst the rest of the community has the opportunity to discuss it. Of course, some kinds of flawed content sent to XfD are not fixable within a few days; most might not be fixable at all.

If good new users are being "scared off" after breaking a rule, the most important part of the solution is to find some way of breaking the news carefully to new users, and advising them on how to stay within the rules next time - perhaps cuddlier templates could be a good start. We could even try to improve guidance on uploads to prevent the problem before it ever happens. However, I would not be keen on lowering our standards by letting clearly noncompliant stuff hang around for a while for fear of biting hypothetical well-intentioned uploaders of noncompliant content. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their responses. The (now archived) CC-BY-NC-SA speedy deleted images discussion was not a completely pure example {discussion here) it was complicated by a request for personal information removal.

Is {{Holdon}} - specifically {{Holdon|Contacting Flickr user to change source license}} an appropriate brake to allow time to rehabilitate image licensing? IMHO such time should be allowed, especially for Flickr images. The user-deterring aspect of this is that deletion is easy, and a one-step process (tag), but uploading is verbose, multistep, and slow, by comparison (especially since deletion destroys article usage information). Of course, if a Flickr user can't be reached, then the deletion should just proceed after some period of time. Is a week too long?

I wouldn't mind if there were a task force specifically for rehabilitating, rather than deleting, images for which license rehabilitation has a path. --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence to suggest that Flickr editors are significantly more likely to relicense promptly than anyone else who is asked to relicense for Wikipedia, I don't see grounds for an exception here. Of the numerous Flickr photos with non-free licenses - mostly on football players - that I've seen people going to the authors with for relicensing, I can't remember any of them actually getting it, at least within the sort of timespan that we'd consider acceptable in a general case. Whether the relicensing is from BY-NC or from all rights reserved is not really relevant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My question was, is {{Holdon}} an appropriate brake to apply in general, and in the case of Flickr license change requests? The other question, is "Speedy" even necessary for CC-BY-NC-SA, or can some time be taken for it to be corrected? To answer your conditional, in my opinion Flickr users are likely to adjust license, because communication is easy, and in my experience, 8 of 11 Flickr users have changed their licenses upon my polite request: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and the most recent ones 8a, and 8b. Of the remaining three, two never replied, and one refused to use CC or public domain, preferring "Wikipedia only." (By the way, here are two OTRS licenses I've obtained: a, and b. ) --Lexein (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes and yes. A file with an NC restriction is incompatible with Wikimedia, and is a valid speedy delete candidate. However, if someone places a Holdon tag, clearly stating that they are attempting to have the author relicense, I would hope that the people monitoring those deletion processes would allow time for that to happen. What I hope, and what I expect they will do are probably very different things, however. Resolute 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If a file is speedy deletion and permission is indeed obtained, you can go file an Undeletion Request and the OTRS permission (or new Flickr license, depending on the situation) can be added. Instead of using an Holdon template, there should be an OTRSPending template that not only acts as a holdon, but tells us that permission is being sought. That is another idea. As for why the images are speedy deletion (anything with NC or ND is subject to this), this explains why. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. That's an interesting historical nugget from Jimbo, and the following policy/guideline thread as well. I haven't tried WP:Requests for undeletion yet - sounds like I should just get used to the idea of it, and stop worrying about delaying deletion. . --Lexein (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Buffs refusing to stop posting to my talk page

On at least six other occasions in the past stretching over two years, I have asked User:Buffs to stay off of my talk page. Twice in the last month Buffs has ignored this request and posted to my talk page anyway. The first of these two was July 29 [17] where he concluded his posting saying "All you seem to care about is whether people have checked every bureaucratic box". The second was today [18]. I posted to Buff's talk page once again requesting he stop posting to my talk page (see User_talk:Buffs#Stay_off_my_talk_page). His response was to state that I don't own my talk page.

Wikipedia:Harassment states "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making ... repeated annoying and unwanted contacts" and "This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings. " His postings to my talk page are most emphatically unwanted correspondence.

Would an administrator please step in and warn User:Buffs that his behavior is inappropriate, and that I can request he stay off my talk page and expect such a request to be honored? Buffs has been informed about this request. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

that seems a rather low frequency compared to what we normally call harassment. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• There's a ton of history here. I could go on for pages and pages about the history behind this. It's not necessary. The point is, I've asked him to stop posting my talk page and he refuses to honor that request. Regardless of anything else that has gone on before, if I ask him to remain off my talk page it should be a request I can expect to be honored. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, HS has decided to parse policy to his own end and ignore the rest of it. "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making ... repeated annoying AND unwanted contacts". Two postings within the past six months (or year?) hardly constitutes any form of harassment. HS is handing out very bad advice to people who have come to his talk page seeking guidance. To let noobs think that his extremely poor interpretations are the actual rules of Wikipedia is to do a disservice to our community as a whole.

I recognize that HS has the right to request that I not post on his talk page, but I also have a right to ignore that request and do what is best for WP. To leave those interactions alone only serves to perpetuate a myth about WP image use and hurt our community as a whole.

I have limited almost all interaction with him, but he continues to create a hostile atmosphere, directs noobs in the wrong direction, continues to act as if his views are actually policy (when they aren't), and refuses to learn anything about what items are eligible for copyright and which ones aren't. I have offered help and, instead, he insists on treating every image with a labeling error as if it is copyrighted no matter what its status actually is.

I haven't taken unequivocal action to ban him from my talk page. He could try discussing it with me there instead of elevating it just so he can have more DRAMAZ and claim how badly he's being treated (just check out his user page to see how much he likes the drama). Buffs (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am not surprised that you are bringing your continued disagreement with my actions into this request. Our long standing disagreements, while providing history regarding this request, are not something that should in any way have a detracting effect on this request. I asked you to stay off my talk page. You have previously acknowledged that request and agreed to it (last paragraph) and are now in violation of your own agreement. It's a simple request, and a reasonable one. Your posts to my talk page are distinctly unwanted. If you have continued problems with my edits, you can take them to appropriate WP:DR paths. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Right, like the part of WP:DR where it states "Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so. This can be done on the talk page of the article or on the user page." I'm trying to take care of this at the lowest level instead of elevating it; while I avoided your page as much as possible, at some point, you have to be served notice that your behavior isn't acceptable and your talk page is the required place. Not really interested in OMG DRAMAZ that you seem to be, just in getting you to stop disruptive behaviors. Have fun at ANI; This thread will be easily closed in less than 24 hours. Buffs (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. You have been asked multiple times to stay off the Talk page. Your continued refusal to do so is nothing other than harrassment. Find some other way to spend your time, or you will wind up being blocked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, but the admins responding to this have basically said this isn't going to result in a block. You aren't an admin and can't threaten a block, so this seems to be quite the empty threat. Buffs (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffs, I think this comment is a good example of something you should have handled differently. If you feel it's necessary to monitor all of the conversations on Hammersoft's talk page, but they have specifically asked you not to comment there, then you should have contacted Muqman52 directly at their talk page to express your differing opinion. That's Civility 101. — Satori Son 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, I guess I "should have contacted Muqman52 directly at his talk page to express my differing opinion". Buffs (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason we don't routinely treat violation of these so-called "talk page bans" as harassment is so that harassment actually means something. The diffs in question are not harassment in and of themselves, especially a month apart. It takes rather more than that before we start issuing formal restraint orders to people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Allow me to clarify; I am not stating any case that what he is doing is or is not harassment. That's not the point. I cited the harassment policy to sustain the case that it is a reasonable request to ask someone to remain off of my talk page, and to expect that person to comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• But if they refuse to stay off the Talk page, are you saying there are no remedies? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content[1] is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular page." Buffs (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Buffs, you assert that I came here seeking "dramaz". Yet, you know that posting to my talk page when you have previously been asked not to do so multiples times is deliberately provocative. The best way to avoid this "dramaz" is for you to not post on my talk page. It's really that simple. Just stop. It's easy. Don't click "edit this page". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  ok...sure. It's all my fault that I tried to communicate with you (just like WP:DR says) and that justifies you plastering this all over WP and sullying my name. Your extent of WP:DR was to post to my page once and then immediately elevate it. I never "reported you up the chain". YOU made a conscious decision to elevate this and cause more drama. You didn't have to do that at all. Buffs (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Buffs for 31 hours, after reviewing their comments at this thread and on their talkpage. They seem to be very willing to wikilawyer their "right" to edit Hammersoft's talkpage, when there is a fairly clear consensus that they should not do so - and especially when there are other avenues to pursue any perceived issues with Hammersofts editing. My rationale for the sanction is disruption; the effort being expended on attempting to resolve this issue is far in excess of any concern that it may be addressing, with no apparent change in the viewpoint from the party concerned. As ever, I welcome review and amendment/reversal of my actions if thought appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  I have disputed this block on the talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Responded there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  So did I. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

  I'm sorry, but what the hell!?!? No one can even point to a policy or guideline I've violated. Hammersoft does not own the page, PERIOD!!! He cannot dictate by royal decree what is done on his page. He doesn't get to dictate what others say. Like I said earlier, I've posted twice in 6 months. These actions do not violate any policy or guideline. If anything, HS deserves to be blocked for WP:OWNing his talk page (at least that is a violation).

  My block history has been nearly spotless to this point. I had a a single block for a 3RR violation, which I acknowledge I was in the wrong at the time (however, though the rules have been changed since then to exempt reversions of vandalism). I have had a blemish-free history for FOUR YEARS.

  This is absolutely ridiculous. You cannot simply make up rules and arbitrarily enforce them. This used to be a community ruled by consensus, not by dictators blocking on a whim with no backing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I never swore. I never called people names and, yet, I'm blocked for...what? One admin doesn't like me personally? One admin doesn't like the rules of Wikipedia? This is ludicrous!!! Buffs (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Hey, he doesn't want you to post on his talk page; don't post on his talk page. There's no conceivable reason why you should continue to do so against his wishes. Why is it so important that you enforce your rights to the point of making it uncomfortable for others? Just stop dealing with him. Take his talk page off of your watchlist. Seriously, why is there such resistance to this. What is so important that you do this; forget being "allowed" as the perspective on this, even if you are "allowed", that doesn't mean its still best to do so. There's lots of things people have "the right" to do which is still a bad idea to do. It seems like a no brainer that if people don't want to interact with you; that you stop trying to interact with them. --Jayron32 03:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I can certainly think of "conceivable reasons" for posting on a user talk page after having been "banned" from it. Furthermore, regarding the punitive block, I thought warning shots were supposed to be across the bow rather than beneath the waterline. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I feel that Buffs and yourself should review the section immediately below Wikipedia:UP#CMT, which is the guideline Buffs believes they should be referred to. As for warnings, Buff questioned the ability of the admin who ended up unblocking him to sanction him when the issue was raised. Other editors warned Buff regarding their actions immediately above and on their talkpage, and their response was to wikilawyer the wording of WP:OWN... There is a difference between not being warned and not acknowledging or agreeing with the warnings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The guideline says "probably sensible". Normally things that earn editors 31hr blocks for first offenses (or at least first ANI reports) are worded rather more strongly than that. Had Buffs boldly declared "the guideline doesn't specifically ban me from commenting there so I shall do as I please" then it's certainly be wikilawyering, but he didn't. As for "not acknowledging or agreeing with the warnings", are you referring to the warnings from Hammersoft? Because again, the guidelines discourage rather than prohibit posting on user talk after "bans" of the type Hammersoft handed out precisely because of the existence of cases where that's not in the best interests of the project, and Buffs made a reasonable argument for why he did so. On the other hand, he received no warning at all for getting a 31hr block, especially one apparently justified on the grounds that he'd dared to defend himself on ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This was more like a mafia reminder (you know, break all the guys knuckles on one hand with a nutcracker and say "this is just to remind you not to piss off Jimmy the Fish"). Buffs kinda drew the line in the sand "you can't block me for that, nyah nyah nyah", and well, he's been proven wrong. I just love how he tried to use WP:OWN for his benefit. I thought we were all nice saying "listen, don't post there" and suddenly he started acting like a WP:DICK about it. Well, guess what Buffs ... you can and will be blocked for it, capische? Maybe it wasn't the right way to do it, but the continued wikilawyering about it pretty much reminds us of ends justifying means ... he still doesn't get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is he to "get", exactly? That while policy says that staying off people's talk pages when asked to is a sensible way of avoiding conflict, what that really means is "do it or get blocked"? And as for the analogy, do we really want admins to intimidate editors into behaving? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, intimidation is not useful. I was using the analogy humourously. Realistically, this whole discussion should be over by now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I receive rude, uncivil, vulgar, obscene, and other darkly amusing comments on my talk page all the time. I don't own my talk page, so I don't play the OP's "stay off not-my page" game. If the OP can't handle the occasional heat, maybe he ought to find another kitchen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Occasional heat? As you very well know, there's a very long standing dispute between myself and Buffs that has never amicably resolved. This 'heat' has been going on for years, not 'occasional'. I attempted to disengage, and Buffs previously agreed to not post on my talk page (last paragraph). There is absolutely no need for him to post comments such as "All you seem to care about is whether people have checked every bureaucratic box" yet he chose to do so. What I sought here was to have Buffs informed that his behavior was inappropriate and that he stay off my talk page. That has happened. Whether he takes the admonition to heart and abides by the request remains to be seen. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Responding to claims by Buffs that I needlessly escalated this; not so. I, for the 7th time now, asked Buffs to stay off my talk page. His response made it clear he had no intention of honoring that request. If there is a more appropriate place to take such disputes when they've reached this state than this board, I'm certainly open to being advised of such. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, twice in a month, that's just unbearable is it? There is no absolute right to "ban" someone from your talk page, it comes down to common sense, which apparently needs to be explained to both of you. Franamax (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• What common sense would that be? I've asked him seven times to stay off my talk page, and he refuses. What do you think I should have done? Just kept silent and taken his deliberately provocative posts? My request is reasonable; stay off my talk page. That's all I'm asking for. I don't expect his opinion of me to improve. I don't expect him to apologize. I don't expect anything of him, but to stay off my talk page. So please tell me what common sense it is that I should be expressing? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, what you've said in the past is you don't want any opposition to your edits (from me and others). Buffs (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Would you be open to using the talkback function? Buffs (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffs, earlier above you asked for a specific policy to be cited to show how you were violating a rule. While I don't think blocks, bans, or discipline necessarily require a rule to be broken (after all one of the rules is "ignore all rules"), if it makes you feel better, consider the following:

• Wikipedia:Civility - "If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead" (like just leaving the guy alone)
• Wikipedia:Harassment - a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person
• WP:POINT - you're being pointy about the WP:OWN policy, it is one thing to acknowledge a policy, and another to flaunt it

I'm sure I could find more things, but why? Just using a little common sense here is the most important bit. I had to deal with an editor once who absolutely went quite nuts whenever I tried to interact with him on his user page. After 2 times, I left a polite apology and promise to leave him alone. No more drama, and its easy. -- Avanu (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now THIS I have no problem with: disagreement, but a civil discussion.

• WP:CIVIL: I have offered numerous olive branches to HS. They have all been ignored, deleted, or outright rejected. I've offered discussion pages. I've offered to look at images for him so he doesn't even have to get involved. EVERY offer has been rejected.
• WP:HARASSMENT: Where is the offensive behavior?
• WP:POINT: Doing what I can to prevent newer users from acting upon extremely poor advice and/or preventing someone driving away editors/their contributions isn't pointy, it's what we are all supposed to do. Buffs (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1. If every offer has been rejected, then move on.
2. The harassment behavior is evidenced mostly by the fact that Hammersoft has asked you to stop and you have not.
3. You say you're 'doing what you can to prevent newer users from acting on poor advice'. Please give 1 specific example that REQUIRED you to specifically intervene on Hammersoft's page, rather than talking to such a user on their own Talk page, or at an article's Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See below, no point in fragmenting the conversation. Short version though, I cannot change his problematic behavior without communicating with him. If a person repeatedly bites the newbies, it doesn't help the situation to always talk to the noobs. Buffs (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The overall point is, you have not been personally assigned to fix Hammersoft's problematic behavior, and while your intentions might be helpful, they are not working toward a productive end. If there is an problem, talk to another editor, or use Dispute Resolution methods. But there's no need to bother him directly if he says to leave him alone. -- Avanu (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Buffs from User talk:Hammersoft

There is a quite simple solution, going forward. It is within the remit of the community to ban a user from any page where there is the potential for disruption; I therefore propose, "Buffs (talk · contribs) is banned from editing the page User talk:Hammersoft (and any subsidiary or related ages), indefinitely, for a minimum of one year. Any concern of User Buffs regarding edits by User Hammersoft should be conveyed either by a third party to User talk:Hammersoft or initiated on a dispute resolution page - notice again being supplied by a third party." I further propose that, "User Buffs may not use another editors talkpage to initiate contact/discussion with User Hammersoft, and limit interactions with User Hammersoft on other talkpages to issues within discussion only. This restriction is to run concurrently with the User talk:Hammersoft ban." Please indicate support or opposition below.

Comment from "recipient of said ban": there is no policy which states that the community may ban a user where there is the potential for disruption. Discussion, by definition, is not disruption. I haven't broken a single rule on WP nor have there been any blocks enacted on me (except this one above...which was rapidly overturned due to a lack of evidence/). One user cannot enact an arbitrary "ban" and admins should not enforce any attempt to do so through punitive blocks. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support both restrictions, as proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sure, since I tried to deal with this previously a year or two ago. If it is still going on, then the situation is not going to get better. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• No. Unnecessary and unwarranted. Bish said this discussion was a waste of the community's time, and you do this? The point has been made to Buffs, and that's all that's needed for now. Just let this threat die. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Formal interaction restrictions should be used sparingly where it's seriously disrupting the project. I don't believe that's the case here. Buffs should be admonished not to test his luck as regards use of Hammersoft's talk page, but that's all that's required. A formal interaction ban here rather seriously steps over what the user talk guidelines actually say. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• oppose, also be aware that the precedent will be used to ban the tagspam from my talk page; i expect the support votes to confirm. Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support It may not be harassment but its clearly provoking after User talk:Hammersoft has clearly asked him to stop. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support, though I doubt this will end teh dramahz. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support, I just looked into this myself, clearly a ban is warranted. I agree there seems to be no malicious intent here, but really this has to stop. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - OP needs to shrug it off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? That goes against all that WP:CIVIL stands for.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone has an issue with someone else, they should be free to post on their talk page. And the recipient is free to ignore it. This stuff about being "provoked" is the old "look what you made me do game", which is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell me what I've done that was uncivil. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• support anything truly serious that Hammersoft needs to be told about, someone else is likely to tell them, or it is only serious to Buffs. I would make an exception fo {{TB}} without any summary text, because in the end this is a collaborative environtment, but TB allows you to ignore or respond as you see fit. This exception, if abused, should be then disallowed.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I see no problem with this option, but I still oppose the ban. It allows me (or anyone else) to make a point without unduly being on his talk page. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• support Talk page bans have come up for years on wikipedia. In the past, I've generally seen them enforced, which would indicate at least some community support for them despite the fact that we don't have a policy specifically written about them. Many people have ended up banned from other people's talk pages, and consider it a specific form of interaction ban. Which are also routinely applied around here. There is often little need for anyone specific to be editing anyone else's talk page. Most discussions about articles can happen on article talk pages, other discussions on noticeboards, and you really would only need to go to someone's talk page if you wanted to discuss something particular about their editing behaviour in general. And if they're having genuine issues, someone else can discuss that with them. Conversely, I think this should be reciprocal, and hammersoft should also not be posting on Buffs' talk page either. The drama potential there is too high--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not saying we can't ban someone (anyone) from a talk page. I am saying that it cannot be arbitrarily decided by a single user. All I want is for HS to stop intentionally directing users to do things that run contrary to copyright law and NFCC. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I strenuously oppose a ban of anyone on my talk page (except those who are banned from WP altogether) Buffs (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I typically believe in a very wide latitude for people and many chances, but in the case of a simple request of "stay off my userpage", it is easy enough to comply with, and unless there is a legitimate reason that Buffs specifically needs to notify Hammersoft about something, I don't how honoring the request to leave Hammersoft alone is unreasonable. Buffs makes the case that Hammersoft does not "own" his userspace, and while this is true to some degree, the Wikipedia:User pages guideline says that userpages are for "facilitating interaction and sharing between users". It sounds like these forced interactions are not helpful for Hammersoft, so why continue? Buffs doesn't "own" the space anymore than Hammersoft does, so how can this be a forced interaction by one editor onto another? If this were a dispute in a Article Talk Page, I might simply ask them to find separate topics to work on, but a User Page is a special place that we don't "own", but we do get to call 'home'. Simply leaving someone alone should an easy request to honor. -- Avanu (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:HA. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Why are we here? - If user X says that User Y is no longer welcome to post on X's talk page, that is the end of the story. If Y persists, then Y gets blocked. This is not a support/oppose case. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  It is one of our policies that explicitly states that NO ONE OWNS A PAGE; no one person can dictate explicitly what is on a page. Even WP:USER explicitly acknowledges this. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. We have a policy explicitly prohibiting that kind of behavior: WP:OWN. Buffs (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  It has nothing to do with ownership, that is a red herring of an argument of yours. User talk pages are for simple communication with other editors, but this isn't a perfect world and people sometimes get into disagreements. If one editor no longer wishes another to communicate with them, then that person should honor that request; to do otherwise is rather dickish. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I have largely honored that request and have made a grand total of FOUR edits in the past year out of almost 1000...and two were to correct errors in the first post. ALL of these were to advise a person asking for help what to actually do. Buffs (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support both ban of Buffs commenting directly about other user, and Tarc's comment immediately above. The what policy have I broken? nonsense needs to stop. In an ideal world, the other editor might have a personality which can shrug off unwelcome provocations (and intruding like that is a provocation—what comment is so vital for the encyclopedia that it needs to be posted on a user's talk page by Buffs?). However, there is no policy which says all editors must be thick skinned, and the community needs to support its editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED? Buffs (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, but comments like that merely support the need for the ban. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sorry, but your comment makes no sense. You say "There is no policy which says all editors must be thick skinned." I point out that there is a policy which says exactly that. Your response is (I guess) "because he contradicted me in public, it's clear to me that he should be banned". WTH? Buffs (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I cannot support any ban that is based upon what MIGHT happen. While I generally subscribe to a personal philosophy of "Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty, and the pig likes it" when it comes to avoiding conflicts both on the Wiki and in real life - some battles aren't worth the effort of the undertaking - I cannot in any way subscribe to the viewpoint that an editor should be banned for what MIGHT happen. Lightning MIGHT strike me if I go outside, but probably NOT. I feel that the proposed action creates an awkward precedent and unduly compromises the efforts in good faith of editor Buffs who has been active on the Wiki project for several years. I vote in support of editor Buffs. Thick or thin skins doesn't really enter into it from my viewpoint. You can't convict for a crime that MIGHT be committed but hasn't YET. Mark Sublette (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are aware of what the 'ban' proposal is above. It is only saying thet Buffs needs to stay off Hammersoft's personal Talk page. It isn't a 'ban' beyond that. -- Avanu (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Talk page ban, as two comments in six months do not indicate an ongoing disruption, no matter perception of the distant past, and there has been a reasonable compromise offered that will solve the issue Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessary. Going back to Jan 2010, there are all of 4 or 5 interactions. Buffs shouldn't be harping on the point, but you don't own your talk page, pure and simple. There is no systemic attempt to create an unpleasant environment. Buffs has been counselled on appropriate use, viz not furthering the interpersonal dispute, and can be counselled and/or blocked on future activity. Hammersoft can remove whatever they want, so long as it doesn't falsify a thread. This would set a crazy precedent. Franamax (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• This is an easy one. Oppose per Tarc. Let me make this even more clear - I'd like Buffs to stop venting his WP:OWN argument, as it's tangibly irrelevant. This is simple enough - somebody asks you to stay off of their talk page, you do it. If you want a guideline, go read WP:DICK and WP:CIVIL. (I don't think WP:HA really applies here.) — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

How about just allowing only a {{TB}} template for all future communications. HS can chose whether to participate or not. If it makes anyone feel better, I'll even pass that request through a third party. It is not obtrusive and allows HS to do with it as he wishes without any further communication? Buffs (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposed alternative of a self-imposed use of only a neutral Tb template as User:Buffs has offered, as this is a tacit agreement by him to not post anything more and a ban need now not even be considered. Note, I do not agree that WP:IAR can be used to trump WP:CIV, as Buffs can always get an intermediary to post something more than a Tb at User Talk: Hammersoft if it must be posted, as there may be times where the two might actually need to discuss an issue. And by Buffs offering to post nothing more than a neutral Tb template, such will invite User:Hammersoft to a discussion that he may then himself choose not to join. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this would be helpful. User talk pages are for messages intended for that person alone, or for responses to other particpants in a thread. In the latest case (the "Kingdom" image), you could have tagged up the image and just made a note in the thread on HS's page "Image is not copyrightable, fixed cover page [diff]" and throwing in "per [Cornell copyright link]" is always a good idea so that everyone can learn that stuff. It's the tone and persomal commentary that raises problems. Linking through a talkback to the same type of thing doesn't solve any problems. Franamax (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is quite worthless - I don't see the improvement from the perceived "harassment" involving posting directly on HS' TP. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So there I was

...driving down the street, going 45 in a 45 mph zone. It's a nice, clear sunny day without a cloud in the sky. Without warning, a policeman pulls me over and says, "I'm going to have to arrest you."

"You can't do that. I haven't broken any law."

"Well, you were going too fast on this street."

"The speed limit sign says 45"

"Yeah, well some of us don't like that you are going that fast. This guy here lives on the street and called to complain that he doesn't like it when you go that fast. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

"Well, I'm sorry he doesn't like it, but that still doesn't mean I broke the law and that you can arrest me."

"Oh yeah? Get out of the car! Put your hands on the hood"

The officer proceeds to arrest me and throws me in jail. Three hours later a judge throws out the case, but several of his neighbors still don't like it and band together to block off the street solely so I can't drive on it. They don't try to get the speed limit changed. They don't try discussion, they simply say, "Jimmy doesn't like him driving on that street, so he shouldn't ever drive on it." Buffs (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it extremely in poor taste to continually make an appeal to whether you have broken policy, when in your first response above you quote Ignore All Rules as a defense of doing whatever you like, to quote you:

I recognize that HS has the right to request that I not post on his talk page, but I also have a right to ignore that request and do what is best for WP. To leave those interactions alone only serves to perpetuate a myth about WP image use and hurt our community as a whole.

In what possible world are you REQUIRED to post on a specific other person's Talkpage in order to accomplish the goal of helping with Wikipedia? You could EASILY fix this by just agreeing to leave the guy alone, but instead you continue to give arrogant responses to the rest of us. Please, stop being a WP:JERK, and stop justifying poor and uncivil behavior. -- Avanu (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Since when did this devolve into name-calling (pretty sure I haven't called anyone a "jerk" or a "dick", but apparently it's ok to do that to me. I guess we're going to ignore WP:CIVIL today...pretty sure that's another policy...)

but to answer your question, no, I don't think that WP:IAR gives me the right to do "whatever I want", but it does allow me to post on his page no matter what his request is. It certainly isn't a blockable offense to disagree with someone.

So, let's just stick with either proposal above and stop the name calling, ok? Buffs (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to make sure you understand the difference here. It isn't namecalling, but a description of the behavior you're exhibiting. I have no idea about you beyond this page, but I can tell quite quickly that you are being stubborn and dickish, mostly because you won't just say "OK, I'm sorry for the trouble, I'll leave the guy alone." This is a easy one, Buffs, and rather than work to solve the problem, you're choosing to be the problem. I'm not against you personally; I don't know you. But I do clearly see what the problem is here. -- Avanu (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Few things are required, but I believe that HS is WP:BITEing the noobs by giving them bad advice. In the past year, and the only two instances in which I've posted on his page, both were in response to him telling a person that YOUR IMAGE ISN'T ALLOWED ON WP!!! I REMOVED IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT IMAGE HERE!!! when in fact, both images were entirely permissible. HS knows better, but has decided to ignore what copyright actually covers and what it doesn't and, instead force newer users to jump through hoops and spend hours reading through WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, WP:IMAGE, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:FUR, U.S. copyright caselaw, and others only to decipher that there are two lines that need to be fixed in their image to make them usable on WP in the capacity they want. To use his fishing analogy ("I consider it teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish"), HS really wants them to hand-whittle a pole, weave a line out of small vines, and bend their belthook into a hook instead of telling to just switch which bait they are using.

In short, he's not only giving bad advice, but making WP more difficult to use.

So, no, you apparently don't see the entire problem. However, I am willing to cease all communications with Hammersoft on his talk page, with the exception of a generic {{TB}} template if you, or any another user, feels it's appropriate (they will be passed through a third party). Buffs (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Avanu is correct. When an editor repeatedly points out that everyone commenting at ANI is wrong, there is a high probability that the editor is mistaken. Establishing a perfect system of government is not one of Wikipedia's aims, and persisting with this unhelpful discussion is only providing evidence that something stronger than an interaction ban is required. There is no requirement that an editor agree with outcomes at ANI—by all means state once or twice that the reasoning is not accepted; however, to not accept the outcome is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

John, sorry, but I never said "everyone was wrong". In fact a sizable number of people agree with me. The rest of it, I just don't understand what you are talking about. Buffs (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Buffs, I don't see a reason that you would ever have to speak to Hammersoft on his Talk page again. Just leave him alone. If there's an issue with his conduct toward other editors, talk to that specific editor, or bring it to dispute resolution. As for your defender of the Wikipedia award, I don't see how this type of interaction qualifies - diff, since Hammersoft asked you not to post there, and he was actually accurate in describing Wikipedia policy. It may not always be convenient to follow policy, but it is there for a reason, unless you can get it changed. -- Avanu (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

His description of policy was accurate, but his application was not. I could describe WP:DEL and then nominate an article for deletion. But while my description of policy might be 100% accurate, nominating George Bush for deletion isn't appropriate. Likewise, telling a relative newbie that he can't use a specific image on his user page when, in fact, he can, is disruptive to WP. The only problem with the image was that the description tag was wrong and it was categorized as a non-free image when it should have been a public domain image categorized as {{pd-textlogo}} image. I have tried on numerous occasions to educate him on the matter, offered to help (drop me a link on my page and I'll fix it/take care of it). His answer is effectively, "no thanks, I prefer annoying other people and forcing others to make changes, but actually making the changes myself is beneath me and/or I just don't have time for it since I am doing much more important WP work". He has also stated that he actively refuses to make any distinction between non-free and PD images that are mislabeled and he has no desire to learn or apply differences accordingly. Buffs (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we're doing analogies here's one. At "Wikipedia Beach" there's a law that says that it's against the law to pick "foo oats". A policeman sees a group of tourists picking what looks like "foo oats" and goes over and warns them. All this is witnessed by a local botanists who then examines the oats and determines that they are actually "bar oats" and therefore lawful to pick. The botanists then confronts the policeman. Instead of politely telling him that the oats are in fact "bar oats", he instead yells at the policeman and accuses him of bullying the tourists, says he knew that they were "bar oats" all the time and just sadistically enjoys "biting the tourists". In this case the policeman would be well within his rights to tell the botanist to get out of his face. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But the policeman can't arbitrarily prohibit the botanists from going to the police station and filing a complaint... Buffs (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If said botanist kept going to the police station and filing charges of harassment and brutality against police officers for simply doing their jobs and keeping people from picking what are marked, correctly or not, as "foo oats", it might get to the point where his rants are ignored and his reports are filed in the round file. The fact that he might be right will be lost because nobody likes listening to jerks, no matter how right they are. What the botanist should do is "assume good faith" on the part of the police department and inform the city counsel that there some patches of "bar oats" incorrectly marked as "foo oats". Also, nobody should ban him from the police station but they can tell him to stop screaming in the officer's face. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the point though. Currently the question is why you feel compelled to post on his User page, even when he said leave him alone, and honestly, dispute resolution can be solved outside a User page. He's made it clear that he doesn't want the interaction there. We give people wide latitude on their own Userspace, and there are plenty of alternatives for dispute resolution. -- Avanu (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the point. HS is continuing problematic behavior and I do not wish to elevate it as a first resort. There is no reason to go to ANI or other places when a simple, reasoned discussion can occur. HS simply doesn't want to fix his own behavior and has gone so far to say he won't help WP/noobs simply because I was the one asked (even if I offer to reduce his workload!).

Addressing your WP:HA comment above, ("The harassment behavior is evidenced mostly by the fact that Hammersoft has asked you to stop and you have not"), my point is that he does not have the right to restrict access to his talk page in the first place. Since that is the basis for the block/ban in the first place, it isn't valid. Note that WP:DR starts at the user/article talk page.

However, for the sake of keeping the peace, I'll refrain from now on from posting to his talk page (as described above by solely using {{t1|TB}} templates posted through a third party...who obviously have to agree to the contact). Buffs (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go one step further as a sign of good faith. Since I cannot ask him if this is acceptable (he's left me no means by which to directly communicate with him), would you be so kind as to ask him? Buffs (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with just 100% leaving the guy's Talk page alone? No Talkback templates through third parties, just saying, OK, done? You make a promise, the AN/I purpose is ended and everybody moves on. -- Avanu (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's say the issues continue and he continues to bite the noobs. Since I cannot talk to him on his talkpage, I cannot take it to any form of WP:DR since I am required to inform him of the WP:DR process (i.e. ANI, AN, ArbCom, etc). It's a catch-22. If I cannot communicate with him at all, I am unable to perform any dispute resolution! Then there is the principle of the whole thing: he doesn't own the page in the first place and cannot dictate who can and who can't contribute on the page. I didn't contribute to it to make a WP:POINT, I did it to correct his problematic behavior and to try and stop him from being a WP nuisance/biting the newbies. I admit I took a risk of some blowback here, but I'm trying to give him every opportunity to fix the problems before escalating. If he's not going to stop, then WP:ANI is the next option. Buffs (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not required to inform Hammer. Apply some common sense. No "catch-22" - Hammer's request freed you of any responsibility to do so. If you have concerns about Hammer's editing (I don't see much discussion of that), then you should bring them up so we can see if they hold water. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Surfacing to make a comment. Buffs, I've read through pretty much the entire thread here. If Hammersoft is biting new editors (I prefer not use the word noob since it tends to have derogatory undertones), then someone else will bring it to his attention. He has asked you to not post on his talk page, granted that you only have limited postings to said page, then by common courtesy you should abide by his request even though by policy you are not required to do so. Your continued defence of your position isn't going to get you anywhere and flogging the horse further is only going to earn the ire of the community and an increasing barrage of wikilinks and ultimately blocks and topic bans. Just leave it be, move along and let this thread die. --Blackmane (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffs, IAR is to be invoked when a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia. Please elucidate what rule you believe needs to be ignored to improve Wikipedia. If you are trying to improve an article, fix the article. If you want to open a discussion about an article, do it on the article's talk page. Neither of these requires you to post on Hammersoft's page, as he's asked you politely multiple times to stop posting there. By doing this you only antagonize Hammersoft and create a non-collegial editing environment. Your responses to every support demonstrate that you don't get the point. Furthermore your narrative that starts this section only works if it is a residential street. Neighborhoods are allowed to petition the city government to request a "No-Through-Traffic" if there is a reasonable demonstration that the street is being used as an access corridor. Hasteur (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a clear majority above for a ban on him talking to him on his talk page. Its really simple just stop. There are plenty of other avenues to go down if an issue arrives that don't Require Buffs to go on his talk page such as dispute resolution. Take him off your watchlist ignore him if he is doing wrong then another editor can deal with it. The more buffs protest the more i feel there is more to this hes asked you nicely and you refuse to listen stop antagonising him. As i said there is no need at all for you going on his talk page. Warburton1368 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Buff's course is clear. Since the other guy doesn't want complaints on his talk page, then instead of going to the other guy (which would be the normal procedure), Buffs should bring it here. A few extra trips to ANI might make the other guy rethink his stance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not at all. I have been and am always open to collegial feedback on my edits. I am not open to Buffs posting to my talk page, since interactions between he and I virtually always result in decidedly the opposite. Buffs has his own opinion of my edits and he is certainly welcome to them. I am well past undertaking any effort to correct him. If he feels it necessary to report me to WP:AN/I for some perceived infraction, he is welcome to so far as I'm concerned. In fact, I encourage him. He won't take my word for anything; getting outside input regarding his opinions may be helpful to him. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The WP problem here is: WP:Hear. - Shell (Nut Case) (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• First and foremost, I echo Avanu and Hasteur's comments. You aren't seeing the "big picture" here - stop referring to rules and policies, because this matter is clearly covered in a blanket-style way by WP:CIV. What I mean by the "big picture" is, why, out of the 2000+ editors who are regularly active on Wikipedia, do you need to communicate with HS? Maybe he's stupid, maybe he's judging you and just doesn't like your face, but so what? It's just civil and common-sensical to follow his request. Isn't it just easier? And, again, you say one can't block someone just because you disagree with them. Well, that isn't quite right - virtually every block reason is based on a disagreement, to a certain extent. Obviously, this isn't quite one-versus-one, but here there are 20+ editors who agree that you should stop editing HS' talk page. Go read WP:CONSENSUS. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I count 11 vs the 7 who support me, but I'm not really good at numbers. Perhaps my math is way off. And no, we don't block editors solely for disagreement. We block them as a preventative measure to prevent further policy violations. Perhaps you should read WP:BLOCK...and note that I haven't posted on his page. Buffs (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But editors are blocked for disruption, tendentious editing, wiki-lawyering, exhausting the community's patience, excessive levels of not listening. Buffs, all thats' required is that you undertake not to post on Hammersoft's talk page except in the case of official type notifications like ANI notifications etc. If you agree to that and Hammersoft agrees to that then this discussion that is just going round in circles can finally come to a halt. --Blackmane (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, if we'd all just follow the fundamental rule of all social spaces, we'd not have this problem. If someone tells you not to post on their talk and you do so anyway, you're in violation of that rule, pure and simple. I don't care if policy allows it or not. It's still being a dick. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also a pretty brutal analogy. The proper addition would be "On my way to the 45 MPH zone, I cut through the parking lot of a variety store - the same way I have a few other times. A year ago, the store put a "no trespassing, other than immediate customers" sign out on the boulevard. 6 months ago the proprietor stopped me and pointed to the sign. A week ago, he did that again. Nevertheless, I continue to take the shortcut - it is, after all, the fastest way to the street I need to travel on". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your addition is completely flawed. The store owner legally owns that property and can control who he wants on it. The street is completely open to everyone. WP:OWN applies to all of WP, not just some of it...this explicitly includes user pages. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Just one question. How is your personal crusade to retain access to Hammersoft's User Page benefitting the encyclopedia MORE than it is working against it? We've given you a lot of easy alternatives, but you insist that your approach is the right choice. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffs Your badgering your point and to be honest its pointless. Your insistence is over the top and is provoking a reaction which is unnecessary. Take the easy option and accept not to post on his talk page no he dosent own it but its his way of communicating and if he feels provoked or harassed then he is correct in asking you politely not to post on it. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Buffs

I propose: Give Buffs a trout, Buffs promises to not post on Hammersoft's page again (no exceptions)

• Support - Buffs is right that we don't own *anything* at Wikipedia, but poking people because we can is a lame reason to do it. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - As per Avanu.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Avenu. If "because I have the right to" is the best reason you have to do something, that's a good sign you probably shouldn't do it. --Jayron32 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• support just because others persist in the toxic environment of noxious warnings on talk pages, dosen't mean we should. but now that it's clear what "harrassment" is, expect more of the same drama here. there are many i never want to have to read on my talk page. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• support (although it is a bit of a waste of fish) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support but lets make it a whale instead. --Blackmane (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support but with low expectations of the disruptive behavior changing. Buffs should be reminded in the very strongest language that further reports of this behavior will be treated with significantly less Assumptions of Good Faith by the community as he's been warned before. Hasteur (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia is not a battleground. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions is odious. Use the whale. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC).
• Support Provoking behaviour isn't on.Warburton1368 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actioned. Buffs has been trouted and requested / urged / invited to promise not to post to H's talk page again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams - Off2riorob

Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Off2riorob may have the best of intentions, but his editing pattern as shown here is strange, to say the least. In what is now the latest edit, he terms Fasttimes68, who has been editing since 2007 a "meatpuppet". Some others should take a look (and at the discussion page). -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting? Off2riorob (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A careful viewing of the edit history and the discussion, with an eye to a block, or at the least a warning that you're on the verge of a block, for (i) the (as yet) unsupported allegation that one user is a meatpuppet of another, (ii) CIR for (a) your perverse refusal to read footnotes that supply information that you first demanded within the text, and (b) the unilateral demand that for something to be worth mentioning in an article it should be worth mentioning in the "lede" of that article, and (iii) general appearance of would-be ownership of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)Well, fasttimes68 doesn't have that many edits, and a good percentage of them are about Stephanie Adams. Off2riorob does a lot of blp policing and is not a huge fan of playmate articles, but his actions seem to be in good faith.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

what the hell is a meatpuppet? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Meatpuppet - a meatpuppet revert is in this situation and similar ones where two or three users work together against a single good faith user to include disputed content into an article. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

considering that content has been in the article for quite some time, then i can hardly call it disputed. Perhaps you should discuss first before reverting? im still willing to discuss as others probably are. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, something can be in an article for a long time and yet become (or indeed have been) disputed. Removal of misinformation and some other material is fine, even if there's been no dispute. But yes, he should have discussed. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the Bold Revert Discuss cycle properly shows discussion as after the B and after the R. I see nothing out of process. My76Strat (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helpfully pointing toward an explanation of "meatpuppetry", which clearly shows that you are wrong. (I quote: Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. [...]) -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, im no ones meatmuppet. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Rob frequently removes info about sexual orientation from BLPs. Possibly a good thing. We need to develop more guidance on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, User:Fasttimes68 has replaced it again - there is a OTRS complaint about this, and its clearly undue to say lesbian, lesbian , lesbian (thrice Dorothy) in a line and a half - but I am loggin of as I have had enough for tonight. Off2riorob (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

see you on the talk page then.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I can see Robs point here. Regardless of the facts (if there are any), there is no way that using the word 'lesbian' three times in the same sentence can be justified. Someone needs to get of their soapbox... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to rewrite it so that the word doesn't appear three times in a line and a half. (I'm also happy to have all the "personal" stuff removed.) AndyTheGrump, here are the facts. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, we should name that section "Lesbian life" :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fasttimes68 beat me to this, but not at all in a way I'd have done. What is now the current version is mine and I don't think it's bad. Again, I am open to reasoned argument that all this "orientation" nonsense should be cut, and need very little persuasion to have it cut together with other "personal" stuff whose sourcing is much worse. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the main user that is insisting on this lesbian labeling - you added, lesbian lesbian lesbian - the only other personal data is that she is married to a man with a child, do you object to that detail? Off2riorob (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I will admit the usage of the word was heavy. But it doesn't warrant removing the information from the article altogether especially since you were asked to discuss the issue on the talk page. And the meatpuppet calling was a bit over the top as well. -- Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You,(User:Hoary) are the primary contributor to this disputed BLP with multiple OTRS reports - you appear to have got into some kind of six year issue here after early discussion with someone claiming to be the subject or their supporter and it has become personal for you - the subject objects to being portrayed as a lesbian and you war to add, lesbian lesbian lesbian - wiki is not a user ego game to beat the living subjects of its articles. You win, the subject didn't want to be portrayed as a lesbian and you managed to add lesbian lesbian lesbian in a line and a half . Off2riorob (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject doesnt want to be identified as a lesbian anymore, but she did in the past and was an activist for lesbian issues. it is notable in this BLP. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the WP:BLP that supports your "lesbian activist" claim. Off2riorob (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that I'm listed as the first editor. However, if permablocked "Goddessy" were listed with her aliases and IP numbers, and if the other throwaway accounts and movable IPs were lumped together, I wouldn't be number one. There's no "issue". The subject -- of whom I'd never heard until, years ago, I saw a plea for help at AN/I, BLP/N or wherever -- has a history, clearly visible in versions of the talk page that precede their recent blanking, of wanting the article to say just this or that. Now, is her personal life notable or isn't it? If it is, provide readers with what is reliably sourced and do so in a straightforward, unsensational way; if it isn't, pull it all out: orientation, engagement(s), husband, kid, aunt(s), whatever. Or discuss the proposed different treatment: I am open to reasoned argument. When the current little spat is over, I'll happily take her article off my watchlist for a year or longer. And I apologize for my appalling use of the word "lesbian" three times in one and a half lines. (I subsequently fixed this.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the content issue, using an edit summary of "Meatpuppet revert"[19] is inappropriate unless Off2riorob is plannning to file an SPI case to establish that the account is question is an actual WP:MEATPUPPET, the definition of which he does not seem to know correctly.   Will Beback  talk 

I agree. An apology is in order. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If she is a notable lesbian activist as you claim I would expect to see some content in her BLP to support that claim.Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read the footnotes you would see support. or perhaps you deleted them befoe reading them? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A meatpuppet revert is in this situation and similar ones where two or three users work together against a single good faith user to include disputed content into an article.Meatpuppet reverters should apologize themselves. User Will Beback has got a "hard on" for me at the moment and can't stop chattin to me at every opportunity, sadly I am just not interested, sorry Will. Off2riorob (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoary and I were not working together. However both of us are still confused at your odd commenting inside the article.-Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem reply. Regarding, WP:MEATPUPPET, please actually read the link policy. it dos not say what you think it does. What you may be thinking of the essay, WP:TAGTEAM.   Will Beback  talk  06:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a meatpuppet revert is similar to a tasgteam tweak, little difference really. Off2riorob (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• General comment. Off2riorob is one of the few Wikipedia editors who have undertaken the thankless task of trying to clear up all the garbage that has been inserted into BLP articles throughout Wikipedia. His efforts to remove sketchy information are constantly resisted by editors who really should know better. A little more administrative support for his efforts would be very helpful in improving Wikipedia's wretched history regarding its treatment of BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) WP:MEAT states that meatpuppet is a deragtory term. Unless you have any proof that meatpuppetry is going on, then you need to stop with the breach of civility. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility is in the eye of the beholder - one persons civilly issue is another's honest comment. At least the user over the last few years is a single issue account adding disputed content to a BLP article Off2riorob (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to change a policy in the midst of a discussion so as to vacate the other party's point.[20] It's underhanded and manipulative.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is appropriate to have your attention brought to an issue that requires attention and improvement as I did it - I say - whenever is good for improving issues. Off2riorob (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be some pointy logic. Your contributions to the article itself are completely appropriate to me. The problem is your comments to the other editor. Appologize and move on. Don't turn this into a dramafest. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you accused people of being "meatpuppets", which the policy said is a derogatory term. When confronted about it you didn't apologize or offer proof, you simply changed the policy so that it's no longer says that it's a derogatory term. That's gaming the system in a brazen way.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Goddessy.com" is not RS. It is not remotely near RS. It may be SPS at best. The cite given appears to be a compilation of quotes from some RS sources, and lots of stuff from not-remotely-RS sources. The claims do not meet WP:BLP. Off2riorob's edits are both proper and required by WP:BLP "Meatpuppet" may be inapt, but the concept that two users co-ordinate insertion of a non-RS source and contentious claim into a BLP is part and parcel of what is properly being discussed at the ArbCom case on BLPs. When one of them is a user with relatively few edits (say, under 200) then the concept that the newer user knows the older user might actually arise. Heck, an IP with only 300 total contributions might fall in that category. By the way, SPI will never find a "meatpuppet" and is not to be used for such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Fasttimes68 was coordinating insertion of something or other with another user? If so, please name the other user and provide your evidence for this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A subjects website can be used in a BLP if it is not unduly self serving. __Fasttimes68 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob asks above: If she is a notable lesbian activist as you claim I would expect to see some content in her BLP to support that claim. Good point. It has been claimed (notably, by somebody identifying herself as an employee) that she was a "spokesmodel" for LGBT stuff. I never understood the notion of "spokesmodel", and said so in the article's talk page. My interlocutor got quite indignant: being a spokesmodel was pretty significant, she insisted. See this section and the following one in that talk page archive, as well as other stuff there. Now, was she a spokesmodel to a significant extent? I've always doubted this. However, a statement about a given period that was true in 2007 is also true in 2011; or if it's not true in 2011 it also wasn't in 2007 either -- and all in all a look in these recently blanked talk page archives will show you that the biographee has long believed not merely that the article should avoid defamatory material and invasions of privacy (demands with which I'd have no argument at all) but beyond this that she should control what the article says. So the OTRS stuff (to which I am not privy) starts to look like ghost-writing: the biographee badgers well-intentioned editors to do as she says, effectively creating an autobiography. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) some typos fixed 07:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So in 2003 she was a lesbian, and in 2009 she's suddenly straight with a husband and child? Something doesn't add up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrariwise - it is very clear what is up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Please see Vita Sackville-West, who had two sons. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but - dead and incomparable. Off2riorob (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And also bisexual, not lesbian. Real lesbians don't get married to men and have children with them, at least not after they've supposedly come out. Bisexuals might. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions, which might be of interest on some other website. I'm not quite sure which. Perhaps teletubbies. (Was there a problem with Tinky Winky?) Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Lesbians, by definition, do not have sexual relations with men (unless they're getting paid for it). Teletubbies, last time I checked, are fictional characters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a category Category:LGBT parents; see e.g. Ann Bannon. Your "definition" of lesbian, which can be an adjective, is just as odd as Off2riorob's definition of meatpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, people. (A) Self-identification as being inclined one way and/or the other is one thing, (B) actual "sexual relations" are another. The relationship between (A) and (B) may be an interesting matter for academic or other discussion. But this is not the right place to discuss it, or (B); and let's not get carried away with (A) either. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus people, how many years will it take before people learn to ignore Bugs's off-topic crap on ANI?

There are two issues here:

1. The content dispute, especially because this is a BLP
2. The meatpuppet comment

The two are orthogonal. The latter could (and should) be resolved right now by Off2riorob apologising to Fasttimes68 for calling him a meatpuppet (that is, a real-life accomplice who tags teams with someone to edit war). The former looks to be heading for an RfC, but in the interests of BLP it would certainly be best for controversial material (specifically sexual orientation, past or present) to be removed from the article until consensus is reached as to whether it's adequately sourced.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring your typical personal attacks, the last part of your statement is on the money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris, your #2 is too narrow. There's an Off2riorob issue. Off2riorob demands (by writing questions directly in article text, and with no edit summaries) that material is made explicit in the article text. When reminded (via edit summaries) that the information is provided in the footnotes, he reverts. We all make mistakes, and if he either sleepily wrote "[[Who?]]" instead of "{{Who}}", or whatever, fine; but he reverts to the mangled state he created. After all that, he deletes. And again. Fine, he could have changed his mind -- but there's no sign of willingness to communicate, or of curiosity about what has so recently been hidden in the talk archives. Plus he writes up a fantasy about Will Beback's sexual attraction to him. Plus he mis-cites a policy page (well, I've probably done that too) but then promptly tampers with the policy page to make it say what he wishes it had said. If the problem is that he is overstretched (and I am being very charitable here), then he should realize this and lay off. And if he doesn't realize it, then he should be told it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That diff [21] should get Off2riorob a little time off from editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I realise that Off2riorob works hard on BLPs, but that diff - combined with changing the policy to suit what he said rather than simply backing down - leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. I agree with Chris Cunningham that there are two separate issues here. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've only read this ANI thread, but I don't see anything wrong with what User:Off2riorob has been saying up to this point in this discussion, particularly if it's taken in context. If the editor's incorrectly accusing people of team tagging fine, but the specific term "meat puppet" has a very specific term on wiki and attempting to turn that into a dirty word is fucking ridiculous. If you've got a problem with what's going on then talk about the content, not the words. I don't see any substantiation of anything untoward here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right that "meatpuppet" has a very specific meaning here: it is a meaning which is analogous to "sockpuppet", but for third parties. And if you call someone a sockpuppet on here then you'd better have evidence, because doing so otherwise is obnoxious. "meatpuppet" is most certainly not any less pejorative than "sockpuppet". Off2riorob should be advised that if he's currently using "meatpuppet" to mean "anyone engaged in tag-teaming" then he's using it wrongly and should stop doing that before he needlessly offends anyone else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• - Anyway, I have had a warning note about a couple of points in regard to my contributions last night which I accept were a bit violating - I have just read the meatpuppet description again and I apologize to User:Fasttimes68for referring to him as that - his edit didn't warrant that accusation, I didn't mean it like that anyways.I should likely apologize to Will Beback as well, using "hard on" to describe his actions in a dispute about sexual content was "inappropriate" - Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Thank you. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization as a lesbian

Behavioural issues aside, there seems to be another, more important BLP issue here. There seems to be no dispute that Stephanie Adams declared herself to be a lesbian about 8 years ago. She is in the category "LGBT African Americans". She has since married a man (and reportedly had a child). Although we can speculate as to whether or not she is still a lesbian despite her current circumstances, WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that as far as sexual orientation is concerned, only self identification will suffice for inclusion in categories. There was a similar situation recently with an actor (Luke Evans (actor) who had been openly gay until recently when they were reported to be dating a woman. Much argument followed about whether or not the LGBT category should be retained or removed.

The situation with Adams is much clearer. She has declared herself to be "straight". This 2009 interview was easy for me to find (skip to about the 7 minute mark). Since she has no longer self-identifies as a lesbian, it seems logical that the category should be removed, but this was a cause for much argument in the Luke Evans case. Although this is a content issue, perhaps raising it here will bring fresh eyes to the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I did ask to remove the cat - "LGBT African Americans" but the request was rejected. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked for the category to be removed, or Adams from the category? As for removing Adams from the category, there is IMO enough RS that she does not consider herself to be a lesbian so she should be removed from the cat. As for keeping the category itself I havent formed an opinion.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the gender/sex that a person chooses to have sex with part of an encyclopedia? Would you create a category of people who have sex with animals, like that guy in Australia who married his dog? I've never picked up Britannica and went looking for who is on recorded as being gay that year? Where's the category for heterosexuals in San Francisco, Atlanta, and Greenwich Village if we are talking about minorities. What a strange strange category . . .

Signed,

WTH? Jesus Loves You --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we do have that category: Category:Zoosexuality in culture -- Atama頭 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob cautioned

(multiple edit conflicts) I have cautioned Off2riorob that continuing to misuse the term 'meatpuppet' to describe good-faith editors with whom he has a disagreement is just not on, as is any future attempt to rewrite policy pages to support his position in the middle of a disagreement. I have also advised him that WP:BLPN exists to help resolve these sorts of issues, and that he should seek the assistance of other, neutral editors sooner rather than later should he encounter problems like this in the future. (It is also worth noting that the exemptions to 3RR provided by WP:BLP apply even if one's opponents are editors in good standing; there's no need to invoke accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry if one is – in good faith – clearly and explicitly applying WP:BLP's provisions.)

My caution to Off2riorob is issued without prejudice to either side of the question of the content in the Stephanie Adams article. I hope that the participants in that discussion are able to resolve matters satisfactorily now that there is additional attention on the page. (Speaking as an editor, I think it seems odd and excessive under any circumstances to say 'lesbian' three times in one sentence—regardless of the sources employed.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting that someone is a meatpuppet does not automatically imply that they were canvassed for that purpose. I think some people are confusing themselves by forcing such an association. My76Strat (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you're a meat puppet of Off2Riorob just for agreeing with him here. Want fries with that? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In a sense that is true, but I would not edit war, or indiscriminately rebut an opinion simply to follow his lead. And I prefer a more civil approach in all regards, but am in no position to require it. For those who like to encroach a line, I think it is counterproductive and ill-advised, But Off2riorob knows where that line exist, and has not crossed a threshold. It is a bit patronizing to issue warnings when conduct is in accord. IMO My76Strat (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand what 'meatpuppet' means as the term is used on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After a robust read, I would have to retract the most part of my comment. It seems that solicitation, and response to solicitation is a requisite. My76Strat (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure by what policies Off2riorob often justifies his actions in; or if he means to use the term "meatpuppet" to justify his silencing of criticism or edits he does not like. We are encouraged to go to others for help when faced with a problematic editor or a dispute -- yet this is the sort of thing he discourages. Perhaps Off2riorob sees posting on another established user's talk page for help as meatpuppetry, in which case his definition is very curious indeed. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fasttimes68 and anti-Adams blogging

I was doing some digging into this and found a blog from Fasttimes68 here where he describes Stephanie Adams as a twat. Ironically, in the ten or so minutes from me finding this and deciding to post about it, the blog entry has disappeared, though it does show up in a google searches. The blog was about a lawsuit Adams filed against a different blogger and is titled Stephanie Adams is a twat. Fasttimes68 also just left a note on User talk:Silver seren here linking to yet another extremely anti-Stephanie Adams blog. I don't think someone who is so obviously biased against a subject should be editing an article on her. AniMate 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite a policy stating someone with bias cant edit an article. Or try to create a new policy. This is yet another red herring. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How about WP:NPOV? Since you are clearly biased against the subject, going so far as to create a blog entry calling her a twat, you aren't neutral here. AniMate 15:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll see AniMate's WP:NPOV and raise it with WP:COI. Then I'll trump all of them with WP:CCPOL. I think they're all quite clear-cut. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Help yourself. I am in no way connected to the subject. Never met her, communicated with her.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore there is a difference between neutrallity on a subject vs. neutrality in terms of edits to an article. Edits should be neutral. I think the article reads very neutral at the moment. If you disagree, take it to the talk page.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that with our BLPs, we have to be extremely careful, and since you have expressed strong opinions against this subject elsewhere, why not let other people take care of the article? Wikipedia is a big place. You can find other subjects to work on that you don't consider to be twats. AniMate 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll mull over your diplomatically worded request :) In any case I'm perfectly happy to let others do the edits and stay on the side in discussion.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastimes68 has 200 edits over a few years here - half of them are focused on Stephanie Adams or discussion related to her. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Methinks I'm catching the scent of fish. The sockeye, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

DeSPIse him then? FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut it out you guys. Unless there is credible evidence that this is someone sock you shouldn't be making these vague implications. Off2riorob was just warned in the section right above this about calling editors meatpuppets without proof. The same goes for calling or implying with not particularly clever jokes that someone is a sock. AniMate 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting he might be a salmon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy barring individuals with strong opinions from editing articles, however we expect that editors holding such opinions – particular those who have clearly and publicly linked themselves to such opinions – to strive to edit in a manner that is utterly above reproach in its compliance with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's core content policies (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP). We also strongly encourage (though we generally do not compel, in the absence of other difficulties) those editors to make even more use of consensus-building techniques and discussion of changes in advance on article talk pages than they might otherwise consider absolutely necessary. WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are editing strategies that these editors should try to avoid.

Please also bear in mind that holding a strong opinion on a subject does not constitute a conflict of interest (within the general meaning of the term, or within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policy).

Finally, there's a difference between SPI (a sockpuppet investigation) and SPA (a single-purpose account). FuFoFuEd may be making an error in his use of acronyms, but should in any case be much more cautious in making accusations that he is unprepared to support. While I have not specifically evaluated Fasttimes68's editing history, I note that merely having a narrow focus for one's editing is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is only when that narrow focus extends to counterproductive conduct (especially advocacy of one sort of another) which interferes with Wikipedia's goals that SPAs are a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We can ask an editor who conducts off-wiki attacks against a living person to leave that person's WP BLP alone. User:Bill Huffman is an example. He runs an attack site on Derek Smart. ArbCom asked him (not ordered him) to leave the Smart article alone. He has since abandoned that account and started another one (which name is unknown to me), but, as far as I know, is holding to the agreement not to mess with the Smart article. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Fasttimes not to edit BLPs of people he disparages in his blog. How does it make WP look when it comes out that we allow people who bollock real people on the Internet to edit their BLPs? Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68. I've started a thread at WT:BLP to discuss whether it would make sense to add a paragraph to the BLP policy saying that individuals running attack sites or disparaging blogs on living people should not edit their biographies in Wikipedia. --JN466 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As a clarification, the issue was volunteering to not make any comments/suggestions on the talk page, not the article itself. I no longer edit the talk page (or anything related to the article). I have never "messed with the Smart article" itself, contrary to Cla68's apparent implication. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you made content suggestions on the Derek Smart article talk page, which other editors then implemented. So, yes, you did "mess" with the Smart article. That's one of the reasons why topic bans usually include article talk pages also, because article talk pages are where content decisions are often made. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's complete this story Cla68, you failed miserably in your attempt to argue to the arbcom that I tried to influence the Derek Smart article in any negative way. You were apparently so desperate to convince the arbcom that I needed some sanction, that you made up the blatant lie that I claimed on the website http://flamewarfollies.com that Mr. Smart had a PhD from Warren National University. Since I edited the WNU article you argued to arbcom that I should be banned from editting that article. [22] I think that this shows that when it comes to at least me, your opinion statements cannot be trusted. Bill Huffman (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fasttimes should be banned from editing the adams article, because he has some bizarre affectation about it. Trout rob for slight impertinence. The fact that someone is/was a lesbian, however, is not a blp "issue" until this is still the 19th century.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 5:21 am, Today (UTC+1)

Off2riorob's incivility

Off2riorob is a positive force in the community, and I commend Off2riorob for his diligence, but his comments to editors who he has disagreements with are generally very abrasive. I have never known Off2riorob to disagree politely or pleasantly or to make editing a happy affair. While I respect his contributions, his civility is sometimes lacking.

I first encountered this editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Pei Ling and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Seah, where he made such misinformed arguments about WP:NOTABILITY in response to comments that she fulfilled WP:GNG with such remarks as "Tin Pei Ling is not notable because she fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not been elected yet." Off2riorob made such remarks about a now quite prominent Singaporean politician: "This person is currently of minor note - is they win they will be notable, the WP:GNG is for desperate claims She is currently a not notable political candidate." The articles were later speedy kept because they passed WP:GNG with flying colours, and Off2riorob's novel argument was found to be faulty -- contrary to his belief, WP:GNG always supersedes everything else. I have come to the impression that many times, he vigourously opposes something not out of policy, but out of his personal distaste for a topic; which is fine -- he doesn't have to be such a dick while doing so, selectively removing talk page comments.

Off2riorob removed my comment from a talk page where I expressed a concern about the conduct of certain editors with a conflict of interest, especially because I was concerned that articles were being abusively managed by public relations managers or hired editors -- suspicions that continue to have rather strong basis in them. Off2riorob remains unapologetic.

Calling a user that has edited since 2007 a "meatpuppet" is only one of many gaffes that this user has made, who generally does not like to apologise or admit to mistakes. This is disconcerting in an editor. I am so glad that Off2riorob is so motivated to defend WP:BLP, but at the same time he neglects WP:COI -- and seems to reward or defend conflict of interest editing. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you that GNG supersedes everything--see WP:EVENT for a counterexample--but otherwise your analysis is spot on. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Myself, I'm wondering if this bio could survive a challenge at AfD. Neither playboy bunnies nor blog editors have fared well there... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Implementing the BLP policy provokes edit warring. Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, censorship was the concern back when it was implemented but people argued that it would be applied reasonably; the policy is now subject to policy creep. Like vandalism, should have a stricter definition of what constitutes a BLP violation; the rest can fall under "content dispute" or "discretionary tastes dispute". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, while we should avoid slander and libel on talk pages, I propose that the standard for discussion pages be set a little less strict than article space, so as not to unreasonably chill discussion. There is something wrong with the current implementation of BLP policy if it leads to users cautioning others against making valid and particularly astute observations. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GNG certainly does not trump everything, indeed it is regularly interpreted or ignored in light of making a good decision. You really are on a crusade against Rob aren't you? --Errant ^(chat!) 08:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I was one of, if not the first user to draw attention to User:La goutte de pluie's returning contributions and one of the first to suggest/request recall of his Administrator status .. and the subsequent removal of his advanced administrative privileges, I am not expecting any good luck messages from him. If the user wants to communicate to work things out in an attempt to move forward and leave any disputes behind I am open to that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with it. I hold no grudges against User:Strange Passerby (who was far more vocal than you ever were), but you are simply an incivil editor. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Incivility"? He certainly has an odd way with words, yes. Hours before he had made a series of edits to the article and written comments above that speculated about Will BeBack's dick, he'd sent email to me that said in part: I don't get why you have such a hard on to insist on focussing on such sexual trivia. Well, some people's rhetoric does make much reference to appendages and orifices; I don't much mind that. What I do mind is that, erections or erectile metaphor aside, this allegation of his was and is utterly wrong. It shows that he either didn't read or didn't understand the message that I'd sent him in reply to the one in which he started a short and ultimately unhappy correspondence. (Oh, conceivably he read it and understood it but disbelieved it; but if so then he failed to explain this.) His first message was amicable enough (if hard to understand in places), and I think that my reply was thoughtful and polite. But my effort turned out to have been a waste of my time. In this matter, as elsewhere, I got the impression that Off2riorob doesn't like to read, yet careful reading and thought and discussion are essential to the kind of work that he seems most keen to do. Incivility is less important than incompetence, and I see incompetence, however well intentioned. This is exacerbated by his reluctance to admit that he has goofed. I suggest that he takes a month's break from following up OTRS complaints and that he works on adding sourced, worthwhile (and of course non-titillating) content to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Heres my full email post to you - all of which you rejected quite strongly in your email reply to me, and then added to the BLP content that multiple users have objected to, your lesbian, lesbian, lesbian sentence. Also as I requested and you refused to support the removal of the BLP-LGBT categorization has also been removed after investigation and wider exposure.

• Hi (User:Hoary), just in private as there is a lot of heat about this bio and I want to keep out of it on wiki.Regarding the subject 1992 playboy interview "I am a lesbian" .. the subject seems to be retracting - can we not allow her to do that? And add something not specifically labeling her but a couple of comments about her support for LGBT issues? It is clearly quite normal for playboy models and such like to be portrayed as whatever sells the most, she clearly is not lesbian now as she's married. Are you open to resolving this in this way? We could remove the lesbian claim and add - In (whenever it was) Adams was a gay rights advocate and appeared on the cover of the Village Voice for Gay Pride Week, in addition to being a guest speaker at The Heritage of Pride NYC Rally for Gay Pride. also if we replace that can we also remove the BLPCat that asserts she is a LGBT African Americans - perhaps it seems likely she never was and it was pure promotion and sales - could you consider these solutions - nothing will be lost to the reader, she is only of limited notability anyways - Rob - Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  As I have already said, I didn't agree with all of the content this first message of yours, but I didn't think it was at all rude. Where I disagreed with it, I did so politely (I believe) and with explanations. If my explanations were inadequate, you didn't bother to ask for an elaboration -- you instead sent a second, less coherent message (within which you incidentally fantasized about my dick), and you then went straight into the article, first demanding information (most of which was already in the footnotes) and then deleting. Yes, yes, one interim version of mine indeed used the word "lesbian" three times in one line and a half; you have already said this, repeatedly, I have already said I regretted it; the recent edit history of the article (which I encourage anyone to examine) makes it clear that I reworded it promptly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a "when" request to the statement in the article that said Adams idnetifed herself as Lesbian - I think the fact that its in the citation is still not a correct position - to assert such without a date in the article text is extremely vague indeed, a simple date of when the subject did that is clearly beneficial to the readers understanding of the timeline, this is especially true in this case where the subject had later in a citation self identified as straight and basically retracted the historic self identification. You also objected to the removal request of the BLP LGBT categorization.(since removed) Your adding lesbian, lesbian, lesbian to a single sentence was imo a backlash to our discussion , something that should not have occured in a BLP. - Do you give permission for me to post your email replies? Also , I assure you, the expression, I don't know why you have a hard on for this content is in no way a fantasy about your dick, its just a quite common English idiom. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After User:Hoary responded to me strongly disagreeing with my request for compromise I sent this reply which includes the comment he posted above, as he has posted a snippet from a comment I think its important to see the snippet in context.

• (my full email reply to him that User:Hoary has posted a snippet from above) - I don't get why you have such a hard on to insist on focusing on such sexual trivia - there are no reports that she has ever had girlfriends of note - never lived with a long term woman - its just silly to insist on including this trivial likely falsehood - in 1992 Adams said she was a lesbian, there are no reports of any relationship but wiki has to keep it because it is important to you, but now she is married to a man with a child sorry but such insistence of demanding crap like this has got to be included is beyond me.

User:Hoary has been the major contributor to the Adams BLP since April 2005 and had imo become "involved" after a series of disputes with the subjects representatives, in a position of keeping the disputed content in the article because the subject objected to it and not wanting the subject to have any "control" over the content. His "backlash" addition of lesbian, lesbian, lesbian and his refusal to remove the LGBT BLPCAT after the subject had self identified as straight is as an example of that "involvement" - Combine User:Hoary's "involvement" and User:Fasttime68's off wikipedia attack blogging against the subject and my attempting to come to the defense of the subjects bio from a neutral uninvolved position... well I get accused of all sorts and I am well used to it with some of the reactions I get when I attempt such work. I am not perfect, but I do apologize when I make mistakes and am all the time evaluating, re assessing in relation to discussion and consensus and updating my positions in regards to policy interpretations. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Subjects should not have any control over the content of their article. That would be called a conflict of interest. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• He apologized. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, great. Lets consider this section closed then. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fasttimes68 topic ban proposal

It is proposed that, based on the discussion above, user Fasttimes68 be banned from editing the Stephanie Adams article, including the talk page. The article is currently undergoing its second AfD.

Support

• Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you are going to propose this ban, you should at the very least provide some germane supporting evidence and not just cite "see above" which is an unreleated topic. It's just lazy.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) A user with a website saying "so-and-so is a [obscene expression]" is unlikely to be able to edit fairly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Pure speculation on your part. Let the edits speak for themselves.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You've got a source saying "she announced she was no longer homosexual". You've got to be kidding. What did she do, take a "straight pill"? Or are you citing this stuff to try to make a fool of her? (or a tw*t, perhaps?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • If I ever learn of a straight pill being discovered, I'll post about it in your talk page. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • That would be interesting info. I was issued mine at conception. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Draco^E 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC) By all means, let the edits speak for themselves: user Fasttimes68 hasn't created a single new article since joining the project in 2007. He has a total of 223 live edits (plus 7 deleted ones), and the majority of them are concerned with Stephanie Adams. Time to get a life.
  • Nice ad hominem attack. Maybe you should read up on WP:NPA --Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you dispute the facts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• He's nowhere near as bad of a problem as the endless self-promotion in the archives of that page. He even supports the (marginally wp:notable, IMO) article deleted. He stated that his concerns were with promotion and COI, and if you look in the archives, they are amply justified. The attempt to put an exclusively positive spin on all the activities of that person by OTRS pressure should not be tolerated. Furthermore the demands on what is "positive" seems to vary depending on, shall we say, business circumstances. Now HJ Mitchell is probably going to censor half this post claiming BLP violation, but you get the idea. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• The actions of the editor are not anywhere near justifying a topic ban. It is not against policy to hold mistaken positions, so long as you do not edit tendentiously. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• This is somebody who's been blocked once, over two years ago, and has received a grand total of one warning since. Yes, the warning was for something stunningly asinine, but it was not obviously Adams-related, it was short and simple and perhaps merely a drunken aberration, and it happened months ago. Some aspects of this person's editing are worrisome, but there's nothing banworthy here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not even close to being justified. Absconded Northerner (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• This proposed ban has no grounding in policy or practice, and is a continuation of a content dispute by other means. Quigley (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Completely unnecessary, and I'm the person who found the blog. AniMate 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• No justification for this at all. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Other/threaded comments

I support this but it may become mute if deletion or redirect is supported. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant "moot". Cheers, elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Both work - if it gets deleted/redirected there may be mumbles about the principle/principal, but not so one will hear it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:GODDESSY / User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day

This is apparently a PR person or group working for Stephanie Adams. [23] They have consistently attempted to insert promotion in the article, have made legal threats [24] and trolling rants on the article's talk page. [25] They have socked for 5 years to evade indef blocks on numerous accounts, most recently in the AfD of that article. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of An-Apple-A-NY-Day. Mind you the want the article kept and WP:OWNED by them. It's time Wikipedia formally rebuked this attempt at subverting its core policies. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is not a pointless excessive by the way. List of Playboy Playmates of 1992, where the SA article is most likely going to be redirected given how the AfD looks, is not a mere list of names. It has paragraphs of text, thus we can expect the persistent problems to overflow to that article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. That this amount of conflict of interest can be tolerated is astonishing. If I had the tools I would have immediately enacted this block. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's worth noting we have banned users for "high conflict of interest" (amongst other things) before; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6#Please review ban, which led to Biochemical Mind (talk · contribs) getting banned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What would this accomplish? The sockmaster seems to create new SPA accounts or changes her ip address to get around editing concerns. For example, after a protection was issued a few weeks ago a couple of freshly created accounts started editing on the subjects talk page. One of the them User: OnlyGodTheFatherKnows just got blocked for being a suspected SP, and I wouldnt be surprised if User:SanMike7 starts chiming in soon.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP policy at Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn

User:Borgmcklorg made comments on the above talk page, labelling DSK an 'attacker', with 'a history of this kind of behaviour'. I redacted them and left a note on Borgmcklorg's talk page explaining why - however, he/she has reverted this [26]. Can someone please take appropriate action to see that Borgmcklorg conforms with WP:BLP policy - I don't think that this is simple edit-warring, given this [27] comment elsewhere on the talk page, labelling contributors as 'Strauss-Kahn's PR agents'. This is a high-profile article, and we need to maintain appropriate standards on the talk page too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A strange note here, yes, I used the word attacker once (in the last of four sentences), it seems quite undeniable in general. Likewise, Strauss-Kahn's team (described in some detail in several articles in major media) are exactly as I characterised them in the last comment (dirty lawyers, ex-government 'intelligence' people, etc.). AndyTheGrump might just lay off, it is hardly a major violation. Interesting that it is on this topic in particular. Furthermore, I object to the username (AndytheGrump) and have expressed that in the past. It is a threatening and aggressive username, and should have been blocked under Wikipedia username policies.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I find Borgs to be highly aggressive in their assimilation policies, and thus you should be blocked indefinitely. In other words, are you serious about your username concern? Can you provide one iota of proof that it violates the username policy, or are you simply attempting to discredit someone with whom you're in conflict? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes, what is threatening about admitting to be a grump? Did Borg have nightmares about one of Snow White's diminutive friends as a child? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said, both of you, but Grump by name Grump by nature seems to influence your approach. No offence intended.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you state that this is hardly a major violation - I presume that is an admission that it is a violation? so how about withdrawing it, rather than repeating it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, will not recognise that.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a major violation. Wikipedia's talk pages are not forums in which to discuss the subject, nor to air one's opinions of the subject. AndyTheGrump was right to remove your comments on grounds of avoiding harm to living persons, you were wrong to reinsert them, and that's basically it. If you think the article in question would be improved by including what reliable sources have suggested to be evidence for the prosecution then so be it, but you are obliged not to accompany any comments you make to that effect with personal opinion on the subject nor the outcome of the case as you see it. If you are unable to do so it would be better if you found a separate forum in which to air your views. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly which 'separate forum' do you have in mind? If you read newspapers, you will see that all of my comments are supported by reliable sources.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Borgmcklorg; I've hatted the section. Keep your opinions to yourself, please, when discussing an article. If all you are at the talk page to do is soapbox then please be aware it is not welcome, or productive. Perhaps this can be the end of it. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No it is not, it is not soapboxing and to say it is just a method of denigration. Other comments have been deleted here, too, all I was doing on the discussion page was reiterating points that have been in the major media (as was the NYT article about Strauss-Kahn's almost secret defense team consisting of lawyers, detectives and publicists). Was not expressing personal opinions.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands is just as much soapboxing (on behalf of S-K), and the current version of the Wikinews article (with a big loud link on the top page of Wikipedia) is even more so (disgraceful POV wording and inaccuracies). If you'd like a debate on that, I will gladly take it up point by point.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)=

NOTE: Borgmcklorg has just reinserted his/her policy-violating comments, combined with a personal attack on editors. [28] Evidently he/she has no intention of doing anything but causing trouble. Time for a block? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked for 31 hours, with a rationale of WP:DISRUPT in respect of violation WP:FORUM after having consensus found against them making their comments above. Should this short term block not deter them, I would suggest making the next one indefinite - for as long as they disregard consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins should be aware that AndytheGrump, ErantX and others (OfftorioRob, Wikiwatcher1) have for many weeks engaged in WP:Ownership and Tag-Team intimidation of others who edit this article (and DSK's bio). Virtually all of their edits tend to present a beneficent POV about of DSK and thereby cast doubt on the credibility of his (BLP) accusers (of which there are least six named in reliable sources, including Diallo, Tristane Banon, her mother, Piroska Nagy, the Mexican maid, etc). By this point, asking about the tag-team's bias (and possible motivations for it) is reasonable. This has been amply documented elsewhere. Among other WP:Crush ploys, the tag-team will insist on ever-increasing explanations for inclusion of any point written -- and then turn around and accuse new editors of 'coatracking' based on the very explanations that they demanded. It is clever-by-half, and does a disservice to WP readers. Benefac (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Long term vandal needs stopping

Today, I discovered that Tokusatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been, once again, vandalized by an individual I have classified as the Saban troll based on how he at one point replaced pages with screeds against Haim Saban (example here).

Due to a series of edit filters, he has not been able to replace whole pages with his screed (failed attempts here). However, he has been putting his attention to other articles, such as Meryl Streep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Charlie's Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the last two of which were protected (along with a series of other pages last week). Today I discovered that he made changes to Rhoda Montemayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an actress who portrayed Power Ranger, that made her Catalonian instead of Filipino, and removed any mention of her Power Rangers role from the page. Based on his editing patterns and the fact that all of his IP addresses are similar, I have narrowed down his IPs to the following ranges:

• 67.70.152.0/22 (67.70.152.0 - 67.70.155.255)
• 70.48.112.0/22 (70.48.112.0 - 70.48.115.255)

This individual cannot be reasoned with. There was once an abuse report put in that made him go away for a period of time, but Bell Canada just does not seem to give a shit and he keeps getting service from them. If the ISP will not stop him, then the only recourse we have is stopping him ourselves, once more.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny how ISPs don't seem to give a shit about what their PAYING customers get up to on wikipedia aint it? 2.121.29.24 (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as they get their money, I don't think the ISPs really care. –MuZemike 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It turns out 70.48.112.0/22 has been blocked for 3 months by Black Kite, but 67.70.152.0/22 has only been blocked for a week by Materialscientist. Seeing as this guy has been at it for years now, can we extend these blocks into mid 2012 to give us time to report his ass to Sympatico?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Has this been brought up at WP:ABUSE? If the user is active only on those IP ranges, and they both belong to the same ISP, it should be a relatively straightforward matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It was brought up at WP:ABUSE on the previous ranges he utilized (Wikipedia:Abuse reports/64.231.0.0/16). He was stopped for a while, but he has been back in action on these new ranges, several more of which can be seen in the edit filter's log.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question at this point is if the old blocked IP range is still active? If so I'd say a long block would be appropriate... and if that's not available then is there a way we can update abuse filter?
We need to have zero tolerance for this kind of long term vandalism, where it's quite clear it's no longer just "messing around". I hope this thread doesn't get ignored, because notwithstanding all the very exciting ANI drama, in a better world this is the kind of thing that ANI ought to be actually handling regularly, and individual page squabbles should be the rare exception. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

re User:Jm1106

I'd like to ask for input/advisement on one issue and help with a second one.

Was this a good block?

A brand-new user, User:Jm1106, began her editing career by inserting about 40 external links into towns in eastern Massachusetts. Town info from the local paper, here's an example.

In my opinion these are good links. Other users don't agree (there's an ongoing discussion here). But even if they're not OK, they're arguably OK. Arguments supporting the links may be wrong, but they're not nonsense or madness.

User:Jm1106 might be an agent of the Patriot Ledger or its parent, out to promote newspapers. I doubt it, but other people think she probably is. Maybe it's 50-50 odds. There's no way to know for sure. But even is she is, if the links are good (or even arguably good) that's not necessarily a deal-killer. (BTW the links were restored and are in the articles now.)

Regardless of either of this considerations, she got blocked for this.

Now, of course I understand that a brand-new editor inserting a bunch of external links raises a red flag. That's fine; it should. However, And we're busy; we have to work fast here. So it's understandable that the person was blocked. (I guess. I wouldn't have done it. But whatever). But in my opinion this was a false positive, and and bad block. And the person was blocked with no warning or engagement of any kind, with no real explanation (just the phrase "Spamming or advertising), and forever. Which makes it that much worse.

But a bunch of other people disagree: The blocking admin (User:SchuminWeb) sure does, and admin User:JamesBWatson I'd say. Non-admin User:Thparkth called it "a good block, properly executed", and User:Wikiklrsc agrees I gather.

To my mind, this is nuts. Aren't we supposed to be welcoming new users? But maybe I'm wrong. I've stated my case and other involved people have stated theirs, so I'm just asking for the collected wisdom of the solons who inhabit this board: was this a good block? (I'm not asking if it was an understandable mistake but if was actively a good thing? Is the kind of block we should be making, and encouraging our new admins to make? Is the lack of warning a regrettable oversight, or actively a good thing (e.g. warnings would have been a waste of time or would have been coddling the user or whatever)?

(By the way and FWIW, since my attempts to the user unblocked in a timely fashion failed (see below), the user came back, saw she was blocked, and objected to having her attempts to contribute met with a block and kissed us goodbye. This is exactly what I feared and expected if we didn't act with a little alacrity. It looks like we just pissed away a useful new contributor. Granted, she could be yanking our chain (but I have no reason to think that). And granted, there was no way to prove to she was legit before the fact. Still, does this new info make a difference? Is the "good block!" camp still in high-five mode? I'm just asking.)

Request for unblock

I requested the blocking editor to undo (or at least explain) this block, and didn't make much headway there. I then made an unblock request on the blocked user's talk page. This was rejected on the grounds that only the blocked user can use {{unblock}} on her page. (I maintain that whether or not this is technically true, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY overrides this for an otherwise-valid non-trolling request especially when we're trying to quickly avoid pissing a away a new contributor before she returns and see's she's blocked, but but OK, fine, whatever, I'm not here to fight about that.)

So since I can't use {{unblock}} on the user's talk page (I guess), I'm making my third-part request here: will someone please unblock this person?

A couple of points:

• This may be moot, since the user has stated "I guess that's all the Wikipedia contributions I'll be making". But you never know. An abject apology might help. It's a matter of principle also.
• The person declining to unblock didn't look into the merits of the case, but I see indications that he has since, and thinks the block was valid on its merits. That's very different. But the unblock-decline doesn't say that. I'm not sure if one is allowed to edit the unblock-decline reason days after the fact (I hope not), so my third-party unblock request here is valid, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just left a couple of notes on your talkpage Herostratus - you've handled this rather poorly, and your own actions probably actually helped lead to the editor leaving. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's possible. I did my best. I'm all ears as to what I have done differently. I was trying to get the user unblocked before she knew it. I think you may be way, was overestimating how likely good-faith brand-new users, upon being being blocked (without warning, engagement, or explanation), are likely to say "Oh, well, it's just the Wikipedia whack-a-mole game, I'll just use the template they provide and read through the material the point to and go through the litigation required and so forth, all in good spirit" and way way underestimating how likely they are to throw up their hands in horror, disgust, amazement, and trauma and just go away. Being blocked from a website is a very very traumatic experience for most people. Most people have never been arrested and so forth, and a lot of people have never been suspended from school (or even had detention!) or anything like that, or been called on the carpet for a serious chewing-out by their boss and so forth. Most people are very good about following the rules of whatever situation they are in and for the average person this is probably the worst punishment they have ever had, OK? This is quite possibly the first time someone has told them "You've broken the rules, and badly, and you're in serious trouble here", at least as an adult. I know for a Wikipedia insider it's all part of "Under the spreading chestnut tree/I blocked you and you blocked me", but can you not understand that most people don't live in that world? Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"The person declining to unblock didn't look into the merits of the case" is not correct. I did look into the merits of the case. Since the user had not requested an unblock I procedurraly declined the unblock request placed by a third party. I did not say "and I have not looked further into the case, so I don't know whether I would have accepted an unblock request if the blocked user had made one", which for some reason Herostratus evidently thinks was implied. I simply didn't mention what I would have done if the user had requested an unblock, because the question didn't arise. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, but was going by your unblock reason ("If the user wants to be unblocked then they can say so, and their request can be considered. So far that has not happened" and your first response when I asked to you reconsider: "'Pettifoggery'? 'Bureaucracy'? Why unblock an editor who has not requested an unblock? If the user wants to be unblocked then they can say so, and their request can be considered. This certainly looks like you didn't look into the merits of the case or, if you did, considered them moot. If you looked into the merits of the case, well for goodness' sake why didn't you say so? I can't know what's in your mind, and if you had declined the block on the merits that'd have been different and we probably wouldn't be here -- I'm not inclined to try to overturn a block and an on-the-merits unblock-decline, if there's even a mechanism to do so (I might have brought it up as something to review in general, as part of the first section of this thread). Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There's something oddly familiar about that red-link user's ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you've got anything more, Bugs, then spit it out; I'm going to unblock the user in a few minutes if all you have a vague sense of unease. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Unblocked. As I've noted elsewhere regarding other similar situations, this is not so much a bad rogue block, as it is a symptom of a systematically poor approach we have to new editors breaking the rules. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked? Despite the fact that several other admins and some other editors have indicated that they think the block was appropriate? I don't see consensus for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I might be misreading policy, but a reversion can be done without consensus. He is simply responding to a good faith request from a third party. Personally, I think the block is understandable, but also WP:ROPE should be considered...--Cerejota (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:BITE too...--Cerejota (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither claiming consensus for or against. An unblock was the right thing to do, so I did it. Normally I'd check with the blocking admin, but since he made it clear he wasn't going to discuss it, I went ahead and unblocked. If this was a good block according to policy, then the policy is bogus and needs to be changed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As a note, "Answerbook" is not a "local paper" - it's a link to enterprisenews.com/<TownName>, which publishes the AnswerBook. That could very easily be considered advertising. From the paper's about: "The Enterprise is an afternoon daily newspaper published in Brockton, Mass. It is considered a newspaper of record for Brockton and nearby towns in northern Bristol and Plymouth counties, and southern Norfolk County."

So the question becomes why this paper is somehow more trustworthy than other papers, and the simple answer is that it is not. In my community, there are two papers, the major paper and a local weekly nobody reads. I think that this paper is the latter, and its competitor is the major: "The Patriot Ledger has been the South Shore's newspaper since 1837."

Therefore, there is no reason to be linking to it repeatedly for every town it covers (and the editor missed quite a few). There is likely a COI behind this, seeing as how this just came out both on enterprisenews.com and patriotledger.com (the competitor, owned by the same company) not one day ago. This is the very definition of linkspamming. I would imagine that the user won't make any more contributions, as the user has no more to make, having finished spamming the articles in question. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, a Captain Obvious! statement that not everyone would notice - the user went in alphabetical order through the towns, and by county as well, if I don't miss my guess. They were clearly using a list. This was not good-faith editing by any means, and while perhaps it could have been handled differently, I think the block itself was good. MSJapan (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the block wasn't good. The block notice was the first post to their talk page. We are supposed to discuss/educate/warn new editors first. You could very well be right about their motivations, but you could also be wrong. We shouldn't block if there is any possibility of it being a misguided but good faith editor. In fact, even if it was certain that this was someone affiliated with the website, a block would not have been appropriate until we explained that that isn't what we do here. If the link adding continued after a talk page warning, then a block might be in order. But "good block" doesn't mean "they were probably spamming, so let's block just to be safe". "Good block" means "we tried explaining and it didn't work, now we now they're spamming and unwilling to abide by our policies". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, methodology could have been different, but the end result was likely correct. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it[s a very reasonable procedure for someone to find a source, and use it where it applies. It's a much more effective way of sourcing articles than taking an individual random article and finding a source, then taking another unconnected article, etc. Doing things alphabetically is also a good idea. To the extent we have information on local things, we need to use local sources. I don't necessarily support using them for notability in some topic fields (such as high school sports), but when we're dealing with an article on a town they're usually the best sources. We need to assume some degree of good intent from new users; even if their initial purpose or actions are not what we ideally would want, most of them can learn. Indefinite blocks of users should really be deprecated except for vandalism or repeated copyvio. Adding external links is not in that sort of category. I totally agree with Floquenbeam, but I';m saying it again to make plain how important I think this is. Without new editors, Wikipedia will first stagnate and then die, for none of the present editors will be around forever. The rule that a blocked ed. has to ask themselves is pure BURO. It is very good practice to remove things that would unfairly discourage a new editor. Remove, and apologize also. The statement that an admin considered the "merits" when they admit they just considered the formalities seems confused. The merits are whether the original work was block-worthy. It wasn't. But it's the sort of thing that's blocked here all too often. It's a disgrace, and anyone who has tried to work with new editors is surely aware of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't think AGF applies, and I don't think this was a new editor. I noticed the previous edit (before rv) to Abington, Massachusetts was by User:Patriotledger who added the exact same EL Jm1106 did. I think that was what Bugs was referring to earlier by "familiar". Alexf blocked PL for spam (and I'd say an obvious COI, as the Patriot Ledger is the other paper, and the publisher of the link). Therefore, "I have no beak and I must quack"; I would say it was the same user coming back from a different IP. Why else would two "new editors" start with the same edit on the same article two days apart and get the wl correct on the first shot? RFCU, perhaps? Again, it might have been handled differently, but there may have also been some good intuition. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If this was believed to be a sock returning in defiance of a ban, either that should be the reason for the block or the user page should be tagged appropriately to note that it is a sock. In that case, there was poor communication here. If this is a new contributor, it's appalling to block without advising them of the problem with their behavior and allowing them to stop. In that case, there was poor communication here. Either way, communication was poor. (And as a matter of principle, I agree with User:DGG. We can't lose sight of how important it is to bring in new contributors.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:MSJapan has made a very key finding and point here in the User:Patriotledger and User:Jm1106 saga. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with IP: 122.176.58.109

I'm having a problem with an IP: 122.176.58.109. He removed reliably sourced human rights content from Laos, here [29] with the edit summary "Go to USA's page and include guantanamo bay in its politics section before doing it here, pusillanimous assholes". He blanked the entire section. I reverted with a level 2 warning to him [30]. He's reverted back, and is now on my talk page [31] and appears to have been delving around my history. His talk page is a long series of similar warnings from other editors. I'm here to see what we can do to stop this? Mattun0211 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IP has a history of disruption, though he has only reverted once, and only seems to have brought up one issue with you on your talk page which I could say is not a particularly in depth "delve" into your history. I would move to give the IP a direct final warning that another foot out of line is going to result in a block, giving his edit summary alone is unacceptable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP does need some non-block related intervention in his editing styles, I don't think he has heard of terms like "neutral" or "POV" [32]. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I've issued a final warning.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Thisthat2011 back again

I gave it a few hours of sleep and thought but this has to be nipped at the bud:

Fresh out of a three week India topic ban, it seems User:Thisthat2011 insist in contentiousness and combativeness on India related topics, in this case Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks (and in my talk page). The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban. He feels I was personally attacking him, and that I was uncivil. I don't have a specific proposal in mind, but it is clear to me the topic ban had zero effect on Thisthat2011's behavior, there is no inkling of repentance, remorse, self-reflection or any indication of progress towards a more positive editing behavior. I think a topic ban of greater length, or some other measure that allows him to reconsider and protects editors (like me) with having to deal with potentially disruptive situations. --Cerejota (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say this user is presenting the whole thing in extreme bad faith right from the beginning. I don't know how suddenly he started this whole thing in the first place.

"The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban." Again incorrect. Once the vote is over, I have nothing more to say about that or vote in my absence, other than that the user has an extremely assuming mind. So let me present my side here:

There was a vote on the mentioned page about change in title. The first vote was for including the word 'terrorist' in the title, the second was against it.

In between the gentleman connected other events and put forth an extremely biased question, indicating somehow connection of saffron terror and how I would like it if the word terrorist is added in saffron terror article - this when I could not reply due to a ban. This is an extremely sly behavior according to me. Once the discussion is archived, this mischief stays in archive and no amount of apology could change it.

Not only that was not enough, the user still says that "However, I support neutral titles for both 2006 Malegaon bombings and 2008 Mumbai bombings, but you wanted this article renamed to a non-neutral version." - Now what is that supposed to mean other than anything personal? Does it mean that the user is touchy even to others giving opinion during the vote? Did he really think that connecting random issues will affect votes either way? Even now, he continues how "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." This is baffling to say the least.

So where have I commented after change in title once the second vote was done? Nowhere, notwithstanding of "the solid overturning of an article rename" nomenclature.

Hopefully, some admin would like to point out to the user, as mentioned earlier, that it is better to avoid assuming things about others particularly as a vote is going on, as also in absence of others; that is why I put a message on his page- if he understands this part( which is unclear), its purpose is served notwithstanding comments from User:Sitush against it to block the message going through.

The only thing I still don't understand is his apparent aversion to understand on how unfair his views are still and perhaps his belief that somehow my views expressed during the vote could have tilted the decision in the other way but for mention of saffron terror, and how editors on wikipedia are somehow feel about saffron terror.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 12:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this debate had to be restarted in the first place. TT2011, if it is your intention to impress upon Cerejota's views, or to end the debate with you getting some "higher ground", no, this is not the place. I wish Cerejota had worded his comments more lightly, but such a strong personal attack by TT2011 was totally uncalled for. Lynch7 13:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:IDIDNOTGETMYWAY seems to be TT2011's main issue. I'm deeply concerned that TT2011 does not have ability to work within a collaborative environment, and statements like the above link only go to prove it. There is no excuse for that behaviour, ever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Which also reminds me how the user got away, with all the people watching, for his arbitrary questions and later personal attack, and is served actually "wish"y-washy statements.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 13:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, sometimes editors have to come to good sense and drop the stick. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to settle personal scores. Lynch7 13:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I had also hoped that TT would use his 3-week topic ban to go refine his editing chops on articles about ornithology, or Chilean naval history, or any other topic that strikes his fancy outside of India, where he could edit with less emotion. Instead, he did zero editing other than talk about his topic ban,[33] and post twice at Christian terrorism; incidentally, regarding Hinduism which he had been specifically told was within his topic ban. And the very day his topic ban ended dove back into highly contentious India topics with a personal attack. So far as showing no remorse, one of his next acts was to confront an admin with smugness claiming that people had seen the light in his absence[34], although it's clear from the link he provides that the Talk discussion does not reinforce his point at all. He continues to miss the point, claim some nebulous moral high ground, and express both hostility and self-righteousness. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I do feel I had an incredible measure of restraint in this situation. Any in-artful wording is simply a result of a lack of coffee. However, I would gladly hear from Lynch - and others so inclined - about ways on how to handle situations like these better on the future (I would prefer this we done in my talk page if s/he is comfortable, to keep this thread focused). On this actual case I have little to add, except asking an uninvolved admin to {{archive}} close the thread at Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks, and of course, to stress the need for action in this case. --Cerejota (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How can anyone talk about Hinduism at Christian terrorism? Please be specific. This Christian/Hindu terrorism contentions are not something to be considered lightly. Or are you jut talking? Christian terrorism was not within topic ban, which you are spinning as within.

"dove back into highly contentious India topics with a personal attack" - I disagree, and also would like to know, why he was silent on personal attack on me.

There is no moral high ground expected by me out of this by the way. Let me also know what you editors have in mind.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Salvio made it pretty clear when he said what he said here (I haven't seen the edits in contention, but an edit regarding Hinduism anywhere would most likely be covered in the ban). Lynch7 14:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I literally just posted your edit history above; do you not recall typing the following during your topic ban:

“ ...though I would like to point out tolerance of people could be understood in a part considering that Hinduism is not even recognized as a religion on many European and Islamic countries. Perhaps a guy like Daniel Brannan, Chairman of the Kootenai County Constitution Party, could be exemplary in a USA town for his views(like 'the bestial thing'), regardless of its affects on image of Hinduism. ”

- Revisión de 19:17, 14 Agostu 2011 [35]

You disagree on my characterization of your diving back into controversial India topics right after your ban expired? Did you not dive into 2008 Mumbai attacks that day? Is that not a "controversial" article? Did you not use the phrase "Please keep your filth in your mind before vomiting it out. It stinks."[36]?

This is exactly the sort of coy "Huh? What? What'd I do?" that makes TT so aggravating to deal with. He is terribly fond of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and as denies misbehaviour even when it is blatant and linked/quoted right in front of him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly (now if you'll notice, the debate has already digressed from the Personal attacks thingy, the main point of this whole thread). Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a high-level of tolerance for dickish behavior, in fact, can sometimes be a dick myself (even I try not to), but playing deaf and being unrepentantly dickish makes it difficult to assume good faith, and hence creates a poor editing environment.--Cerejota (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@MV this is not about Hinduism, it is about how some Christians here look down on Hinduism. Without context of Christian terrorism, this looks hollow. Also, I am still not sure when exactly my ban expired, on 22nd/23rd etc and whether I dived on exactly the same day as if it matter. And yes it does stink that the editor has some presumptions while vote is going on and after.

Whatever may be the case, if its in violation of a ban, its a violation of a ban. Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@User:Cerejota, are you beyond the attitude of "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." yet? This is important.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing necessarily wrong in that comment by Cerejota is there. TT2011 may disagree with the comment if he wishes to do so, but I don't think it amounts to a personal attack, as claimed by TT2011. Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TT, pointing out some minor harshness (maybe incivility, definitely not PA, and specifically related to your editing vice you personally) on the part of Cerejota is not going to suddenly pull out a WP:BOOMERANG which will get you out of this and nail Cerejota instead. You were given a topic ban in hopes you would do something constructive and calm down. You did not do any useful editing whasoever during your ban. Instead, you briefly came back in in violation of your ban to post about one American's view of Hinduism (feel free to wikilawyer "Hinduism isn't necessarily Indian, not in my topic ban!!!"). On top of that, your Talk:Christian terrorism post was a horribly clumsy leading question in which you implied that one person's blog is somehow indicative of a widespread anti-Hindu bias, and made vague allegations of Hinduism "not being a religion" in parts of Europe (sounds against EU policies, source?). So fundamentally your act during your ban was to get back into an India-topic, get onto yet another highly controversial article, and then try to stir up trouble with a leading question apropos of little.

Christian terrorism was not in my topic ban is all I can say. That was what discussed there. It is about how some Christian demean Hinduism. I don't know what more to say.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It matters not whether you came to 2008 Mumbai attacks one minute, one day, or three days after your ban ended; that's yet more silly wikilawyering. The point is that rather than be a calm and productive editor following your re-entry, you promptly dove into a highly controversial Talk page, and used very inappropriate language towards Cerejota. And through all this, rather than say, "okay, 'vomit' was a little harsh" you've desparately tried a "he started it" while pointedly ignoring every mention of your own misbehaviour.

Frankly, unless Cerejota clarifies where his stand is, which to me looks like the same as "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." he stated earlier, this all makes little sense. As it is his statement that "The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban." is baffling. He still doesn't get what I am saying which is strange, and no one pointed that out to him, is still stranger.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this layout of your misbehaviour as well, as that seems to be your modus. Hopefully it's illustrative to the neutral editors judging this discussion. You are showing little to no interest in Wikipedia other than engaging in fisticuffs on highly controversial India-related topics, and that severely limits any utility you may have to the project. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure natural editors judging this discussion will see that my intention is not about 'changing title of the page', the vote for which is already over. The rest is, according to me, about the user throwing random statements during the vote, and assumptions later. About my inappropriate language, yes it stinks when he slyly asked loaded questions especially that I could not clarify, which he refuses to see as inappropriate and then goes onto personal attacks. That he has avoided to even admit that he did that just because I expressed my views during a vote is even more puzzling. I hope the user gets message and avoids such behavior in future during a vote.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, these replies simply demonstrate why thisthat2011 is such a disruptive and unconstructive presence. The post on Christian terrorism was nothing to do with the topic. Thisthat2011's defence is that "Christian terrorism was not in my topic ban is all I can say. That was what discussed there. It is about how some Christian demean Hinduism." But the post had nothing whatever to do with terrorism. It said that some unspecified European and Islamic countries do not recognise Hinduism as a religion and referred to some utterly obscure American guy who objects to a public statue of Ganesa. Neither of these are "terrorism" by any definition. No evidence what ever was even provided that any European countries do not recognise Hinduism as a religion (what does that even mean? 'Recognise' in what context? Which countries?). The whole post was little more than trolling. Thisthat2011's professions of innocence here and unrelenting argumentativeness merely demonstrate how disingenous he is. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you want to hear exactly? Proof that Hinduism is not recognized as a religion in many European countries? Here is | one, that says "Not many Hindus know it, but Hinduism — the oldest living spiritual tradition in the world going back about 8,000 years — is still listed as a “cult” in all European countries. Their governments refuse to accept it as a legitimate religion. They actively prevent establishment of any Hindu temple in their territories.", etc. etc. - just so that people could get an idea of what could a possibility be. It was an off-track discussion, nothing mainstream. About the 'obscure guy', though there is no proof of any claim to the contrary of whether how many % of American population is tolerant like Indians etc. But I will give you benefit of doubt because this is not the point of discussion here.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just tired of it all. There were at least two offers of guidance in the last ANI report (linked to above by Cerejota), there was some patient explaining by Salvio giuliano (the topic-ban enforcement admin) and there were clear statements that using the three week period to look into other areas of WP activity might be beneficial. It seems that all of this has been ignored, as indeed is the tendency of Thisthat2011 with regard to anything that they do not like. Instead, we have pretty much had a three week hiatus from activity, followed by insults, the start of more tendentiousness, WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, WP:ITISALWAYSTHEFAULTOFANOTHERPERSON, spraying a disaffection across umpteen talk pages etc, all within hours of returning. I am fairly sure that any time now TT2011 is going to start popping up again at articles in which I am involved and I will once again be spending far more time having to deal with the fall-out rather than actually progressing anything that really needs to be done. Mainly because TT2011 clearly has a narrow range of interests & so our paths must soon cross even if only accidentally. So, yes, I am indeed tired of it all.

BTW, TT, don't you think that the blog you link to above is unlikely to satisfy WP:RS? - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Not many Hindus know it, but Hinduism — the oldest living spiritual tradition in the world going back about 8,000 years — is still listed as a “cult” in all European countries." What an utter, utter, load of rubbish. Some nitwit's blog does not constitute evidence of any kind. The statement is not even meaningful. As for the use of the word "cult", there are are of course cults of various gods in Hinduism just as there are cults of various saints in Catholicism, which may be what is leading to the confusion here about the use of the word in this context - wherever this blogger is getting his "information" from. But this is clearly not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. If you read the assertions of the "obscure guy" you will see that he is complaining about the fact that mainstream public view is the opposite of his own. Paul B (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to take this off topic, but I really doubt any such thing. I've known people who've been to Hindu temples in various European countries. Lynch7 05:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there is very clearly nothing else that can be said or done that has not been said or done before anytime. Beyond any issues discussed here, elsewhere and before, the consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT shown here and elsewhere is proven to be seriously disruptive. I am raising a proposal for community sanctions/ban.--Cerejota (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for community sanctions

In the background of a community consensus that User:Thisthat2011 is failing to accept good faith suggestions on how he can become a productive wikipedia editor, and the disruption of the editing enjoyment of the community these :

1. The user be blocked indefinitely until he acknowledges the validity of the community's concern with the disruptive nature of his behavior. Once this acknowledgement is made, any uninvolved admin can change the block to a 24 hour block to allow the user to cooldown if less than 24 hours from the initial block have passed.
2. On the last block expires, the user be topic banned from all Indian, Religion, and Hinduism topics, broadly construed and interpreted, including but not limited to mentions of India or Hinduism in any article even if outside the topic area of India, Religion and Hinduism for a period of 6 months.
3. During this period, a volunteer editor or admin in good standing, with significant experience as an editor and in DR, to mentor and help the user work towards a better editing style, and a more collegial editing behavior. At this mentor's recommendation, and in consultation with the community, the topic ban period can be reduced or extended as seen fit.
4. Any violation of these sanctions can result on any uninvolved admin indef blocking the user.

#The user is reminded that editing in Wikipedia is optional, and he can WP:VANISH if he so wishes, upon request.

Discussion

• Support as proposer--Cerejota (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - TT2011 in an intelligent person, and clearly has some sort of interest in WP. I would be very interested to see that TT can do on topics where he doesn't have massive personal, emotional investment. I would submit that if he either a) goes out and finds some random fight like Serbs vs. Croats or what country should own Nagorno-Karabakh b) disappears until the ban is up and then dives back into Hindutva topics with Personal Attacks, we'd at least know where he stands on constructive editing. Hopefully instead he'll c) find a topic he enjoys that's not full of contention and ill-will, and produces some great articles about, say, Caribbean cuisine or Cajun folklore or what have you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Several parts of the proposal bother me. Point 1 is both unnecessarily punitive (seeking to extract, by force, a "confession", which, even if you get it, will be hollow anyway) and unnecessary (because if the problem is entirely covered by the topic ban in 2, there's no reason to ban TT from other articles). Also, the latter part of the sentence about the 24 hours cool-down is a definite no-go, given that blocking policy in WP:COOLDOWN specifically tells us not to use blocks for that purpose. On point 3, there's no reason for the mentor to be an admin--many of our best mentors are not. Finally, point 5 is just spiteful--you don't need to explicitly say "We're putting a bunch of restrictions on you--and if you don't like it, you can just go home!" As for the real issue--the 6 month topic ban on Indian articles, I currently withhold judgment, as I feel I need to actually get some context from the article talk in question before providing a fair analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Points well taken. Striking out 5, changing mentoring to "editor or admin", however I am not sure of the block and "confession":

Perhaps I am not explaining myself correctly, but this is my point: There is massive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on - to a person everyone who has seen this case agrees. By definition repeated IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruption. I am not proposing that he admits any "wrongdoing" or "confess" any crime - just that he be indef blocked UNTIL he stops not hearing what he is being told, and acknowledges he is being told this by the community - that is, stops disruptive behavior. And that this block be of a minimum of 24 hours - so if he acknowleges the concerns before 24 hours in the indef, a block is placed that ensures 24 hours of blocking. It is not a "cool down" block, it is a block to prevent disruption by a WP:GAME acknowledgement. If this doesn't address your concerns, what proposal you have? I think that a block, rather than just a ban, is in order because of the disruptive nature of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but have no problem with a shorter block, its just that I believe (incorrectly?) that a shorter block is usually reserved for "in the heat of the moment" cases, not this kind of community sanctions.--Cerejota (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the topic ban, the reason for it being so long is that he just came back from a three week ban, unrepentant, raising issues that happened during the ban (ie holding grudges), and the original proposal when that topic ban happened was for three months and lowered in discussion for three weeks - which have proven clearly insufficient.--Cerejota (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On the 24 hours part, it's just unnecessary. Assume this proposal is approved--that process will take at least a few days. Why does there have to be a minimum 24 hour block starting from the point of the sanctions passing? It sure looks like you're trying to get in a punitive "you must realize that this is serious so no less than 24 hours block". As for the more general block, the problem is that it doesn't prevent anything, which any block must do. Since the proposal requires that xe work with a mentor, that mentor will be able to find out through the process whether or not TT "hears" the community.

And now that I think about it, I think that the mentoring + banning won't work. It's pretty clear that TT specifically has concerns about India, Hinduism, and related topics. I don't think TT is just here to pick fights; at worst, xe's here to represent a specific POV (though I'm not saying that with conviction--it's just as far as I'm willing to go), and xyr commitment to that POV prevents xyr from editing civilly and neutrally on the topic. I don't see how the mentor can actually determine if the real problem is improving if the mentor can't work on the main problem. I would recommend modifying the topic ban to say, "Thisthat2011 is topic banned from all editing related to India and Hinduism in all namespaces except for conversations directly with xyr mentor in xyr or the mentor's user talk space." That way, TT can say something like "I have a problem with Article X" and the mentor can say, "Okay, how would you handle that problem" and they can dialogue about how to do so (and, if appropriate, the mentor can proxy TT's comments to the article talk page). Note, of course, that all of this is contingent on find a mentor willing to work with TT. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I can second that, the idea is to take some action that leads to hopefully positive outcome. I don't have a problem (in fact, find it enjoyable) working with users passionate about a topic as long as they are collegial.--Cerejota (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support. I really don't like it whenever a person has to be topic banned, but in this case, I think its necessary for TT to realize why we are here for. I agree when Qwryxian says: " I don't think TT is just here to pick fights; at worst, xe's here to represent a specific POV". I support Qwryxian's proposal. Lynch7 05:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I gave up trying to reason with him long back in the India talk page. He just keeps repeating his side and forumshops everywhere trying to wear down the editors trying to working work with him. Any mentoring would be futile and a massive waste of time for the mentor involved--Sodabottle (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Before I read this proposal my thoughts were that a topic ban would be appropriate and should include religion as well as Indian or Hinduism related topics, and this one does. A shame but it looks necesssary. Please don't drop the 'religion' part.I'm happy about the rest of the modification proposed by Qwyrxian. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support As per Dougweller, the religion part is significant because it is so inextricably linked to the apparent POV issue and cuts across many boundaries (caste, Christianity, Buddhism, history, politics etc). Finding a mentor might be an issue but I support Qwyrxian's proposal, modified to encompass religion generally rather than Hinduism specifically. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm afraid this comes too soon after the end of his topic ban. The topic ban expired on August 24; this thread was opened on August 25. I just went through all of user:Thisthat2011's edits after his return. While they aren't always the most agreeable in tone, they could easily be seen as the edits of someone who has been champing at the bit for three weeks and needs to blow off a little steam. I feel that user:Thisthat2011 should be given at least a week (of unencumbered editing time) and a few warnings, before any further action. Trips to ANI, so soon after the end of his ban, will only put him on the defensive and bring out the worst. As someone who has been on the receiving end of many of user:Thisthat2011's tiresome conversations, I am frankly a little surprised that so many people have turned up here so quickly to offer their unmeditated support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. IMO, Sitush, Qwyrxian, MatthewVanitas are well known for blackballing and then obtaining blocks on anyone who has tried to edit caste related articles. I see them as having done this to a number of users. The present case is also a perfect example. I see no value in what they say about others. They just want to insert S***** S***** S***** S***** in as many articles as possible. They do it by using OR/misrepresentations/synthesis/rubbish sources, etc. and do not want anyone to oppose them. During the previous topic ban proposal, I had tried to ameliorate the situation by suggesting that whether or not a topic ban be applied, an effort be made to explain to ThisThat2011 what the problem is. I had offered to do so myself. The result was that I came under attack from this trio. I had said during that discussion that if things are not explained, the situation is sure to repeat itself. I have tried to explain an issue to ThisThat2011 in the past(it was some other issue), and that issue has not cropped up again. I do not see any value in any topic bans/blocks etc. unless an effort be made to explain what the problem is. My impression is that ThisThat2011 still has no idea about what the problem is, or how it can be solved. I think that the issue can be easily resolved simply by explaining the problem and the solution. Without an explanation, bans etc. are useless.-MangoWong ^ℳ 13:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the "S*****" used by MangoWong above refers to the word "Shudra", which their POV prevents them from typing in full. I guess that says it all. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Page needs protecting

User:Tuhinchat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been reported because he just did 4 reverts within a 24-hour period on Manish Tewari. I reinforced the message at AIV, and I'm about to protect the page. See you at RFPP. StormContent (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours, that should take care of the issue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Author needed

Resolved

I am looking for a person to author an article. I’ve vetted and collected the WP:RSs. It’s actually two articles, Keith Raniere and NXIVM, but maybe they should be merged because it’s hard to tease the two apart. Everything needed is on the discussion page of the article Keith Raniere. I will help any way I can, but I don’t want to write it myself.

Do you have any advice as to how to find a person to write an article? The research is already done. The person should ideally be a good Wikipedian who has never heard of either Keith Raniere or NXIVM. It would be best if s/he doesn't care at all about him and it, just use the sources to present the facts.

This might be very important. Chrisrus (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:REQUEST. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention. However, this WP:REQUEST seems to be about articles that don't already exist. The articles that need to be written are Keith Raniere and NXIVM, although I think they should be merged. The problem is clear when you compare the articles to the sources that I've put on the discussion pages of Keith Raniere, but any WP:RS about it is also about him. We need someone to familiarize themself with the sources that we have there, and any other appropriate ones, and write the article(s) based on what's in those sources, only. Basically, what's needed is not to have new articles written, but rather existing articles written right.

Having said all that, I was able to provoke a recent spate of improvement at the article. Chrisrus (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. Perhaps WP:MAINT is what you're looking for. In any case, the help desk is a better venue for this sort of question - ANI is for incidents requiring the attention of administrators. Hope this helps. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable editing?

Could I ask for another set of eyes, or perhaps several other sets of eyes, on the activity of Squeekybird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? That account has made only two contributions, but I'd call both of them questionable...one was to create an attack page (now CSD'd as such), the other was to create a redirect for "Senior Staff Group" that goes to Knights Templar. I've already queried the user regarding the latter, but there's a little inner alarm bell going off that moves me to request a bit more scrutiny here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

575broadway - possible spam or COI

Most (maybe all) of this users contribs insert a reference to Interview Magazine or the magazine Art in America. Both magazines are owned by Brant Publications, whose address is at 575 Broadway according to this. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you meant 575broadway (talk · contribs) ? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Socks galore. Favonian (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) This is a user with a serious problem. He always vandalise whatever he wants for example he removed a whole sentence from the article syrtos cause he doesnt like it. vandalism. He does whatever he wants and bans innocent users and ips without been checked just that dont like him [37].Something must be stop that uncontrollable situation,users collaborate each other not with this authoritarian way.--Lakaster (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Since the original reporter did not provide the required notification, I have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC) When a user is obviously a sockpuppet of a previously banned account, then their edits are reverted. That's completely normal. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Methinks I hear the unmistakable whup-whup-whup-whup of a WP:BOOMERANG in flight... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 1st edit - de-redlink userpage. 2nd edit - de-redlink user talk. 3rd edit - report admin for vandalism at ANI. 4th edit - unblock request saying "how dare you block me? I'm not a sock!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The users trying the best for the articles, are not vandalists look for example: this user is not a sockpuppets of BouzoukiGr User:Merovigla. He put an RS about zeibekiko and he immediately blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. What is the line that make someone sockpuppetry, only the mind of this user without a check by check-users? Someone that vandalise the articles must be blocked I agree but if they are not vandalists, just the reliable sources disturbing the ideology of this user. Wiki doesnt encourages that authoritarian incidents, even causing sockpuppetry. In my opinion, this user isnt being in the wiki for contribution, but for suppliing his not neutral isupplies by erasing whatever he doesnt like, especially Greek. example restored by user User:Kwamikagami snubing him restore of part.vandalism --94.69.230.181 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Absconded Northerner

Resolved

 – Everything's sorted now. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A dispute emerged between this user and me in the last 24 hours over a matter on Talk:Andrea Petkovic. My concern is that this user has now began to revert my edits on another article, Bernard Tomic. Observing historical accuracy, I amended text to replace "his parents left Croatia" to state that it was Yugoslavia. User:Jenks24 reverted but I restored my edit and wrote to that user. In the meantime, User:Absconded Northerner has twice resored the original. My irritation is down to two things: 1) I compromised when I made an amendment to my original piece here, 2) it was ignored by Absconded Northerner who took the liberty of reverting my modified version back to the original and all based on the original scanty evidence that "Croatia not Yugoslavia is what is on the source". Sources do often get things wrong or innacurate, even the reliable ones. It was at this point I used rollback and at that time I felt I did so accordingly, perhaps to have used it with Jenks24 was wrong and for that I apologise - he has modified my version and I am happy with that. Concerning Absconded Northerner, can I suggest disciplinary action from an admin as not only did he cancel my contributions citing negligible evidence - the only proof for my claim would have been statement of Croatia's independence in June 1991 coupled with the same source stating October 1992 had been "years" since the parents left the place! I stated this in my summary but this did not stop Absconded Northerner providing me with two template warnings in breach of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars which he by his own admission knew to be the policy as confessed here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One minor point to be made: WP:DTTR is not a Wikipedia policy. It's an essay, outlining a suggested best practice. Nothing more. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he would have continued an edit war had Jenks24 not intervened. I shall be watching Absconded Northerner's edits very closely where his activity clashes with mine. Any more proof of bad faith and I shall add to this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't say you will be watching AN's edits, Evlekis. While that is probably not what you meant, it could be interpreted as hounding. Jenks24 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Warned user over edit warring templates back into your talk page. I've also notified them of this discussion. --Taelus (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I see nobody bothered to notify me about this. The person edit warring was Evlekis, a user who has in recent days a) Ignored policy on Reliable Sources, substituting his own "In my opinion" policy instead; b) Abused his rollback privs (here, here, here and here); c) left abusive edit summaries such as this, and generally demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of any WP policy - up to and including accusing me of violating a non-existent policy.

Please can an admin remove his rollback rights and issue a proper warning to Evlekis about his incredibly disruptive and tendentious editing. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification from a different user came after I posted this message. Another policy of which Evlekis is ignorant, it seems. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@Taelus - the "edit warring" - which wasn't edit warring - was a mistake. I meant to revert Evlekis' warring at Bernard Tomic and hit the wrong button. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, mistakes are made, i'm just informing you that you were close to passing 3RR. As I said below, discuss with involved users on relevant talk pages. --Taelus (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I know - and I wouldn't have made another revert. To be accused as follows: "There is no doubt that he would have continued an edit war" when the accusing user had been doing just as much reversion strikes me as a massive case of the pot calling the kettle black. That's what pissed me off here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Filing party has already been warned for misuse of rollback tool. I don't see the need to revoke any users rollback tools at this stage. Other than that, as this is a content dispute, discuss at user talk pages and/or the article talk pages before editing. --Taelus (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Evlekis and I have discussed this on my talk page and we appear to have come to an acceptable compromise for the Tomic article so I am confident that the edit warring (if that's even what it was) will stop. Evlekis has also apologised for inappropriately using the rollback tool at the Tomic article, so I see no reason why his rollback access should be revoked, seeing as he has apologised and said he won't do it again. Yes, Evlekis shouldn't have used rollback like that and AN shouldn't have templated him. Either way, both these things are in the past and both have been apologised for. I don't see any need for admin action here and if this does need to be discussed further, hopefully Evlekis and AN can sort this out amicably at each others' talk pages. Calling for this thread to be closed: The content dispute has been resolved and, while both parties have made mistakes, there is nothing here that necessitates a block or other admin intervention (in my opinion). Jenks24 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I second the call to close. There is nothing further to be gained here, both parties know what they need to know, and no administrative action is required here as things stand. --Taelus (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I've just logged back on for a few moments and have read the above statements. This is just to confirm that I acknowledge the decision on administrative outcomes and I have no further information to add. Many thanks Taelus. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone tell Kwamikagami to stop moving the pronunciation to the infobox? I would tell him/her but he/she has protected his/her talk page. Objections have been raised to this practise at Template_talk:Infobox_person#Pronunciation?, but yet, he/she continues to make these edits. Thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the last thread I can see about this in the MOS is here, and there is clearly no consensus for moving this to the infobox. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Kwamikagami performing mass changes without consensus" is a recurring theme here, but I fear that raising it here again is unlikely to make any difference. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed disruptive. Kwamikagami edited a MOS page to include an idea that is clearly against current practice, made related controversial additions to fully protected templates and then started using AWB to make changes "per MOS". Along the way, he also removes birth and death dates, claiming this is supported by MOS when the opposite is actually true. Prolog (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The dates are per the MOS, and long have been. The only thing new is that I added support for pronunciations to several templates, support which already existed in others, and made a note of that in the pronunciation MOS, which already suggested moving pronunciation out of the lede to avoid clutter, clutter that numerous editors have complained about. And I haven't "removed" birth and death dates, or if I have, it's an oversight I apologize for. If you show me where I removed any info, I'll fix it.

The talk-page protection, BTW, was due to two editors continuing a POV fight over whether the Zaza are Kurds on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The MOS is clear that birth and death dates should be in the lead sentence (WP:MOSBIO, WP:MOSBD), as is actual practice. By "removed", I meant removed from the lead (unlike pronunciations, they usually are already in the infobox). While I agree that sometimes noting pronunciation in a footnote is a good idea, you should not continue to cite WP:PRON as justification if the words are actually yours and have received little to no acceptance. As your bold changes have gathered more opposition than support, and are unlikely to gain consensus, you should self-revert the remaining edits. Prolog (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma engaged in Baiting and personal attacks, also revealing locations of other users

User:Gun Powder Ma, who has been warned and blocked for personal attacks before, appears to be engaged in WP:BAIT, with another user, GPM also openly posted the location of the user on his talk page, (the city where he was residing) which can be considered subtle intimidation. It occured Today, on August 25 2011.

This occured on User talk:BlueonGray today on August 25, 2011.

First he engaged in baiting- " Unlike you I don't need to remain silent on my identity, I have nothing to hide. :-)" and then he posted the users ip address, "Greetings to 98.142.247.157"

Next he openly posted his location "Pity for you. Greetings to Toronto. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)"

He has quite a history of personal attacks and getting away with them, and he has posted other user's real life locations, potentially leading to harm

On Talk:Roman_metallurgy/Archive_1#Dubious_iron_production_figures- (these are from one year ago)

"(talk about WP crowded by nerds and singles). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)"

"I know it rattles your Han national pride big time that modern scholars find the Roman Empire outproducing all other ancient empires by two-digit factors, but if you cannot even stomach harmless estimates move back from Baltimore, USA, to where you've been making cheap propaganda for all along. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)"

Talking about low ball: although you might not have even noticed yet, but in most places on earth, and I subscribe to that view heartily, people who do renrou sousuo are considered outright shit. User:Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

He then proceeded to replace "shit" with "idiots", and then "as having no life", and then "morally defective

I request a block be imposed upon User:Gun Powder Ma. He's been warned to keep civil before and continues to engage in baiting and mockery. (and revealing the locations of other users potentially leads to real life harm).DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah he does seem to step over the line sometimes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

While I won't argue that GPM is a bit...shall we say...abrasive, how is what he did any different than another user (myself, for example, since I do it often) posting a {{shared IP}} template on the IP's Talk page? WHOIS information often contains location data, especially when it involves an address range registered to a school, and posting WHOIS info on a IP user's Talk page is specifically described as NOT being WP:OUTING by that policy. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also just now saw that the original reporter had not notified GPM of this discussion. I have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You beat him by 18 seconds. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

actually we posted our notices on the exact same second

People deliberately sign up for accounts to avoid detection, since they don't want to be outed. Ip addresses are given warning that it will be recorded publicly in the page's history. User:Blueongray presumably signed up for an account in order to remain anonymous, but GPM essentially rubbed his location in his face in a taunting, mocking way- he put "Pity for you" right before he mention his location.

also, User:Intranetusa and GPM did not just have the argument here on wikipedia. It spilled over from China history forum, and I don't know where GPM got Intranetusa's location, but he did get it and openly posted it on the talk page, Intranetusa mentioned he lived in Maryland on his userpage, but GPM then posted his city and told him to essentially get out of the USA, called him a "Shit", and accused him of "national pride", which violates ad hominem in personal attacksDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Somehow, I completely missed that he'd posted that on a registered user's Talk page. And unless I'm mistaken, that does violate WP:OUTING. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't this WP:OUTING? Shouldn't User:Gun Powder Ma be blocked? I'm a bit new to the mop, but how specific does a location have to be before it's considered outing?--v/r - TP 18:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

'Fraid so. The pertinent part of WP:OUTING: "Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.". I don't think anyone can make a good case that GPM's actions were either unintentional or non-malicious, given both the content and context of the remarks. This is, of course, merely my (non-admin) 2p. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that holds me back is that WP:OUTING says "home or workplace address".--v/r - TP 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. First, most of these quotes of mine are over one year old (!) and have to be understood in the context of the debates then which today, I venture, hardly anyone can reconstruct nor cares much for anymore. It hardly needs to be mentioned that unearthing one-year old quotes to make a point is widely seen as unconstructive 'dishing out' and as such WP's spirits. I have been over five years editing, with over 10,000 edits. If a couple of these were less than amicable, I apologize but the percentage which is low has to be taken in account.

Second, it is quite absurd to suggest I would "intimidate" BlueonGray, the IP is recorded in this article which BlueonGray, a classic single-purpose account (1) has been editing disruptively solely since March. Each day, many thousands of anonymous IPs edit WP, you know. I only wanted to suggest to him that it did not went beyond me that, apart from his username edits, he has also vandalized the article anonymously. If he is not this IP (and thus does not live in Toronto), this is just as fine with me. Hope that settles it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

five years of editing with repeated warnings and blocks over that time. After a while, the message has to sink in. Otherwise you'll just attack another editor, apologize, and avoid a block. Since you've been warned already about personal attacks, an apology just doesn't cut it.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why you outed Intranetusa, and the "context of the debates" is very relevant, since you appear to have brought over fights from China history forum and allempires.com onto wikipedia in your tangle with Intranetusa, exactly the same thing you accuse BlueonGray of doing with the newspaper article and Duchesne. You have displayed WP:BATTLEGROUND and I can find your posts on allempires.com and chinahistoryforum to prove it if you wish.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gun Powder MA did bring up a point which I missed in that most of the diffs you provided were a year old. No misrepresentation on your part, you did begin by saying he had a history of this behavior I just didn't notice the dates. I also don't think the first quote was really all that baiting. That said, Gun Powder MA, posting the IP address and location of a user is clearly uncivil whether or not it was easy to obtain.--v/r - TP 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You should be aware that DÜNGÁNÈ was one year ago part of the whole dispute. This should not explain anything away, but users participating in this ANI should be aware that he not some neutral user but a party. I did not really interacted with him in contents work since, but he seem to monitor my page to take advantage of trivialities such as these. Enough said. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If I was monitoring your contributions, I would have barged into the debate on Indian inventions (only found out after Aua mentioned it at medieval islamic inventions) and other things relating to Persia which I just found out you have deleted, I would also have noted your manipulation on Talk:Plough#Heavy_Moldboard_Iron_Plough, which only came to my attention after the fact. This incident only came to my attention after I noticed how frequently Dechesne's citations appeared on different articles. Not only that, I was not involved in the dispute on Roman metal production figures, which you dragged over with Intranetusa on ChinahistoryforumDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dredging up diffs over a year old doesn't indicate a continuing problem: it points up a lack of one William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you actually cared about "user's real life locations, potentially leading to harm", instead of just using it for point-scoring, you wouldn't have reposted location or IP in such a visible place William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not true. Some folks panic and they dont realize they are making a situation worse when they ask for help. That or they don't know the right way to handle it.--v/r - TP 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

the fact that the diffs are over one year old points to a lack of vigilance that his grossly offensive attacks were not spotted and reported. Also, GPM did not explain why he felt it was nessecary to post the location of the ip addresss. He originally just posted the address itself, then proceeded to post "Pity for you. Greetings to Toronto".

If GPM meant good intentions, he would only have posted the ip address. Instead, he traced the ip to the actualy city and posted its location. That is clearly malicious.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So if posting "Toronto" is such a terrible thing, why have you done it (again?). The obvious answer is because it really isn't terrible at all. Pointing out to an anon that they are geolocatable is actually doing them a favour William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What "favour" would this be? What possible reason could he have had for revealing my location other than as a suggestive threat in order to shut me up? I merely nominated the biographical entry for Ricardo Duchesne for deletion on the grounds that Duchesne does not meet the criteria for scholarly importance and influence. I pointed out that Duchesne's most successful scholarly piece has been cited a paltry 12 times. To this, Gun Powder's response was to reveal my location and to threaten to have me blocked. What "favour" would he have been doing by publicly disclosing my location?--BlueonGray (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the principal of the matter. Gun Powder MA's intention was to scare another editor and make them hesitate the next time they choose to edit. Whether it was effective or not or minor is irrelevant.--v/r - TP 19:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BlueonGray signed up for a reason, presumably that he wanted to conceal his ip address. He was no longer an ip address when GPM posted his location. Its not "doing him a favor". if GPM wanted to "do him a favor", he would have said nothing about his location since BlueonGray's ip address was no longer visible.

GPM said "Pity for you", which could be an insinuation that something bad is coming his way, constituting phsycological intimidation (like telling BlueonGray to drop his dispute or else).DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We should be taking civility seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious from the above that D is very vociferously anti-GPM. And dredging up year-old diffs says that this has been simmering for a long time. So could D explain where his animosity against GPM comes from? It clearly isn't this incident; this is just an excuse William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You should assume good faith and chill out, we should be valuing the evidence not the contributor in question. If all we have is year old diffs then there isn't a particular problem. If things are still occurring now maybe we need to take them more seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It can equally be as pertinent that User:William M. Connolley is desperately trying to defend Gun Powder Ma. the two acted together on the list of inventions in medieval islam article, not only that, GPM has canvassed William Connolley against me before (GPM withdrew his complaint since everyone agreed that I did not attack him), which might hint that GPM knows Connolley supports him. If William M. Connolley did not attempt to defend GPM and claim that GPM's clearly malicious post was doing a "favour" to BlueonGrey, and then he claimed I have a vendetta against GPM, his point might be legitimate if he gave evidence. But the moment he defended GPM's malicious attack as a "Favour", outs him as clearly pro GPM, possibly his friend, since he defended him against an indefendable offense.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this is now the second or even third time, DÜNGÁNÈ, that you post on some talk page or noticeboard the same one-year old quotes which is a clear case of WP:ADMINSHOP and should bring your actions themselves into close scrutinity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And where else did I post your attacks on User:Intranetusa? Where else did I post those "one year old quotes? Can you provide a link showing me posting those exact quotes somewhere else?DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I just saw that User:William M. Connolley made a dubious edit to the entry on Ricardo Duchesne, the entry which is currently under discussion for deletion and which Gun Powder Ma is trying (with very weak evidence) to preserve. Connolley's edits provided a more flattering, even though misleading, portrait of Duchesne. I have edited that entry in order to provide greater detail and accuracy.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

also, GPM's outing of User:BlueonGray happened today, not one year ago.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The point of assuming good faith about other editors actions applies to you as well as it does pointing the other way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eraserhead1. This discussion should focus on the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location in the middle of a discussion over whether to delete a biographical entry. There is simply no ethical justification for revealing a registered user's IP address and location. The only conceivable reason would be as a suggestive threat in order to shut that user (i.e. me) up. I fail to see how that could possibly be interpreted in a more benign light.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For people who are unaware of the wider dispute: User:BlueonGray is demonstrably a single-purpose account who has been ever editing only this one article, invariably negatively. He is identical in name with one BlueonGray who actually 'debated' Duchesne this February on a Canadian site in a resentful manner: For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM). Nine days later Wikipedia's BlueonGray registered and began editing the article disruptively. On his talk page, Wikipedia's BlueonGray refuses to acknowledge whether he is the same person, desspite my repeated requests. The whole Afd he has launched can be thus regarded as a thinly-veiled case of WP:Battleground, namely Wikipedia is not a place to...import personal conflicts. This is what I was referring to with "Pity for you". It's a pity that he misuses WP for his own personal crusade against Duchesne. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location. There is no justification for that kind of conduct. It is egregiously unethical and a transparent form of intimidation and harassment. We have seen above that you have a history of this sort of behavior. The issue with the entry on Duchesne is scholarly noteworthiness, which is deafeningly lacking. The issue here is the legitimacy of disclosing a registered user's IP address and location, which again is deafeningly lacking. Stick to the issue.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The exact same charges can be levelled against User:Gun Powder Ma, who also violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, and demostrates attributes of a Single purpose account. User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of importing personal conflicts from internet forums like chinahistoryforum.com and allempires.com

search Gun powder ma on chinahistoryforum

search Tibet Libre on chinahistoryforum

search gun powder ma on allempires forum

Gun Powder Ma at allempires forum talking about the Moveable type article- "Forget Wiki. If you feel comfortable, I am going to edit the whole article for you. Then you can quote again from Wiki."

See User:DÜNGÁNÈ/Off Wiki Forums for more evidence.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think it can easily be agreed that violation of WP:OUTING is a serious issue, and one that should be clearly indicated as having serious consequences to the violator. It is also readily apparent that this is being brought to the attention of admins in pursuit of a dispute between editors involving the violator where sanctions would remove a party to that dispute for the duration of any block and possibly effect the outcome of the issue. The matter raised, including the baiting and personal attacks alleged (and the former again fairly apparent), is however a year old and there is no more recent indication of such violations. Notwithstanding GPM's less than stellar block log I cannot see that there would have been a sanction for more than a matter of weeks (and likely much less) had the concerns been brought forward at that time, so sanctioning the editor now is senseless. So, I propose that Gun Powder Ma should be warned that any repeat going forward of a violation of WP:OUTING will result in a substantial block, regardless of when it is brought to notice, and that further issues of baiting or personal attacks regarding the editors involved in this dispute will likewise be dealt with severely. Then, I suggest, we can let this particular concern lie and allow the various parties to resolve their ongoing dispute via the correct resolution processes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The previous outing and personal attacks were a year old, but the outing against BlueonGray occured today at User talk:BlueonGray. GPM outed users twice and the most recent one was today, not last year. Also his other comments on BlueonGray's talk pages were less than friendly, they brought to mind an indication of gloating and a threatening matterDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this outing stuff. But what about WP:BLP, which we're so proud of? As GPM has pointed out, BoG is a SPA unhealthily obsessed with Ricardo Duchesne. What about stuff like [38]? That page has also suffered from IP BLP vios like [39], so wondering if BoG is that IP is entirely valid. Given that this is being considered "outing" I can only presume that is an admission that BoG did indeed make that edit. Or there are edits like [40], which are unquestionably from BoG. If anyone is being sanctioned here, BoG is the obvious one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

claiming that User:BlueonGray has no right to edit the article on Ricardo is a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. BlueonGray is free to edit any article he wants. WP:OUTTING also says its considered as outting "whether any such information is accurate or not", which shows Connolley does not understand what is considered outting or not, GPM posted a location (the city where BlueonGray was residing) on his talk page, which was completely unnesesarry. And so what if the ip was BoG? He didn't deny it. We don't even post the private info of vandals, no one at all is allowed to threaten other users with private information.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not even trying to hide your partiality. I am new to Wikipedia. I was disturbed that a biographical entry had been created for a total and utter mediocrity like Ricardo Duchense -- someone whose greatest scholarly work has been cited a paltry 12 times. My initial interventions were admittedly amateurish. Since then, I have been learning about the mechanics of Wikipedia and am now working to evaluate the entry on Duchesne according to the community's criteria of scholarly noteworthiness. That much should be recognized. I pointed out that Duchesne does not meet the criteria of a noteworthy scholar, something which he has failed to prove otherwise. To this, Gun Powder's reply has been to disclose my IP address and location, in a clear and obvious attempt at intimidation and harassment. You now are playing legal defense for Gun Powder.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you making unjustified edits to the entry on Ricardo Duchesne? I correctly listed his multiple concentrations, as well as his dissertation supervisor, who was not H. L. Harris. Why would you undo those? For what reason, if not out of obvious partiality?--BlueonGray (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You can speak of "hide your partiality" and then go on to describe Ricardo Duchense as "total and utter mediocrity". I certainly agree you've been editing the article as though you believed that - your biases are all to obvious. But the vandalism you did as the IP isn't acceptable, and GPM was quite correct to link that IP to you. It is quite clear that you should not be editing the article at all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you call User:BlueonGray "anti Duchense", then GPM is equally as "pro Duchense", since he wrote the entire article, it resembles more of a platform glorigying Duchense's views rather an an encyclopedia entry on him, with GPM engaging in WP:PEACOCK/ puffery- A search for Ricardo Duchesne on wikipedia reveals that in all the articles he is cited in, the citations have been added by none other than Gun Powder Ma himself

Gun Powder Ma calls Duchesne's work an "influential critique" on another article, violating WP:PEACOCK

below this is a list of times GPM inserted Duchesne's work into multiple articles on history and "multiculturalism"

[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]

GPM calling H. S. Harris the "foremost Hegelian scholar" he changed it to "most influential", which still violates WP:PEACOCK, however, I've just removed it, he might change it back.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

These revelations are simply jawdropping. While Gun Powder Ma, William M. Connolley, et al have been arguing that BlueonGray has an unhealthy obsession with Duchesne, it is clear now that BlueonGray is only reacting to GPM's single-handed efforts to promote Duchesne's polemical views, reviews, and articles all over the encyclopedia. If GPM has a conflict of interest to declare in relation to Duchesne, now would be an appropriate time. Quigley (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that D has started to maintain a list of GPM's off-wiki contributions User:DÜNGÁNÈ/Off_Wiki_Forums. That hardly seems proper William M. Connolley (talk)

GPM has repeatedly dragged disputes from off-wiki Chinahistoryforum.com and allempires.com into wikipedia, which was how his encounter with User:Intranetusa started. this is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUNDDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Duchesne is a mediocrity. That much is transparent. No, my initial interventions were not acceptable. However, I can admit fault and then work constructively according to the community's principles. I created a user account precisely to remain anonymous. There is simply NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for disclosing my IP address and location. Similarly, your weak and empty defense of Gun Powder's unethical actions has no justification, either. Duchesne remains a mediocrity of no scholarly importance and revealing the IP address of a registered user as a way to shut that user up remains unethical.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

calm down with the capital letters. However, BlueonGray is right in that the main issue is GPM revealing his location in an intimidating manner, and William N. Connolley only seems to be trying to deflect that issue. If GPM even posted the location of a prolific vandal on his talk page, it would be considered outting and GPM would be penalized. It doesn't matter who the contributer is, if someone outs him, its considered outting. We don't out anyone, whether positive contributer, vandal, disruptive page mover, or even trolls.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the use of caps.--BlueonGray (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I appear to be the only admin taking any interest in this thread, here is my opinion. No admin action is needed. This has spiraled into a bickering contest of Gun Powder MA and Mr. Connolley vs Dungane and BlueonGray. The content issues and civility issues should be discussed on other noticeboards or dispute resolution. The only issue here deserving admin action is incivility by Gun Powder MA, which only one recent diff has been provided and is quite trivial to be honest, and the outing. The outing consists of an IP address that BlueonGray was not careful with in his editing and a very broad location that isn't specific enough to be personally identifying. I feel threatening behavior may have occured and so Gun Powder MA should be warned not to engage in anything close to outing anymore. Does this about sum it up?--v/r - TP 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with admin TParis, and I hope this nonsense with bringing the issue with the AfD on Ricardo Duchesne onto here will stop. The thread is nearing unreadable. I will stop adding more issues that don't have to do with the outting to this thread, and I recommend everyone else as well. We will carry on the dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I also want to be clear that I filed this report since I found GPM's attitude toward User:BlueonGray to be unsettling and threatening, and BoG is a new user, not that familiar with wikipedia rules. I also agree with BoG on his AfD. I have left alone other users like User:Teeninvestor who engaged in disputes with GPM, and did not defend them, since Teeninvestor was not a new user, neither did I agree with some of his edits on the Manchu Qing in China.

If I was "violently" against GPM as William M. Connolley claimed., I would have butted into the dispute between GPM and Gnip here- Talk:Plough#Heavy_Moldboard_Iron_Plough and into this dispute GPM had over here on ANI recently. Can he explain my absence from those disputes if I was that antagonistic toward GPM? I was actively editing at the time of those disputes. If I was stalking GPM I would have showed up at these disputes, I only got involved with GPM in the other ANI incident since I was watching User:Aua rather than GPM. I hope this is the end of the mudslinging and bickering, and I'm taking a wikibreak for a day due to diarrhea. This is my final comment for the day.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Dungane has crossed into WP:HOUND territory. It is plainly obvious that he is desperate for a block against GPM, with whom he seems to have serious beef. Digging up diffs for over a year ago is an unmistakable sign of hounding, I have seen people sanctioned for something like that. As for the accusations of WP:OUTing, since there is no mention of home or workplace or anything remotely close to that, I don't think they stand up to scrutiny. Athenean (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean. I have had only positive interaction with GPM on Wikipedia. What he is accused of here seems out of character to me. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, my experience with GPM has been one of continual POV pushing over other's added refs. Like a few other editors, he's always right, no matter what anyone else thinks, editor or RS, and he'll cheerfully edit war to demonstrate this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new has been brought to this discussion since my last message. Is this over?--v/r - TP 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

sock needs blocking

Please block 88.147.14.203 as a sock of banned editor User:Mikemikev. He's attacking again the same article as always. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the same user as this 88.147.30.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), editing from Brussels.

I don't think this is Mikemikev. It is probably the same user that was blocked for edit-warring last year as 88.147.47.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (note the racist comments on the talk pages are different from Mikemikev's style). He also edited as 88.147.17.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (One of the edits here contains a sentence in French, so with the anti-french insults, the user is probably Belgian.) Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another recent example. 88.147.36.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Mathsci (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My calculator and the WHOIS says it's a /19 block allocated to wireless broadband users. Too big for a rangeblock if the activity persists? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of self-published sources to Lordship salvation controversy

208.40.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a long history going back to 2009 of adding self-published sources (such as Lou Martuneac, In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, Xulon Press, 2010) to the Lordship salvation controversy article. After repeated warning on his talk page, he or she continues to add them in. He or she was blocked for edit warring a few days ago, but continues to add Xulon Press books. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag

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

---

Resolved

 – --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is currently restoring personal attacks on his userpage, attacks that were removed following consensus at MfD. See: [50] 2.121.29.24 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Relax, it's part of the DRV process.--v/r - TP 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah my bad I hadn't realised. I've since commented at the DRV so feel free to close this thread. 2.121.29.24 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Threeafterthree

User:Threeafterthree has for some time objected to links to the website of John C. McAdams, a Marquette University professor who has published a book on the JFK assassination and whose website is widely recognized as an excellent resource. McAdams' credentials are detailed in his WP article. Threeafterthree has periodically removed links to this website with merely the edit summary "per WP:EL" and has generally refused to discuss the issue. On the few occasions he has engaged in talk page or noticeboard discussion, he has made broad generalizations about the quality of the website or about McAdams himself, abandoning the discussion before substantiating any of these generalizations in any way. He will then generally wait a few months and remove the EL again.

After I restored a couple of such links today, Threeafterthree retaliated by

• going on a deletion spree of McAdams links
• reverting me on an entirely unrelated article which he does not appear to be currently editing
• libeling McAdams in an edit summary which I've deleted
• Replacing links to McAdams with links to a website (his own?) devoted to the late L. Fletcher Prouty, a former USAF officer who has become a hero to conspiracy theorists for his rather bizarre allegations regarding the JFK assassination, the CIA, etc. The page linked to is basically an attack page directed at a BLP, calling McAdams "Laughing stock of the Internet". Not only that, it is an attack page directed at me personally, with a picture of myself apparently taken from Wikipedia cyberstalker Daniel Brandt's hive mind hit list and (obviously false) allegations that I'm a Nazi.

This is really beyond the pale, something I'd expect from a drive-by anon, not an editor who has been here almost six years. Contentious editing and refusal to discuss is certainly one thing, but I would think libeling a living individual and posting an attack page directed at a BLP and another editor demands some sort of serious and immediate sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have notified User:Threeafterthree of this discussion here. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've only just started looking into this, but it looks pretty bad. Even if the links added by Gamaliel were inappropriate (not saying they were but even if they were) replacing them with links to attack sites falls in the realm of disruption to make a point, and following him to another completely unrelated article and reverting him there as well would appear to be WP:HOUNDING. I'd be interested to hear how Threeafterthree could rationalize taking such actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Beeblebrox on this one. Unfortuantely, this does appear to be a POINTy series of actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Try AGF. Single reverts where other editors appear to share his concerns != "beyond the pale." Recommended cure is a cup of tea - making mountains out of relative molehilss does not not benefit Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your response to posting an attack page directed at me and a BLP is for me to AGF? Since you don't take WP policies like BLP and CIVIL seriously in this comment, I don't think this comment should be taken seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Collect? Personally, replacing Wikipedia links with links to an attack page that libels another editor (and has major BLP concerns) sounds more like something that deserves an immediate block. Looking more into this now. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, Collect. Attacking another editor and reverting all their edits cannot be explained away with a smile and a nod. I'm sure you've heard the old saw before that AGF is not a suicide pact. We should not ignore what appears to be a deliberate attack by one long-term user on another one because of the (extremely faint) possibility it was an innocent mistake. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no way this is a mistake, especially adding the attack page. Threeafterthree removed MANY external links recently, there is not way they would "innocently" add such a blatant WP:ELNO page. None. This was intentional and hostile. The crap on the attack page directed towards Gamaliel, since threeafterthree linked it to WP, should earn them something beyond a trout. Ravensfire (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that the attack page was added to the L. Fletcher Prouty article. Would someone mind judging if that's a viable EL? Ravensfire (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It plainly isn't (although neither was the link that it replaced). I've removed both. As for threeafterthree, the most cursory examination of his block log is telling enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Evlekis

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31h

This user has just claimed I have "severe learning difficulties". I don't. I've had enough of this user's attacks against me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Given the discussion above this one, you would expect the user to have learnt exactly what a "collaborative editing environment" is. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing repeatedly modifying closed discussion at WT:RJL

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) insists on modifying a discussion that I closed at WT:RJL: [51] [52]. For the record, I closed this discussion because certain users decided to use unnecessary rhetoric to disrupt the discussion, and I wanted to shut it down before things got worse. Could some other admins look into the situation? --Rschen7754 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in my subsequent comments, the ongoing, contentious discussion was closed prematurely, by an involved editor, with a PoV summary. I undid the closure per WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

1) It is considered acceptable for "involved" editors to close smaller-scale discussions like this; 2) even if not, WP:IAR applies as that discussion was spiraling out of control and becoming uncivil; 3) my closure supported the consensus of the editors who wanted the discussion over and done with. --Rschen7754 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[53] - abuse of rollback. --Rschen7754 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is generally acceptable to use rollback in one's own userspace. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Does that include reverting messages you don't agree with on your user talk? --Rschen7754 00:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is just taken to mean they read the message. Doesn't mean it isn't a bit rude though. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody interested in looking at this? --Rschen7754 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't really look ripe for closure to me. I see it still actively being discussed, and not just sniping (though certainly there is that, too). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the last section, where there's another attempt at an entirely different proposal - I'm referring to solely the one above it. --Rschen7754 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Improper split, attribution issue, duplicative articles

I'm not sure if AN/I is the best place for this, but if it isn't please direct me to the appropriate notice board. Just under 6 years ago, List of disco artists was split, without proper attribution, into List of disco artists (A-E), List of disco artists (F-K), List of disco artists (L-R), and List of disco artists (S-Z). However the pre-split article was left intact. In the intervening years since the split, the un-split article has received over 500 new edits, and each of the splits have also received substantial editing. How should the articles be dealt with at this point, both to deal with the attribution issue, and that the split and pre-split version are duplicative? Monty₈₄₅ 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• You need an admin who has nothing better to do than history merges. I nominate LadyofShalott, naturally. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fly_by_Night is vandalising people user pages

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

---

User:Fly_by_Night is removing user templates from people's userpages as can be seen by his edits to my userpage here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade&action=history and to his edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JCRulesJCRules&diff=prev&oldid=446742988 and a bunch of other edits to other peoples user spaces. I told him to stop but he insisted that I report him instead. You can also see the ensuring discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fly_by_Night . Basically, he is removing templates from my page without my permission even though it clearly states on the service awards page that there is no penalty for displaying the incorect one as they are unofficial. For past discussions of a similar issue see this incident when someone else was vandalising my userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=333675946 Can someone please tell this guy to stop because he is going to keep doing it to other user pages? Bryan.Wade (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

While editing others' User pages is generally frowned upon quite severely, in this case I think Fly By Night has a good point. You have NOT earned at least one of those !awards, so you shouldn't be displaying it. However, that's only this non-admin's opinion. All I can (and therefore will) do is tell you to give some very serious thought about removing it voluntarily. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there's already a discussion about this here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade. The result was keep, and I really don't think it would be a good use of time to revisit the decision. I suggest (a) Fly by Night not revert the awards anymore, as it goes against old but established consensus; (b) Bryan.Wade educate himself on the meaning of "vandalism" (this ain't it); and (c) Bryan.Wade reflect on the fact that posting those medals on his user page makes him look ridiculous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fly_by_Night is edit warring, users are given broad discretion with regards to their userpage, and the editor "ranks" are not officially sanctioned. If Bryan.Wade wants to display the template it should not be edit warred off. Think what you like of editors who display "ranks" they are not entitled to, but they cannot be forcibly removed, and doing so is edit warring. Fly_by_Night should be so advised. Monty₈₄₅ 01:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Monty, I made three edits to his user page in two months. One was on July 12, one was on Aug 25 and the one on Aug 26 was to replace some things I didn't mean to remove. So two edits in two months… that's not edit warring! — Fly by Night (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User: 68.40.235.153

K this user keeps editing LA Ink episodes along with Star Wars: Clone Wars all of which contains editing that should never appear like changing colors. can you block this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.108.115 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions list, you don't seem to have tried to make contact with the user; either about the multi-coloured text or about this AN/I post. (When you edited this page it said, in a big orange box, that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion"). Why not go to the user's talk page and mention Wikipedia's manual of style; you might like to make a similar, but more general, comment on the article's talk page. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Block request for the I.P. user 198.164.211.80

The I.P. user 198.164.211.80 has been doing disruptive editing for months: [54], it introduces objetive & unsourced information in articles related to the band Deftones such: [55], [56], [57], [58]. It also removes verified information from articles related to the band Muse such: [59], I've previously been given warnings and invited it to discuss it's point of view but it just don't wants to discuss, it's edits violates the NPOV policies and since it don't wants to stop it must be blocked. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not adding anything unsourced. I am simply reverting the red link account above who keeps trolling the same pages repeatedly and removing previously discussed, and many time cited, content. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If it has been cited many times why don't you just found a reference to add your edits?, actually if it was previously discussed why there are like other six users reverting your edits? actually if you go to the 2007 version of this deftones article[60]it mentions the genres that im adding. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And now it's using a sock puppet acount, [61], really this genre warrior must be blocked, all it's I.P.s Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... Mr. Carnataurus... this is your IP. And this is your IP. And this is your IP. You've been [[WP:STALK|Stalking me for any weeks and undoing my edits... even valid edits, and there are hundreds, to other articles. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is another IP Used by Carnataurus to stalk me. All Mexican locale... all using same broken English edit summaries. All being extremely uncivil. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

as far as i'm concerned those are diferent I.P.s each one, just acept it, everybody knows that you'r trolling, in the last half of hour, two users aside me have reverted your edits. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

187.154.x.x does make a good point. All four IP addresses are registered to the same ISP and geolocate to the same city. There's more than enough overlap between articles and similarity in edit summaries to say it passes the WP:DUCK test. If I were a betting man, I'd lay money on your complaint here coming back on you. Of course, someone could always hoist the Checkuser flag to either confirm or reject the hypothesis. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I put out a plea for help last week because the Mexican IP (and accounts like Carnataurus) just kept coming back and undoing any edits I did. It was very disconcerting. Some advice was given to me at the time... I just didn't follow up. And I should have. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, showing all these I.P. you only shows how much you've been trolling other articles. if those I.P. are or not mine, you can't prove that, actually i would never notice the edit war if you weren't edited album articles, then i see the mess that you were doing and i decided join in. In the other hand i can bet that this i.p.[62] is your parallel i.p. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that user 198:164:211:80 is making a lot of unjustifed edits and deletions, several of which I have personally reverted. A block may be warrented, but that is for an admin to decide. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

that's what im about, it is the one doing all these edits and drivin everyone at Deftones articles crazy. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And don't forgot that the troll that is introducing unsourced information again and again are you, not me, im trying to keep the articles as they'll always been. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dbiel you made an unjustified reversion to 1 of my edits. And my edit was valid since it followed both the consensus of the talk page asn well as the ghosted instruction on the page itself. You failed to read the talk page and added unreferenced content... which the talk page, and the hidden instructions, both say will be removed as part of the Featured List push for the article. Please read the talk page on the list of you want more clarification. It's all right there.

And Carnataurus... did you not do a geolocate or IP search of the 2 IPs you listed? They come from 2 different servers. Similar (sort of) ISP. But completly different servers in a Region which has over 3 million clients of the 2 different ISPs. Always use the geolocate tool when you think two people are the same... especially when they are not. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There are various reazons for that, could be that you have a friend, you own an imported computer, you own an imported router, you used an special software... the list is long, however, no one of us is wrong in the fact that you are doing persistent disruptive editing. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that when I post a reply to Dbiel on my talk page. The reply from Dbiel comes from the Carnotaurus044 account????????? 198.164.211.80 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I explained it in it's talk page, Can anyone just block this user and give it a rest?Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A request from 198.164.211.80 to Wiki admin who reviews

If an administrator sees the need to block me that is in their right. But I have raised some valid concerns that they will also have to investigate such as A) Why have so many Mexican based IP edits been targeted at undoing all of my edits repeatedly...the same edits you are undoing. And Also, B) why is it that when I posted a question to Dbiel on my talk page the response to my question to that account... came back from YOUR account. As an IP editor I am under scrutiny as anonymous editors are not treated the same as accounts. But it would seem like your Carnataurus044 account, Your User:Massivesquid account and your series of Mexican based IP addresses have all been on a single purpose to stalk me and negate any/all of my contributions to this project. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dbiel, I, the Mexican user, prove you're robot and the other located I.P.s are there just because you're messing with the Deftones articles, you're the problem that started all the other problems, without you, nothing never would happen. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

An administrator will determine whether you are the Mexican IP range that has been stalking me. I do not believe you are Dbiel. But you spoke as though there was collusion between your edits. Especially where I asked Dbiel a question... and YOU answered as if you were him. That does not Concern me. But a long range of Mexican based IPs have been stalking me, you have been stalking me and your alternate account Massivesquid has also stalked me. And so those concerns will be looked into as part of your pursuit to try and get me blocked... accusing me of vandalism in my edits, when I was simply restoring content that you were removing even though it was content which was covered on the talk pages of the articles concerned. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just, turn off your computer, you need some air. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have remained faithful to WP:CIVIL throughout your accusations. Please do the same. Thank you. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't pretend being a victim, nobody is buying that, anyone who check your history will see that it's filled with pointless unsourced reverts & trolling, things that are against WP:CIVIL, just face the consecuences of what you do. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, both of you are edit warring and could both be blocked if you keep it up. Dispute resolution, anyone? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair and reasonable. I had no real dispute with added content... but did dispute the constant removal which went against previous talk page consensus. I can police myself to not re-add content blanked by the other user... if the other user can agree to use the talk pages from here on in. I am still concerned about being stalked by the Mexican based IPs. But since I do not know how to request a proper RCU for the IPs and the 2 accounts posted above... I will be AGF that those Mexican IPs won't stalk me anymore while Mr Carnataurus pursues the concensus he is trying to get in his own edit agenda. Thanks Heinstern. Take care. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Old, unedorsed RfCU

Resolved

Can some admin delete this? It should not be controversial. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It'sAlwaysLupus

Recently this user changed "Disco-pop" to "Nu-disco" on the Moves Like Jagger article. He used no reliable sources, and he used WP:OR has an explanation. I reverted it. There was no edit war or anything, however I checked his contributions and noticed there were a TON of edits where he had gone into articles and changed Disco to Nu-disco, or British disco, etc, (primarily in the external links section) without any reliable sources. I find this disruptive and I think he needs to go and revert all of his edits, because he used no sources and when I questioned him he used WP:OR. I would have reverted the edits myself but there was A TON. Nicholas (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(Before anyone asks, Nicholas already notified IAL.) I'm concerned with this editor, after this exchange at WQA. I found the exchange somewhat ironic, considering that IAL was very sarcastic and engaged in a borderline personal attack (calling an editor "arrogant"); keep in mind this was at WQA, where IAL was the one creating the request. In addition, IAL seemed very quick to assume the worst from the other editor, taking comments out of context, which is again ironic since the request was complaining about a lack of good faith from the other editor. To their credit, I was treated courteously in the WQA discussion, so I have not been the recipient of this behavior myself. Looking at the history of IAL's user talk page, I see the removal of legitimate notices (AfD nominations, 3RR warnings, etc.) with edit summaries like:

• "i replied on your talk page, i ain't need crap on MAH talk page du"
• "as a joke funny, but i don't want these pranks on my talk page, cats, archiving"
• "your trolling attacks are not welcome, be aware that I'm gonna report you to the Jimbo Wales"
• "-stalking and trolling comment"
• "just getting rid of the garbage"
• "flush"

Needless to say, I don't have a great deal of confidence that this editor is interested in collaborating with other editors. -- Atama頭 07:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's all I can say, I didn't even know about this, I wondered why is talk page was blank. Nicholas (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody got a cleanup bot?

Resolved

 – Contribution already deleted and user blocked. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't do IRC, or I'd ask there.

An indefinitely-blocked user went on a spree of creating inappropriate welcome message, as his lengthy contribution history attests. Is there an easy way to delete these pages en masse? They all appear to be where his is he only edit to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Same as the other 20 or so disruptive accounts, and about the 5th one who has been using vandalbots to fap over Nazis. All such accounts blocked and  IP blocked. –MuZemike 06:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

All socks I have blocked are all  Confirmed as Felipe Garcia (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For those who don't know (I didn't know for a long time), there is a mass delete tool for this. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's Highhanded Attitude

Dear all,

There is an ongoing discussion "Autograph as signature in infobox" on which I would like to draw attention. One, there is no consensus on this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_12#Proposal_to_delete_signature_parameter). Two, Off2riorob suggested experimenting with a few autograph inclusion in the articles and based on discussions on talkpages we decide whether to keep the autographs or not. Three, several contributors have already included autographs as signatures. Overlooking them, how can only I be targeted? Four, I am fail to understand that once Johnuniq posted a message on my talkpage, I had stopped posting signatures. Then why did Rob remove all my autographs? Is it also right to ridicule a fellow Wikipedian citing the instance of an Urdu autograph which he does not understand? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have told you - I am under no obligation to search the whole wikipedia removing similar low quality unverified pictures of someones autograph collection taken with a mobile phone. Please present the evidence of "ridicule" - I have imo been quite patient and helpful towards you - linking you to people to help and places to discuss - I actually suggested to you to discuss on talkpages not add your autographs to infoboxs and then discuss - you also failed to discuss on talkpages and have failed to seek consensus and have failed to join in the directed to discussion of the wider issue currently under discussion on wikipedia, but instead have just focused your upset and perceived bias on to me, instead of focusing on the real issue worthy of resolving which is, what, if any, added value are your collection of autographs, the unverified nature of then and the low quality of the vast majority of them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Treasury Tag (again, sorry)

Following the MfD and DRV which removed certain content from his userpage and talk page, TT still has content on his talkpage which was placed there during his block which duplicates the problematic content (namely a link to the word "harassment" which links directly to a diff by another user [63]). I have removed it twice, User:Spartaz has removed it once, but he has reverted every time. Whilst I am usually a bit indifferent to a user venting during a block, this is different as it is deliberately trying to end-run around a community decision to remove this material. I generally like TT, but this is further wikilawyering and disruption of the type which got him blocked in the first place. If anyone else would like to explain the problem to him, please feel free, but at the moment I am tempted to extend his block, wipe the material again, and lock his talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see how the linked diff is in violation of the MFD which concerned his user page, not his user talk page, and concerned a list of grievances, not a single diff concerning what he feels is recent harrassment against him. I feel the diff, while it may be invalid, is within his right to defend himself by linking to diffs he feels supports his case to avoid the 3 month block proposed on WP:AN. Seriously, this needs to stop. He did bad, he got blocked for a day or so. Let him cool off and let it go.--v/r - TP 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is a block discussion on going ought he not to post his defences there? Rather than do what is, I agree, a minor version of what he was once in trouble for? I like TT too but it could almost be baiting. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

@TP - the material was posted on both his userpage and user talkpage. No, I agree it isn't much, but it is directly exactly the same thing as the MfD removed. It's fairly clear from TT's edit summaries that he intends to carry on doing exactly the same thing in future, would it not be best to nip it in the bud now before he talks himself into a serious block? Black Kite (t) (c) 13:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The link he keeps reposting on his talkpage and which was unnecessarily posted on the DRV has nothing to do with any current block discussion, it appears to be an end run around the MfD. It involves his block in July, and amounts to a vendetta against Nyttend. Venting's one thing: reposting the link at every opportunity appears to be a deliberate attempt to keep a quarrel alive. The linking on the DRV has nothing at all to do with any procedural matter pertaining to the MfD or the DRV. Acroterion (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It was posted by TT to be copied across to the AN discussion. Apart from that, you are correct, which wasc my original point. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser's edit-warring continues unabated

User:Debresser has twice moved Tachlifa the Palestinian. The second time without responding to my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#New stub: Tachlifa the Palestinian. If he wanted to change the name of this new article, he knows the renaming procedure. (This issue is related to a current DRN, but I feel it is in order to create new pages using the sourced term, as Debresser continues to remove it unsustainably elsewhere, [64].) Chesdovi (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)