Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Incident report against Caden and another user operating under three different IP addresses

Resolved

 – I think we're done here - KMF and Caden, stay away from each other please, and hopefully all will be solved. Black Kite 10:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

---

68.50.128.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.114.133.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
162.6.97.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yesterday, a user who was operating under IP address 68.50.128.120 was stirring up unwanted wikidrama towards me. This all stemmed from a month long debate about a certain information at Rebecca Quick which was ultimately resolved last week. But despite that, this user (who has also used IP addresses 162.6.97.3 & 76.114.133.44 as sockpuppets to evade blocks) felt the need to prolong this incident even though the hachet was already buried on this debate, resulting in unwanted wikidrama. I tried to ignore his comment by simply removing it, but he seems presistant on being obnoxious in his ways, and continue to bug me over a debate that is already done, gone, finished, over with.

As for Caden, this person was guilty of Wikihounding me in the past, trying to mingle into my own affairs here on Wikipedia when it was none of his business, and this is the proof [[1]] on that by adminstrator Georgewilliamherbert (at the very bottom of the page). We are three months removed from that particular incident, and obviously this user has not changed in his ways despite a questionable remorseful statement by him saying that he was “sorry” to me. The incident between me and this other user was STRICTLY between me and that other user. And ONCE AGAIN, here comes Caden stepping into my own affairs when it was none of his business, wikihounding me AGAIN, and looking to pick another fight with me ANY WAY POSSIBLE. This user has a negative history on Wikipedia, stemming from disruptive edits, picking fights with other editors, showing hostility towards other them, and stirring controversy in the Wikipedia community such as his references to the Ku Klux Klan in his user screen name. But don’t take my word for it. Go through all of Caden’s edit logs, talk logs and block logs. All of those pretty much explain themselves as to the type of editor Caden is. Once again, this person has gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia. No offense, but I find his actions very hypocrital.

The actions by anon 68.50.128.120 and Caden were obnoxious and unnecessary to say the very least. I try to pretend it never happened, but both seem persistance to have their ways otherwise. I will not tolerate childish behavior from these two users, and request an admistrator to issues warnings for their nonsense towards me. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I turned in the first two IP's since they went back to bad behavior once their previous blocks expired. I think the two registered editors have been at each other for awhile. It was peaceful for a couple of months, but maybe that's because Caden was offline. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, let me just first say that I was not notified of this report. Not cool. I really believe this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Alright peeps, here's how it goes: Keltie is not telling the truth. Yesterday he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Keltie a friendly warning to cease the personal attacks towards the IP. The dude then responded by deleting my warning and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin User:Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. The dude then removed that warning from his page and later went onto the page of another admin (User:AniMate) asking that I be punished. I have nothing against Keltie so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me, twisting the truth and demanding action taken against me. All this report shows is that he's out to have me blocked like the last time. He's hated me for a long time I think but I don't give a rat's ass. The guy has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, look at his history and his edits. You'll see he's disruptive and fires off personal attacks like it's no big deal to him. The dude's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy (he's been blocked before) but then again neither am I. I do not know what his rant over my signature is about. How the hell is my birthname a controversial reference to the KKK? Keltie should be blocked for that alone. It's offensive, untrue, immature but typical of him. It's yet another personal attack from good ol' Keltie. Furthermore, it's Keltie who has "gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia" many times before and not me. Regardless man, I've done nothing wrong here. Judge for yourselves. Caden ^cool 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Left a note for Caden reminding him that as per WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me dissect this last statement by Caden for everybody here.

First disection...Caden said that I personally attacked an editor, 68.50.128.120, in my edit summaries.

Sure, the situation would have been different if I went to that editor's talk page and attacked him. But I didn’t attacked the editor. Putting comments in my own edit summary is not an attack.

Second disection…Caden said that I responded by deleting his warnings, and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary.

Yes I did delete the warnings. Where is the rule that say I can’t delete remarks on my own talk page? As for the obnoxious part, I’m not going to deny it. Any editor who had past dealings with this person (and there are a handful of them) would agree with me that this Caden is a difficult editor. Difficult to the point of that one particular word I used to describe him. If I get a warning for calling Caden what I have been calling him, so be it. At least I’m honest about what I say, just like Carrie Prejean who, despite losing her Miss California USA crown, still has her dignity and honesty, and isn't afraid to express it. I'm not afraid to express my own opinions either. Caden is just fabricating remarks to make me and other editors look like the enemy, and him the victim.

Third disection...Caden said that he has nothing against me so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me.

If he has nothing against me, then why in the world is he getting involved in my own affairs and Wikihounding me as he did in the past? Caden is known to get involved in arguments that didn’t involved him initially, but came in in the middle just to antagonize a situation more than what it should have been. I sense this is all fun and games to him. And he has done that twice to me in the past, first time was three months ago, and the other time was just a few days about. How is that having nothing against me? He says one thing, and does another. A contradiction on this editor.

Fourth disection...Caden said that I have been blocked before.

Indeed I have been once blocked before. Of course, Caden is not going to tell you the situation surrounding that particular block. Once again, it all comes back to this wikihounding incident he commited against me. He too was block for this incident. And in the end, an administrator DGG, unblocked me two hours later because he deemed my block as unjustified, rooting from a trouble-making editor, Caden. Take a look at my block log and see for yourself. Caden however, didn’t get unblocked. There was a debate about extending that block for the trouble he caused to me. I have never truly been blocked irrational behavior. That is something that Caden cannot say about himself personally.

Fifth disection...Caden said that he does not know what my rant over his signature is about. And how the hell is his birthname a controversial reference to the KKK?

Apparently, Caden is not just an irrational editor, but one who immediately jumped the gun before thinking it over first. Somebody read over my first statement of all this, and tell me exactly where did I say “birth” name? I said “user screen name”. There’s a big difference. As for as the reference to the Ku Klux Klan, I present to everybody exhibit A [[2]]. In this particular exhibit (at the bottom of the page), it will show that Caden at one time incorprorated the white supremacy group in his screen name, going by the moniker CadenKKK. He was given an blocked indefinately by administrator Hersfold for that screen name, only to be uplifted upon changing it. It does not excuse the intolerable behavior of Caden, resorting to something as uncivil as that.

Of course, I can go on and on about this editor, but I felt I made my point. This simply goes to show that Caden has not been telling the truth on everything he has done, and it takes a person like me and other editors and adminstrators to undig all of his wrong doings. He claims he has done “nothing wrong.” I’m sure I can find other editors and administrators who will say otherwise. I don’t hate him. I don’t hate people in general. But at the same time, I'm not the type of person who will tolerate such abuse and behavior as Caden has demonstrated in his relatively short period of editing on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The three IPs listed at the top all geolocate to the same greater metro area. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that while I posted the second IP, it was not blocked, because it has not edited in several weeks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Attacking another editor is an attack. It doesn't matter if you do it on their Talk page, your Talk page, an edit summary, or some other place. Don't attack others, period. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's my reply in response to Keltie's post point by point:

First disection - Keltie "did attack" IP68.50.128.120 in his edit summary. This is his personal attack: "Undoing crap by obnoxious editor." How can he deny that? The evidence is there.

Second disection - Fine man you can remove warnings from your talk page but "you can't" make personal attacks in your edit summaries like you did again with me. Your edit summary was this: "Again removing crap by yet another obnoxious editor. One who has even worst dealings." That is a personal attack. You say I'm difficult, well I find you difficult and so have others. And yes, I too am not afraid to express my opinions man. At least I tell the truth dude and am not afraid to say it. I can't say that about you man.

Third disection - It's true I don't have anything against you. I don't like to see you attacking other editors in your edit summaries and that is why man I gave you a friendly warning. Dude you've received so many warnings from admins and other editors for the exact same thing, so I wonder why you chose to single me out yet again? I think this is the third time you've taken me to ANI man. It's obvious you have a grudge against me dude. Why else would you be canvasing 3 separate admins on their talk pages in attempts to achieve a block against me? You've been to the pages of User talk:Exploding Boy, User talk:AniMate and User talk:Chzz, ranting your bull. I am not wikihounding you Keltie so you can quit saying that man.

Fourth disection - Dude you were blocked for edit warring and so was I. It had nothing to do with me wikihounding you, so don't flatter yourself. Trust me man, I don't care what you believe. Dude I was never blocked for "irrational behavior" so quit it with the lies already. My block log clearly shows it was for a edit warring.

Fifth disection - First off my username is my birthname and you've known that for months dude. As for your KKK allegations it's misleading lies on your part as an attempt to distort the truth in the hopes that an admin will fall for it and block me or ban me. Whatever. If editors want the truth, they can read about that in the link you provided to my talk page. In short, it had to do with an old ANI (the report was not about me) where 3 editors called me a racist or made remarks that I was somehow associated with the KKK. All of it was abusive lies and not a single editor was blocked for those attacks. I remember well how Bugs enabled and helped to fuel the fires of hell on that ANI. It's no surprise to see that dude sitting here silently now. Anyway when I saw that the community was pretty much allowing the devious lies, the abusive attacks and the appalling accusations to go on, I got very upset and made a poor judgment on my part. I changed my username in anger to make a point and I was punished for that with a block. Hersfold and I worked it all out after I calmed down and not only was the block lifted but he also expressed to me that he understood why I got upset and why I did it because something similar had happened to him on wiki. Dude my block was for "disruption to make a point" and not for my signature. I am human and do make mistakes.

Here's my take. The dude is pissed off that I exposed him for incivility and for making personal attacks in his edit summaries. So in retaliation (like before) he's here on ANI (like before) and canvasing to 3 admins on their talk pages to achieve what he hopes to get. A block or a ban. Period. Caden ^cool 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So, just why did you see fit to add "KKK" to your signature at one point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...maybe he was just agreeing with someone three times? Yes? HalfShadow 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe a really successful inning? Protonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I knew you when you were just an amateur tonk. Good think you didn't decide to go with that name, huh? HalfShadow 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's German; it means "The Bart, the." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could people please re-read what I said or could you please read the link to this blown out of proportion lie? Listen, if you can't be neutral or fair then please don't bother causing me further harm here. Caden ^cool 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone labels you racist, adding "KKK" to your ID doesn't do much to dispel that notion, no matter how good an idea it may have seemed at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, are you still here? HalfShadow 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bootlegtonk, perhaps? Also, explodingboy wins. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs you of all people know what happened on that old ANI that was filed against ParaGreen. Don't act dumb here please. It's insulting since you were the one who fueled the fire. And HalfShadow, I was protecting the use of freedom of speech on that ANI since I don't support censorship of any kind but in my attempt to do the right thing, it was twisted by Bugs and 2 others and changed into this whole KKK hate garbage and I was victimised from there. Caden ^cool

In fact later on Bugs thought it was funny and claimed he understood the whole thing. Here's what he said about it: I know Roux wouldn't want me to say this, but I kind of liked that signature of yours. It was too outrageous to be taken seriously. Probably better not to use it too much. But it was a way of mocking some of us, and pretty much deservedly so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Caden ^cool 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That was 5 months ago, and since I didn't recall saying it (I do now that you brought it up), it's not surprising that someone who stumbled across it would fail to see the humor in it. Seems to me like you two should take your specific content issues to dispute resolution so someone can untangle it all. As far as personal issues, maybe a no-contact ban on both sides would be in order. It's working so far, between me and some other editor whose name escapes me just now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow baiting Caden

Here, HalfShadow has been engaging in baiting Caden, who didn't respond very happily. I warned him, he responded with insults, I warned him against the incivility, and it continued. It doesn't look like he's going to stop any of the offensive behaviour anytime soon. → ROUX ₪ 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If Baseball Bugs, HalfShadow, and Protonk can't remain mature or neutral then can you please stop posting. This isn't a game. None of you are helping. Baiting me is not acceptable behavior on ANI. EB you're an admin who's been in conflict with me not only in the past but just recently. I really don't feel you should be commenting. I apologize if I'm wrong but I don't see how you can help. All I ask is that editors and admins review this report in a neutral/fair manner. I will accept any decision or not. I just want this report to be about fairness and it should focus on the evidence only and not be distracted by some who think this is all a big joke. It's not. Thanks. Caden ^cool 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission granted to dock my pay for skylarking on the job. I wasn't commenting on the substance of the complaint, just a diversion near the end. Doing so is not serious business. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here, and in fact I was invited to comment on your behaviour but declined, so I think you should be counting your blessings. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Halfshadow is continuing his baiting and insults. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I admit that I sometimes enjoy Halfshadow's wry sense of humor, but I do agree that the "Stimpy" remark was OTT. — Ched :  ?  11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan history of edit warring at Rebecca Quick

The disruption at Rebecca Quick was not from the IPs, and certainly not from Caden, but from KMF; the history of KMF's editing of that article reveals a pattern of attempting to exclude mention of her former marriage, initially because it was "trivial." Later, the argument became one of impeaching sources, yet similar sources were allowed as mention of the current marriage. In reviewing this, I looked over KMF's editing history and suspect a possible conflict of interest involvement, which would explain the otherwise puzzling situation that KMF was willing to edit war over what was, from the beginning, a known and non-defamatory fact supported by reliable source, the prior marriage.

Edits to Rebecca Quick, all the KMF reverts are in bold:

• 17:15, 6 May 2009 64.210.199.231 (→External links)

• IP is registered to NBC Universal.[3]

• 17:30, 6 May 2009 Mquayle (removed gossip reference).

• Mquayle registered 17:26, 6 May 2009. The current husband of Rebecca Quick is Matthew Quayle, the producer of Quick's program. This removal of reference to the identities of spouses stood until 7 July 2009.

• 21:49, 7 July 2009 162.6.97.3 restored a mention re the present marriage: "It is her second marriage."
• 12:57, 8 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 300875201 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Not really appropriate to mention.) This began edit warring.
• 11:44, 17 July 2009 76.114.133.44 etc.
• 12:20, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 302583314 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Not appropriate to mention.)
• 12:25, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302587651 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Again, inappropriate. Do not change it.)
• 12:41, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302588154 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Unsource, rude, and inappropriate to mention of a living person.)
• Then Onorem intervened and revert warred against the IP, giving "unsourced" as the reason. However, there was mention of the former marriage already in source for the previous sentence, which stated: "She now lives in Haworth, New Jersey"[4]. The 2006 source is the New York times, and it mentions her husband, "she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer." That would have been Peter Shay, we have the name from other sources. So there was no reference on the text itself, hence I understand Onorem's action. But there was adjacent reference adequate to establish a former marriage. The IP was blocked for edit warring.
• 162.6.97.3 was blocked] for "block evasion." (which is unclear, I found it likely that the two IPs are different users. I have a suspicion that one is the former husband, and the other may be a friend, but no proof of either.)
• 16:41, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (See talk page for discussion) etc.
• 17:33, 5 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306233866 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Despite everything, this edit STILL does not have a source listed.)
• 18:51, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (Please see talk page for discussion)
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (Protected Rebecca Quick: here we are again ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC))))
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: as before)
• 22:53, 6 August 2009 Abd (actually, the source was already there. Add additional source.)

• The additional source is a newsletter of a local organization that had a photo of Rebecca Quick with her then-husband, Peter Shay. I put it in to balance other information in the article, from not-so-reliable source, mentioning Matthew Quayle by name, the current husband, also to establish more clearly that the "computer programmer" is a different husband than the "producer."

• 15:01, 7 August 2009 Bilby (removed unreliable (and unneeded) source)
• 20:01, 7 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Reverted 1 edit by Bilby; No reason to assume 3rd sector source is unreliable unless you have evidence it has been hacked.. (TW)
• 20:28, 7 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306659446 by Elen of the Roads (talk) Not an adaquate source. Like putting water in a gas tank.)
• 16:47, 9 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Readded Cedar Run source. Talkpage consensus seems to be for it. Please discuss before removing again.)
• 18:26, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306997914 by Elen of the Roads (talk) I'm sorry. But two people (Elen and Abd) is not consensus.)
• 20:32, 9 August 2009 Coppertwig (Undid revision 307013795 by KeltieMartinFan (talk) Revert. Sorry, but one person (KeltieMartinFan) is not consensus.)
• 21:21, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 307034753 by Coppertwig (talk) It's not only me, but I'm not about to list the names either. Way too many.)

Notice that the first edit warring was not over sourcing, it was over the bare mention of the prior marriage. This was supporting the earlier removal by, we may assume, Rebecca Quick's present husband. In the discussion begun by the IP, Talk:Rebecca Quick#Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married., KMF wrote, I personally don't oppose JohnnyB256 suggestion of excluding all of Quick's martial information on this article. I’m sure Miss Quick and those close to her would actually prefer it that way. What makes sense to me is that, indeed, Ms. Quick's current husband wanted the mention removed, and that KMF's tendentious attempts to remove any mention, plus, once it was obvious that total removal wasn't going to fly, at least any reference where readers would find the former husband's name, was based on KMF's personal support for Quick's husband, here "I'm sure" is based on actual knowledge. KMF has a history of editing articles related to NBC. There may be a conflict of interest, or there may merely be a tenacious and uncivil editor who is going to push as hard as possible for what the editor wants, to the extent of edit warring and, now, filing this AN/I report. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, noticed days ago that Keltie edits nearly any article to do with NBC (programs,hosts etc) which left me feeling there could be a COI here. I just finished reading the drama caused by Keltie on the issue over Rebecca Quick having been married once before previously (she's now on her second marriage), despite the reliable sources that supports that former marriage, Keltie fought endlessly to have it removed from the article (that's fishy). I had had a feeling days ago that there was a possiblity he may be employed by NBC or at the very least is associated in some way. So due to the possiblity of a COI, I mentioned my concerns to an admin called Chzz. The discussion of that is on my own talk page under the section"Question". It sure is a relief that at least another editor noticed the bizarre editing on every NBC related article . Caden ^cool 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see much reason for assuming a COI. Not that there isn't necessarily one, but the early reverts were of unsourced personal information in a BLP, and you don't need a COI to want to remove material under those conditions. While it isn't exactly a big deal to have been divorced, a previous marriage was being mentioned without a source, and it is the responsibility of the editor re-adding the material to provide one. The later reverts (which I started) were to remove a self-published source (a newsletter) from the article, which is again in keeping with policy, and made sense given that Abd had provided a better source (New York Times) as well as the newsletter. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bilby, the New York Times source was there all along, all I did was make it a bit more obvious, by referring to the "computer programmer." It was the standing reference for the text that Quick "now lives in Haworth, New Jersey," the only thing that I did that was new was to read it -- besides researching the background of this, which includes coverage of the May edits to our article article, by a "gossip column." (That's cited in the Talk discussion.) The Times said that she was married to a computer programmer. The newsletter was not a "self published source," it is independent confirmation, and might be, in fact, the source for the New York Times comment. It was the newsletter of a local conservancy or the like. It has a photo of Rebecca Quick, as well as her parents and husband. Is it impossible that there was an error in this newsletter? Sure, anything is possible. Frankly, an error of that magnitude, that the organization had missed the name of their celebrity guest's husband, seems less likely to me than what I see in reliable sources quite frequently, wherever I know the subject of the article. And like a major error in a major source, it would have been corrected. I added the newsletter to cover the possibility that the NBC producer had been a computer programmer in 2006. The newsletter is a supporting source that provides information necessary to kill that: the name of the former husband. Since the article doesn't name the present husband, balance would suggest that the former husband not be named either, but the additional source was evidence that there wasn't a coincidence. There is also the gossip column, but it apparently depends on the newsletter as a source. A serious journalist would have checked with legal records, were there any doubt. I don't think there is any doubt.

KMF is a disruptive editor, uncivil and willing to edit war over trivia, and bears watching. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

extended comment by Abd

I'd say that the only reason that the newsletter reference isn't still there is that I don't edit war, and since nobody was claiming that the present husband is a computer programmer, Bilby's claim, that the extra source wasn't necessary, was sufficiently close to true to not be worth the disruption of contending about it. Coppertwig had accepted that argument, but I'm not sure that Coppertwig had considered the issue of confirmation of separate identity. As to conflict of interest on KMF's, I don't see how, from a review of the evidence above, Bilby can say "I can't see much reason for assuming" it. Not proof, as I noted. But the level of coincidence is high; were it important, more research could be done on the nature of KMF's edits; this particular sequence shows active edit warring to remove a piece of non-defamatory information originally removed, we may assume, by Quick's present husband (a clear COI involved in the real beginning of this) (or someone pretending to be the present husband, which, if it were a pretense, would simply increase the mystery). KMF edit warred in pursuit of the removal of this almost trivial information, and was grossly, gratuitously, and provocatively uncivil. Caden is naive and erred in restoring KMF Talk material that had been removed by KMF, but he was correct about the incivility. KMF also removed the edit warring warning I dropped on KMF Talk (KMF had hit 3RR in the second edit war) and then put it on my own Talk page, making it look like I'd been warned for edit warring until I framed it. Note that all of KMF's edits of consequence to the article were bald reverts, showing no attempt to find a compromise. KMF is a disruptive editor and, at least, bears watching. On the original arguments presented by KMF, if the first marriage was notable enough to mention in the New York Times, it is notable enough for the project in an article on the subject of the NY Times article. Notability does not expire. It doesn't belong in the article, but the photo in the newsletter conveys volumes about the history of this subject. If that man is an NBC producer, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Computer programmer? Sure. Makes total sense. All computer programmers are now allowed to complain, but I'm simply pointing out that some people are good at somethings, others at others, and the skills involving in being a producer include self-presentation, computer programmers generally don't care about that. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The source originally removed by the IP that was certainly MQuayle was [5], which was eventually restored to the article (by Bilby?). This is a source for the new marriage, reported in January 2009. So this is, indeed, adequate to show that the reported computer programmer husband, as of 2006, was not Matthew Quayle, the additional source would then merely be for interest. I know I was interested to see that, and no original research is required.... --Abd (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is far from a core issue here, so I'll be very quick. The WP:BLP policy is pleasantly clear: "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects;" and "... or that relies upon self-published sources". There was no source being provided for the claim that the subject had divorced in the article, thus it was reasonable for it to be removed. Personally, I would have tried to find a source and add it, but while that might be expected, it isn't required. Second, Wikipedia defines self published sources as including newsletters. Thus removing that as a source, when a better one was already being used, was perfectly reasonable. There is nothing in the newsletter valuable enough to warrant using a non-RS in a BLP. So while I can't comment on whether or not KeltieMartinFan has a COI, nothing in the editor's behaviour was unusual or speaks to that claim, as the reverts were firmly within BLP policy. If there is a concern, perhaps it is worth raising at WP:COI/N, although I doubt there will be much milage. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why there is such an obsession, by all concerned, over whether this woman was previously married. Why does it matter? And when did wikipedia become the Midnight Star? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a curious mystery. :) Although, it should be said, editors have been known to argue over some odd concerns. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's looking more and more like this one needs to be added to that list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below). Actually, it's not odd at all, it only seems that way if possible COI isn't considered. In my various discussions of this, I repeatedly pointed out that admin and other response to this was reasonable, but reflected a lack of depth, which is normal. Most editors can't or won't put in the kind of time necessary to really understand what is going on. The information about a former marriage was sourced, but the reference was on the previous sentence, not the one re-inserted by the IP. Easy to overlook. I actually did at least two hours of research on this before seeing it. However,almost certainly KMF was aware. My hypothesis: one of the IP editors is the former husband, or possibly a friend of same. The former husband doesn't like being written out of history. And I can understand this, and if he was notable before, he still is. The IP editor who removed the reference to the article about the marriage, and the infobox reference to the marriages, was, almost certainly, the present husband, who understandably wants to preserve his wife's privacy, and who then registered and removed the infobox reference to the two marriages. KMF seems suspiciously aligned with the latter agenda, given the overall editing pattern. It is not a lame concern for those involved. However, if Quick wants reference to the marriage removed, the path would be through OTRS, not by edit warring to keep it out. My judgment, though, is that it belongs, it is adequately sourced; the wife is notable, a public figure, I don't think that can be undone. She was married before, so have been a lot of people, including me. It's no shame, and we know nothing about why that marriage ended, and, unless it appears in reliable source, I'm not going to even speculate. What was my concern here? It was about edit warring and a ready assumption that the problem was the IP editors, even to the point that it was assumed they were socks. That wasn't an unreasonable guess, but it may have been wrong. There was a problem with the IPs, for sure, but it wasn't what necessarily appeared, and there was more of a problem with KMF, who may remain active on other NBC-related articles. I'm not terribly concerned about the short IP blocks, they do little damage, and the IPs understand the problem and if they want to register an account, they can.

So, if there are no more problems, great, we are done here. I only brought up all this about KMF because of the aggressive filing of this report. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. What I'd really like to hear from you is a reason why her supposed previous marriage actually matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KeltieMartinFan has taken no further action to alter or change the Quick article. Thus KMF's word should be accepted that the matter is finished.

A Quick edit-war did occur, with incivility by the major parties involved. That appears to be done as well.

Whatever exists between User:Caden and User:KeltieMartinFan is a pre-existing condition Completely Unrelated to the Quick matter. Whatever brings any other kibitzers here other than User:Bilby and User:Abd is unclear as well.

That said, while User:Abd has been helpful in much of the Quick debate, Abd is repeatedly over-amped about potential conflicts-of-interest in the matter. It also serves little purpose at this time to recount exhaustively all of the Quick edit-war particulars.

Finally, and amusingly, only User:KeltieMartinFan would vouch for Carrie Prejean's dignity!  :)

162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the fixed IP most strongly suspected, by me, of being the former husband. It hasn't actually been denied, but, as long as the IP doesn't edit war or offend in other ways, it's moot, it merely is one of a number of alternate hypotheses that do, in fact, show why this was of such earth-shaking importance to several editors. This particular incident is finished, but I put the evidence here for future reference, if it is needed. If KMF is sincere, indeed, it's over. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Abd Please, please stop with the suspicions! :)

It may be hard to grasp, but edit-wars can occur without NBC employees or ex-husbands involved. And that is very much the case with the Quick matter!

162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that Keltie remains so interested on practically every single NBC related type of article. Having looked through his history shows that he edits nearly every single morning program imaginable on NBC as well as other NBC programs, NBC personalities, you name it it's all NBC related. A few months ago Keltie was involved in an edit war over Katie Couric. No surprise there which leads me to believe more and more that if Keltie isn't employed by NBC, then he must be associated in one way or another. Either way it's a COI and seems to make a lot of sense based on all the NBC type of articles he edits. Unless of course he's just an obsessed fan of NBC. Caden ^cool 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And what's your personal interest in this woman's marital history? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh Bugs, Caden wasn't writing about Quick's marital history, he was addressing KeltieMartinFan's editting behavior. Two different, & independent, topics. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I say again - the two should stay away from each other. Period. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Bugs. Caden and I should stay away from each other. And until three days ago, I was doing just that until Caden decided to barge in AGAIN on my own business here on Wikipedia. Just like he did three months earlier with the whole Amy Robach & Jenna Wolfe spat. It is Caden that you need to tell to stay away from me. Because I was staying away from him until he decided to bother me again. I even forgot about him until he pooped up on my talk page. As they say, actions speak louder than words. No matter how many ways Caden says he has nothing against me, and has no grudge...his actions clearly say otherwise. None of what Caden has said in the last few days have been honest and truthful. Caden said that HE has not been blocked for irrational behavior? What does he think edit-warring is? As for the KKK reference, where in his right frame of mind does he think putting that as part of his signature rational and acceptable in the first place? I might be difficult in my own little way, but I would NEVER stoop to such a low level like Caden did. As for Abd, he too is quickly developing a reputation that almost rivals that of Caden. None of what he presented in the last couple of days are evidences of disruptive behavior on my part. All Abd presented were actions by me that are legitimate and within Wikipedia policies. He is only boosting my reputation on here even higher. As for the whole conflict of interest accusation that both Caden and Abd are trying to accuse me of? At least I had my proof of your KKK reference when you accuse me of "lying" about it, Caden. You and Abd DON'T HAVE proof that conflict of interest exists with me and NBC. And I’m not going to say whether or not conflict of interest does exist either. Such petty accusations are not worth my time, and I don’t feel that I should be obligated to go easy on the two you, and let you two off the hook that quickly. If you two really want to go the extra mile with that accusation, be my guess. PROVE IT. It will give me great satisfaction to know that two editors who have it in for me will go out of their way, and spend a lot of their valuable time and effort JUST TO find out if I, KeltieMartinFan, have any type of association with the National Broadcasting Company, General Electric, or any of their subsidiaries. I will say this though to everybody, when the two of you were trying to dig up dirt on me and my "supposed" obsession with NBC, they clearly left out all my important and positive contributions on various shows and personalities on networks other than NBC, like ABC’s Good Morning America and their various personalties, CBS’s The Early Show and their various personalites, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Erica Hill & Robin Meade, Fox Business Network’s Alexis Glick and Fox News Channel’s Gretchen Carlson, Alisyn Camerota & Ainsley Earhardt. Not to mention the numerous times I had to revert information caused by vandals on political commentator and Republican strategist Margaret Hoover. You don't actually think going through your edit log, Caden, that I can't figure out what type of personality you have, don't you? Just like you and Abd are trying to figure out what type of personality I have from my edit log? If you two still think conflict of interest is involved, I would care less. I’m not going to defend myself over you two in particular over this far-fetched accusation just to downplay my credibility on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone involved just needs to take a breather. Tempers are flaring and it's not doing anyone a bit of good. That said, I'm not inclined to believe Keltie has a COI simply because of his editing patterns. More proof is needed to show that a COI exists. I'm sure you could go through anyone's edit history with a fine tooth comb and find a pattern that appears damning. (I'm sure this was helpful in some minuscule way.) --clpo13_(talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light

David Tombe (talk · contribs) has been waging a vehement campaign at Talk:Speed of light and WT:PHYS to claim that the fact that the metre is defined in terms of a fixed value of the speed of light has invalidated much (if not most) of the science of physics. The speed of light in SI units has been fixed since 1983, <sarcasm>yet the scientific community seems to have been totally unaware of the tautology for 26 years until David Tombe decided to expound on it at length on Wikipedia.</sarcasm> This user's behaviour is disrupting attempts to improve the Speed of light article, a former featured article: it obviously falls under not only WP:SOAPBOX but also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (lovingly known as WP:ARBCRANK). I feel that a topic ban is in order. Physchim62 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What conflict resolution did you use before asking for a topic ban? Ussually that is a last resort as I understand it. Upon a review of the users talk page I don't see any warnings for using the talkpage or any recent warnings period. From my standpoint there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done here yet as not one whit of resolution of this dispute before running here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified the person in question they had a thread here as I didn't see he was notified on his talk page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem with David. There was a WQA report about his behavior and a somewhat related, drawn-out ANI report that included him a little more than a month ago, albeit related to a different set of incidents. However, he seems to have removed from his talk page the notices and the resulting WQA advice given. I would add that David is not only disruptive on the talk pages but also outright uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him (essentially calling them idiots or accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on speed of light, but the volume of traffic in the related WT:PHYS thread has been making it nigh-unreadable for other purposes for the last couple of days. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the dispute at speed of light was ongoing long before I got involved. I entered as a mediator in order to try and ascertain what the dispute was about. I discovered that it was about attempts to prevent another editor from elaborating on something important. The 1983 re-definition of the metre, in terms of the speed of light, has had a major effect on the concept of the speed of light. The non-physics readership will not be aware of this major change from the traditional approach, and so some kind of elaboration is necessary in the article. I do not see any basis here for an allegation of disruptive editing. I have not made many edits on the main speed of light article. As for FyzixFighter's opportunist intervention here, it should be noted that FyzixFighter has conducted a prolonged campaign of undermining my edits. The latest case involves removing referenced material from a history chronology. FyzixFighter's 'modus operandi' is to consistently remove edits of mine and then pose as a victim of incivility. He will go to the talk page claiming that he doesn't want to discuss the topic in question because I am being uncivil to him, and he will seldom engage in discussion of the actual physics in question. A closer scrutiny of FyzixFighter's behaviour will reveal that he is merely removing edits that contain physics that he wasn't previously aware of. David Tombe (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe page banned

• I hereby implement an indefinite length pageban of David Tombe (talk · contribs) from Talk:Speed of light and Speed of light for:
  • Persistent disruption, soapboxing, circular arguing. [6][7][8][9]
  • General incivility and assumptions of bad faith. [10][11]
• I'll also log this sanction at WP:ARBPS Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) and 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, Your example of my assumption of bad faith was the very passage which I have just written above in my own defence. The other examples which you have cited prove absolutely nothing at all. David Tombe (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with a topic ban. The first action should be to decide, on he basis of a consensus on the talk page, that a certain topic that has been discussed with David has been settled and continue to discussing this is not relevant to improving the article. Then, if David (or someone else) kicks off yet another discussion on the same topic, we can simply revert the talk page. Then, if David were to revert that deletion and edit war over the talk page contents, you have a more basic edit warring problem which can be brought there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that this falls under the Pseudoscience (WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS) decision, this really should have been at AE. Anyway...could someone please provide a link where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that same decision? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see evidence regarding what crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind. My singular point on the talk page was that another editor should have the right to draw the very important distinction between the speed of light in the traditional sense, and the speed of light subsequent to the 1983 decision to define the metre in terms of the speed of light. That distinction needs to be made high up in the article, for the benefit of the non-physics readership.

Hardly a basis for a topic ban or accusations of crankery or pseudoscience. Can anybody see an edit of mine on the first history page of the speed of light article? David Tombe (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that the "crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind" is the same as the crank science that David has raised repeatedly here where every other editor has either pointed out (often repeatedly) the scientific errors or that it is WP:OR or both.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Jehochman's action, but want to note that this has little to do with pseudoscience. It may be "bad science" or "crankery", but those aren't the same thing as pseudoscience. The reasons that Jehochman gave are the correct reasons. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"I am not an admin"...but Jehochman appears to have acted quite properly, and in a timely fashion to prevent further disruption. My opinion itself is worth little, but I fully support him in this case. Doc Tropics 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Jehochman's topic ban. I keep seeing the name David Tombe coming up in connection with strange edits of physics articles. I reserve judgment on whether quite enough data has been collected in the present discussion compared to how a proper topic ban is presented. If Tombe has not yet been properly notified of WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS, I support giving a proper notification, and then reissuing the ban if Tombe does not make any concrete promise of reform in the mean time. If it turns out that any formalities have been overlooked, consider refiling the matter at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, The strange physics edits that you are talking about perhaps ultimately came down to one issue. That issue was,

The identification of one of the terms in the radial planetary orbital equation as centrifugal force.

I got into alot of trouble over that, but I was eventually proved correct. I can't think of any more off hand. But the current issue here seems to be because of the opinions that I have been expressing on the speed of light talk page. It's certainly not about actual edits on the main article. Ultimately, I have been trying to educate these guys about the fact that the famous equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is purely a consequence of experimental measurement of the right hand side. They have been arguing against this and showing me Maxwell's equations, as if I had never seen them before, and they have all totally overlooked the fact that Maxwell incorporated the above equation into his own equations as a consequence of an experiment in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. I have shown them all the exact paragraph in the relevant paper. See page 49 of the pdf link at [12]. There is no bad science, or pseudoscience, or crank science going on on my part.

This vendetta has been motivated purely because they have all been proved wrong. When has anybody ever been topic banned from an article on such minimal input, when others who are actually engaged in an edit war on that page are not similarly banned? David Tombe (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Jehochman's first charge looks proven I am not convinced by the evidence provided that David has indulged in "General incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I would acquit him of that charge.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I remarked before, David has a history of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. See the WP:WQA report placed last month, the warning/advice resulting from the report, and other previous examples: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Some recent examples appear to indicate that he has yet to understand that such behavior is wrong: [18], [19], [20]. I realize these aren't from the Speed of light dispute, but they do show a pattern of behavior that is disruptive. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm thicker skinned than some, but looking at the recent links I still see no violation of AGF. I do see someone who rates quite highly on the crackpot index and will never change. That should be the basis of the ban, IMO. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can admit that, after dealing with the editor's not so recent behavior for awhile, my tolerance for being told I delete stuff because I'm afraid of the truth and for being compared to the thought police has become greatly diminished. I'll work on having thicker skin. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So then according to Michael Price, the crank science in question was in the textbooks up until relatively recently, and we have not even established yet if it has been totally removed from the textbooks. The crank science that Michael Price has drawn our attention to relates to an experiment that appears in modern advanced level physics textbooks which I used as a physics teacher. The question being posed at the wiki-physics project page is exactly about whether or not that experiment has been removed. David Tombe (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I logged this action in case it falls under WP:ARBPS. If not, the sanction is still appropriate in my responsibility as an administrator to protect the project from disruption.I could block the editor indefinitely. Instead, I chose to ban them from 2 of our 3,000,000 pages, a much lighter sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Severity is not the issue. If you're not following the terms of discretionary sanctions from that case, then it's an ordinary admin action and I don't see how it can be logged there. Those terms were specifically designed to avoid any action, without a warning. As the imposing admin, can you (or someone else) please provide a diff to where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that case? Btw, was he counselled on taking steps to improve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Experimental_determination_of_the_electric_permittivity contains, among other things, several instances of editors trying to explain to him what sort of references and citations he'll need in order to make a case for the changes he wants to make to speed of light. Lots of examples of him using circular reasoning and either not understanding or not acknowledging the points raised by other participants in the thread. If the WP:PHYS thread is still continuing in the same vein by the time the weekend rolls around, I'll put together a proper diff list for you and ask for further sanctions, but right now I'm going to hope that discussion will yield a solution. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No Christopher, This is just an opportunist swipe from you because I showed you to be wrong when you claimed that the equation c^2 = 1/(με) can be derived theoretically. I made my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics project page. You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. You know that c^2 = 1/(με) is a numerical relationship which follows purely as a consequence of the experimental determination of the right hand side. David Tombe (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. This is also probably a good example of civility and AGF concerns. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher, You are rather presumptuous in claiming on your edit title that I received quite a bit of a coaching at the wiki-physics page, when in fact it was you that received the coaching. You previously had no idea how the numerical relationship c^2 = 1/(με) came to be in Maxwell's equations. And it seems that none of the rest of you did either. This is one big witch hunt because you were all shown to be wrong. And for you, this opportunistic swipe is just one big face saver. David Tombe (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually David, you have significantly shifted your position as a result of the coaching on the wiki-physics page (which is good) although you deny this (which is bad). BTW, although I earlier acquited you of violation of AGF you should be aware the recent statement (above) You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. violates AGF. I think you know what the consequences of this are likely to be. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, In what respect did I shift my position? Can you please clarify this statement. David Tombe (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse per EdJohnston. There are many troubling examples that demonstrate problematic conduct, and attempts made by involved editors to reason with him, including both here and here. Btw, thank you Christopher Thomas for highlighting these examples. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, What about my attempts to reason with Christopher Thomas? What makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas was the one that was correct in the dispute? David Tombe (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe, I was purely referring to the conduct issues and approach, rather than who was correct in the content issues. Jehochman has been extremely generous by imposing a restriction that still leaves you with the ability to responsibly edit any other pages on Wikipedia - there's a lot to choose from. I suggest that rather than let this privillege go to waste, you should reflect on your approach in the various examples users refer to, and find ways to improve it if you encounter similar situations. This may involve reviewing fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I was not particulary active at the speed of light article. I heard that in other areas of wikipedia, a person was given a 3 hour block for very definite incivility, and that caused a huge backlash that lingered for a while. What exactly is so generous about an indefinite topic ban for an article that I wasn't even active on at the time. I was nothing to do with the recent edit war there. And let's get these supposed incivilities into perspective. Under severe provocation, I doubt if anything I have said on this thread amounts to anything worth talking about. On the contrary I have seen no end of assumptions of bad faith being directed at me on no evidence at all other than empty inuendo, such as flashing a lengthy physics debate at a non-physics readership. Nobody seems to be worrying about the freedom of others to go around calling me a crank. So if you are going to make inuendos about my conduct issues and approach, I need you to be more specific. I do not accept Christopher Thomas's self appointed status as a physics arbitrator and I discount his allegations totally. David Tombe (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Does it matter that an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban as appropriate? Or am I beating a dead horse by offering my opinion? I've read this thread & the related one at WT:PHYS, which show at the least David Tombe is violating no original research; at the most, he is being disruptive over insisting on the inclusion of his own idiosyncratic understanding of physics. Maybe he should have a look at working on some of the 3 million other articles on Wikipedia: for example, I can't imagine working on the biographical stubs of physicists would lead to the same issues that these two articles did. -- llywrch (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about that. There seems to be another long thread at Talk:History_of_centrifugal_and_centripetal_forces#Johann Bernoulli II where he's claiming one interpretation of an issue and several other editors are disagreeing and trying to explain to him the basis of their disagreement. If I understand correctly, a page name change is also muddying the waters for that discussion. However, I've only taken a superficial look at the thread's contents. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher, That's enough of your assumptions of bad faith. You have misinterpreted the situation there too. There was an issue about whether or not Maxwell's use of centrifugal force to explain magnetic repulsion is an admissible topic for the article entitled 'history of centrifugal force'. I was suggesting that it is an admissible topic. End of story. You are coming here making malicious allegations because of a debate at WT:PHYS that didn't go your way. You come here in front of a non-physics audience acting as if you and the others at WT:PHYS are the three wise men, and that you had a big problem not being able to explain some issue in physics to me, and you assume that everybody will automatically think that you must be right. Drop it. Why not go to Uncle Tom's Cabin and stir up a civil war there? David Tombe (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No Llywrch, You have got it so badly wrong. Let's finally hear what the truth is. The WT:PHYS thread contains a query regarding changes that have taken place in the textbooks since 1983 in relation to the re-definition of the metre. This change seems to have had the effect of reversing the direction of a well known equation in physics. That equation is c^2 = 1/εμ. This equation is an empirical equation which reads from right to left. It's origins lie in an experiment that was performed in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. The equation links experimentally determined values in electromagnetism to the speed of light. Since 1983 however, this equation has been reversed and now reads from left to right. We now use a defined speed of light to define the quantity ε on the right hand side. The argument at WT:PHYS involved the attempts of about four editors to persuade me that the equation c^2 = 1/εμ follows from Maxwell's equations. All of them, with the exception of Christopher Thomas failed to comprehend the fact that Maxwell himself incorporated the numerical relationship from the 1856 experiment by Weber and Kohlrausch. Christopher Thomas at first tried to say the same thing as the other three. But when I pointed this fact out again, he backtracked and said that the experimental bit is only needed for the numerical relationship. I told him that that is exactly what I had been saying. Christopher Thomas then came to ANI and claimed that many people had been trying to reason with me but that I didn't acknowledge or didn't want to acknowledge what they had been saying. He then started to discuss gathering evidence with a view to what sanctions would be appropriate for me. The actual thread at WT:PHYS was then actually presented as an exhibit of evidence to prove that I was being disruptive. Christopher Thomas was obviously totally confident that the non-physics readership here would believe everything that he said. I then defended myself against this malicious allegation and gross assumption of bad faith, as a result of which I was then accused of assuming bad faith for likewise doubting that he didn't want to acknowledge the true facts. It seems that accusations and allegations are fine when they come from some editors, but that from other editors, even a defence can be taken to be an assumption of bad faith. So my question to you, Llwrych is 'Just what makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas is right?' All these allegations about crankery and pseudoscience are an attempt to hide the truth of what was discussed at WT:PHYS. And all these allegations of incivility are just rubbish. David Tombe (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I made no such backtrack. The relevant posts are here and here, and say the same thing in slightly different ways. This is an excellent example of you misunderstanding what editors are trying to say to you. After the second try, it became clear that useful communication was unlikely to be possible, so I stopped participating in the thread. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Christopher, but that just doesn't wash. If it was merely a case of you failing to persuade me of something in physics, then why come to ANI to make a serious allegation and to talk about sanctions, and with such a confidence as if it was already decided beyond any doubt that you were right, and as if it was a matter of certainty that everybody here was going to believe you. Your allegation against me is one big sick joke. David Tombe (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe, which of my statements are you saying "No" to? That an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban? Or that I'm beating a dead horse? Or perhaps my understanding that you are promoting original research? If you are not promoting original research, then please share with us a reliable source which supports your assertion that the redefinition of the meter in 1983 is both relevant to the importance of this equation & notable. Otherwise, kindly submit your findings to the appropriate periodical for review and publication & drop this line of argument which has gone on far, far too long. You have been banned from editting those pages, & so far you have not said anything which addresses that ban, let alone convinced me that it is not the proper solution. -- llywrch (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch, You have got two closely related topics confused here. The discussion at WT:PHYS related to an issue at the vacuum permittivity page. The isse there was about whether or not the experimental determination of electric permittivity was removed from the textbooks subsequent to the re-definition of the metre in 1983. I was basically asking a question, and the first answer that I received was from Steve Byrnes, who suggested that the experiment in question is indeed still in the textbooks. But then Headbomb came in and formally stated the 'new physics' position as regards units and definitions, which we all know anyway. I reminded him that the equation in question is an experimental result. The argument with other editors then followed. This particular ANI thread was opened up by editor from the speed of light page because of opinions that I was expressing on the speed of light talk page. I was backing up an number of other editors on the issue that the re-definition of the metre, and its affect on the speed of light needs to be clarified for the benefit of the non-physics readership. Sources pointing out the tautology in the new definition were provided at that discussion. Chritopher Thomas then entered this thread as a 'novus actus interventus' and changed the subject to the discussion at WT:PHYS. He held up the very existence of this discussion at WT:PHYS as an exhibit to prove disruptive behaviour. He boldly assumed without any question that the entire non-physics readership here would accept his verdict on the matter without any doubt. He seemed absolutely confident that nobody here might remotely suspect that Chritopher Thomas could be wrong. David Tombe (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not confusing any topics here. I am not addressing the merits of your idea. I don't know why you seem unable to comprehend that. I was -- & still am -- limiting myself to its appropriateness for Wikipedia. And to repeat myself again, your obsession with this getting this idea into Wikipedia is clearly a violation of the rules of Wikipedia: No original research. Unless you can show that this is not some discovery of your own -- that this is a matter of interest in at least one article published in an appropriate periodical or electronic forum -- you are heading towards more serious sanctions. And answering every mention that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia (due to concerns about original research, notability, etc.) with yet another explanation of this idea only accelerates your journey to this regrettable destination. -- llywrch (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No Llywrch, I do not have an obsession about putting this point into the article. I was merely backing up Brews ohare. When I first went to Brews's talk page a couple of weeks ago to ask him what this dispute was about, I didn't even know anything about the 1983 definition of the metre. As you can see from my recent dialogues with Brews, I was a bit confused as to what the argument was about. But I investigated the facts and then realized that Brews had a very legitimate point. It annoyed me to see how everybody was ganging up against him and trying to sweep his point under the carpet. So I joined in at the talk page to emphasize that point. I made very few edits to the main article, and I had already stopped editing on the main article well before the recent edit war. I was nothing to do with the recent edit war when the page was locked. I have ended up being the only person to be banned from the pages in question. This fact demonstrates a gross act of bias on the part of the administration, and I am currently appealing to Jimbo Wales to have the ban lifted as a matter of principle. Meanwhile, I have been advising Brews ohare to show his sources, quote from them loud and clear so that all you administrators can hear, and then quietly pull out. Because it is a waste of time for Brews and others to have to keep repeating themselves to people who are clearly incapable of being coached, or who don't want to know. David Tombe (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I regret this ban on D Tombe, and think it is unwarranted. He has a different view from orthodoxy on several issues, but that does not mean his contributions are not useful. He has added helpful discussions of historical matters in the past, and on this page speed of light has simply sought to gain attention for some misconceptions by many of the editors contributing at the moment who are unable to argue points logically or by reference to sources and would rather settle matters by this sort of administrative action executed by an administrator who is perhaps not able or perhaps unwilling to delve into the details of the matter. This block should be rescinded. Brews ohare (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare, your comment might be taken more seriously were you to properly sign your post. As for the question of "obsession" & "good faith", the matter would never have reached WP:AN/I had he let the matter go long before. Or at least respond to this discussion in the expected manner -- addressing the points, rather than repeat the discredited matter. Both of you are getting tedious on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I mistyped 3 tildes instead of 4 when signing. I'm not surprised you find the matter tedious, but that is because admins fail to enforce discussion of sources in place of opinions. Opinions just recycle, and most of the speed of light discussion has been recycling of opinion made possible by refusal to address presented and quoted sources. Brews ohare (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch, This is a demonstration of your total bias. You said that I should have dropped the matter long before. You obviously haven't even studied this prolonged argument. I was only involved for a very short time. And when you say that I should have responded to the discussion in the expected manner, what exactly was that supposed to mean? Can you please clarify that statement. Please pick out the very best example that you can find where I have not responded in the expected manner. Some of us here are a bit too long on the tooth for these silly games in which one lot of editors are free to express their opinions and deliver insults, and where another lot are considered to be cheeky if they dare to answer back. Drop it Llyrwch! David Tombe (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Easily done: look in the thread of this argument. I originally posted my support of this page ban, & you immediately replied with a regurgitation of your opinion on the matter -- not a response to my point -- you had violated the rule on original research in that discussion. When I clarified my statement, you repeated your non sequitor, talking about your idea & not failing to respond to my allegation of original research. As for rudeness, your comment to Christopher Thomas above on 08:24, 20 August 2009 is a prime example. And as for dropping this topic, I'm perfectly content to drop this at any point. You seem well on your way to being banned from Wikipedia, & need no help from me. -- llywrch (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Llyrwch, Please show me the original research. And as regards Christopher Thomas, once again you demonstrate your bias. Christopher Thomas comes here with a copy of a debate that took place at the wiki-physics project and he presents it as evidence of disruptive behaviour and starts to talk about sanctions. He presents it to a non-physics readership in the hope that they will believe what he says to be true, and also knowing that others who are knowledgeable about the details will know it not to be true. That is a method of whipping up hysteria and it is a method that has been used to stir up civil wars in recent history. David Tombe (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed uncivil shortcut

For the record, I have removed and deleted the WP:ARBCRANK shortcut. This shortcut is uncivil and implies that people are "cranks" if they are sanctioned under this particular decision. Keep in mind that editors on either side of the Pseudoscience issue can be sanctioned; I am fairly certain someone whose agenda is promoting mainstream science is not going to appreciate being labeled as a crank. If someone wants to go updating the shortcuts used in the sections above, they can use WP:ARBPS or WP:ARB/PS. Risker (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Had that been tagged for speedy deletion, I would have declined it. I would prefer you undelete it and send it to RfD, please. I don't think your interpretation of the shortcut is the only or primary interpretation. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I support Risker's speedy delete. It's a form of soapboxing, and totally inappropriate. It's speedyable under G10. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an exceptionally broad reading of G10. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not argue about non-essential details like a shortcut! Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All hail political correctness. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IP sock evading page ban?

Since David Tombe was page banned, 72.84.67.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) suddenly surfaced. This IP has a total of 4 contribs, all today. The first is a diatribe here against the admin who page banned Tombe[21] (since deleted). The other 3 are edits (since reverted) to Speed of light, from which Tombe is page banned. Coincidence? —Finell (Talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I want to be quite clear about this and I'm getting sick of all these malicious allegations. That IP server is not mine and I did not make those edits. I don't get involved in matters to do with the speed of light in inertial frames of reference. And I have seen many edits in the past from a variation of that number. I haven't checked it, but I'll bet that it comes from Virginia. Please don't make accusations until you have got your facts straight. David Tombe (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's trivial to check this either way via CheckUser, and a serious enough issue (potential ban evasion) for checkuser to be worthwhile. Anyone care to do so? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I've just noticed that you have written about this on the speed of light talk page. Since, I am not allowed to defend myself on that page, I'd be obliged if you could return there and explain the situation fully. David Tombe (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Verizon IP address that resolves to a company based in Virginia. David, whether or not it was you, you must admit it reeks of duckism, so don't jump all over people. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins, All I'm seeing here are words like 'disruptive editing', 'crankery', 'assumption of bad faith', 'incivility', and now 'ban evasion'. There was no disruptive editing because I wasn't even in the front page history log of the article in question. There has been no crankery because all I have been saying is that c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left, and not from left to right. The allegations of 'assumption of bad faith' have all been based on defensive comments that I have made against another person's assumption of bad faith on this very thread. I have been accused of not seeing sense when coached by many. The truth was that the many in question came to me one by one claiming that Maxwell's equations proved c^2 = 1/(εμ). I told each one in turn that Maxwell himself got that result from an 1856 experiment of Weber and Kohlrausch. One of those many was Christopher Thomas who then came to this thread to discuss sanctions as a consequence of that interchange. The incivility has already been firmly dismissed by one of my opponents who has been referring to me as a crank. Nobody bats an eyelid at the insults and assumptions of bad faith that come at me from others. And now we are hearing cries of ban evasion because some anon edits the article and speaks up in my defence. And now you are telling me not to jump all over people! I've worked very hard to get some physics articles written more accurately for the benefit of the readership. There is no need for this kind of carry on. David Tombe (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is evidence of ban evasion, checkuser should be requested. There's not much point in alleging something unless efforts are made to resolve the accusation. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The evidence that David Tombe was responsible for the edits by the IP 72.84.67.16 seems to me to be extremely weak. I expect that a request for checkuser would be refused. The editor behind the IP seems likely to me to be the same one responsible for piping up in support of David Tombe in the previous AN/I thread where his activities were discussed. The IPs concerned on that occasion were 71.251.185.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.84.65.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.84.66.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.251.188.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), all of which are Verizon's. Several other editors pointed out then that it was unlikely to be Tombe ([22], [23], [24], [25]).

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

David W., Thanks for pointing that out. And come to think of it, why were the anonymous's edits here at ANI deleted anyway? Is it only the edits of critics that are allowed at ANI? David Tombe (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The edits of this user and the IPs certainly do dovetail quite nicely though when viewed in totality. This certainly is WP:DUCK territory. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, Go and check when I last edited the speed of light article and ask yourself 'is there any connection between the contents?' David Tombe (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: David Tombe evidently had some issues logging in, and edited this page logged out a couple of times a short while ago. His IP is therefore on public record, and resolves to BTNET in the UK. The Verizon IPs are unlikely to be him - although who they are beats the hell out of me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To set the record straight, I am not David Tombe, however I would like to be him, and admire him very much. What I admire most is his dedication to the integrity of truth in physical science. This is contrasted to the generally poor quality that I find in the typical Wikipedia article. In short, David seems to be a lot smarter than you guys in general. I do think that Brews Ohare is on the right track as well. I am a long time student of physics and science and it makes me cringe to read a Wikipedia article. I generally find numerous mistakes, mistsatements and general distortions of fact every time I read one. I certainly would like to see the poor quality of the articles improved. It seems to me that the conspiracy of editors is to keep the errors and misstatements in the articles. So David Tombe is my hero, because he is one of the few brave fellows who really is trying to do something about the poor quality of Wikipedia, while the rest of you editors seem to like the way it is, full of errors and misinterpretations. I vote to keep Mr Tombe here working away, busy keeping you guys honest, and demanding that the quality of Wikipedia live up to the users expectations.72.64.57.234 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And the best of British to you Mr. Yank. David Tombe (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is either an elaborate ruse or some kind of really creepy Wiki-otaku. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The only Wiki-Okatu here is on the part of the editors obsessed with the removal of legitimate criticism of the pervasive mis-statements and generally biased viewpoints presented in Wikipedia. The Wiki-okatu here in smearing Mr Tombe is pretty unsavory and it shows clearly that Wikipedia has a bias and it is the intent of the editors to maintain that bias so they can stroke their own egos. Now that's Wiki-okatu for you. By the way, is it my imagination, or just a fact that there is a Wiki term to apply to any situation when the editors want to eliminate other legitimate editors that are better informed? They just accuse them of some obscure wiki-something. That is really Orwellian in my opinion.72.64.36.217 (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a wikipedia term; otaku is a Japanese term for excessive-compulsive fanboyism. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I though it just meant obsessive compulsive silliness. But if it isn't a legitimate wiki term why mention it? Are you trying to create a new one? Don't you have enough of those already? Plain english is always sufficient, don't you think? The complusion to denigrate others on this site is clearly evident here. I am wondering why you don't just get to work and fix the mistakes in the Wiki articles?72.64.36.217 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#User:LibStar Ikip (talk)

personal attack from recently unblocked User: Koalorka

User: Koalorka just returned from a block that was shortened under controversial circumstances. Since his questionable unblock, he has returned to prove that he is clearly not ready to discontinue his abuse: comma ... it is not my goal to match wits here with stubborn basement dwellers...You've proven time and time again that you're not at all interested in contributing anything of value to Wikipedia...your persistence in stalking people in matters completely unrelated to yourself is astounding. I count 6 blocks for harassment/NPA in his block history so far. I have not interacted with him directly in the past 6 months or more; however, he has decided to go out of his way to attack me in a discussion that was about an admin possibly misusing his tools -- the discussion was not directly about Koalorka. The unblocking admin even admitted that he did not object to Koalorka being characterized as abusive. there is definitely a pattern of abuse here. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And once again I've had to notify the user in question about this thread. Notification is MANDATORY, not optional. Exxolon (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Further evidence that the user has no interest in anything content-related. This is a normal response for Theserialcomma, every time his disruptive editing patterns and wiki-stalking are pointed out, the user responds with a barrage of ANIs, RFCs and any other imaginable means of suppressing their opponent. My editing history stands on its own merit. Most of my blocks comes from foolishly responding to provocations such as this. Koalorka (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest just...you know...thinking this stuff about him. Not actually typing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

more unprovoked personal attacks. further evidence that this user has no interest in collaborating in a civil manner. after 6 blocks for NPA you'd think someone would learn to relax, you know, their personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to as that if the ANIs and RFCs are meant only to harass you, why have you been blocked so many times? If they were solely a means of personally attacking you, wouldn't Theserialcomma be the one to be blocked after these? Kotiwalo (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not specifically referring to my case. Theserialcomma has previously been blocked for harassing and baiting others, I'm simply pointing it out now because he recently made statements against an admin he's clashed with before. The difference being, I don't start ANIs for the sole purpose of retribution. Koalorka (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ETA: I'm not going to begin digging up diffs, as I'm not really interested in crusading against him. My words were simply meant to advise those unaware of his numerous clashes with a number of editors involved with WP:Firearms, going back to a minor content dispute which I vaguely remember. Since then he's been involved in close to a dozen ANIs. He's developed a pattern of behaviour that is contradictory to "progress". Pointing out a disruptive trend is not a personal attack. I understand that my wording may be perceived as being snide and contemptuous. Koalorka (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

which part might be perceived incorrectly, the part where you said it is not my goal to match wits here with stubborn basement dwellers]? i could see how that might be perceived by some as a personal attack and not just "pointing out a disruptive trend". by the way, i have reported probably 10 people to ANI/ANE/etc., for incivility, edit warring, all sorts of things. That is what you do when users are abusive: you report them to admins. That is what I will do to you every single time you make personal attacks against me: You get reported. you've been blocked 6 times for NPA, sockpuppetry, and whatever else. you've been told repeatedly to stop and you won't. how long of a block do you need to stop making unprovoked personal attacks? [[26]] [[27]] Theserialcomma (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to share my opinion that from what I've seen, a significant portion of theserialcomma's activity on Wikipedia is being extremely hostile to others and trying to get other people in trouble. I think this is just another entry in a long line of ANIs he has filed against Koalorka. Koalorka isn't very friendly either, but it seems to me that theserialcomma repeatedly baits him and also files ANIs in the persuit of harassing him. But it would probably be good to get the opinions of other editors with more experience dealing with the two of them. Some guy (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, ANI is his third most favourite editing spot [28]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you derive that information out of that page. Some guy (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Click on the link marked "most frequently edited pages" towards the bottom of the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, never noticed that. Some guy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• are you people kidding me. you are making ad hominem attacks on my character which is irrelevant to the fact that koalorka made an unprovoked personal attack. i have not interacted with him at all in the past 6 months. he came onto an admin's talkpage to attack me. he is an abusive and uncivil user with 6 NPA blocks. the amount of times i've supposedly used ANI doesn't have anything to do with whether the user i just reported was uncivil. was he? either it's acceptable behavior for someone with 6 NPA blocks or not. incivility has no place here, and lame ad hominem attacks against the claimant is just poor argumentation. was it uncivil? are koalorka's unprovoked words acceptable? regardless of what you might think about me, i think i was attacked by a serial abuser and i reported it. that is what i tend to do. i believe that is what you are supposed to do. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to stalk him everywhere and incessantly attack him or try to get him in trouble. You had no connection in any way to the ANI discussion regarding Koalorka but you jumped in to attack George for supporting Koalorka. If you're actively trying to get Koalorka in trouble by constantly stalking and baiting him, your motives are bad. I agree that Koalorka is often hostile and not very good at working cooperatively, but this is a very inappropriate way to deal with the situation. If we were in kindergarten and I stole your lunch and you punched me and I told on you and you got in trouble and I didn't, would that be fair? You behavior is intrinsically tied with the equation; you are trying to dodge scrutiny to focus the blame on Koalorka. Some guy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, see my comments above. Personal attacks are not only allowed, but encouraged. Those who object to the attacks are the ones who get slapped down here. The person making the attacks gets coddled and tutted over because someone has the nerve to think that personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What? That's a damn far stretch of my words. I'm not really saying that Koalorka shouldn't be scrutinized, I don't want to make a decision either way about that, I just think Theserialcomma's motives should be questioned for all the reasons I've already said. I had a difficult battle a few weeks ago where an administrator tried to blame me for Koalorka attacking me, and I had to continuously argue that I wasn't baiting him and the whole thing was utterly ridiculous, but in the end Koalorka's block was upheld. EDIT: I don't care any more. Anyone can feel free to accept or ignore my comments. Some guy (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the underlying issue(s) or the contributions of any other involved editor, but I have blocked Koalaorka for 24 h for the "basement dweller" attack combined with his exhibiting continued battleground mentality in this thread. Personal attacks are not to be tolerated under any circumstances.  Sandstein  22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Sandstein's block is consistent with the relevant policies. Chillum 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'm sorry for throwing my hat in, I guess it was somewhat hypocritical of me. Some guy (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban of Theserialcomma and Koalorka

(Copied on WP:ANI and the users' talk pages and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions)

I'm going to one-up that. Every location in which Koalorka and Theserialcomma are butting heads has multiple uninvolved administrators participating. Their interactions have overwhelmingly been either baiting or attacking each other, and completely unrelated to article content, for a while now. Given that there's always an admin looking over their shoulder, they have no need to be reporting each other to ANI or WQA (or 3RR or anywhere else - someone else who can act will notice), and that they are unable to interact in a constructive manner, and that both have risen to the level of disruptive in responding to the other...

Koalorka and Theserialcomma are topic banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards.

If one violates, and no response is forthcoming within twelve hours, the other may make a single line notification to an uninvolved administrator with a link to the topic ban and the diff of the particular edit which violated it. If no response is forthcoming within 18 hours, a second admin, and if no response is forthcoming within 24 hrs a post to ANI with the same information. In no case may either party engage in additional discussion unless asked direct questions by uninvolved admins.

You both go to your corners and stay there. If one comes out swinging, they go down. If you both start swinging, you both go down.

Lest there be any question about it - this disruptive behavor on both of your parts has at this point exceeded community patience and the sum of your positive contributions to Wikipedia. Stop, or your tenures on Wikipedia are at the end. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

While this strikes me as a good solution, was there any discussion about it anywhere? Some guy (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's within admin discretion to do this. The community may, of course, override it at any time. Discuss away if you have comments or concerns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it? That doesn't seems substantiated by Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban. Some guy (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy is a little ambiguous as written, but similarly to how any administrator can indefinitely block someone, topic bans have similar dynamics.

We can and often do have a community discussion / proposal prior - and if one is done, and a consensus is reached, the topic ban then is something that has to be appealed by Arbcom or by a second community discussion, not a single admin's fiat, even a well thought out and well justified one.

Topic bans outside of areas Arbcom has designated can be issued by an admin - but are subject to revocation by an admin, or by the community.

Admin can do this - admin, community, or arbcom can override.

Community can do this - arbcom or community can override.

Arbcom can do this - Arbcom has to override, or Jimbo, technically.

Admins do it by individual WP:BOLD initiative more often than the community - every few weeks. Not every day, but we fortunately don't have all that many deeply divisive disruptive users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

GWH has a conflict of interest here. I complained about his ability to admin fairly yesterday, and so this is no surprise. Please show diffs that justify this, and also i would like an uninvolved admin's input Theserialcomma (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated on Theserialcomma's talk page, I don't believe I have a conflict of interest, but I think it's entirely appropriate if other uninvolved admins review and the community comments. I think that the situation has made the necessity of this edit restriction self-evident - many community members, beyond myself, are expressing that they are at the limits of their patience with all sides. This is fundamentally protective to both parties - if they do not stop, they are likely to end up indefblocked soon, and this is the cleanest and fairest way to get them both to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

as i said LONG before you punitively attempted to punish me with a topic ban for ME getting attacked, WITHOUT DIFFS! i have no faith in your ability to admin fairly. i'd appreciate some diffs to justify this topic ban, and an uninvolved admin's (not jeske couriano!) input. and please provide diffs. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• i request diffs to justify my topic ban --for the fourth time--, and an uninvolved admin's input on whether this is appropriate based on the facts and GWH's COI. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Chummer, shut the frag up! Practically all your contributions history is slotting some chummer off, and then going Buck Rogers on them with drek accusations of harassment and ad hominem attacks. You are not the victim under any circumstance, TSC, you are the agent provocateur. Now slot off! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nice use of science-fictionish vocabulary there. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 01:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by Milomedes

In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, Milomedes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the following legal threat in an apparent attempt to intimidate editors who were claiming that User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses may constitute a copyright violation:

DGG (04:11) provided evidence that there is not a copyright violation risk, using the US 4-pt test. Independently, you have placed yourself in the position of being legally required to provide evidence that there is a risk of copyright violation.

Why? Because your claiming of "risk" (along with four previous posters who similarly claimed "probably" (00:15), "possibly" (12:41), or without condition (23:06), (12:19)), alleges that Jack Merridew's uniquely link-transformed Atwood quote is not a fair use. If the quote is not a fair use, then you and the other four posters also allege that Jack Merridew has committed an illegal copyright-violation tort. If you (or the others) can cite reasonably believable evidence of not-fair-use – no problem. But, if you (or the others) cannot cite believable evidence that Jack Merridew is a civil law violator, then that is a libelous (written) defamation. Technically, evidence of truth is a defense to a claim of defamation.

If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom. [29]

In defense of his statement, Milomedes offered only the following wikilawyering explanation:

If you actually read WP:NLT you'll see that it applies to people who consider themselves to be a victim. It also reads, "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat..." " I'm simply warning you of your theoretical legal problem that has nothing to do with me. See shooting the messenger fallacy.

"In violation of our policy on copyrighted material" it is then." Firming your position, but still no evidence?? Considering your attitude, note also this sentence: "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified." Milo 10:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC) [30]

As language such as "consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom."[31] is neither "polite" nor necessary for the purpose of reporting "a legal problem", and is indeed designed to create the fear of a lawsuit that Wikipedia:No legal threats is designed to prevent, I ask that Milomedes be blocked indefinitely, per the provision of the policy which states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Thank you. Erik9 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did a cursory glance over the MfD and it doesn't look pretty, but one thing that stood out to me especially was the incivility and the sarcasm that was starting to occur, and as such some civility warnings/blocks may be in order, I have to go for now and don't have the time to read all of the discussion to verify the legal threat so I'll leave blocks/warnings for civility and legal threats to another admin :(. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks ok to me, no violations of any kind by me anyway. A very interesting debate. Erik9 even took his case to Meta where he didn't succeed, so this is just one more forum stop. Milo 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're the one whose edits are under question. Whether they appear alright to you or not is irrelevant. Not the fact of the matter is, on wikipedia, you are not allowed to threaten people the way you clearly did there. It is a clear violation, and you should be blocked until such threats are retracted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any threat. Since when can't warnings be given? Please cite the line of WP:NLT that you claim I'm in violation of. Milo 03:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Statements such as "consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom."[32] can hardly be considered "warnings" of genuine legal problems. Furthermore, as you know, Wikipedia:No legal threats has no line numbers, and doesn't define exactly what constitutes a "legal threat", lest the definition be wikilawyered. Using graphic language to inform me of the fact that Jack Merridew may obtain my real identity, and file a defamation lawsuit against me serves no legitimate purpose, and appears to have been done for the express purpose of intimidation. Erik9 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad to discuss the context of this passage with someone else, but since we have a personal conflict, please move on. Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to discuss anything with me. I quoted a line of policy, without comment. Your response is interesting. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok; and, it's just a matter of neutral jury selection. Milo 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It IS a legal threat, and Milo-whatever should either retract it immediately or be blocked for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, BB. I enjoyed our last discussion, so we get along fine. So, you've decided that I'm guilty without hearing the argument? Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going by your own words. It doesn't look like an "I'm trying to help you" kind of message - it looks like a "cease and desist order" - which you have no business doing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To put it another way, if you had said something like that to me, I wouldn't have bothered filing an ANI report, I would have merely told you to stick it where the moon don't shine. Ya follow? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

BB, your reputation as the second-toughest judge at ANI suggests that I'm not going to be able to persuade you that what I did is within the WP:NLT rules, no matter what points I cite. You don't like what you see, and I guess that's enough for you.

But from my point of view, I'm a rule follower, so I read the rules. If they say I can do something, or don't say I can't do it, plus applying the rule principle as best I understand it, then I proceed.

I don't know how else one can do anything actively worthwhile, such as debating a critical Wikimedia Foundation Mission resolution, during a remarkable two-week MfD like this one, without following rules in light of principle. That's always been my understanding of the written Wikipedia method. Milo 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say this is far past warning, which would have sounded more like "Hey guys, might want to be careful that this isn't being defamatory". Also, the tone/context does seem to indicate that its being used not to help the editors mentioned, but to intimidate them into backing down from their position. This needs to be retracted and I'd think anything further in this vein would result in blocking. Shell ^babelfish 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to discuss my reasoning, or have you made up your mind? Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever your reasoning, this goes too far. Please try taking this feedback on board and ensuring that any future attempts to warn people about legal issues don't cross the line. Shell ^babelfish 04:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• • indeed. → ROUX ₪ 04:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have a personal conflict, so please move on. Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As a general question, why are we discussing this here? It certainly appears that Milomedes has made a comment intended to intimidate, and consensus here appears to be that it violates WP:NLT. If this is the case, he should be blocked, and this discussion should take place on his talk page where he can clearly retract his statement. As this is going here, we're allowing him to come to ANI, wikilawyer about his conduct, and then dictate which editors he will allow to discuss this with him. That doesn't seem like the best way to handle a violation of a policy. Dayewalker (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Indef blocked for making legal threats. If he should make a full retraction in an unblock request, any admin may unblock him without consulting me first. --Jayron32 05:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a clear legal threat here. Unnecessarily heated rhetoric and unclear responses when asked? Yes. And that needs addressing. Shell Kinney has it just right: Please try taking this feedback on board and ensuring that any future attempts to warn people about legal issues don't cross the line... But if Milo makes a statement that he did not intend to intimidate and did not intend to suggest that he was contemplating any legal action, that would sort the matter out as far as I was concerned. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In this dif: [33] he states "If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom." Threatening to out users in front of a courtroom is probably as clear a legal threat. Couching such threats with meaningless qualifiers such as "could be" or "in theory" does not make it any less of an attempt to use the threat of legal action to intimidate. --Jayron32 16:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the diff, yes, but thanks for reminding me. My interpretation of it differs from yours. It's excessively heated, filled with hyperbolic rhetoric, unhelpful and ought not to have been said by Milo. But I differ in interpreting it as a clear legal threat. I hope that clarifies my position. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That understandable, as you strongly opposed my position in the MFD in which the legal threat occurred [34]. Please disclose such conflicts of interest when commenting in future AN/I discussions, so that you aren't incorrectly regarded as an uninvolved administrator. Erik9 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no less uninvolved than you. My support or opposition of a position in the MfD has no bearing on my ability to evaluate whether something is a legal threat or not. Does the fact that I characterized the DrV as legitimate and needing to be run to conclusion (supporting you) similarly disqualify me from having opinions? Or do you only raise CoI when convenient? I am surprised that you continue to use this tactic of casting aspersions on others. You really ought to know better. It's getting quite tiresome, and I had hoped that after this apology to me you had turned over a new leaf. Please review WP:AGF again ( since the last review you were encouraged to make didn't seem to do the trick).

To reiterate the substantive matter, I find Milo's contributions to that MfD to be quite unhelpful and distractive in general (they did not really advance the debate), and that specific comment as particularly so, but I didn't find it as a threat. YMMV. By the way, yours weren't so great either. And neither were mine. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you characterize endorsing the MFD closure that I'm seeking to overturn [35] as supporting me, then you have a curious definition of the term. My statement that you're involved in the MFD is purely descriptive: as an involved administrator, you would be prohibited from blocking or unblocking Milomedes yourself. Therefore, your comments should not be construed as contributing towards the consensus of uninvolved administrators who can take action with regard to this report. I'm certainly NOT accusing you of attempting to downplay an explicit, graphically worded legal threat just because it was made against someone who you opposed in a content dispute. To summarize the issue on commons: after I filed a MFD against his user subpage, Jack Merridew responded by accusing me of being a "hypocrite" who "quite possibly" had child pornography on his userpage [36]. To Jack's dismay I'm sure, the image was ultimately validated as being of an adult, freely licensed,[37] and not considered to be pornographic by commons editors.[38] While I did overreact to the accusations, my response was understandable given the circumstances. To construe an apology as an admission of wrongdoing is profoundly ungracious, though perhaps no more so than your initial "acceptance".[39] Erik9 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My support of your position was in this phrasing, repeated in its entireity: "I agree with Eric about the mechanics of the process here... this DRV is appropriate and should be run to its conclusion. Taking this matter back to MfD, absent time passing or some policy change/clarification, would not likely result in a different outcome and would be pointless"... Drew was seeking to stop the DRV you started and I opposed that. Perhaps you missed it? We can disagree about what the outcome should be while agreeing the DRV is legit. That's what I was referring to. I am afraid that your summary of what transpired on Commons fails to include a large number of salient points which weaken your position. I support or oppose things based on the facts, which is why when you are correct about things, you'll get my support, as you have done many times already, whether you realise, acknowledge, or thank me for it or not. But, regrettably the converse doesn't seem to be the case. I think the ungracious one here is you, you seem to overreact, cast aspersions on motives, and generally assume bad faith of me when it's unwarranted. That was what I had hoped you were going to stop doing when you apologised. However, none of that is particularly relevant to this question of legal threats. Milo's blocked. He should stay blocked until and unless he clarifies what he meant, and it is clear to the satisfaction of the community that no threat is intended. That I don't myself see it as a threat doesn't mean it doesn't need clarifying. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at the deletion review overall did not support my position. If I had noted that you were an involved editor in the MFD with regard to your concurrence with taking the matter to DRV at all, then I would also have to note your involvement in response to your endorsement of the MFD closure. Of course, I did neither. If my comment "That understandable, as you strongly opposed my position in the MFD in which the legal threat occurred" is to be construed as "overreact[ing], cast[ing] aspersions on motives, and generally assum[ing] bad faith", then you are in essence disputing the entire basis for administrators to recuse themselves from acting upon matters in which they are involved: administrators aren't considered to be able to fairly and impartially decide the correct administrative action when they are involved. If you wish to hold yourself out as some exception to the principle which justifies the "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute" section of Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools, then I respectfully disagree. Erik9 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Your comments at the deletion review overall did not support my position" -- didn't say they did, please review what I did say. I gave an example of support which you disregarded in your haste to try to discredit my statements. Look, this is a side issue but by your theory of when to apply involvement, you're not qualified to comment on this either and shouldn't have raised this matter here. Horsefeathers. Neither of us are exceptions to any principles, I just think you are misapplying them. And casting aspersions while doing so. The main issue here is whether Milo should remain blocked pending a clarification and or recanting, and we're in agreement on that, aren't we? ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not claim that involved administrators are unqualified to comment, but only that, since they are forbidden to take administrative action, their involved status should be clearly disclosed[40], so that they are not incorrectly regarded as uninvolved administrators contributing towards the consensus of administrators permitted to act. This principle is not contravened by my placement of a report here, or the manner in which written: since I am not an administrator, I could not reasonably be construed as an uninvolved administrator. Erik9 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as a "threat" per se. He's not implying that he will sue. It could be as interpreted as a threat though, so it definitely merits a warning. I wouldn't block over just that statement though. Evil saltine (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right: "He's not implying that he will sue": he's implying that Jack Merridew will sue, and using graphic language to describe the contemplated legal proceedings. Legal threats are not acceptable simply because they are delivered on behalf of third parties. Erik9 (talk)

I understand; we block for perceived legal threats as well as actual threats. Evil saltine (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at it this way; if you are in an altercation with another person, and he says to you "I hope nothing happens to you in your sleep tonight", apropos of nothing, how should you take that? He statement was clearly meant to intimidate people who took up an opposing viewpoint from him by introducing the threat legal proceedings for those that opposed him. Carefully couching the language to avoid the first-person pronoun does not make it less of a threat. --Jayron32 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a gray area... not everyone sees it the same way. However, that a number of people see it that way suggests it needs clarifying to remove ambiguity, and if Milo won't respond satisfactorily, he should remain blocked. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is in the gray area too, I would have more firmly warned at this point but don't contest the block's legitimacy. It's a legitimately preventive block - we have an apparent or credibly possible threat, we need to prevent harm to the community from legal issues being used as a hammer. Hopefully Milo will clarify and/or retract and someone can unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats was written, as I understand it, specifically so that users could not use the treat of legal action to coerce and intimidate others -- this strikes me as a transparently obvious attempt to do so. There is no requirement that the words "I'm going to sue you" be used. Milomedes is not a newcomer by any stretch of the imagination, and is surely well aware of the community's history of swift, strong response even to a hint of a legal threat. They could just as easily have used less charged language, and chose not to. They could just as easily have redacted their threat, and chose not to. I for one consider both choices significant. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with luna. This is an obvious threat. I don't see where folks above are finding gray. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's always easy to see things as black or white. Life usually isn't that way though. But this is a moot point. There are enough people who think it's a policy violation, or could be construed as one, that it needs clarifying. Milo has had some time now to clarify, but hasn't (yet? if ever?). Absent some change in that, there's probably not much more to discuss... he'll rightly stay blocked until he recants the threat. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not imposing some manichean split here. "If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom" Is a legal threat. Just like if I said, "Lar, if you don't retract your claim about seeing things in black and white, someone might come to your house and beat your face in" it would be a clear threat of physical violence and we would be right in repudiating me, despite the fact that it is couched in the hypothetical. No one would come along and say "well, maybe he was just stating that coincidences happen in the universe" or "maybe he was looking out for your best interests". No. It would be a hideous threat and I would be well in the wrong in making it. Likewise, someone saying on wikipedia "you need to take my side in a discussion or you could find yourself in a civil suit" is an obvious threat. I'm not taking the easy road or avoiding introspection by saying so and I'm a little insulted that you would intimate as such (And further intimate that it is a good block only by the dint of consensus here). Protonk (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued readding of unsourced material

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

User:Rgowran continues to add this section to Jack Van Impe. Willking1979, myself and admin OlEnglish tried to explain it to the user that is needed sources, probably violated BLP and NPOV among other things on Willking1979's talk page. The user readded the section and it is now an ongoing discussion on my talk page. Could someone have a look at the situation? Maybe if he hears something from an admin he will accept it. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User has been notified. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Admin: Please read complete dialog here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran There should not be a concern for liability as my entry was only about the actual statements made by Van Impe in an August 5, 2009 program, which is currently available to view on Van Impe's website. The quality of the writing and the information was at least as good as the information currently in the Van Impe article. My entry complied and passed every WP brought up to me. The information in my entry is accurate, unbiased, pertinent and recent. I did not mean to get into an "edit war", to which I was at a disadvantage since there were two users to just myself. Also, the one user, WillKing1979, if you look at his user page, you can see he has a political agenda. Thank you for taking the time to hear my case. --Rgowran (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That last bit about Willking1979 having a "political agenda" is just a bunch of crap. Why cause he is a Republican? Hell, I am Democratic leaning Independent, I have a better chance of having a "political agenda" then Willking1979 does. But neither of us do...this is just a way to get the heat off you for edit warring and adding unsourced information over and over. Ain't happening Buckwheat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I remember that addition; I reverted it once as well, a few hours ago. Go read WP:UNDUE. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Admin: The problem they are having is that they are ignoring the facts. If you would please read the entire dialog at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran you will see that my entry passes all the criteria. It is true, honest, unbiased, just the facts of what has happened recently on Van Impe's program. I did not slant my writing against Van Impe, I only stated what he himself said, along with a link to document what I entered. Also, I am just mentioning that I do not find my Wikipedia user page a good place to push my political agenda. I try to keep it completely unbiased. I do not begrudge any that do, I am just stating that you can see they could hold a bias. --Rgowran (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, trying to pass the heat onto someone else. I am || <that close to requesting page protection. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Your addition is unacceptable on so many levels, and I see you've been given WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:OR. Let me elaborate on the next one I gave you above: WP:UNDUE... You take one video, cherry-pick the most outrageous stuff from it, and slap it in there to make it roughly one fifth of the entire article. So... Would you like us to dig up some more reasons? I'm sure we can find a few... Seb az86556 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Seb and Homer as above, that section clearly violates several wikipedia policies. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Admin: I feel there are anger issues with these censors. I always believed in Wikipedia and its unbiased information. And if you have read the entire dialogue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran, you will see my entry was accurate and unbiased. The anger is coming from other users with such threats as "reporting me for vandalism", "page protection". They really are looking to censor me. And to accuse me of cherry-picking is ridiculous. That is why I put a link to Van Impe's program archive. There are many more outrageous comments, however I had no intention on writing a novel on the ludicrous statements of Van Impe. What I wrote about his show, was based on a portion of the last half of Van Impe's show. He spent a good deal of time on the subject of robots and cyborgs and I never took words or ideas out of context. I am certain none of these other users have even watched the entire August 5, 2009 episode. --Rgowran (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • He is right when I says I haven't watched the episode. I don't watch people who spout off about robots and cyborgs and New World Orders and crap. People like that don't need television time, they need a funny farm....but that doesn't cloud my judgement on my decision to remove the information from the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since the information is true, relative and pertinent. It should stay. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgowran (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't true, it is made up mumbo-jumbo by some guy on TV, please tell me you don't believe that crap. It isn't relative and it isn't pertinent to any discussion. It is junk. It has been deleted and will remain so. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just reading the information is enough to say it doesn't need to be included. Then comes the multiple policies you break. Just let it go. The information in that section is unsourced and biased. Wikipedia is not a forum. –túrian^patois 07:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• What is wrong with you that you cannot understand? My point is that what I have quoted Van Impe is true, not that what he says is true. I have been explaining this over and over and you still do not understand. --Rgowran (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And no policies were broken. None. I have fully explained that. --Rgowran (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Yeah, every policy listed was broken. –túrian^patois 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT...it isn't allowed, isn't necessary. Period. We, collectively, have explained that to you and you don't understand. Also, you are not an admin, you don't get to say if a policy was broken. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Homer and Turian are right, Rgowran. I'd suggest you just let this one go, or take it to the relevant talk page to continue the discussion. Just making a blanket statement that you've not broken any policies isn't going to sway anyone. Dayewalker (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You can quote as many WP's as you like. None have been broken. Then entry needs to be reposted. --Rgowran (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could we get a block for disruption? Is that possible? Seriously? I think we all have sufficiently explained this and this has gone on too long. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker, you have not read all the posts. I have already explained that none of the WP's have been violated. I looked them up and my entry did not deviate from any of them. What I stated is strictly what was stated by Van Impe himself. Along with a link to substantiate it. --Rgowran (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And why is there such animosity and anger over this? What is the fear? I am not giving this up based on mob mentality. --Rgowran (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Again... WP:BURDEN. –túrian^patois 07:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

First is a "jihad", now it is a "mob mentality". It is neither. We have politely explained to you the rules, you have disregarded them, disrupted several pages and wasted our time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is totally verifiable and easily verifiable. That is why I put in the link. NO VIOLATION. --Rgowran (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above (and on your talk page), simply denying what everyone is telling you is not helping your case. Everyone here is trying to explain the problem with your edit, and all you're replying with is that a) they're not, and b) no one else has read your talk page. No one needs to read your talk page to see that edit violates several wikipedia policies.

Again, please stop. Just saying you don't believe all of the other editors isn't going to work. Dayewalker (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just removed half the article - unsourced BLPs should be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am actively looking for an admin to either lay down a stern warning or a block. Something needs to be done. This is beyond disruption now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is not the rules, it is the other editors. Since I have provided proof that the entry abides by the WP's, now I should just go away because the other editors say it doesn't belong. No. Can't do that. --Rgowran (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No rules have been disregarded. For some reason, someone (some people) do not want the entry in, regardless of the fact that it is completely verifiable, true and well sourced. And one wants a block now. So if we block the truth... --Rgowran (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply saying it doesn't violate policy doesn't mean a thing. You may not see what's wrong with your edits, but quite a few other editors do. That's generally a sign that you need to re-evaluate your position. --clpo13_(talk) 08:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also sounds like we have a pusher. It is not properly/effectly/well sourced in any manner. Just giving a link is not correct citing or prove that it is verified. –túrian^patois 08:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• This has been fun. When you get you fingers out of your ears and stop going "LALALAICANTHEARYOULALALA", please ready, throughly, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, WP:BURDEN, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If anyone needs me, I will be over in the radio station section. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it a disruption? I came here to plead my case, and I get a barrage of editors telling me off. I want someone with some real knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies to take a look at my entry and its link for validation. It passes every WP thrown. Funny how I am accused of disruption. If you would have just let me say my piece and leave it at that, it would not be a disruption. I am only defending my entry. There doesn't have to be the constant reply back to everything I say. You said your piece, and I said mine in defense, and you had to constantly come at me with more WP's, so I checked them and my entry passes them all. I will not let this go. I am totally in the right, according to the Wikipedia policies. You saying that I am not, does not mean you are right. The policy matters, not your opinion. --Rgowran (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But the link I provided does validate my entry. Because my entry was based on a quote form a TV program, which I linked to in Van Impe's archives. It is what he said and it was in context. It is ok to put back in. --Rgowran (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning. Despite the fact that multiple editors have told you to not include it, you still fight for it? WP:GETOVERIT! –túrian^patois 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Another outside view...let's remember that the views of Mr. Van Impe are of his own personal opinion. They are not indisputable facts, and on most of the stations and networks the program airs on, those organizations are very clear that Van Impe's views are his own and do not reflect the views or opinions of their management as they lead in and come out of the opening of his program (especially in the fact that he pays to air his program on many stations). Rgowran, the editors are correct. There is absolutely no need for this information in this article, and neutrality must be maintained, no matter how off-base his statements may be. I urge you to stop because there are so many guidelines that this talk about robots violates, and of course we know he doesn't agree with the president (that's a given considering his worldview). Nate • (chatter) 08:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since Rgowran has mentioned a few times that he has no intention of giving this up which seems to include both edit warring and refusing to listen to more experienced editors attempts to help him understand policy, I've given him a short block hoping to get the point across. Shell ^babelfish 08:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've had no luck - if someone with experience helping acclimate new editors to Wikipedia has some time, Rgowran could use some assistance getting back on the right track. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 09:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'd say we reached apoint where this is self defeating. The user has been told repeatedly and insists on not listening. They will clearly be right back at it when their block expires. I have therefore varied the block to indefinite - meaning an undermined period depending on when the user confirms that they won't readd the material to the article without a consensus on the article talk page. Otherwise I'm afraid that we will be here in 24 hours wasting even more time on this guy. Ball is firmly in his court now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, since I am now wide awake, I believe based on what happened in the last few hours, an indef block was the right thing to do in this circumstance. Prior to today, the now-blocked user's last edits were in 2007. He seemed to not understand the BLP policy, among other policies, which has come a long way since 2007. Willking1979 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good block. There's something fishy about the Rgowran account. 2 edits in summer 2006, creating an article. 2 edits in spring of 2007, attempting to blank that article (he should have been indef'd then and there). Then nothing until yesterday's activity. He's got some 'splainin' to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Any checkusers viewing this may want to note that Rgowran has just admitted to having multiple accounts and will edit again: [41] Willking1979 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To prevent damage to the encyclopedia, this user should be CU'd.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing of interest on his IP. -- Luk ^talk 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

this seems to have escalated rather quickly. does anyone think that this indef block was a little premature?
it seems that the user stopped adding the info before this an\i started and was discussing his position here and on talk pages.
from his responses he really does seem like a newcomer who was frustrated and then started blowing off steam after being blocked.
he did violate 3rr before this report so a short block is justified, but if he agrees not to continue to readd it and to seek dispute resolution if he wants to build a consensus he should probably be allowed to finish out a short bock and try again to contribute collaboratively.
otherwise we may have pushed him into becoming an anonymous blp vandal which will create more drama, work, and page protecting for the rest of us. untwirl(talk) 14:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not premature in the slightest. It doesn't matter that he stopped adding the info, he told everyone without reservation that he was completely justified in adding the information and planned to put it back in. He previously had edit-warred to keep it in. He wasn't "discussing" his position, he was declaring it and not budging. Here's what I think you might have missed... The block is "indefinite" but that doesn't equate to "permanent". Indefinite means that there is no set expiration for the block. But that doesn't mean he can't be unblocked. All he needs for an unblock is to pledge to do exactly what you're claiming he's doing (and actually isn't doing); promising not to add the info back in until consensus is formed to do so. What's the difference between "becoming an anonymous blp vandal which will create more drama, work, and page protecting for the rest of us" when he was doing essentially the same thing as a registered user? -- Atama頭 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Lisa in violation of editing restrictions?

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines, LisaLiel (talk · contribs) "LisaLiel is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should she exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, she may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.". Looking at the history here I see three reverts on this page since the 19th. The last time (July) I asked her about editing restrictions I had no reply, so this time I'm bringing it here. I think I would be justified in blocking her but I'd prefer other opinions first. I'll notify her now. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't WP:AE the correct venue for this? → ROUX ₪ 17:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The reverts do look to be counter productive, Historicity? Is this a word?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm on the wrong page, apologies, this is more complicated than I thought. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Bible and history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This *does* seem to violate Lisa's 1RR per week restriction. Doug would be justified in taking action. Lisa's been invited to reply here, and if there's no promise of improvement, a block is appropriate. Simple restrictions can surely be discussed here at ANI. WP:AE is good for messy cases or subtle issues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Having been a party to the Alastair Haines arbitration, I'd encourage everyone here to pick a better battle. The substance of the arbitration restrictons had to do with higher level content disputes. From my vantage Lisa is certainly abiding by the spirit of those restrictions, and a quibble over history vs. historicity shouldn't really count as an issue here. Is she technically in violation? Perhaps, but Wikipedia isn't administered by machines. I'd request you give her a pass here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but did you take into account the 2 reverts on the 19th? I should have pointed to them in particular. I don't have any great desire to block her, just to know what the story is. She's replied to my notice on her talk page. Ah, this is not a statement about whether her reverts are right or wrong either, as I'm not sure she was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom's editing restrictions create no benefit if admins aren't willing to enforce them. If SkyWriter thinks this particular restriction has become obsolete, let him file a motion with Arbcom. Until they undo the restriction, Lisa should follow it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, please understand that I'm not arguing against enforcement of Arbcom rules -- but that I'm merely arguing in favor of taking into account the context those rules applied to. As the person who actively requested that Lisa be included in such enforcement in the first place I think I am qualified to advocate on her behalf now. She's simply not reproducing any of the actions that led to those restrictions. While she could theoretically be observed to cross the path of the letter of that restriction, it's only an accident of the brevity of the specific wording of those restrictions. If I knew nothing of the context of that Arbcom I'd have to agree with you on technical grounds and argue for a mechanical application of them now. But I DO know better. I was there. Even Doug is granting that she wasn't wrong -- which to me means that she was only doing something that you or I could have done. A violation? Yes, but can we save the Arbcom enforcement for something the enforcers wouldn't have done themselves? Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also -- just to add, I reviewed the passage that Lisa deleted, and it appears that she was trying to remove a passage that was both irrelevant to the article and somewhat antisemitic as well. I'd agree with Doug that she was not wrong in this instance. I would have deleted that as well. You seem like a decent chap -- and you'd probably delete it too.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)It seems the text in question which Lisa removed twice in 1 hour is this: [42]. It is not obviously anti-semitic, and whilst it may belong in a related article rather than that one (a related article which may not exist yet) it isn't wildly off-topic. Certainly nothing to justify breaching editing restrictions. A warning may be sufficient rather than a block, but it has to be acknowledged the restrictions were breached without good reason. As to whether a warning may be sufficient, it has to be observed also that another editor (not the one who added the text) had said the text was justifiable the day before Lisa removed it twice. Rd232 ^talk 23:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd -- from what I understand the restrictions are set to expire in less than two weeks. Could we give Lisa a pass on this? It's technically a single violation. Maybe a finger shake or something? It's a little silly to come down full force for a second revert less than two weeks before she's up to the 3 reverts the rest of the world can do.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the one-year restriction was imposed last September, and Lisa was only once blocked for violating it (in October). So at this point a warning and a reminder that edit warring does not require there to have been more than 3 reverts in 24 hours (that's just one measure of it) may suffice. However the incident suggests that any admins who hang out where Lisa edits should probably keep an eye on her when the restriction initially runs out, to see if she suddenly returns to the behaviour which led to the restriction in the first place. Rd232 ^talk 07:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For Godssake give Lisa a bit of leeway on this. She reverted twice on the 19th, and again a few days later on an edit that was totally unrelated. As someone who's been far more active on that page than she has, and who's taken the other side (meaning that Lisa's been reverting me), I haven't taken any offense at her edits at all. Give her some slack, please! PiCo (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe she has in fact violated the restriction before, I don't think that action now would make any difference or be a benefit to Wikipedia. But I agree with Rd232 and think that it would be a good idea to try to help Lisa not return to the behaviour that led to the restriction. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ultima-series character articles and User:Dream Focus

This is a rather drawn out event. User:Dream Focus has been waging a one-man campaign against merging Avatar (Ultima), Lord British, and The Companions of the Avatar into the List of Ultima characters, despite all applicable information already been merged there. Any attempt to improve the articles by removing peacock words, game guide material and rewording of in-universe content to be in line with Wikipedia's policies has been met with claims of wiping out half the related article,[43][44], and accusations of attempting to destroy the article and force a merge. Previous link will also show the user attacks anyone disagreeing with his opinion as "trying to destroy articles" and claims any motions is detrimental to wikipedia. This is compounded by his insistence that an AfD on Avatar (Ultima) that resulted in a closure of "keep without prejudice to a merge discussion on the relevant talkpage(s). No reason to list this at AfD", that the AfD was closed as keep only. He is also insisting that majority voted against merging the article, despite consensus through several discussions that they should be merged until sufficient sources exist or at least strongly considered in the case of the AfD, and also despite being informed that wikipedia is not a democracy several times.[45], [46], [47]. He is also insistent that despite their current condition, the articles are "fine", and insistence that through three sources that briefly solely discuss the death of Lord British by a player in Ultima Online, that the whole series of articles meets notability.[48]. Requesting a topic ban on Dream Focus for this subject so at least progress can be made to move forward and do proper work on the material to have it agree with existing policies and consensus.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to request this myself. There was no consensus to merge. Most people that commented were against the merge. But a small number of people argued nonstop with me, then went ahead, and did it anyway. The edit history at Lord British has been erased apparently. Please tell me if a small number of people can ignore the opinions of a greater number of people, who are against the merge, and do it anyway. Dream Focus 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples of bad faith accusations on the part of Dream Focus: [49] (borderline), [50], [51], [52]. As shown above (by both Kung Fu Man and unwittingly Dream Focus), Dream Focus fails to understand basic policies regarding consensus and (lack of) democracy. In addition to constant bad faith accusations, his repetitious arguments are disruptive in my opinion. An RFC was opened to gain further opinions and avoid edit warring; Dream Focus proceeded to fill the RFC section break with a large section full of turgid, redundant arguments, despite only one uninvolved editor commenting. This made the dispute seem more complicated and messy than necessary, thus making it harder to gain uninvolved editors. bridies (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit history of Lord British has been returned, I assuming that just a brief error. Anyway, at the start most people were against the merge, then a massive amount of arguing back and forth took place, they determined to ignore the consensus of the majority, trying to force their own will. Please read through the start of the discussion, and not just selective edits taken out of context. Dream Focus 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One man campaign? Please there were several editors who were opposed to the merge.

Peregrine Fisher against a merge [53][54][55],

A Nobody in AFD [56] on other pages.[57]

wwwwolf in AFD[58]

DGG in AfD [59]

FeydHuxtable in AfD[60]

Ikip in AfD "weak keep to merge" [61]

Offliner [62]

Xxanthippe [63]

Abductive, only one is a clear case for merging[64]

When someone says something so contradictory to reality, it is only natural to question everything else that person says.

Kung Fu Man's evidence is non-existent, there are no personal attacks here, Dream Focus stayed within all applicable guidelines.

Kung Fu Man's Link 1: Notice how Kung Fu Man has 11 edit diffs between this edit, this is the actually amoount of material that Kung Fu Man deleted,[65] This edit link is misleading and I am ask Kung Fu Man to strike it and apologize for the deception, Dream was right: "use talk page before you try to wipe out half of an article" Kung Fu did "wipe out half the article"

Kung Fu's link 2,3,4: [66], [67], [68] Meaningless, I don't see the relevance, if anything they show that the merge's are controversial.

Kung Fu's link 5: [69] content dispute.

I don't see the evidence for a topic ban. What policies warrant it?

User:Bridies edit diffs, summed up, Dream is arguing inclusion, deletion. Not included are the other two editors in the argument, Kung Fu and TTN:

"Really, I mean, you whine and moan about the evil deletionists destroying such important information, but do you honestly even care about anything more than the principal of these characters having articles? It is so annoying playing this whole game with people like you, who go on and on about how important this stuff is, and then when its all over, the articles just sit in the same poor state for years."[70]

Kung's personal attacks, WP:NPA: "apparently Dream Focus wishes to assume bad faith, conspiracy theories (yes I said it, deal with it) and onwership" [71] etc.

If anything, we need to reconsider address E&C2 again and whether TTN is following the guidelines of this arbcom, and whether E&C4 is necessary. Ikip (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No one else repeated those non-arguments ad nauseam in conjunction with disruptive editing. bridies (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I quote Kung: "User:Dream Focus has been waging a one-man campaign against merging" one man. he didn't say "Dream Focus was the only one repeating these non-arguments ad nauseam in conjunction with disruptive editing." He said that Dream Focus was the only editor against merging, this is false, and I ask Kung Fu to strike it, along with the other deceptive edit diff.

"Disruptive" is the complaint always used by any society to silence those who they disagree with, unless you have some actual policy violations, "disruptive" means, "I want to silence Dream because I disagree with him". Hardly compeling evidence for a topic ban. Ikip (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am content to let the talk page discussion speak for itself. bridies (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What we did have is TTN illicit support to try to stifle what he calls "an inclusionist" in the discussion and lo and behold we wind up here... If you cannot out argue someone, just start up a distraction drama thread that waste's the community's time and improves no articles in the process... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not waste administrators' time with such threads. More editors seemed to support keeping the articles than merging and so fixating on Dream Focus is beyond unwarranted and unfair. Just because he interprets policies and guidelines differently and in a manner consistent with how many article builders interpret them does not justify starting needless drama here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Did they have the right to merge without consensus? Can I get a ruling please, from a closing administrator? Most people participating in the discussion were against the merger. There was clearly no consensus to merge. A small number of people kept arguing that the opinions of those who were against the merge, didn't matter, that they were right, and going to do it anyway. I argued with them on that point for a time. I felt the references and other information justified the articles existing as stand alone articles. Most agreed with me on that. Can they ignore consensus, and merge anyway? Dream Focus 16:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, a respected admin should close the merge discussion. A lot of the dispute seems to be about interpretation of the results. This would be solved if someone would make a definite ruling. Offliner (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on AfDs also

Resolved

 – He's not about to be topic banned. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

---

If we're discussing topic bans for Dream Focus, may I propose that they are banned from AfD discussions? Aside from the apparent failure to understand basic policies as noted above by Bridies, Dream Focus fairly consistently makes comments at AfD which suggest that they feel that policies should be ignored in favour of "common sense" (as defined by Dream Focus). They frequently make comments which suggest they have difficulty confusing existence with notability. Look no further than the essays on their user page for evidence that they do not respect the policies which all other editors are asked to abide by. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The policies I abide by, the suggested guidelines are not absolutely required, you able to follow the policy of ignoring all rules, and using common sense, as defined by the Wikipedia guideline of common sense. And stay on topic please. Dream Focus 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond ridiculous. Dream Foucs is someone who actually makes thoughtful rather than drive-by WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:JNN style of non-arguments at AfDs. He does excellent working at actually improving content and only gets in disputes with those who rarely do any actual article work, but just act as self-appointed judges who again just go around tagging articles for deletion. Dream Focus is one of the best editors on Wikipedia, who simply "gets it". Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So I "rarely do any actual article work"? bridies (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All I see here is yet another distraction from actual article improvement. If Dream Focus does "not respect policies", it is only nonsensical ones inconsistent with the whole purpose of a paperless encyclopedia and foisted upon the community by a vocal minority. And the funny thing is, Dream Focus at least had the majority support of his stance with regards to these articles... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But he did not have consensus. I am not going to repeat the talk page discussion all over again as it can speak for itself. I like how you dodged my question: do I "rarely do any actual article work"? bridies (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to merge. No consensus means we default keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about my lack of article work? bridies (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are Dream Focus' arguments from the most recent three AfDs in which they participated: [72], [73], & [74]. I think they speak for themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are some damn good arguments of his! And certainly much better than say sarcastic and therefore baiting or a textbook example of WP:JNN. Yeah, so of all the participants in those disucssions, you take issue with someone who actually writes out original discussion specific comments and actually discusses sources!? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read that second one? First of all, he was claiming that something was notable because it was mentioned in a magazine which was a primary, not secondary source; and followed that up by claiming that it didn't matter anyway because fictional things don't need to have real-world notability. This, sadly is typical of DF's AfD comments; if he can't think of a good reason, he'll claim that the rules don't apply anyway. Black Kite 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of Dream Focus's arguments are rather non-standard and involve some unusual interpretations of policies; but they're a long way short of disruptive. I was one of the first to agree that some of Dream Focus's early AfD participation was unhelpful and confrontational, but all I'm seeing from these recent diffs are someone stating an opinion in a civil manner. I would most definitely oppose an AfD topic ban at this point - I often disagree with his rationales, but generally they're at least founded in reason and stated maturely. ~ mazca ^talk 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting banning him from AfDs either, just pointing out, as you say, that he probably needs to give it a rest with the confrontational approach to anyone whose idea of "improving the encyclopedia" doesn't agree with his sometimes unconventional standards. Just reading through some of his screeds on User:Dream Focus will probably give you an idea. Black Kite 19:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I do get your point - you somewhat got screwed by Wikipedia's wonderful non-threaded discussion, in that my statement was rather pointed towards the section as a whole rather than you specifically! Generally, I haven't noticed any particularly objectionable AfD comments from him recently, so while he clearly has some strong and unusual opinions (per aforementioned userpage) he's presenting them reasonably at AfD. ~ mazca ^talk 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean screeds and confrontational approaches like on User talk: Black Kite? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. The difference being that I never edit-warred or disrupted the encyclopedia in defence of my views. Which is the point here, I think ... Black Kite 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war and at least one or two of Dream Focus's opponents go about things far more disruptively. After all, nothing like argument about sources with those who admittedly "don't have the attention span to productively work on building articles. I can spend an hour chopping down a character list, but I get bored after five minutes while looking for sources." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Opps, I just noticed A Nobody beat me to the quote, although he got the wrong version.

I joined the project to improve an encyclopedia; it is no longer an encyclopedia, but largely a collection of trivia which would be rejected as too cruft-ridden and badly-written to display to the world even by the most amateur of fansites. Having nearly 3,000,000 articles is nothing to boast about when a good percentage of them are an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the expansion of trivia is now being helped by a collection of editors who game the system to produce AfD results like that with a combination of canvassing, vote-spamming, cluelessness....[75]

I am sorry you feel that way. Ikip (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A published magazine is a reliable source by any reasonable standard and again, his comments are far better than a number of what others have "contributed" to those same discussions, so by that logic, multiple editors from those AfDs would be bannable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the circulation of the magazine. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban is not warranted at this time. But that one was even suggested ought to give Dream Focus pause. Dream Focus needs to take the criticism they are getting about approach in AfDs on board, because some of the diffs given above evidence a serious lack of understanding of process or a reliance on spurious arguments. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If my arguments aren't valid, why do most AFD I participate in end in Keep? And why exactly are we going off topic on the AFD thing anyway? I won't take pause that someone who I've seen in some AFDs, decided to suggest such a thing, since I have done nothing wrong in those arguments worthy of a ban, and thus the suggestion too ridiculous to be seriously considered. Dream Focus 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I started the sub-topic because it seemed to be a related issue (it involves a similar type of action and argument on your part). If there's no appetite for banning you from AfDs right now, that's fine, I can wait. In the meantime I've pulled out some choice AfD arguments from your contribs going back only to the beginning of the month. I'm hoping that admins will start to see the problem here: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], & [81]. They are chronological. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem with the diffs you've specified? Evil saltine (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the silliness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diseases and conditions with unusual features about renaming it to "List of diseases and conditions that at least 5 Wikipedia members state are interesting to read about" isn't productive, but I don't think a topic ban is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, without dissecting each example, two of the arguments conflate existence with notability, all of the reasoning for keeping is specious, and none of the arguments are based on policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, this entire charade is getting embarrassing, and not for Dream Focus. After looking at all of the above links, I looked at one of your links[82] and I once again said, SO WHAT? This is evidence of an editor voicing his opinion civilly on an AFD. SO WHAT? There will be no ban today, that is for certain, and everytime when you attempt to attack Dream, he can point to this AFD and say, see look, this is what this guy tries to use against me as evidence, and your case will collapse. It is getting to the point of harrassment here. This is a content dispute that should not be on ANI. I am closing it for this reason. Ikip (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone who looks at that diff and then sees that Dream Focus is talking about the subject of the article once being a guest commentator on a news program and being quoted once in a relationship advice column might agree with my assessment. I just threw up diffs from the last three AfDs in which he or she had participated. It's rare that they will argue based on policy or guidelines, and almost any perusal of their contributions makes that point for me. You seem to be implying that I've attacked Dream Focus before and that I will attack him or her again. I haven't done so and don't intend to do so in the future. Suggesting that they be banned from AfDs isn't a personal attack and is intended only to improve AfDs discussions, not to punish Dream Focus. Please don't forget that the original discussion of a topic ban remains above. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Back on topic

We're not going to find consensus to ban Dream Focus from AfDs. His rationales are often odd, but I'm sure he feels the same about users who tend to vote delete. That being said, there does seem to be a fair amount of edit-warring that occurred today on these Ultima related articles. I'm not sure what needs to be done about that and think some outside input is necessary. Having peaked at some of the other articles on the Ultima franchise, I don't see the merge as a bad thing since those articles could definitely use some referencing. However, that's just my opinion and probably belongs on the article talk page. I'm more concerned about the back and forth merging on the merge and the breakdown of communication between involved editors. AniMate^draw 20:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with AniMate above. The edit-warring here is a concern, and it does take (a minimum of) two to tango. Dream Focus' editing style, personal philosophy, online manner etc are tangential, and best addressed elsewhere, if anywhere.  pablo_hablo. 21:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well something needs to be done to address Dream Focus's frequent assumptions of bad faith and battleground mentality. He frequently calls those he disagrees with the pejorative "deletionists" while claiming that merging of articles is a subversion of AfD. He has also made less then veiled allusions that WikiProjects, particularly WP:ANIME and WP:VG, are cabals of deletionists.[83] This isn't the first time Dream Focus has been brought to the attention of ANI. Back in April 2009, I brought up a similar complaint about Dream Focus's repeated assumptions of bad faith and battleground mentality, but nothing was ever done. Things really haven't improved all that much since except that Dream Focus largely stayed way from anime and manga related AfDs. --Farix (Talk) 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate from the user conduct issue, there's an ongoing dispute over how much detail should be included for popular culture subjects. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). There's a school of thought which argues that the general notability criteria should be relaxed somewhat for fiction. The usual point of disagreement is whether reliable third party sources should be required for fiction, or whether the work itself is a source for itself. We just had a minor flap over this in the Power Rangers area. What we really need is convergence on policy at WP:FICT, so we have guidance to follow. Until we have a firm policy in that area, we're going to continue to have these hassles occasionally. --John Nagle (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem at Caster Semenya

History. Some editors and IPs don't believe the subject should be called a she. Can some admins keep an eye on this. I don't feel like reverting anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: there seems to be a general consensus on the talk page that female personal pronouns are appropriate. It looks like it's just The Homosexualist who objects. His reasoning is that the page must remain gender-neutral as there are no specific Wikipedia policies that cover this situation. --clpo13_(talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, lately. It's a BLP, so a certain amount of extra care is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but she obviously identifies as a she, so those pronouns ARE appropriate, even though news articles have also reported her as a tomboy. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tje controversy, which only arose a few days ago when she smashed the 400M world record, was whether she fulfilled the criteria for "female" as regards athletics only. In every other sense she is recognised as a woman, and thus the article should reflect that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:SoxBot malfunctioning

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot IV shows the bot is approved to clear out the sandbox every 12 hours. It is currently clearing out the test templates (X1-X9) every 3 minutes. This is interfering with some testing I am doing at the moment. The owner doesn't appear to be around at the moment, so could someone put it on hold for the time being please (2-hour block or some such)? Thanks, 81.110.104.91 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, the owner has left a prominent warning on the bot's user page: "WARNING: If you block this bot, please TURN OFF AUTOBLOCK, so that the other Toolserver and ClueNet bots keep working." 81.110.104.91 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have a solution for you - please see User talk:X!#SoxBot_on_test_templates. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot is doing this because your edits are removing the sandbox header. AFAIK, it's supposed to/was approved to do that. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't properly noted. I had the same issue. There is nothing in the header that says don't remove the header. I had previously talked to him about that and he mentioned he was going to update the warning or something, but apparently that didn't happen. There needs to be a new warning for headers as this can be quite confusing to people trying to test something out who aren't familiar with this.--Crossmr (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the innards of the template (only visible during page editing) *do* say 'Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading)' and 'Feel free to try your formatting and editing skills below this line' - but I agree that it could and should be made much clearer. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we make an editnotice that helps explain this? — Kusma ^talk 10:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Living Biography dispute

There is a dispute occurring at the moment on my living biography page. Since I am the subject of the entry, and my credibility is at stake, I have tried to satisfy the objections, which have resulted in multiple flags at the beginning of the article.

After a long and detailed discussion in 2006, in which the decision was to 'keep' the entry/article, it has operated without incident until now.

Recently I have been involved in an Australian national social activist campaign for a review of the Family Court Act in my country. This is extremely controversial amongst father's rights groups, who brought in some amendments to our FLA in 2006.

Initially the flags were only on one segment in which the new Family court material was added. Now the flags are everywhere, including at the beginning of the entry, giving the impression that the whole entry is not credible.

I believe these groups are trying to discredit me through wikipedia by putting multiple flags on the entry.

As I satisfy each of the objections, somebody is putting back the old wording and using this as an excuse to remove the material and citations, which evidence the claims made.

Is there an experienced administrator available who can arbitrate this dispute?

--Barbbiggs (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits came across as grandstanding. Please do not accuse people of attempting to discredit you. It is a simple case of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia and limit soapboxing. Any thoughts on the article from anyone (including admins if needed) are of course appreciated. The flags are there for reasons. I also deleted 2 this afternoon. You shouldn't have been making edits to your article as discussed since 2006. This has caused a knee-jerk reaction from some editors who might have an agenda against you (I don't know their motivation) but it is hard not to view the article critically when it has been so poor. I think it would be appropriate for admins to review the history and talk pages since it has unfortunately not been corrected through other means.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The tagging did appear to be unnecessary, and I've removed them from the header as such. We don't tag with the conflict of interest flag simply in response to someone editing their own article, there must be significant (even if subtle) deviations from neutrality to justify it, and that just didn't appear to be the case in reviewing the article. I've added the article to my watchlist, and I'll look more in-depth through the history. It's probably a good idea that the issue was brought here, so that administrators and other editors can add it to theirs, as well. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, J! The use of citations are still a concern for me but that has been getting cleaned-up so losing the flag was probably a good call.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The tagging may well have been required at some point, but as you acknowledge, it didn't appear to be necessary at this point. Just two points:

• User:Cptnono, it is important that we alway seriously consider Ms. Biggs concerns, and we have no policy explicitly forbidding her editing the article (although, as you suggested, wp:coi certainly recommends not doing so in order to avoid the resulting issues).
• User:Barbbiggs, it would, nonetheless, be better if you posted the changes you would like to see on the talk page of your article, where other objective parties can implement them. I will keep your article's talk page on my watchlist, and I would be more than happy to work with you and the other editors at the page to help neutrally implement any changes you believe should be made.

Again, it's my hope that administrators and other editors will do the same. Should I be missing in action, in the future, and should either of you need to bring up issues with this article, you can also try wp:blp/n, a noticeboard specifically geared towards issues involving our wp:blp policy on the biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the second set of eyes. Just to clarify, primary promotional edits caused by COI can result in a block (Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Common rationales for blocks#Disruption-only} so I again recommend that Ms. Biggs keeps her edits to the talk page due to the history.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, re: promotion- and disruption-only accounts. I don't believe any administrators would assume Ms. Biggs edits, to date, to have been lacking in good faith, so I don't think that would apply there. Nevertheless, I agree, that it should always be strongly encouraged that individuals use the talk page to recommend changes to their own biographies, to avoid any unnecessary concerns or confusion. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justen's comments that it's always very important to take seriously concerns of article subjects and also that the COI guideline is a recommendation, not a blanket ban on article subjects editing their own articles. That said, it's obviously not ideal for Barbbiggs to be editing her own article, but I've had a look at her edits and exchanged a couple of emails with her (she contacted Wikimedia Australia asking for advice on how to deal with this situation) and I believe that she is sincere but simply doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and genuinely believes the article is being targeted by political opponents. Now there are independent people watching the article, it would be best if User:Barbbiggs stopped editing the article directly and instead made suggestions on the talk page and allowed neutral editors to make any edits, but I think it's important to deal with article subjects compassionately as they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of a Wikipedia article showing up in the first few search results for their name. User:Barbbiggs has been honest and open about her identity and has been making an effort to try to get advice and information in a number of places (including contacting a user she has had contact with before, OTRS, Wikimedia Australia, ANI, and the help desk) and it's pretty clear to me that she's operating in good faith so I don't think there's any realistic purpose for talking about blocking her. Blocks, and especially when on article subjects, should be used as a last resort. It would be better to answer User:Barbbiggs's questions and concerns and try to help her understand how we work, get the article in line with BLP and then keep it there. Sarah 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Sarah on this one; when people who are the subjects of articles have legitimate concerns about those articles, we should make every good-faith effort to work with them, and not merely dismiss them. I agree that Ms. Biggs shows a naive understanding of the operation of Wikipedia; however we shouldn't use that as an excuse to block her. She should not be blocked, but rather we should work to try to alleviate her concerns while helping her to understand the importance of Wikipedia's well thought out guidelines. She has legitimate concerns. --Jayron32 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by IP?

Forgive me if I'm way off the mark here (I haven't had too much experience with this particular issue before), but would this constitute a legal threat? It almost looks like a strange sense of humour, but I thought bringing it here might be advisable just in case. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clear legeal threat, IP should be blocked, for how long, I don't know.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • [Edit-conflict]No, that isn't a legal threat, to be one it would have to be serious. It seems like a strange joke, revert and warn as vandalism. Prodego ^talk 04:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • OP already reverted, meanwhile I posted a warning on his page not to do it again or he'll be blocked. We can't indef IP's, but if someone wants to issue a healthy temporary block, that would be fine. Probably just a drive-by, as you suggest - messing around - but it can't be left unchallenged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure it can. Looks like standard revert and warn to me. NLT is meant to apply to serious legal threats, not vandalism. Prodego ^talk 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Kissing up to editors who make legal threats is not a good practice. It sends the wrong message. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • If we ignore facetious legal threats made by IPs then the terrorists have won! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
            • If you assume they're facetious, then they're that much closer to victory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Prodego. It's just vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• As do I. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Revert, Block, Ignore but don't make them feel more important than our usual vandal. -- Luk ^talk 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:RedPawl

Besides a number of nationalistic edits to Cornish related articles, eg several like this one] where he changes the fact tha Cornwall is a county of England to claimining it is a 'nation of the United Kingdom', he has at three times called another editor a Fascist and/or revealed personal information about that editor: [84] [85] [86]. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm...since RedPawl literally just got back from a 3RR block and continued the same reverts, I've just reblocked for 72 hours. He's already been warned about edit warring and personal attacks but doesn't seem to be responding to the notes left on his talk page. Shell ^babelfish 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Given his continued behaviour, I doubt he'll be around much longer. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic newbie editor

M. Abdollahi (talk · contribs) is new here and has stirred up a bit of trouble in the past few days. I think he generally means well, but is, well, totally clueless. He's created and recreated an article that has been speedied several times, has uploaded a number of obvious copyvios, and started an RfA on himself the first day he appeared on-Wiki. Also found and tagged a couple copyvios over on Commons. Can someone try and help him out a bit? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. The situation doesn't seem too bad -- he wrote some unreferenced articles. This is in a topic area (Iranian television) where many other unreferenced articles already exist. I'm not saying that this is a good thing or that we should care about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the guy deserves a chance to figure out reliable sources. I'm going to try to help him. rspεεr (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I think he has good intentions and just needs some help. We have a dearth of Iranian modern culture stuff, so hopefully he can help out. The kids show looks cute, wish I could find some refs for it! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Saint"?

Resolved

An IP insists on adding the title "saint" to Jack Kevorkian. At first I thought it was vandalism, but now s/he throws in citations from the Church of Euthanasia and the Church of Reality. I checked wp's naming conventions and am at a loss... Any opinions? Seb az86556 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't designate people as saints as a title in the name when they're famous for other things in addition to sainthood. See Thomas More, Joan of Arc, and Charlemagne. Durova³⁰⁶ 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

C.Kent87's unblock request

Raising this here since the blocking admin, Seddon doesn't seem to be around (the unblock req is pending since last Thursday). The user has been blocked after this Sockpuppet Investigation, where he was found using multiple accounts. After a second look, I confirm the connection and the fact that he has used his alt, Cali567 in a deceptive manner on several occasions. He's promising to stick to a single account in his unblock request, and considering his contributions I think we can give him a second chance. What do you think? -- Luk ^talk 08:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that he can afford to wait a little longer for Seddon to review. This will not only give Seddon the chance to comment and act if he so wishes, but also the user concerned some time to reflect rathor than re-entering the editor pool immediately with little or no time to seriously apprehend that he was in the wrong and that he needs to be follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines more carefully. An un-block request (imho) is almost an instinctive reaction to a block and can be well written with no brain effort what so ever, whereas some time away from the wiki will allow the user to get out of any drama cycles that they may have been in that would cause them to degrade to sockpuppeting. I feel a reduction in the block is warrented, perhaps to the duration of a week from the original date, but I would not go as far as to remove it all together.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It'll be a week since he was blocked in a few hours, so I don't see your point. From the unblock request, it seems to me he has done plenty of reflecting already. Seddon seems to be around, so I'm not sure what we're waiting for.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*bangs head on wall* Aye, your right.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on Closedmouth's talk page endorsing the unblock, and as seen he was the reviewing admin presumed he would do the unblock. My endorsement still stands. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Long-term persistent block evasion

I'm referring to User:PIO/Luigi 28. This user was blocked in March 2008, and has since simply continued to edit with no problems for seventeen months. Occasionally he creates socks like User:Ciolone, User:Barba Nane, User:Agazio, User:Ustashi, and most recently, User:Ducatista2, but he knows he does not really need them. His edits have often destabilized articles, he has attempted to WP:HARASS me by posting my information on many occasions (me being the one reporting his socks), and he has been known to openly brag about Wikipedia's supposed inability to do anything about him and his disruptive edits. His newest sockpuppet, User:Ducatista2, was blocked a couple of days ago, yet here he is again on Talk:Republic of Ragusa following me around.

The guy is a menace. I'm not sure if he's right, that is, I'm not sure if something can be done about finally enforcing his block, but I really am damn curious. What good is it to ban a guy if he can still do things like edit-war on article talkpages? [87] (btw, I'd like to request someone semi-protects Republic of Ragusa as a temporary fix) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There may also be a connection with banned User:Brunodam, since User:Ducatista2 removed a Suspected Sock notice from one of Brunodam's (suspected) socks. [88] Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I think they're just good buddies. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IP hardblocked for 2 weeks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to be properly block him for good? There is absolutely no way he won't be back, he probably read this had a little chuckle - this isn't the first time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There's too much collateral damage from his IP range, so a rangeblock is out of the question, unfortunately. We'll have to deal with him on a case by case basis. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Right then. I'll report him wherever I see him. Cheers --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Brighton Institute of Modern Music

Hi all. I've just been contacted by Brighton Institute of Modern Music regarding their Wikipedia entry, specifically these changes, apparently by a disgruntled student editing as Thee Undead (talk · contribs). The institute reverted the edits, and I've added back an accidentally removed paragraph - could another admin please take a look at this, and determine whether it's appropriate to block the user and/or semi-protect the page? More eyes on the article's changes would also be good. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Undead should be blocked immediately to prevent the repeat of his libellous statements and only unblocked if he agrees not to repeat them. ah I see this is quite stale.. if he returns.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Now we have Bimmrock (talk · contribs). I restored some of the text, giving the history of the subject, that was lost because of the vandalism reversion. But Bimmrock has just blanked it again. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I suspect that's an institutional account, although I'm a little surprised as it doesn't fit in with the approach of the person I spoke to on the phone... Mike Peel (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol's redirects, revisited

It's been two weeks since Tyciol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for excessive creation of bad redirects without showing any improvements or acknowledgement that the redirects created were harmful. No action has been taken to the 5000+ redirects I have listed here (some are deleted already but that was because the revision lag was old or something). Surely, these should be examined and deleted if necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• So why aren't you examining them? The response to "Somebody should do something!" is "You're somebody.". I've picked five entries at random from your list, and only seen one problem, and that was caused by User:DarknessBot (acting as a vandalism amplifier), not Tyciol. You're going to have to work on your list, and separate out all of the obviously proper redirects (such as molester → sexual abuse, sleep walk → sleepwalking, and sword stick → swordstick, to pick just three) before expecting other people to take action. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't have the time to check through FIVE THOUSAND redirects on my own.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • So what makes you think that anyone else has? What makes you think that you have a leg to stand on when the rest of the world takes the same stance that you yourself do, that your list is too long and too indiscriminate to be useful? You created this list. Make it a usable one. Uncle G (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest looking at the ones that are people's names first. Where he's taken someone's name and created redirects for every possible combination of their names appear to be the most obvious deletes, and I've been slowly working through them. Nevertheless, it will take a while, because even someone who created redirects as randomly as Tyciol did, by the law of averages, create some useful ones. Black Kite 13:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (Further) more problematic are the ones that look useful, but actually aren't. Quite a few are redirects to articles where that word is merely mentioned briefly, or it's part of a minor character's name. However, such words may appear in dozens of articles. This means that such redirects are actively unhelpful, rather than being spurious, because they force the user typing something into the searchbox to the article that Tyciol has chosen, rather than giving them the search results. Black Kite 13:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that my random sampling of this list doesn't reveal the problem to be as bad as the hysteria has made it out to be. My random sampling of the list (which I've been expanding in the meanwhile) shows that it includes quite a lot of quite proper redirects — such as Criss Angel Mind Freak → Criss Angel Mindfreak, Strawberry Banana Burst → Go-Gurt#Flavors, and Flowers of Hard Blood → Shion no Ō. Extending the proportions from the sample to the population indicates that this is far from the "ZOMG! FIVE THOUSAND redirects!" problem that it is being portrayed as being.

      A discriminately selected list of the "bad" redirects would be useful. But this isn't such a list. It's just a list of all redirects, created over a period of several years, and selected entirely indiscriminately. Ryulong hasn't even applied your suggested selection criterion. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Yep - I guessed previously that very approximately a third of these redirects are or may possibly be useful, another third are actively unhelpful and should be R3'd on the spot, and the remainder are either debatable or should be fixed to redirect to a more useful target (such as I did with RunUp, for example). Black Kite 14:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, and the other major problem - redirects that should have been dabs - i.e. Conradt which I've just fixed. Whilst Ryulong's list is indiscriminate, it is generally quite easy to spot the ones that might be a problem. The user has created a lot of work for other people to clean up. Black Kite 14:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to have a look through the list, but am not going to be able to go through everything. Is there anything we could do to indicate those that have already been addressed? That would at least save the duplication of effort. Quantpole (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• When Black Kite and I have worked on such lists in the past, we struck through entries that we addressed. I generally sign as well, since it shows who checked what, in case the work of the checkers itself needs checking. But there really is some processing of this list that is necessary before we even get to that stage. At the very least it requires filtering and sorting. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • But surely to sort it, they would all need checking? If we went through and labelled them as 'good' or 'bad' would that help with the sorting? Quantpole (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The fact that all the deleted ones will be redlinks will help out somewhat. Otherwise, yes, we probably need to tag all the ones that have been fixed at some point. I can do that with mine, but clearly if anyone else has fixed any they'll need to be flagged as wel. Black Kite 16:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • He is still asking to be unblocked, and says he isn't clear why he was blocked. He says he'd like to see the specific reasons listed on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There are ways to sort such things. Alphabetical order is the simplest. More useful sorts separate, say, the single words from the long phrases. Filtering, the other thing that needs doing, would involve applying some of the criteria that Black Kite mentions to weed the list, or applying criteria such as not listing any redirects that have been edited by other editors. But none of this has been done. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I'm not sure what's best. Would it help if we each took sections of the list, and handled them by ourselves? e.g. I could handle numbers 1000 through 1499 and put a collapsible box around them so that no one else would needlessly duplicate my efforts. I would CSD the ones that I think need to be deleted, fix the ones that can be fixed, and leave the rest as they are. Would that be good? Or would you rather I just marked a list of the ones that I think should be deleted so that they won't clog up CSD? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Uncle G, way to be nasty with somebody who's looking for help. Why are you even discussing this? If you don't want to do anything, don't, but there's no need to attack the good faith reporter. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Local Children's Television Series (United States)

I'm kinda new to the Wiki world, so I'm not sure if this is the right place for this. If not, my apologies. Anyway, the article List of Local Children's Television Series (United States) is having a lot of edits done by people trying to add false information. In particular, they're trying to edit in information regarding a non-existent children's show called Candle Cove. They've reverted edits I and others have made trying to remove it (I didn't make the edits while logged in, however) and also edited/reverted user comments regarding the situation. The television show in question is a fictitious one created by a website called Ichor Falls as part of a short horror story. Here's a link to the story- http://www.ichorfalls.com/2009/03/15/candle-cove/. If there's an actual existing show by this name I'm unaware of it, but no one's produced any evidence regarding its existence either. Anjldust (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The link in question is List of local children's television series (United States). ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 12:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm now watchlisting the article. I've done the research - crappy YouTube video, brief attempt to make it trend on Twitter, various self-answered questions on Yahoo, the full "lets make an internet meme" bollocks - and it's all a hoax. So far, the article isn't getting hammered badly enough to warrant protection, so a watching brief seems fine. Mostly IP action, plus one otherwise-seemingly-useful editor adding it (I'll warn them). ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 12:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned the 2 IPs that added it and cleaned up the talk page. Doesn't look to be serious, but I expect a couple more attempts before they get it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Sorry about the wrong link, I was in a hurry and didn't check it before I ran out the door. Also, a user named DrDoog was editing some comments on the talk page, trying to perpetuate the hoax. Not sure if you caught that also. Anjldust (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the editor in question to comment about that change, although I'm not hopeful of any useful reply (deleted user page). ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 06:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi and myself at Wikipedia talk:Paid editing

For about a month now the whole Wikipedia:Paid editing discussion has been churning. For those familiar with the RfC on paid editing, it should come as no surprise such a page would generate more heat than light. However there has recently been a problem with the volume and nature of the edits, I suggest, coming from User:Benjiboi. There have been more than 100 talk page edits in the past few days, most of them coming from either Benjiboi or myself.

While discussion is encouraged, I feel that (i) the sheer volume of edits of the two of us on the talk page has reached a problem and (ii) discussions with Benjiboi are not going to be resolved through discussion. I believe, after a month of trying, it is easy someone to not be convinced by discussion when they are paid to not be convinced. Benjiboi, for instance, is not convinced that conflict of interest would apply to someone getting paid specifically to ensure a particular policy were created on Wikipedia. Other editors have noted his ownership of the WP:PAID text. The talk page is full, to my read, of comments which are tendentious, dilatory, or otherwise disruptive. He's repeatedly declined to participate in any dispute resolution.

I have come to realize my own responses to Benjiboi's comments have become enabling and themselves problematic. I proposed that he and I agree to a limit of one edit (one signed comment in a particular section, not comments in every section done in one edit) limit per day. He declined, so I come here to ask for community support in making this an obligatory sanction for both Benjiboi and myself. I am generally loathed to restrict access to talk pages, so I wanted something short of a ban, or even a topic ban, however things like this should not be happening. Something is broken there. I am also open to suggestions of alternatives as well. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator; am I allowed to comment here? I just have to say that I support TeaDrinker in this, and would be willing to voluntarily abide ANY limits you set on me that would allow me to contribute to WP:Paid. It has been over a month now that User:Benjiboi has deleted every edit that I've made every time that I've contributed. I've limited myself to editing Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text rather than Wikipedia:Paid editing simply because I have no other choice. Smallbones (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've participated in this matter too, and generally agree with TeaDrinker's statements. Benjiboi is a fine editor but on this topic he seems to be exerting ownership and insiting on his own version. However I don't believe this is the correct venue to resolve this problem. Since this concerns a user's behavior I suggest a user RfC instead.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm thrilled that these three editors in particular have made their cases here and I actually encouraged both TeaDrinker and Smallbones to do bring the situation to any venue they saw fit as the personalized barbs and baiting against me were growing tiresome. All three editors have variously accused me of all manner of COI, being a paid editor, purposely deceiving them, etc. All, of course, with no evidence whatsoever - as there is none - except that I have insisted that we not write policies we wish existed but follow the notice on the page itself - Note: This page is not a policy or guideline, it is an attempt to summarize existing policies and guidelines that relate to the general topic of paid editing.
  TeaDrinker and Smallbones have also been waving dispute resolution as a threat when myself and others have expressed we really don't feel that will get anywhere on the current issues as indefensible positions are rather hard to defend. I have patiently and civilly expressed this every time they push the issue.
  TeaDrinker's misrepresenting my view does bring up a core issue with paid editing in that our current policies, as is plainly evident on the community-wide RfC on the matter, do not inherently conflate paid editing with paid advocacy or COI or even paid editing services. As is evidenced above TeaDrinker is keen in putting words in my mouth and Smallbones again misrepresents the situation. The concept floated was to ban any paid editors from all policy pages - which is completely unenforcible - which was quickly followed with a proposal to make anyone wishing to edit the WP:Paid page, which remains neither policy nor guideline, to disclose if they were a paid editor which then devolved into a ban against paid editors on that page. Again, unenforcible, so why go there? Most of Smallbones' contributions were undone as going against the stated purpose or otherwise against consensus. There has been a lot of reverting there but any objective look through the page and talkpage will show that I have not only acted in good faith but have done so despite what seems to be tag-team tactics to antagonize me.
  I give Will Beback credit, they directly addressed me about their concern on my talkpage, we discussed our views and have had no unseemly interactions since. -- Banjeboi 04:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not the policy page, but your behavior regarding it. For example, you've just been reverting citation requestions for specific assertions you're making about what others have said. That's in addition to the many other reverts. Would you be willing to abide by 1RR?   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, it is not a policy page. Secondly, I reverted your second round of cite tags placed within the first round of cites, as I saw them as tenditious, apparently the same thing you're accusing me of? In any case I have done the homework that no one else was willing to do and added cites for cites as well. Again if there is actually any evidence of me doing something wrong please present it for others to comment on. -- Banjeboi 07:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to abide by 1RR?   Will Beback  talk  07:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see evidence that I have actually done anything wrong first; as a reminder, other editors' actions will likely be reviewed as well. Once we can see what problematic behaviours are at play a more educated decision on any remedies can be looked at. So far we have about a dozen bad faith accusations against myself including vague character assaults. -- Banjeboi 08:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dking and COI, related problems

User:Dking is the Wikipedia account for Dennis King, who is the author of a book which is highly critical of Lyndon LaRouche. He has been an SPA ([89]) and a problem case for very aggressive editing and self-citing in violation of WP:COI. He was reported before on this board two years ago for "COI spamming" (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive227#More COI spamming.)

Dking has been inactive as of late, but in the past few days he has returned to make some very problematic edits at the LaRouche bio, including edit-warring to remove commentary from the New York Times and other commentators who view his book as conspiracy-theorizing diffdiffdiffdiff, and self-citing to promote his POV diff. He has also had a chronic incivility problem. Since this behavior has persisted for so long despite warnings from a number of admins diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, I think a topic ban may be in order. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• An outright ban may go too far, but Dking should not be adding references to his own books on any articles, and he should not be removing negative comments about his publications when such negative comments are supported by reliable sources. He can propose adding his publication or removing negative comments on the talk pages. Thatcher 15:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For Leatherstocking, a single-purpose editor, to be suggesting a ban of Dking is probably a COI of its own. Leatherstocking has also been disruptive. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? As for Dking, policy s[ecifically allows citing oneself:

• If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. WP:COS

I agree that it'd be better if Dking wasn't removing sources that criticize his book but the criticism was unbalanced - one critical comments out of much praise. The editors who are insisting on keeping the critical comment without properly reflecting the broader view are not following NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  16:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the criticisms of my book were being inserted in a paragraph that was about LaRouche, not me, and that the criticisms weren't directly relevant to the issue at hand--LaRouche's anti-Semitism. The same quote from the NY Times and a similar quote from Wilcox are included in the Dennis King article and I did NOT remove them there.--Dking 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms which you removed were in fact all specific rebuttals to your theories about LaRouche. In the case of the New York Times quote, which you say was irrelevant to the issue of anti-Semitism, the deleted text was "...in trying to see Mr. LaRouche as a would-be Führer, Mr. King may be trying to tie together the whole unruly package with too neat a ribbon. A number of loose ends hang out, not least of which is the fact that many members of Mr. LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish." --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss Leatherstocking's behavior, then start a separate thread on it. Let's discuss DKing here. Leatherstocking asked me to join this discussion. I believe, based on what I've seen, that DKing should be topic banned from all of the LaRouche articles. DKing runs, or ran, an anti-Larouche website and has written anti-LaRouche books. I have no problem with DKing editing any other topic in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How would those outside activities necessitate a ban on editing by a recognized expert?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I note that the links to the warnings placed on Dking's talk page all date from 2007, so are stale, and that some concern his reaction to what he thought was harassment.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:COS specifies that self-citing must be done in such a way that it does not violate neutrality policy, and the diffs I provided indicate that Dking fails in that department. Also, Dking's edits have historically violated both WP:COI#Self-promotion (the "COI spamming" problem) and WP:COI#Campaigning (he's not a neutral, objective "expert," but an "advocacy journalist" who is actively campaigning against LaRouche and his organization.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that Dking's edits violate NPOV, and some of the diffs you added don't even involve citing himself. Instead, it appears that this is a continuation of the harassment of Dking that has gone on for several years. How many complaints have you and HK filed against him?   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem here of conflicting practices. We want to make sure that the COI guideline doesn't invariably prevent experts from contributing in areas where they may have real-life involvement. But we also want to make sure that BLPs aren't tainted by people with personal grievances adding their views to biographies. Here we have someone who is a published expert (and reliable source) on a living person, yet who thinks poorly of that person, which presents a BLP risk.

I suggest that Dking be asked not to add or remove material about his own publications, or use his own book as a source; not to use his personal website as a source, or in any way promote it; and if he does edit a LaRouche article, should make sure the edit is well-sourced, and written in a completely disinterested tone. Alternatively, I suggest that everyone who appears to have real-life connections to LaRouche, for and against, be asked to restrict their input to the talk pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable request. I hope that such behavior would be met with equal restraint on the part of those who advocate in favor of LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I give up on wp:blp.

Carly Fiorina, again. I have done my best, for more than a year now, to try to protect her biography from blatant wp:blp violations and to try to ensure it stays neutral and wp:due. There's only so long you can manage that, given her notoriety and controversy, before burnout.

I think User:Threeafterthree and User:Iterator12n both hit that point before me. It isn't easy to regularly have to argue points like why blogs are not acceptable (much less in a biography of a living person) and why wp:blp requires "high quality" reliable sourcing.

User:Jgm and User:Blaxthos have been editing the article for a year; both appear to not particularly have much respect for Carly Fiorina, and it shows in their "collaboration" on the article. Both appeared to have migrated away from editing the article until they were recently wp:canvassed back by User:Rvcx shortly after his 48h block for retaliatory disruptive editing on the article. User:Rvcx is likely the sockmaster of User:Benignprank. Those two accounts both instigated monthlong protections of the article, in June and again this past week, for reinserting wp:blp-violating material (see here and here).

Anytime an outside party attempts to mediate, they are ultimately ignored, like User:Jclemens. Or they are marginalized, like User:Tom harrison. Or they are attacked, like User:Tanthalas39.

I am removing the article from my watchlist, and I will do my best to avoid it from this point forward. It just is not feasible for one person to stand between an angry mob with their pitchforks and torches, regardless of what wp:blp demands, with only fleeting administrator assistance and scant watchlist coverage. I have repeatedly plead for assistance here and at wp:blp/n, but the only lasting contributor (thus far) that has brought in has been User:ThuranX and his venomous "contributions," (like here).

I will be away for the next week. All I can hope is that, when full protection expires or is lifted, that some other folks try to keep the article from the "rebalancing" User:Rvcx and others have promised is to come. Because, I can assure you, it won't be pretty. Take care, user:J aka justen (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am closing this down. ANI is not the place for rants. --Jayron32 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I opened it back up. I'll look into this. Lara 17:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note related discussion here. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me to be an editing dispute over which sources and to use and how exactly to portray events in her career. Clearly one editor wants a more positve version that the other, who wants negative content included. As long as I'm here I'd like to mention that Max Baucus has been subject to pointed editing of late if other can help keep an eye out. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible violation of editing restriction

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24h.

Allstarecho (talk · contribs) is "is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia" as recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Does this edit to User_talk:AKMask#Matt_Sanchez constitute a violation of that ban? Note that Bluemarine himself started the topic to which Allstarecho has replied. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes it does, and I have blocked ASE for 24 hours. Regrettable, but a fairly blatant violation. I note that this was only 19 days after the restriction was imposed, which doesn't bode well. Black Kite 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It might have been a "hmm...maybe nobody's watchin'" test. Test was either successful or unsuccessful, depending on your POV. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:AJackl

• AJackl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in disruptive behavior at the article Landmark Education. He has already been warned with regard to conflict of interest by three different administrators, but continues the disruption. As I have contributed content to this article, requesting action be taken by another uninvolved administrator. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• Conflict of interest warnings by three different admins:

1. 22:15, 1 June 2008 = Warning given by admin Garden (talk · contribs)
2. 07:22, 23 October 2008 = Warning given by admin Jehochman (talk · contribs)
3. 18:50, 24 August 2009 = Warning given by admin John Carter (talk · contribs)

• Disruptive editing - sequence of events:

1. 18:08, 24 August 2009 = I add new material to the article, sourced to 15 WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources.
2. 18:36, 24 August 2009 = admin John Carter (talk · contribs) comments positively on this new addition of material: I am frankly amazed that you were able to generate so much relevant content in so short of a time. Thank you very much.
3. 18:41, 24 August 2009 = AJackl (talk · contribs) removes all of the sourced material I had added to the article.
4. 18:43, 24 August 2009 = Sourced material restored by admin John Carter (talk · contribs)
5. 18:45, 24 August 2009 = AJackl (talk · contribs) removes the entirety of the sourced material, again.
6. 18:47, 24 August 2009 = Sourced material restored a second time by admin John Carter (talk · contribs)
7. 19:05, 24 August 2009 = AJackl (talk · contribs) adds in a wholly unsourced, personal opinion comment directly above the sourced material - note: this was added not on the talk page but to the main article text itself.
8. 19:15, 24 August 2009 = AJackl (talk · contribs) removes New religious movements work group tag from the article's talk page, despite abundance of sourced material establishing relevancy and comments by multiple editors supporting its inclusion.

---

Clearly the warnings so far from three different administrators have not gotten through to AJackl (talk · contribs) - another form of action is now appropriate here. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As an involved party myself, I find that I would have to question taking action on this matter directly, but I do agree that the editor in question has clearly himself violated the existing consensus he seems so fond of with the unsourced addition here, and probably at least a few rules regarding sourcing and neutrality, as well. This does seem to be an abiding problem with this editor, considering his apparent conflict of interests regarding this topic was one he has been aware of since at least October of last year. The fact that he has unilaterally made several changes to the article today reverting the work of others who do not have the apparent conflict of interests he apparently has is I believe a serious cause for concern, and probably at least some degree of formal action. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you lay out the conflict? And if you are an involved party, John, then it is probably better that Cirt strike the mention of you as admin giving a warning. You can't play and referee in the same game.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the situation going back a while - I left a final warning for Ajackl for edit warring. If he can get consensus on talk page, that's fine, but he hasn't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

Resolved

 – backlogged debates closed by SarekOfVulcan. ~ mazca ^talk 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Over the last week or so, I seem to be the only administrator closing RfD debates. While it's mostly under control, a few more eyes there would be helpful - it's never healthy for everything to be closed by the same person.

Specifically, a few debates from a few weeks ago are rather overdue because I voted in them, and hence can't close them - would someone care to take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10? Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Got the two/three on August 10, but didn't review any others.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - those were the two that were really backlogged. Anyone else who cares to make RfD part of their general patrol would be appreciated; but the immediate "incident" is solved. Cheers. ~ mazca ^talk 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:JoshuaBrody keeps on removing cover images from Man on the Moon: The End of Day

Yeah, this has been bugging me a lot. He keeps removing the covers which are confirmed as official on the page as part of an ongoing saga that involves his images. First he replaces the official image with File:ManOnTheMoonTheEndOfDayFrontCover.jpg and File:ManOnTheMoonTheEndOfDayDVDDeluxeEditionCover.jpg. After I keep reverting them, he places them back without any explination. Even though the official versions are of lower resolution and are of non-free use, he keeps reverting them back to ones that have questionable fair use, even after they were deleted (I requested it to be deleted under F1 of WP:CSD) He reposts it under the name File:ManOnTheMoomTheEndOfDayREALFrontCover.jpg and still posts it on that page. The other image (File:ManOnTheMoonTheEndOfDayDVDDeluxeEditionCover.jpg), I uploaded a lower-resolution and official version from Amazon.com and oddly, he reuploads it with the name File:ManOnTheMoonTheEndOfDayREALDVDDeluxeEditionCover.jpg which was deleted under the same citeria as the previous image, and then he started doing this. Look I know his contributions might good faith but he should not trying to make a point by removing the covers from the page. I think he should be given a small time out and he should be educated on how copyright works on Wikipedia. Taylor Karras (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• There should only be the main album cover on the page per WP:NFCC, unless the alternative cover is particularly notable (an example would be Electric Ladyland). I removed the spurious cover from the article again, and it shouldn't be re-inserted. Black Kite 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good but can you please do something about User:JoshuaBrody. I just reverted an edit which removed the album cover, again and he won't stop. Even after I explained it to him, he won't stop. Taylor Karras (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima

Discussion is yielding more heat than light. No consensus to ban anyone. Recommend (per others in this thread) that participants in Talk:Persian Empire voluntarily restrain from editing it for the next 48 hours to let the situation die down. NW (Talk) 23:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Ottava Rima has now several times threatened to call my university to complain to my department about me. I'm pretty game for any kind of actual argument about content, but this seems really over the line to me. It's probably stupid that I use my real name on wikipedia, anyway, but this is quite upsetting. john k (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Sounds like a round-about way at an attempted outing. Bad idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Just ignore him. Asking for reprieve here is fruitless. someone will block him, another admin will unblock. People will whine about how we aren't treating the "real" editors with enough deference and how we don't understand OR's subtle blend of sarcasm and wit. It's not worth the damn trouble. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Lar appears to have handled it, so there really isn't anything to do here. Prodego talk 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC) No, I said I would complain about them not educating people properly. You do know that misquoting people is a breach of civility, yes? But you have breached civility quite a bit lately: "I would have just called their history department and demand what the hell they are teaching their kids. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)" (the actual quote, which is what you do, instead of making things up) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Based on the above comment, perhaps Ottava does need some reeducation. Prodego talk 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC) My take on it would be that the first one is a bit over the top and uncivil but basically translates to be as casting doubt on your knowledge on the subject (and Ottava quickly redacted it on request), whilst the second one has a smiley at the end and is clearly meant as a joke. I also notfied Ottava of this thread, since you didn't. Black Kite 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Actually, I beat the request by 17 hours. Lar probably saw it when it was posted at Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Ah, indeed. Refactored accordingly. Black Kite 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Lar didn't handle it, he made a single comment, and any substantial review should include the Persian Empire talkpage. The running battle there has completely dissolved into petty nastiness, and it might do the article and the discussion quite a bit of good to topic ban the top two or three combatants until they can internalize WP:BATTLE. Nathan T 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Nathan is right - I immediately removed the comment, as it was only a jab at someone displaying that they have academic credentials and involving themselves in many history related disputes while having a user talk page filled with complains by people who have spent a lot of time in the fielding about strange views of history. I don't take kindly when I see what appears to be someone boasting a degree in order to verify a strange perception of reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Ottava, that talkpage is a mess and the responsibility falls on a number of experienced editors who should know better - but your hands aren't clean, even leaving aside the comment you redacted. For a group of obviously educated and articulate people, it should be 100% possible for all of you to hold a discussion (even an argument) without constantly disparaging each other. If you can't agree, escalating the warfare is not the solution; find a mediator, step back from the dispute, propose a short recess (taking advantage of the protected status of the article), etc. "You're an idiot!" "No, you're an idiot!" is childlike behavior and all of you are intelligent adults. Nathan T 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC) People know that the one thing that sets me off is academic dishonesty. And anyone trying to rationalize the blanking of 60k worth of content that is mostly cited will upset me, especially when they are pushing a fringe POV, edit warring, and are unwilling to even bother to listen to consensus, references, or even be logically consistent. I don't take kindly to people that appear to be actively trying to destroy the encyclopedia. I slave at this encyclopedia because I believe that it can have a great reputation and be a great source of information. People like that are the ones dragging it down and giving us a bad name. What kind of ridiculous laughing stock would we be when our Persian Empire page, a high and top priority page, is reduced to a 1k tiny mention that ignores 1200 years worth of important history dealing with the subject? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Explaining who I am on my talk page is not boasting. I have never boasted about a degree. And you're continuing to make personal attacks on me here, and to make unfounded claims about me. Okay, I accept that the second statement has a smiley, but the basic issue - that Ottava is going around saying that I'm lying about my credentials and threatening to expose me - is real. And Ottava's removal of the original comment was made because "I don't expect he'd answer anyway," or some such, not out of any recognition that it was out of line. john k (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC) My exposing of you was already done by pointing out a contradiction in your knowledge that is not only found on that page, but lodged against you by many people on your talk page. You either don't have the background you claim or you have a POV and opinion that is fringe. Or, perhaps you just got stuck on a side and couldn't back down. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC) So you follow up declarations that you did nothing wrong with a continuation of the same attacks? How does this help your case, OR? ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I support a full ban from Wikipedia against Ottava Rima. I don't see why we bother to keep him her it around when intentional and serious off-site harassment threats are being made. ThuranX (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Unnecessary, and proposing Wikipedia bans in these circumstances (where it is sure to fail to achieve to consensus) is just inflammatory. Nathan T 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I quite often think Ottava is wrong on a large number of things, but here there's no substance to this complaint. One slightly uncivil remark (that was stricken), and one clearly meant in jest (even including a little smiley). That doesn't count as harassment or threats or anything of the sort. I suggest just moving on and tagging this resolved. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I support ThuranX's full ban idea. Enough is enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Lets see, Neutral Homer - I have had two FAs passed this month (The Lucy poems and To Autumn), and a third about to pass, along with over 10 GAs in the past 30 days, and most of the DYK records. What have you done except to inflame drama at ANI? How about a counter proposal, you and ThuranX banned. I am sure that many more people would want that. I have contributed more to this encyclopedia in the past thirty days than your whole career here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Can we keep the bragging to a minimum, please? --clpo13(talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC) If I was to brag, I would surely do more than show only about 5% of my major contributions to this project. I am merely pointing out the logical absurdity. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Was I supposed to be impressed? Oh sorry. Wow, what incredible work, how ever will I compete with you. I must go retire now in shame. </sarcasm> Grow up, this ain't third grade. You did wrong, you have done wrong in the past, time for you to go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC) This is an encyclopedia first and foremost. I prove every day that I am here to contribute. you only prove that you know how to fuel drama. The more you respond like that, the more justification you put forward for your banning. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC) If you're really not in third grade, then I suggest that you start behaving like you're not in third grade. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (ec) I may not understand why we keep you around Thuranx, but I certainly don't understand what your or my personal prejudices have to do with anything being discussed here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (ECx7)I have no idea what this comment is about, I made no mention of anything but OR's threat to harass him offsite, which is against our policies, and frankly, the law in most civilized parts of the world. I see nothing improper about suggesting that such an editor be shown the door, forcefully and with finality. ThuranX (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC) You are being dishonest. What you said was "I support a full ban from Wikipedia against Ottava Rima", a ban that nobody had proposed. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Really? It's understood that I'm proposing it as well. No, you've clearly got some other issue with me. No clue what it is, but I don't think it's worth caring about, either. ThuranX (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Ottava can be sarcastic and rude sometimes, but there really isn't a reason to ban him. So why would that even be an option? Prodego talk 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Agree with Prodego. Ottava is one of our most prolific content creators. A ban would hurt the project more than it would hurt Ottava. →javért breakaway 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC) OR and I aren't buddies... but I don't see the basis here to block or ban or even sanction OR... I find OR's first comment a little overboard, but self redacted, so I'm willing to ignore it. The second one was possibly in poor taste, but in reality just a bad attempt at humor. Personally, I think a quick, "think before you write" message has already been sent and received by OR and that this could be closed.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict times 6 - holy crap) Ban Ottava!? Sure, he can be a pain in the ass, and he'll own up to that. But you propose we ban on of Wikipedia's (IMO) best article writers? That's just sad... iMatthew talk • take my poll at 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC) If he had done something ban-worthy, it would be a reasonable proposal. But, since the only offending comment was immediately withdrawn, there isn't even anything to take action against. That just makes this all the more ridiculous, and I think we can all see that there's absolutely no reason to ban. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 22:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC) OK, I have to comment now... yes, I think the call for banning was premature. But I think this notion that we can't ban OR because he's one of the top content editors is bunk. I can think of half a dozen editors who basically get away with murder because they are among our best editors. The real priviledged class aren't the admins, but rather a handful of editors that we don't want to lose. Yes, I am guilty of defending them myself... but it's a shame when we start citing their content contributions as reasons to ignore other issues. Do I think OR should be banned or sanctioned for this? No, but that has ZERO to do with his being in that elite group of editors, it has to do with the merits of this incident. Basically what a few of you are saying is that OR can do whatever the hell he wants and because he's one of the elite editors, will never have to worry about anything. This is a faulty message. If the actions require sanctions, then they would require action regardless of who it is.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC) That's not what I see anyone saying; perhaps that your own prejudice showing through. There was no call for a ban until Thuranxs decided to raise the stakes, and no real offence by Ottava that would warrant anything other than a mild slap on the wrist. In contrast to your view I think that prolific content editors are hounded out of the project by crap like this, by no means allowed to "get away with murder". It's editors like Thuranxs and far too many others who get away with murder. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC) If prolific editors are hounded out of the project, it's because they act as if they are immune to sanctions and then leave in a huff because they find out they aren't. I've seen it firsthand and it's pretty ugly. --clpo13(talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Just take a look at Ottava's block log to see whether your assertion of immunity to sanctions holds any water at all. Or even mine. Frankly I'd prefer it if people here were more honest and simply told the truth. "I hate Ottava and I want to see hime banned." The rest is just bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Actually, Ottava's block log for the past year is immaculate. His last block was in July 08. You're block log... we won't go there ;-) But the point remains, I have no problem defending actions or saying that the actions do or do not deserve to be blocked, based upon the actions and whether or not said actions have a pattern. What I do have a problem with are statements such as, you propose we ban on of Wikipedia's (IMO) best article writers? That's just sad... or Ottava is one of our most prolific content creators. A ban would hurt the project more than it would hurt Ottava. Those are not valid reasons (just as "X is one of best admins.") If the person demonstrates a history of abuse or problematic behavior, I don't care who they are. I don't think a block/ban is necessary here based upon the merits of what I've seen in this case. If I were to go based upon personal feelings, then yes, I wouldn't mind seeing Ottava blocked/banned. He's made his opinion of me clear enough. I think his attitude and the way he likes to bait others is deplorable. But based on the initial evidence presented, I do not see it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Strongly disagree with any sort of a ban for reasons outlined by Balloonman. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Looks like a storm in a teacup (especially as the issue seems to involve Classical history, and john k's page says he's specialised in the mid-19th century, so credentials seems slightly a red herring). Ottava Rima does however seem to be at the centre of things at Talk:Persian Empire. Perhaps an uninvolved admin could volunteer to look at that situation and try and help things along. At any rate, there seems no justification for anything beyond an admonition (caveat as always: on the available evidence). Rd232 talk 22:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I repeat, not worth the damn trouble. Please close this thread down, someone. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Propose Archiving It is clear that Ottava is not going to be banned for this. It is also clear that if someone just boldly archives this, there will be more drama. Therefore, I propose we gain consensus and mark this resolved/archived. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I object to that. Within this very thread, he's renewed the same attack that brought him here. How is it at all sensible to let him take MORE shots at the othe editor, then protect him from the consequences? ThuranX (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC) So he gets to continue to make personal attacks on me here, and then you collapse the whole thing so I can't even complain about it? At this point, not only Ottava, but various other people are more or less accusing me of lying about my identity. Apparently, because Ottava Rima writes good articles, he can cast doubt about me with impunity, and his friends can agree with him. Let me note that this is a situation where I never claimed any authority whatever based on credentials - it was Ottava Rima who brought them in, in order to attack me and cast doubt on them. The statement which convinced him that I am a liar or a crank is, apparently, that I said in a minor point of clarification to someone else who said that the Roman Empire split in 476, that in fact the Western Roman Empire ended in 476, and the two haves had split before that. Does anybody but Ottava Rima think that such a commonplace and unremarkable statement indicates that I must be either a liar about being a history graduate student or a crank? I will admit that the discussion had gotten heated and uncivil well before that point, and that I played as much of a role in that as anybody. But it's quite another thing to start attacking somebody and calling them a liar, even if we ignore the threatening to call my department thing. And he continues to make the same attacks, over and over again, on the page here. I've been on Wikipedia for six years. I'm sure I've gotten into more than my share of unfortunate and probably unnecessary arguments - I like arguing and I sometimes get a bit hot in such disputes. But I've never had anyone question my basic integrity in the way that Ottava Rima has been doing, and continues to do. The fact that almost nobody seems to care is particularly upsetting. john k (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) The same thing happened with another user. That person could do no wrong because they wrote good articles and did good work...well, according to his enablers. Finally, after many trips to AN and ANI, he was put on major restrictions. Just let it go, let things take their course. Sometimes it is slow, not as fast as we would like, but things will work themselves out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I don't really care at the moment whether Ottava Rima is restricted or not - it seems to me he probably should be, but that's really only a secondary concern. What I would like is some acknowledgement that it is not okay to repeatedly attack me, and some sort of vindication that his attacks are unjust. Almost nobody above even seems to see any problems with any of Ottava's behavior besides the one "minor insult" that he "quickly removed." But, to quote Marlo Stanfield, my name is my name. Ottava Rima is making false accusations about me. Other people seem to agree with him, or else not to care whether he makes false accusations, because he writes such wonderful articles. If he can get away with it, then that validates the attack. I am not someone who frequently gets into being a drama queen on ANI - I'm not sure if I've ever posted here before, and I certainly haven't done so in years. And I don't mind if someone virulently disagrees with me, or thinks I'm an idiot. I do care that someone is accusing me of being a liar, and not only that, of having perpetrated a lie for the past six years in order to mislead people here. I really would just like to clear my name from this baseless accusation. john k (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing content at WP:DOH

Looking at the Simpsons WikiProject page, I notice various wikilinks at the top of the page reffering to some makers of the programme as "nerds"; Matt Groening is "The nerd that created it". I initially saw this as a tad of WP:HUMOR and didn't think much of it. However, I then saw "The nerds that ruined it" linking to Mike Scully and Al Jean. This rather malicious comment is surely a violation of WP:PA? I then saw Great episodes, Not-so-great episodes and Episodes you've forgotten about. This is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and, wheter in main space or Wikispace, Wikipedia is not a place for fans to air their views on what they like or dislike - this is for the userspace. By placing it here, it seems like this is the view of Wikipedia the organisation and not a few users opinions. Thoughts? DJ 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Did you talk to project about it before you came here? iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've informed the WP of the discussion. DJ 22:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a joke and it's hardly "disturbing". It's hardly "the view of Wikipedia", it's not like it's the main page. The whole banner is a reference to a dicussion on the FAC talk page criticising us for producing good articles and "taking over the site". I suppose you could take it as too opinionated, even if it's all widely held by fans as true (especially Scully and Jean). Anyway, for the record, Scorpion made it and if it's deemed "wrong" we'll of course take it down. Gran² 23:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• It's not meant to be a commentary of any kind, it's just a joke in the project main space. Its name "Homerpedia" refers to the time that a prominant admin actually made a post complaining about the number of Simpsons related FAs. That always struck as pointless, and I decided to make the banner to reflect that some members of the wikipedia community regard our project as simply a cruft-improving waste of space. The banner was originally just for my user page, but as a joke I put it at WP:DOH at the beginning of the year, and to my amazement nobody objected (until now). It does reflect my opinions of the show (and any time a WP:DOH member objected, I changed it), but I would hardly call it "malicious". It's simply meant to be some Simpsons humour and I think you really need to lighten up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You may find it hillarious, but it's against Wikipedia rules. If I was to put "Jade Goody is the worst housemate ever" on the main WP:BIGBRO page, it would not be appreciated. It's not your place to publish "what the fans think". A WikiProject page shouldn't be an area to publish what you think of an issue, regardless of wheter you are an active member of the WikiProject or not. DJ 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wait a second here, why did you bring WP:OWN into this? That seems rather insulting, have I ever given any indication that I think I own the project? Like I've said, other project members were aware of the banner and were free to change it or remove it. Also, I really think you should have brought this up with us before coming here. It seems a little extreme. As a compromise, I'd be willing to remove the Scully/Jean bit, and any other "offensive" parts. 99.9% of the readers seem to realize that it's just a joke and doesn't mean anything. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Not so fast. Check and see if Groening, etc., call themselves that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • This seems like a perfectly appropriate use of wikiproject space. With only 1 complaint in 7 months perhaps the complainant would be well advised to lighten up. Leave the banner the way it is. L0b0t (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • A "Matt Groening nerd" search brings up nothing. And don't patronise me L0b0t - it's a valid issue. DJ 23:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • ["Matt Groening" nerd] in google finds many entries, many of which are irrelevant, but according to this presumably-authorized comic series [90] in at least one case (#36) he referred to himself as a "reformed nerd" in the credits. So that's one. Y'all can look for more. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Not to rain on what was surely intended as a harmless joke, but this really seems like a WP:BLP violation, to me -- it's fine by me if Wikipedians want to call themselves nerds, but to describe article subjects as "nerds", particularly in an insulting fashion like "the nerds that ruined [the show]", seems to convey the wrong message. If this is an inside joke on the part of the show's staff, that might assuage that sort of concern, some, but "plenty of fans say so" really doesn't strike me as a good reason to disparage article subjects in project space. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's just a fun thing on WP. Mabye we shouldn't say that anyone ruined the Simpsons, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Personally, I'd get rid of all those references. That one in particular I'm inclined to push much harder on, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I have removed the "nerds that ruined it" part. Is there anything else that should be removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Can't speak for everyone, but that's the only one that caused serious concern on my end. Thanks for the willingness to compromise. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Luna Santin. Having such text doesn't give the impression of a WikiProject that is intending to create neutral encyclopaedia articles in accordance with our NPOV policy. It gives the impression of a fansite. Having said that: Dalejenkins, you knew where both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons and User talk:Scorpion0422 are. WikiProjects have talk pages just like everything else. And this noticeboard isn't the Village Pump or RFC. This dispute is one that involves the editor that made the edit, failing that the WikiProject participants, and failing that the editorship at large. It isn't an administrator-only matter, and certainly isn't an administrator-first matter. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's he only one that needs addressing, all the rest seem either like they can be backed up by citation (See above), or are in-project jokes. ThuranX (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In-project "jokes" are not acceptable as they make it seems asif the project is closed off to those who don't "get it". The seasons "jokes" should be removed as they broadcast an opinion and its unprofessional. DJ 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

THe seasons were removed ten minutes before your comment [91]. Can we consider this resolved? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No. You reffer to Fox as "the evil network that controls it" (shockingly, this was added in after this debate started [92]. You clearly haven't learnt anything). And there's the "nerd" issue. DJ 00:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Joking insults about the Fox network is a trademark of the show ([93], [94] and I could easily dig up dozens of other refs). I've said it before and I'll say it again: lighten up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to read some policies. If the programme made racist jokes, would we put those up? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. DJ 01:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, because it is an encyclopedia, we would likely cover any controversial racist jokes. I'll say it again: It is just a silly banner thing and is supposed to be taken lightly, not seriously. Yes, it's not a fan site, but why can't we have a little fun on our project page? Calling Fox an evil network, in the same spirit as the show, is hardly as bad as a racist joke. Calling the producers "nerds" is not meant as an insult (and one of the writers even has a blog called nerd world. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The bit about Fox has been removed. Can we finally consider this tedious argument resolved? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Still not happy with the nerds thing. There's no strong reason why it can't be replaced with "people". 2 passing references to "nerds" is not enough - there are clear WP:BLP concerns. DJ 01:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, Groening calls himself a "reformed nerd". Are you under the impression that that's an obscenity or something? It may have been at one time, but now it's just a playful expression. There's no BLP issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of killjoys. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. It's far more disturbing that the show has been around for 21 years... HalfShadow 02:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

85.180.130.53

Can someone please keep an eye on 85.180.130.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when their 24-hour block expires tomorrow? Best I can figure out is that they were steadily reverting anon IP edits, whether the edit was a good one or not (took some time to wade through). No one complained so new contributors likely didn't know what was going on. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of admin privileges by User:Hu12

The beer articles have been suffering disruption by a sockpuppet spamming with a bjcp.org link (the official site for the Beer Judge Certification Programme) (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Beer_Judge_Certification_Program. The point of contention about this site is that it is US based and European beer editors don't acknowledge its authority. However there has been tacit agreement to include it on the Beer style article and of course the BJCP article itself. Hu12 has declared the link blacklisted without any discussion whatsover it seems declaring the link invalid on all articles. There has been a long discussion on the beer style article talk page and there is tacit consensus to retain the link. It seems to me this is an abuse of admin privileges to come along and rule a link invalid just because one editor is abusing it. What happens if someone starts spamming Wikipedia with IMDB links, do all the links get junked? Can someone review this situation because it seems to me this admin is out of line with this action. Surely a link can only be ruled 'spam' if it is indeed a spam link, but it is a legitimate link for a major organisation with demonstable authority and is a vlaid link on some articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hu12 notified. Tan | 39 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What admin actions did Hu12 use (if any) that were abused? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So now "I disagree with this admin" = "admin abuse"? Please point us to any abuse of admin tools here. I'm not seeing the use of any admin tools. --Smashville^talk 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can any editor edit MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? Tan | 39 18:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive...I was able to save a null edit, but considering that Hu12 is essentially the only editor that does edit it...of course he's going to be the one who makes the decision. --Smashville^talk 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly can't edit it. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the entire MediaWiki namespace is not editable by non-admins ... isn't it? Shereth 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

MF verified; and therein lies the purported admin abuse. While I cannot make a solid statement yet, it appears that Betty Logan has a case. Tan | 39 18:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As operator of several external-link related bots here, I see quite massive abuse of this link. Yes, it has a place on the official pages, but making a HUGE number of sockpuppets (subject to a number of sockpuppet investigations) is not the way forward to include it everywhere. Blacklisting is not the end, it can be temporarily (to investigate the total extend of socks), or specific whitelisting can be implemented to allow the link on certain pages. Clearly (with the 30+ socks identified), simply blocking or page protections are not going to help, and this abuse had to stop. To me this is a clear case where Hu12 is doing all he can to stop the disruption by the socks, and I would really suggest to see whether others can help in resolving the situation so the link can be de-blacklisted again, in stead of trying to cry wolf on the admin who is trying to help. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c) All of MediaWiki namespace is admin-only. I think this thread is premature; discussion with Hu12 doesn't seem to be finished; you asked, he answered, you responded and came here without waiting for a further response. You need to give him some time to respond, and take some time to discuss and explain rather than run here first. If Hu12 ultimately refuses to change it (and cannot convince you that it shouldn't be there; I assume you're open to persuading as well?), then there's a whitelist somewhere, and you can ask that the link be allowed at that specific article at the whitelist's talk page, pointing to the article talk page consensus. I can't remember where the whitelist is, I'll see if I can look it up. But the point is, it's a bit early in the game for accusations of admin abuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  I can't find a whitelist, but I know there's a way to overcome it. The thread at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Beer Judge Certification Program might be a good place, or Hu12 (even if he disagrees) can tell you where the appropriate place is to ask for a review. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Another case where trying the obvious thing works -- WP:Whitelist takes you to the right place. Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying the obvious thing is for amateurs. I, sir, am a professional. </hiding embarrassment with haughty tone> --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to clarify that by saying above that B.L. has a case, I was merely saying that an admin action was taken, as had been previously refuted. Tan | 39 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see about 17 (!) sockpuppet investigations. And some highly abusive edits (replacing links of another beer site).

And I see 3 editors (including Hu12) which frequent the spam research on this site who have commented or researched this (and blacklisting was suggested first one of the other two). This is not just a decision singly made by Hu12. And as may be clear, I do agree that this may, unfortunately, be, for now, the only solution.

I would really suggest that you find specific links to whitelist and request whitelisting. I see on Hu12's talkpage that the link is also used by regulars, unfortunately, blacklisting in the end means that leaving the link there will disrupt the page, and all will have to go for the moment. As I said, whitelist and include those which specifically fit on certain pages is the way forward here. I agree with Floquenbeam, this thread is premature, and is certainly not helping in resolving the situation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whitelisting can be requested [[95]]. Please be specific with links that need to be whitelisted, it should be obvious that whitelisting the whole domain would again give free way to existing and new socks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny:

• Colldiction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While I accept these links have bene the subject of massive abuse Hu12 has removed them from a protected page that was protected by an admin after a consensus was reached to keep the links, at leats on a temporary basis. This action has basically just ignored the consensus on this article, and I object on ethical grounds that a protected page was edited by an admin: [[96]]. I was under the impression that admins had not special editing privileges, but yet we have a protected page that an admin has edited and no other editor can. For the record, I did wait for Hu12 to respond, but he did so to someone else's talk page after I took the issue to the admin who originally protected the Beer style article: User_talk:Bduke#Beer_style. I am very annoyed about a consensus being established on an article about a legitmate link and then being told that "all discussion about the links are now void". Is this what consensus means on Wikipedia? One editor pulling rank? Some editors have put a lot of effort into resolving the dispute over the links and we don't like being told our views no longer matter. It's a valid link that is valid on some articles. Betty Logan (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Betty, it is not 'one editor pulling rank', this was investigated over and over, and as I explained, the links have to go until specific whitelisting (though vandalism is not a problem on a fully protected page, but I imagine that that will not be as indef as it seems). The consensus is there, whitelisting should really be done. I understand that it is annoying, but so is the disruption (did you check, Colldiction was made minutes ago .. it is not over yet). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. I have no experience of this blacklist/whitelist thing so I will look into it. I still think a better solution would have been an IP ban because I think all these sockpuppets are just the one person. Apart from that I appreciate the time you have taken to deal with this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but on a rotating IP, unfortunately. I had account creation blocked in my first block (Colldiction), hoping that it would help, but soon after another sock appeared. Not going to help, I am afraid. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Beestra is correct, with the over 40 + Sockpuppet accounts (and growing), blacklisting was an appropriate measure--Hu12 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any abuse has taken place by Hu12; however, I do understand and share some of Betty Logan's concern that the solution to this vandalism has impacted on legitimate editing without consultation with the WikiProject concerned. I have made a request that the three articles which WikiProject Beer have determined are appropriate for bjcp links, Beer style, List of beer styles and BJCP, be technically allowed to use those links. The issue of BJCP links is a long-running and very contentious one which has involved minor but tedious edit wars and some awkward and will-sapping behaviour from a range of editors pro- and anti- BJCP. It is sadly, a long, slow process to get a case like this to ArbCom as first we have to show that we have attempted to deal with it through discussion and mediation, etc. And such discussion and mediation is extremely slow moving and slippery. If you feel frustrated, welcome to our world, we have been dealing with this for years! It has, sadly, almost brought the Beer Project to a standstill. This ban might appear to people on the fringe of this dispute to be a simple solution, but the dispute is longer, more subtle, and more wearisome than appears on the surface. As these edits concern the Beer Project it might have made sense to consult with the Project on this matter at an early stage. It is not inconceivable that the sock-spamming has actually been done by one or more anti-BJCP editors with the precise aim of getting all BJCP links banned. SilkTork *^YES! 19:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Long term Widespread disruption, edit warring, abuse of multiple accounts, spamming and so on.

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Beer_Judge_Certification_Program

See also - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Beer_Judge_Certification_Program

See also - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bjcplinkstays/Archive

See also - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2/Archive

With edit-warring WP:SPA accounts like;

KeepTheBJCP (talk · contribs)

ConsensusToKeepBJCP (talk · contribs)

Morennmore (talk · contribs)

Bjcplinkstays (talk · contribs)

Seems fairly obvious the abuse and with the over 40 + Sockpuppet accounts, this is a very serious matter. There has been significant disruption, abuse, repeating inappropriate behavior and major breaches of policy by these users. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. Our blacklisting records are required to be transparent for accountability -- we don't "secretly" blacklist domains. So there will always be some record of why. Our obligation is to ensure our records are correct and factual. A case with this significant amount of recorded abuse and overwhelming evidence, does not an "abuse of admin" powers make... --Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I see that Hu12 beat me here. I have removed the blacklisting, and implemented an edit filter, as this looks like joe jobbing etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Considered that, however there are no conflicting edits on the 40 + sock accounts, or found in the multiple checkusers to indicate such has occured. Much of the edits occur due to a removal, not always an addition, since blacklisting, why are more accounts being created to link to the article BJCP, which cannot be blacklisted?--Hu12 (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am doubting a bit, but it also seems strange that they did not yet run into a 'if you continue spamming, this will be blacklisted' type of warning, so they should know. Unfortunately, these warnings can be beans-like .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the abuse took another form, so actually it did not help all too much (see my last two blocks). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidents associated with this sockpuppeteer are filed under Wikipedia:LTA#User:Newcrewforu. Socks are pretty easy to spot. User:Tiptoety has been very helpful in blocking them. --Killing Vector (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As the admin who protected Beer style I will try to comment. First, I think Betty is rushing things. Not everybody can respond immediately. If she and others are wondering why I have not responded it is because I am in Australia and have only just got up. All this happened while I was sleeping. I suggest that Dirk Beetstra has it right. There is a strong case for dealing with the socks by blacklisting and there is a case for specific white listing. I am going to remove the protection on Beer style and back off from this problem for a while. I am going overseas next week and will be taking a bit of a wikibreak. I will also be becoming an active member of CAMRA rather than a passive one, as I will be in London, and some may think that is a conflict of interest -:) --Bduke (Discussion) 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Hu12 acted perfectly. Also this should be at WP:ANI not WP:AN. Prodego ^talk 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The HELL he acted perfectly. He acts like Robocop. If he'd explained the whitelisting avenue to Betty in the first place and had a thimbleful of diplomacy in his manner as well, this thread likely never would have been started and quite a few person/hours need not have been wasted. Is this an abberation or typical for Hu12? Well, two years ago or so, when I first ran into him in mid-March 2007, he had the same infuriating Robocop manner see the section at the bottom of this page). And (if I remember correctly) Dirk Beetstra eventually smoothed over the dispute with a solution ([added later] pretty much correctly: [97]). I guess he's still following Hu12 with a shovel now. Hu12 is either incapable of a thimbleful of diplomacy in his behavior or he just likes playing Robocop -- I can't tell. Someone should have a serious discussion with Hu12 about the proper way of treating people -- some editor who Hu12 hasn't already enraged, while there are still some of those editors left. Otherwise, at some point in the future you're all going to be going over the next Hu12 dispute, and the next and the next. Have fun with that. -- Noroton (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) added second link to my comment, as noted, for the wikiarcheologists -- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But...but...Robocop is awesome. --clpo13_(talk) 03:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly a certain subset of admins who are fans. -- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there some WP:DEADLINE that means the beer links have to be inserted right now? Is there any doubt about Hu12's above claim regarding 40+ sockpuppets? Is there an infallible and omniscient volunteer willing to do Hu12's work to protect Wikipedia from linkspam? Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Noroton, you have a point. It is certainly not perfect, but at a certain point, we need to use the shovel. Just take it out, clean it. Sometimes issues become so big, that the damage is impossible to control. These spam issues are often issues where many admins take a step back, with an 'oh, it is a good link, this is not spam'. True, when we blacklist a porn site, no-one is going to care. When we blacklist some small website of some small news paper no-one cares (no-one notices). When we block a /16 for a couple of weeks, hardly any user will notice. Still that does have massive effects, sometimes. But these decisions get called upon as well, but also that is hardly noticed. But a couple of editors get involved (generally, the same), and other solutions get implemented.

Hu12 (and and me, and a couple of other admins) do sometimes take these decisions, and then there are sometimes sites which are very good, have a high use and hence there is a lot of damage. Please, don't imagine that because a site is really good, has a very high use already, and is non-commercial in nature, &c. &c., that the owners of a site will not spam it (they still have a lot to gain from having their sites displayed). And that is not the only reason, it may be someone with a grudge against the site, someone who got fired, or the opponent who is trying to discredit the site. And this is one of those situations which is/was running out of hand (it is certainly not over yet).

We admins are all 'playing Robocop', and sometimes we don't immediately realize what secondary damage there is. I am not trigger happy in rangeblocks, but I do use them, and I do realize that that can have effects which I don't anticipate. I do blacklist websites (here and on meta), and the effects are generally small. You are right, sometimes the effects are too big, but alerting admins (first the blacklisting admin himself) that there are quite a number of negative effects that affect the situation, and try to give a solution as well (suggest a couple of very specific whitelistings? suggest how to catch the pattern with an edit filter?), will generally solve the situation much faster than yelling at the admin. And that may be true for some of the wikiprojects as well, where pro-actively seek solutions with knowledgeable admins could also result in earlier solutions (note, the Oosterscheldekering was built after 1,835 people drowned in a flood, sometimes, the barrier needs to be closed, and that has quite big effects on the traffic on the water, but, well, at some times there is simply no other solution (24 times since 1986). I have never noticed that it was closed, but I guess, that one day I will, or maybe even twice).

Here another solution was an edit filter, but I did read into the sockpuppet investigation, but, without stuffing beans, I know that blacklisting is still a very good solution with which editors may have to live (for some time). We will see. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lamest edit war ever?

Resolved

 – Unblock reviewed and declined. Mfield (Oi!) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Both accounts indeffed

Or at least the lamest edit war I've encountered in my time as an admin.

• AlexBeales (talk · contribs)
• Gold Scratch (talk · contribs)

Nearly 100 reverts over the course of an hour at Psychosurgeons - over the presence of a comma. If this isn't a candidate for WP:LAME, I don't know what is. I've blocked both these intrepid grammar warriors for 24h each. I see that Gold Scratch has made an unblock request. Anyone like to deal? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wow. Unblock declined and editor directed to read WP:3RR until they understand it. Mfield (Oi!) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps they're unsure whether 48 is greater than 3? Black Kite 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Would it be just *too* devilish to replace the contested comma with a semicolon? ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • After looking at the article I did wonder whether the band are actually notable at all ... Black Kite 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oh good grief! Mfield beat me to declining. It's clear that the requesting editor's thinking is "My opponent has been blocked, therefore I've no reason to edit war back, so you can unblock me.". It seems all too likely, given that, that the edit war will start right back up again when both editors blocks expire, so some attention may be needed 24 hours from now.

  Ironically, the editor who so far hasn't made an unblock request is the editor who at least tried to initiate talk page discussion (edit, edit). Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes I noticed that and am fully expecting this not to be the end of the matter. I also think this article probably wouldn't survive an AfD, there's not much to indicate that they meet WP:BAND. Mfield (Oi!) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, GS seems to have made the first discussion post at 22:18[98], and was the first to try to discuss things through the edit summaries, but no matter. Celestra (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • You're right. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Silly question: Is this the same preson (doing this as a joke on WP)? The AlexBeales account was created today, and specifically for that purpose, and it doesn't look like there was an IP doing anything before to suggest Alex regged an account to do that. The only reason I think this is the one oddity in the pattern here around 22:36 - 22:39 when Gold Scratch undoes his own (where Alex would have done it) and then undoes that but two minutes later. I can understand undoing something and then realizing shortly afterwards it was already fixed and undoing that fix, but something is really fishy there. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that you mention it, it looks like they're editing from the same connection; could still be distinct people, but it's likely they know each other at the very least. Whether it's two people or one, that paints this whole affair in a rather unsavory light. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Accounts created within 3 minutes of each other from the same connection, and straight into that edit-war. I'd be tempted to indef both of them for taking the piss. Black Kite 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Well if the accounts resume right where they left off at block expiry, I for one would support going straight to an indefinite block, based upon the above. (I was going to make a different suggestion, along the lines of what Kurt Shaped Box said above, which was quite a good idea. But that suggestion was based upon the premise that the accounts were acting in good faith, which these checkuser reports indicate to be less likely.) Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors were aware of the 3RR as they had both warned each other about 2/3 of the way through the war. User:Gold Scratch even claimed on my talk page "All he has done it(sic) argue and swear at me." Martin451 (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In light of the the more recent information I have indef reblocked them both for abusing multiple account/meat puppetry. A very good explanation will need to accompany any unblock requests. Mfield (Oi!) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, comma's, need, love, too, y'know. HalfShadow 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And maybe so do unnecessary apostrophes :-p Mfield (Oi!) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • An apostrophe is just a comma with a view. HalfShadow 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Avoid: "excessive" punctuation; because, it makes (many) sentences, hard to "understand"!!! Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • all of you keep using capital letters too and i find that very annoying georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:48, 25 august 2009 (utc)
          • CAPITAL LETTERS ARE A PART OF HEALTHY CONVERSATION WHEN YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EMPHASIS TO A RILLY RILLY IMPORTANT THING YOU ARE SAYING~!~!SirFozzie (talk)ONE!!1! SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
            • A thoughtful writer knows there are better ways to provide emphasis than using all caps. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
              • OMG OMG OMG. the blink tag. Why is it allowed... *wanders off to give self edit filter rights in order to set the world straight* Protonk (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
                • This is why I'm glad Opera and IE8 seem to ignore the blink tag entirely :-P. Next up, that classic of 1998, the scroll tag (on second thought...no!). Nate • (chatter) 06:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I needed a good laugh. Thanks to the original knucklehead (or heads depends on what was actually happening here) and all of the comedians who followed up. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh War and related

Not sure what the site's readership is but this article:

http://www.today.az/news/politics/54933.html

may be going to cause problems.

Michael Jackson articles - heads up

It would be greatly appreciated that a couple of extra (preferably admin but not necessarily "exclusively") eyes especially on Michael Jackson and Death of Michael Jackson as news just came out that the Los Angeles coroner ruled his death as a homicide. There will obviously be some BLP issues regarding Jackson's doctor. MuZemike 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest temporary protection on the pages so there are no drive-bys from the anon users. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pages aren't protected pre-empitvley. DJ 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have to be a little careful here, because according to this [99] the findings are not publicly announced yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We have done it before. But beside that point, I just want to make sure that no Michael Jackson fan organizes any campaign against the said doctor on-wiki. MuZemike 07:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of edit warring on the August 24 article

• Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Edit warring bot — 06:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

revert page move please

Could someone help revert this page move of Michael Brandon (pornographic actor) to Michael Brandon (pornography), he a BLP best known as a pornographic actor; disambiguation to (pornography) seems against our MOS and logic. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)