Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei

Post re closure moved to bottom of thread to preserve chronological order. EyeSerene^talk 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaint frames issues and context?

Tenmei (talk · contribs) has been engaging in personal abuse and disruptive behaviour on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could please review this issue and take appropriate action. To summarise a long story, he has inserted text which describes these ships as aircraft carriers and is disrupting efforts to replace this with text which captures the ambiguity over the ships' classification (the Japanese government and some sources says that they are destroyers, other sources say they are helicopter carriers and other sources say they're aircraft carriers). As is shown on Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, he has not explained the rationale for his opposition to including this text despite repeated requests from other editors, but has instead responded with a string of personal attacks on pretty much all the involved editors (for instance: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (note also the rejection of the process which used to develop the consensus text in this diff and the statement that he stood aside and waited for the discussion to be complete so he could restart the discussion again, along with further personal attacks), [6] and [7]). He has been warned about making personnal attacks several times ([8], [9], [10] and [11]) but they are continuing. As is clear on the talk page Tenmei was invited to explain his opposition to calling the ships anything other than carriers, but did not do so, and was invited to participate in drafting a consensus paragraph which discusses the disagreement over the ships' classification but did not participate in this discussion. Instead, a week after the discussion was completed and shortly after I added the consensus text to the article he is now demanding that the consensus on the need to discuss the ambiguity over the ships' classification be overturned and the discussion be restarted from square one (I would be happy to provide diffs for this, but it's probably easier and more meaningful to review the article's talk page directly to get a flavour for the discussion). He is still declining to provide a reason for this, however, and is continuing to make personal attacks. I believe that this behaviour is in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:POINT and would appreciate it if an admin could please issue an appropriate sanction. Thank you. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't help that Tenmei uses strong language, but I don't see it as being grossly uncivil. Until he goes around throwing insults at editors, I doubt a civility block would be in order. However, I have fully protected Hyūga class helicopter destroyer due to the dispute, and issues should be worked out on the talk page now. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Tenmei's comments as particularly uncivil, though if he's causing offence, he needs to rethink the way he expresses himself. Not just for that reason though... I gave up reading eventually. Talk about wading through treacle - strongly recommend he reads WP:TLDR. EyeSerene^talk 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, including protecting the page. As the edit war there is pretty slow paced and the smallish number of edits have been spread across several editors, I think that it is the nature of the discussion on the talk page which most requires intervention. I consider the comments which I've posted diffs to above to be highly rude and constitute personal attacks given the consistant complete lack of any assumption of good faith - instead there appears to be an assumption that everyone has an agenda which they're pushing other than a desire to improve the article. All requests to Tenmai that he explain his concerns and participate in resolving the dispute have been met with uncivil responses, and warnings against his behavior have had no effect. As such, I don't see how it's possible to work out the issues on the talk page as Tenmai is not willing to discuss them. Given that the behaviour has been continuing for over a week now (including a very lengthy cool down period while I waited to see if he had any comments on the consensus text before inserting it in the article) I think that external intervention is required. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend the dispute resolution process. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. Most of the points on that process have now been tried, however. I will continue to discuss this dispute on the article's talk page, where hopefully this can be resolved. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do sympathise with your difficulties there - there's no doubt that he's disputing the consensus reached on the talk page, although I don't really understand what he's continuing to argue against, since you've mentioned the naming issues in the article. He's been warned over the reverting; that's currently not a problem now the page is protected, and if it continues once protection is lifted then a block from an uninvolved admin should follow. Maybe just ignoring him might be the best option for now? EyeSerene^talk 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

More examples of "Personal Abuse"?

Please stop editing other editor's talk page posts
Tenmei, I have noticed that you frequently change other editors' posts on talk pages by bolding or changing the colour of some or all of their message. The talk page guidelines states that making these kind of changes is unacceptable behaviour. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about stuff like this: [12] and fiddling with my almost two-week old posts today for no good reason: [13], [14] and [15] (it's perfectly normal to link to article titles in notifications, and even if it wasn't there's no reason to edit such old posts). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I posted the above warning on Tenmai's talk page, and he moved it here. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Purple prose equals "problem"?

The term purple prose can be construed as describing words which are seen as over-the-top, over-reaching, over-done ... too much. Stretching a point ... in a sense, it could be said that a complaint in this venue about "personal abuse" is about a kind of purple prose. For emphasis, it may be seen helpful to change the font color to purple in this expository paragraph and in illustrative text below. Arguably, it could be potentially constructive if the words which constitute personal abuse at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer were similarly modified as purple prose. As far as I can tell, this is a novel suggestion; but clearly, some will agree that this is only reasonable -- my just deserts, as it were.

The Wikipedia community has already developed other useful orthographic conventions which are attractive because the consequences are meaningful. For example: As a way of illustrating recanted views, and editor need only strike out the text from which he or she withdraws. If, in this venue or elsewhere, I could come to understand that my words deserved this orthographic modification, I would do it without hesitation. Thus far, the constructive engagement of participants in this venue has done nothing to assist me in understanding why anything whatsoever posted at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer should be re-visited and modified by striking out. The following block of text demonstrates my willingness to invest time and serious thought in learning from whatever opportunity this venue might be able to provide. Except for the comment posted by EyeSerene on my talk page, that proof of my willingness to engage these issues with sincerity, diligence, and frankness has not appeared to inspired any congruent investments. I deserve better, if not in this venue -- where? when?

I have here presented proofs of my willingness to mend the errors of my ways if convinced that I've done something I should not have done; but thus far, my open-handed approach has not served me well. Perhaps this becomes one of those times when it is best to try something new?

I'm proposing an orthographic device which I would want to be understood as crying in the wilderness. By minimizing the bulk of the following text, the words which remain in a conventionally-sized print are inevitably emphasized. For our purposes, please consider this as if I were re-reading these words aloud -- with a raised voice, with an insistent, on-edge, alarmed tone; but do not spin this gesture to mean that I withdraw from any part of what is here made small. I parsed my words before posting them, and I have parsed the sentences by grouping them together below. This sign of cautious, thoughtful and intentional draftsmanship would more conventionally seem at odds with the tenor of complaints put forward here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Personal Abuse"?

The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Just to clarify the complaint, am I supposed to understand that the following represents eggregious "personal abuse"? --Tenmei (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial sentence

This edit was controversial -- not for any reason articulated above; but nevertheless, it was suspect for a number of eminently valid, important, and arguable factors I expected to discuss here with interested, thoughtful and better-informed editors than me. That hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will. Moreover, this essential dispute would have arisen in due course without my input. This was and remains the gravamen of my carefully considered decision to post one sentence and one sentence only as a crisp addition to this article's content.

However, the exchange which has played out above never reached this high ground. Instead, I found that I'm forced to argue -- in words demonstrably consistent with Assume good faith -- that BillCJ and Nick Dowling seem to insist that the beginning and end of all issues to do with JDS Hyūga lies in maritime architecture ....

Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is basically a discussion over the relative merits of references.

No -- with all due respect: wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The website supporting the PBS documentary is, simply put, not a good reference. PBS is not an authority on ship classifications and it does not cite any sources which support this classification.

No -- with all due respect: we're not here yet --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jane's Fighting Ships is often considered the best reference on warship classifications and statistics, and it states that these ships are helicopter carriers.

No -- with all due respect: potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The very reliable Globalsecurity.org discusses the ships' classification and concludes that while they are "similar in design to a small aircraft carrier" and the 'destroyer' classification is a bit dubious it ends up consistently labeling them "helicopter-carrying destroyers".

No -- with all due respect: potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

These references have been mentioned earlier, so I don't understand why you are accusing Bill and I of ""original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions". Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No -- with all due respect: wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Please see Citation.
• 2. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• 3. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
• 4. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again .... --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling frames a issue which might have been posed by someone else at some other time. His summary is not a fair characterization of the issues at hand or the questions raised. --Tenmei (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain your concern then? If this isn't a discussion about the reliability of different references, what is it? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Aha, I see. In the context Nick Dowling creates, the question above is disingenuous, disquieting in causing offense -- a bad faith gesture which heedlessly diminishes credibility.

Is this "Personal Abuse"? The otherwise unremarkable note below clarifies the gambit and the context, but candidly does nothing to demonstrate any willingness to grapple with the issues on this page. --Tenmei (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I've sought comments at WP:SHIP and on the Japanese and maritime history task forces of the Military History wikiprojects. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that you've sought comments on this dispute on three different policy noticeboards, it was appropriate to also notify the relevant Wikiprojects. I genuinely don't understand what your concern is if it isn't the reliability of the references and I would appreciate it if you could explain this. Please note that I've now cited the entire article using the external links and am removing the refimprove tag. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Turning lemons into lemonade

INTERPRETATION: Parsecboy 13:09, 13 July 2008

• (a) "... commenting on the editor, instead of the issue...."
• (b) "... allegations that Nick Dowling is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue to an uninvolved editor ..."UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? ...my thought precisely: "intentionally mischaracterizing the issues." Thanks. Not to put too fine a point on it, yes -- disingenuous is a polite word which implies more left unsaid in an effort to maintain a mild tone. --Tenmei 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? " ... timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
• 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question
• 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
• 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
• 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
• 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"

INTERPRETATION: Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor. --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? " ... my serial attempts to invite helpful intervention have produced zero effect. Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because Nick Dowling persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences .... When I caused this dispute by merely adding one sentence only, I anticipated a controversy different than the one Nick Dowling has engineered. --Tenmei (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record: (1) Nick Dowling is an administrator; and (2) Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGF ≥ Nick Dowling
This record, consistent with WP:AGF, demonstrates my continuing efforts to bridge an identified gap. Moreover, this record shows the repeated identification of Nick Dowling as non-responsive.
12 July

• Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, ...[t]he exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why? .... --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate a priori concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Wikipedia has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- Tenmei (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps the following outline from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution can assist us in moving forward:

• 1 Focus on content
• 2 Stay cool
• 3 Discussing with the other party
• 4 Truce <========== Easily achievable?
• 5 Turn to others for help
  • 5.1 Editor assistance
  • 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
  • 5.3 Ask about the subject
  • 5.4 Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?
  • 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
  • 5.6 For incivility
  • 5.7 Request a comment
  • 5.8 Informal mediation
  • 5.9 Formal mediation
  • 5.10 Conduct a survey
• 6 If the situation is urgent <========== Not relevant?
• 7 Last resort: Arbitration

... Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

13 July
To his credit, only Bellhalla showed any willingness to grasp that I was trying vainly to focus on something non-trivial, as evidenced at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Hyūga an aircraft carrier? How else is it possible to construe the following?

• 1. Please see Citation.
• 2. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• 3. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
• 4. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again.... --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

My patience was frayed by this point, but I was still proceeding under the assumption that this impasse was the result of a difficult-to-pierce veil of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGF ≠ Nick Dowling
Disingenuous is a polite word for lying, for fraud -- dishonesty. What did I do when confronted with clear, specific, and astonishing evidence of Nick Dowling's lying, fraud, dishonesty? My words remained seemly, appropriate, correct.

Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF offered scant guidance, but I had studied its exposition language carefully, and I was quite proper in being guided accordingly.
:Accusing others of bad faith. Making accusations of bad faith ... can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence .... Although in was ineffective, I did attempt to present the evidence which informed my changed strategy: Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
• 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question
• 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
• 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
• 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
• 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"

Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I also sought help from the WP:Mediation Cabal ....

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

__________________________
AND YET, these not inconsiderable efforts to stay focused were not met by congruent words or actions .. and Nick Dowling instead chose to make a complaint about my "personal abuse" in this WP:AN/I venue.

It doesn't bode well, nor augur well. In the context of this record and WP:CIV#Should established users be treated different?,

• WP:AGF ≠ trust
• WP:AN/I ≠ trust

If this were not a pointless kangaroo court, how can I become better informed about what WP:AN/I is intended to be? --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I please submit the above claims that I have been commiting "lying, fraud, dishonesty" as being clear-cut personal abuse? Again, please note the repeated warnings Tenmei has recieved for the rude comments he's posted on the talk page of the article in question (reposted from above, these warnings include: [16], [17], [18] and [19]]). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Along with Trout Ice Cream, I left a note for Tenmai on his talk page regarding this thread. Looking at the various diffs and talk pages, I hoped that a polite warning would suffice to alert Tenmai to the disruptive effect his editing was having, and the possible consequences of refusing to let up. This was interpreted as a threat ([20]) - if I've stepped out of line, I'd welcome any clue adjustment ;)</small However, as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue, perhaps if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on? The article is protected, and with consensus apparently established on the talk page, further argument doesn't require a response. EyeSerene^talk 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per Eyeserene. Tenmai's edits are indeed having a disruptive effect, and letting him know of that (and what will be done to prevent it if it doesn't cease) requires no clue adjustment. If the disruptive edits continue, I fully support the use of tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context created by the purple prose above, EyeSerene makes four constructive, on-point observations which I would rearrange in what I consider to be an interwoven, ascending order of importance:

• 4. "The article is protected ..." -- No, not really, no. Except for the word "political" in the first sentence, the current state of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer needs no protection from me. At the first opportunity, I would substitute the more precise NPOV term, "constitutional," in place of a non-NPOV term which has been shown to have unduly trivializing, dismissive connotations; but otherwise, I would do nothing pending further published developments. However, the moment any change is made to the final sentence in the second paragraph, the WP:NPOV problem re-surfaces anew.
• 3. "... consensus apparently established on the talk page ...." -- No, not really, no. The tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has certainly not escaped my notice -- but it remains naught but a re-telling of the old story of the Blind Men and an Elephant, naught but the sound of one hand clapping.
• 2. "... if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on ..." -- No, not really, no. Empty words would serve no purpose here because, in addition to the fact that I'm not sorry, the fact-of-the-matter is that this tedious whatever-it-is has produced practical, measurable results which were plainly unachievable by any other means -- see third paragraph of Nick Dowling's most recent edit at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Complaint lodged at WP:AN/I
• 1. "... as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue ...." No, not really no. YES. In this unique context, it is conceptually awkward to conflate "content dispute" and "civility issue" but this Gordian knot formulation is somewhat congruent with Wikipedia Talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?

Click on show to view the contents of this section

, e.g.,

'Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia

• ... civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, not simply on what's best for the community.

It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia ....

• Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
• Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the community deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an individual can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the perception that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be .... Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems .... On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Disruptive Behaviour"?

The meritless claim of "disruptive behaviour" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record:

• 1. Nick Dowling is an administrator; and
• 2. Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

The only thing "disruptive" is the fact that I persisted in the only way possible -- no other option being available as a practical matter. In the face of an unseemly tag-team ownership game, I attacked the logical fallacy implicit in the way this game was framed.

Yes, of course, I did disrupt "a" game, I suppose... yes. The tag-team ownership "game" was parsed under closer scrutiny than was within the regular players' comfort zone ... yes. But this quickly seems to beg the question - two related questions really:

• Was that irrelevant consensus-building exercise based on the wrong "game"? By this, I mean to say in part, "Was the state of play adequately informed when Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org comprise the only "gold standard" against which all else is measured?"
• When did the task of creating a Wikipedia article become a matter of mere gamesmanship? --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to post more, since I think we're going beyond the scope of this forum. Your views on civility might be best taken up somewhere else (the Village Pump perhaps?), as they relate to a general issue rather than this specific one... other than the fact that it doesn't appear you intend do a fellow editor the courtesy of assuming his good faith and retracting your personal comments. We should also not be attempting to resolve a content dispute here. The disruption, however, is pertinent, so (leaving the aspersions aside) as I understand the situation:

• You contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier". "Helicopter destroyer" apparently comes from a number of highly respected sources (including Jane's, widely regarded as one of the top sources in the field). "Aircraft carrier" is based on a TV documentary and some newspaper reports, and is argued by other editors to be a loose description for mass-market consumption to enable viewers/readers to picture the ship.
  • You failed to gain support for your alteration on the article talk page, but repeatedly inserted it into the article anyway. Your edits have been consistently reverted by the article's other editors.
• A discussion was opened to gauge consensus on the talk page, and recognising that there was some weight to your assertion (but taking WP:UNDUE into account), a brief sourced explanation was added to the article detailing the apparent naming confusion for the vessel class. However, you decided not to participate in the discussion because you didn't recognise this as a legitimate way of settling the issue.
  • Consensus having been established against your edit, you then resumed agitating for it (in your words, performed a "reset"), seemingly under the impression that, because of Nick's position as both an admin and a MilHist coordinator, the article's other editors had blindly followed where he led.

Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. There's absolutely zero evidence that Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout, and your refusal to accept the verdict of your peers is digging you into an ever-deeper hole. Perhaps you're the innocent victim of a Nick Dowling-led MilHist conspiracy... or perhaps your proposal is wrong. I've no real desire to keep this unproductive thread alive by posting here again, but please take some advice: don't be a fanatic, stop disrupting this article, and find something else to work on. EyeSerene^talk 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC) [emphasis added by Tenmei, 26 July]

Uhm, guys? I'm looking at the Jane's article linked in the article itself now, and it refers to the ship as a "CVHG," which translates as "Aircraft Carrier, Helicopter, Guided Missile." What's more, it then lists the section as being "Helicopter Carriers." Given that JFS says they're carriers, and a certain line from the GlobalSecurity.org article points out that "Having a displacement of about 20,000 tons... they essentially can be classified as light aircraft carriers. It is temporizing to refer to this type of vessel as a DD (destroyer). There has never been a destroyer that exceeded 10,000 tons," I think we can safely say that the "helicopter destroyer" term does NOT come from either of these two sources.

No, this fight doesn't belong on here, but it certainly doesn't appear to be as cut-and-dried as EyeSerene is showing it to be. (Full disclosure: While I was completely unaware of these ships until this thread hit, I do personally lean towards the "helicopter/STOVL carrier" designation based on application of Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography to the pictures of the ships. It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...) Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rdfox 76 -- You make two very, very helpful points. Thank you.

1. Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography is a pirori more elegant than The Emperor's New Clothes, which served as the core of an alternate approach I've been trying to bring out of the sandbox. Your implied simile seems more likely to inspire a willingness to re-visit some of the otherwise unexamined assumptions which are so strongly held that they block access to the threshold I can't quite reach yet.

2. Your language is superb -- better than I could have imagined. It captures the ridiculous with humour and sly derision - yes, good:

It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...)

3. You're on the right wave-length. This is helpful.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise if it seems like I'm endorsing or promoting one interpretation of the sources over another in my post above. That certainly wasn't my intent; I was trying to set out the course of events rather than comment on the actual content. Whatever content issue Tenmei has (and I'm not saying he has no case) is between him and the other editors. However, a clear effort has been made to compromise, and I think the article currently does a pretty good job of explaining the whys and wherefores of this peculiar designation. There appears to be no corresponding movement on his position though, and editing disruptively and insulting other editors is absolutely not the way to get a consensus overturned - especially when one's stated intent was to disregard the discussion process and any decision reached. That's the cut-and-dried part in my view ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene -- 1. Thank you for re-framing the "disruptive" issue in a way that allows me to see how it could appear that my conduct was improper. This was helpful. I need to think about it before I respond further, but this appears to be a template which will help me figure out (1) what I could have done differently AND, (2) what I need to figure out so that I don't make a similar avoidable error in future. For the moment, please consider the hypothesis that you have not made a mistake in investing the time and thought which can help me become a more effective and valued contributor to this Wikipedia project.

2. Please believe me when I assure you that it wouldn't matter whether you endorsed or promoted one interpretation or another because we haven't even arrived at the threshold of the argument yet. Also, believe me when I assure you that I'm not trying to be perverse ... nor do I think that entirely plausible "fanatic" label is something we have to worry about.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene -- I have added bold emphasis to one of your sentences above: Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. I have studied the bullets in your summarized understanding of the situation. As I read what you wrote, I tick off each element -- yes, yes, yes, yes. This is helpful. Thank you. I need to figure out how to "spin" your text, so that your second and fourth bullets are understood as sub-sets; and then I can more comfortably respond -- no, no. What I need to do is to revisit the record in hopes that it becomes possible to isolate pivotal opportunities for me to have averted the thread which informs each of your four bullets; and maybe at some point in the process, I'll begin to figure out how to do better in future.

Two aspects of my "spin" are easily stated, but this remains an unavailing step forward for now.

• NO, I do not contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier" -- not an issue, never was except in Nick Dowling's repeated re-framing. The premises inherent the the re-framed proposition inexorably lead only to a reaffirmation of the status quo ante. In this context, cognitive dissonance and [confirmation bias]] converted every edit -- first to last -- into something merely disruptive, hence rejected as irrelevant or worse.
• NO, there was no discussion ...opened to gauge consensus on the talk page. The consensus-building exercise was focused on the wrong question. After the consensus was achieved on the proposition as framed by Nick Dowling, then I thought I was learning from a Bellhalla-inspired "reset" which could approach a new question with the newly confirmed consensus as a foundation from which to build.

This has been an exercise in which I learned more than I expected about metastasis. Make no mistake -- I did devote close attention to every step of this evolving charade, and I'm prepared to invest more time in parsing what could have been done to mitigate the damage. I didn't understand well enough then, and I don't understand well enough now -- but we'll see if I can't figure out how to do better. If nothing else, this tentative analysis indicates that I am seriously engaged in trying to reach towards a constructive resolution to the complaint Nick Dowling lodged in this venue.

It is frustrating to read Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout; but it is even more galling to discover that I'm beginning to fathom how and why your opinion has been informed by reason and experience. This is helpful -- not dispositive, but helpful none-the-less. Thank you.

As for your worry that I might be a fanatic, that's probably not a problem here because I'm persuaded that a fanatic is someone who wants to achieve something more than just opening a closed door. My goals are not defined by resolving any issues which surround JDS Hyūga save one, changing its tenor from that of a dogma which is questioned only at the questioner's great peril .... --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Taken to my talk page. EyeSerene^talk 08:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Following post moved from top of thread to preserve chronological order EyeSerene^talk 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume that all-caps is conventionally assumed to be shouting:

• WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?
• I OPPOSE CLOSING THIS THREAD UNTIL I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMPLAINT WAS REALLY ALL ABOUT.
• I NEED TO LEARN WHY (or if) I WAS CORRECT IN INVESTING TIME IN THIS PROCESS AND WHAT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOMES WERE. Who's kidding who? Was this nothing more than a gambit designed solely to alarm and distract me -- and to waste my time in purposeless pursuits while the complainants who initiated this charade sit back and laugh at my naivité? NON, whose joke is this really?

Let those who understand the context and everything else now stand forward and take credit for the whole array of things I don't understand. Just because I was too mild-mannered to ask questions yesterday doesn't mean that I haven't "found my voice" on this day. Lt those who have answers stand forth boldly so that they can answer difficult quesions that I and others are trying to make "artfurl" as best we can. --Tenmei (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No-one has closed this thread. However, the reasons it was opened were:

• Personal abuse - Nick was insulted by your comments. You believe they were justified and don't regret them, but have nevertheless been reminded of Wikipedia's civility policy and the possible consequences of violating it again. I think this is about as much resolution as we'll achieve on this point.
• Disruptive editing - a number of editors have pointed out why your edits were disruptive, and the article has been protected. You have been reminded of the eventual consequences of disruption, and without calls for further sanctions (which no-one seems to be agitating for) this, too, would appear to be resolved within the limits of ANI's remit.

Further argument - ie that you attest that you acted in good faith because your actions were the only way you could get attention for your content amendment, which you believe was being misrepresented by others - is really a continuance of the content dispute that started all this, and ANI is probably not the best place for this. Other dispute resolution forums exist (see WP:DISPUTE), and since you posted to my talk page I assumed you were expressing a desire to take this discussion elsewhere. I'm happy for my talk page to serve. However, the thread remains open ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rapid archiving?

Why are three hour old threads being archived? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe some answers may be found at User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they seem resolved (ones with an actual {{resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmv's idea of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{resolved}} tag or an {{archive}} tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --.:Alex:. 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last remotely serious comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --barneca (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a good thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'is resolved' is the key element there. The world won't end if a thread isn't archived and there is even the remotest hint that its not satisfactorily resolved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. Enigma ^message 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like this one, where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates 2 minutes after the last comment. That...I hate. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew, wasn't me :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not archive so vigorously. You seem to be saying your judgement of whether something is resolved is adequate and that the archive should be referred to. I'm not sure I agree. We have a bot, let the bot do the work. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The bot is on a timer for a reason. Unless everyone involved in the thread has whole-heartedly agreed that the thread is resolved there is zero reason to archive it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree also, let the bot do its work. And certainly, don't edit war when another editor reverts your premature archiving. [21] [22] If someone else wants to comment, please be civil and give them the courtesy of doing so. Dayewalker (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he has a little issue with that. I informed him that several editors had expressed that they didn't like what he was doing and that his uncivil reverts were looking like inappropriate behaviour and his reply was a revert of my comment on his talk page with an uncivil edit summary.[23].--Crossmr (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also prefer if we just let the bot run its course. –xeno (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised that certain users who have had a history of vocally disagreeing with my views or methods, have responded here indifferently (perhaps with whatever personal motivations), but certainly, it gets the proportionate amount of attention in return. And sometimes, they simply don't get the message the first time around.
• The issue of closing threads, like in the diffs by Dayewalker, is a separate issue. But seeing that it was brought up, no less than 2 admins want that particular thread closed due to how it's being dragged out.
• Anyway, coming back to the matter on hand, I see a clear division in opinion. (I fully dismiss the argument that there is consensus to not archive threads earlier than the bot.)
• I've taken the suggestion made by several users on board in that I give it about 12 hours (often a bit more, occasionally a bit less) after it's resolved, before putting threads in the archives. It's certainly a reasonable request, and I've adhered to it.
• But I'll reiterate, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. I also will take this opportunity to thank the several other users who have also been archiving threads recently - it helps clear the mess up here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And with that, ANI is now over 447,000 bytes. Ooof. Hard to believe no one takes my proposal to split up ANI seriously. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on continuing to archive, please link the archive to which you will be archiving, as the bot does. However, since opinions are pretty much split on whether it's a good thing, the status quo should be upheld (i.e. leave the archiving to the bot). –xeno (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, threads have traditionally been archived manually too - it's just it would be the odd thread, rather than a few that make the ANI page look less messy/clogged up/whatever you want to call it. But your request is very reasonable - I'll link to the archive threads for reference. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that if a thread is obviously resolved, it's fine to archive it on the spot. It might be nice to have a section like "Fast track archived threads" or something, which just listed the headers of each section, and a link to the archive. That way anyone really interested in still seeing the thread could do so, but we wouldn't have to lug it around on ANI "just in case" someone in another time zone wanted to see it. --Elonka 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an idea worth looking into as well - not sure how to implement it myself, but I think it's another way to resolve space issues here. :D

Anyway, Wknight94, we're back down to about 300 000 bytes. :) Ncmvocalist (talk)

So traditionally the odd thread was archived, not massive amounts. That doesn't give you precedent and consensus to suddenly archive tons of threads at once. You don't have consensus to change that. The only thing people support are early archiving is when threads are clearly resolved. Not on whether or not you've made a judgment call on if you think anyone can add anything of value to it. The fact is if someone disagrees with your archiving a particular thread and reverts you, you shouldn't become rude and try to force it through again. You don't own the page and if someone cares enough about a thread to revert it and add something to it, unless it is a fairly useless comment (like a me too! or just some random gibberish), it isn't your place to get rid of it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Real Solution

Simply use the {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. It alleviates the page from crowding, but does not place the thread into the actual archive. The bot will take care of it eventually if no one further posts. Just make sure you put the resolved tag outside of the collapsed box, with a good description of the solution. Also make sure the title/heading is an accurate description of the thread. Problem solved. Beam 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem people are having is with the {{PAGESIZE}}, not the visual clutter. –xeno (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that page size can truly be helped. The page size is going to fluctuate heavily dependent on how many actual issues are out there. So while you might be able to archive some truly resolved threads, it could just as easily be filled back up and more with genuine issues just as quickly. Perhaps, some sort of use of subpage with templates (similar to how AfD works) might be useful. All active discussions could be in a category (ANI active discussions) and show up on this page, when a discussion is completely resolved, the category is removed and the discussion is archived. The only real way you're going to keep the page size down is do something that applies to all discussions, not just ones that some people may feel have ended.--Crossmr (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again: topic ban of user:Kossack4Truth from Obama pages for review

OK. Briefly, Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) is an agenda-driven single-purpose account on Barack Obama. He has been blocked 3 times in just over a month for edit-warring and disruption on those pages. After his most recent block, there was AN/I discussion which, I believe, supported a 4-6 month topic ban. Kossack4Truth promptly "retired", so I dropped the issue as moot.

As in the past when he's briefly laid low, his "retirement" was brief and he reactivated the account today by filing an iffy 3RR report, shopping the same complaint at AN/I. Not to mention rather odd comments: [24] and claiming to other admins that he was never officially topic-banned ([25], [26]).

I believe there was and is ample justification and support for a 4-6 month topic ban, and was prepared to implement one after the prior discussion. Kossack4Truth evaded this by retiring. Since he is now active again, I've imposed the topic ban. I'm bringing it here for review and to see if there are substantial objections to the topic ban. Given that these threads uniformly deteriorate into a steel cage match between involved editors, I'd ask that editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here to allow for potentially more objective input. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about arrogance. Unbelievable. First you try to get me banned. Then, rather than address the real source of the problem, you topic ban K4T and Then come here soliciting support, rather than even looking like you might consider taking action against the real source of the problem: the editors who keep baiting and provoking us. K4T did what he was supposed to do when he saw a problem. He gave an abusive editor awarning and was blocked three days for it. Now he comes to ANI and he gets a topic ban for it? Unbelievable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow my recent posts at Talk:Barack Obama to speak for themselves without MastCell's spin. I've been completely cordial at Talk:Barack Obama, I've discussed the edits rather than the editors, and I haven't edit warred. I wasn't topic banned in the previous attempt. It's not just a claim. It's a fact. I notice your campaign to get community support for an indef block of WorkerBee74 was a miserable failure, and now you've turned your attention to me. MastCell, stop throwing your weight around in this direction and start paying attention to the ceaseless baiting and badgering coming from certain other editors. Show everyone the edit I've made on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that justifies this unilateral action or revoke your topic ban. Go ahead, pick the one edit at Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that you find most offensive, post the whole edit here, and let uninvolved and truly neutral admins judge for themselves without your spin. Furthermore, I'm not a single purpose account. That accusation used to have some legs, but not any more. I've edited dozens of articles and welcomed dozens of new users.

Other admins are encouraged to take a very close look at my recent behavior and try to figure out how MastCell could possibly be justified in doing this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban of at least three months based upon the disruptive editing practices exhibited by K4T. "Retirement" is no excuse to dismiss earlier conversations and a consensus for such a sanction. Coming out of "retirement" to file a frivolous AN3 report, which was dismissed by four administrators (sorry to bust your bubble ThuranX), and then shop it around at ANI on an old thread indicates that you haven't given up your old habits a bit.

As evidenced in a prior ANI case, I voiced my support then for a topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, and I am voicing my support for it now. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully support a topic ban; "retiring" to avoid sanctions does not magically undo the behavior that lead to the sanctions. A topic ban was appropriate then, it is still appropriate now. — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IF K4T will sign on to the attempt to give clean slates, forget old feuds, and work as an honest broker for consensus that we spoke of above,, then I vote for a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If he can't do that, then let the community impose whatever sanctions consensus seems fit to met out. Others who have engaged in misbehavior. Lots of editors could use a fresher start there, and he deserves no less. The atmosphere seems to be changing, and if he wants to be a part of that process, now that he is aware of it, great. If he does not, then I imagine your eagle eyes will be on him and he will quickly hang himself.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban. As far as I was concerned the result of the last K4T topic-ban discussion was that he was placed under restriction. K4T's apparent attempt at evading sanctions by "retiring" makes matters worse in my view. I'd also like to remind involved users that MastCell asked for "editors actively editing the Obama page [to] refrain from comment here." If you want wider input please allow those for us who are uninvolved to review this--Cailil ^talk 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a continuing battleground, and it needs to be cooled off. From what I've seen, K4T is a prime instigator in the battles; I'd support a topic ban through the elections. K4T notes above that he has been working on other articles and broadening his spectrum - this is a good opportunity to keep up that effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support until after the election. Good editors are spending too much time fighting over the same issue rather than being able to work on the rest of the article. At least one other WP:SPA needs to step back and take on other topics as well to broaden his Wiki horizons. Another editor has taken a recent interest. Please people, do not get hung up in one place only. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:: I resent your characterization as unhealthy. Which part of civil is the inference. I request that you retract that statement, and I will assume that some momentary lapse has provoked it and charitably forget that it was made. Senseless provocation like that is gratuitous and can't possibly be a part of building an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has just edited my comment up above. The context of the statement has been changed because of this. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And they've just warned via a template for it[27]--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to you there. As a new adminstrator, you should know better than to cleverly template an editor with my longevity .19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

His reply is pretty poor and assumes bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that my good faith efforts to work towards a consensus and peace making efforts on the page have been reduced to an "unhealthy interest". Pages that one chooses to edit are chosen by a principle of free association. I have no obligation to edit anything other than what I choose. there appears to be a bandwagon here. I removed an attack here, was templated, and the band wagon was cranked up. This behavior by three administrators, one recent, can only serve to elevate the level of wiki-drama that I and other editors have tried to dissipate on matters related to Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've noticed a recent trend to defend the Obama article against any incursion of criticism. There are/were at least 3 threads in the last ten days or so here on AN/I, plus who-knows-how-many elsewhere. (I didn't count every WP page to check.) WOrkerbee and K4T both have issues, but so does Lulu of the Lotus eaters, and she got off scott-free. There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. It's hard to see how this is defended when the major offense is INCIVIL behavior in light of the POV swaying going on. They may need a CIVILITY PROBATION, but to topic ban people who offer balance and dissenting opinions specifically during the election period, to 'keep the page quiet' shows an agenda is being pushed. Obama looks good against McCain without Wikipedians pushing things. If this were the other way around, a glistening McCain article, I have to say, I believe we'd be seeing a different result here. It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse topic ban for K4T, as before. No need for the ongoing disruption. R. Baley (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• As suggested by myself back on 13 June 2008 [28], my position has not changed and I agree that a longer duration (of 4-6 months is warranted). Endorse topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT RESOLVED. MCMVOCALIST is the same HIGHLY involved admin in all of these Obama related threads. He closed out the last one, above on this page, in which K4T and others were accused of shit. He dismissed all the pro-Obama editor problems as not problems, then again sanctions those editors seeking to bring balanced criticism to the page. NCMVocalist is absolutely unqualified to neutrally close this section, Especially since his actions were to wait just two hours after a lengthy objection and close it in the position he has previously advocated. Neutral, previously uninvolved editors and admins are needed to review this material. Obama's page is not neutral, and the editors seeking to include balanced criticism are unable to do anything because the pro-Obama editors seek to whitewash all criticism. This is one of the most viewed pages on the project right now, and we are not meeting our responsibilities by keeping fair criticism off the page. I request, formally, that NCMVocalist not touch this thread again. He's got a conflict of interest and, at this point, an apparent vendetta against numerous editors seeking to include balanced criticism. It's a shame that some of Obama's supporters are out to make the rest of us look like partisans, when his good qualities will shien through anyway. but POV pushing needs to cease there. ThuranX (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your request is denied. Please refrain from smearing me with any part of the title, 'highly involved admin' (a meritless accusation) - you need to take a break and become familiar with (or refamiliarise yourself with) WP:UNINVOLVED, first and foremost.

The ban has been imposed with the overall consensus of the community, with full endorsement by 8 uninvolved administrators. Kossack4Truth is welcome to appeal the topic ban in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you are incorrect. Ncmvocalist is not an administrator. Ncmvocalist, please stop archiving threads. Thank you. Risker (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why the pages remain a giant mud pit. Restricting Kossack4Truth does not validate the behavior of every other editor on the page. I would be happy to look at other editors' behavior, but not as an excuse to avoid doing something about this particular disruptive user. This line of argument boils down to: "Yes, Kossack4Truth is disruptive, but so are some other people!" The correct response is to restrict this disruptive editor and move on to ask for evidence, in a separate thread, of disruption by other editors. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, some editors (and apparently a sysop) make major allowances for the continued trolling in these threads and refuse to accept that this is a noticeboard - not a complaints dept. This thread was very clearly labelled in a way to be about the conduct of Kossack4Truth, and there was consensus to pass the topic ban. Yet here we still are, tapping our feet at the editors (and sysop) who refuse to put up (as MastCell quite rightly puts it) "evidence, in a separate thread, of disruption by other editors." I no longer wonder why this entire page remains a mess. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with MastCell. It is evident that there a number of disruptive editors in this topic not just one. However we are dealing with just one here in this thread - that does not mean we will ignore / condone bad behaviour by others. Please, if there is evidence of other parties actively engaging in disruption either open a thread here or follow normal RFC/U procedure so that uninvolved users and sysops can review it. The fact that other threads have been closed does not preclude a proper investigation into other users. With that in mind I would move to close this thread and this issue regarding K4T without prejudice to other threads about problematic behaviour by other editors--Cailil ^talk 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how AN/I works. If a student gets into a fight, you don't want the principal punishign just one of the two, you want both punished. When one kid runs to the teacher crying 'he hit me', do you want the teacher to say, 'yeah? you've got detention' and consider the matter settled? No. You expect the teacher to get both sides of the story and act accordingly, usually with detentions for both students. IF we only handle K4T here, we risk never having an opportunity to handle the biases which K4T is discussing, because we keep shutting down those with other POVs. This sort of resolution would result in bully squads on pages, which is already happening on Obama, as I've noted before. A group all attacks anyone who wants any criticism till the new guy invokes IAR and adds it, then gets accused of an edit war, gets blocked for going against consensus, when the consensus is to cover up Obama's critics. The new editor is blocked, and the sick behavior of the pro-obama gang is reinforced, assuring that they'll more confidently run the same dance again. This dance against K4T comes just days after running the same dance on WorkerBee74. Our 'job' here is neutral articles, not pushing 'our guy' forward by wiping his page of problems. To ONLY deal with K4T here, and not investigate what's behind it, is to allow this abuse to continue and grow into systemic bias. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX said:

There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. .....It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you're mistaken. Wikipedia is about consensus-based editing, not 'ignore all rules' editing. One's misconduct does not legitimize another's. Kossack4Truth has engaged in misconduct and measures have been imposed to prevent that misconduct that has the community concerned. ANI is not the place to deal with essentially content issues (for support adding criticism about Obama, or for opposing adding criticism about Obama) that should be dealt with through Article RFC or Mediation, or for forum-shopping. Although Risker (in my opinion) exercised poor judgement in reopening this thread, that's besides the point. If you have evidence of editorial misconduct by other parties in this dispute, why do you refuse to post it in a separate thread? The separate thread would not preclude the consideration of mitigating factors (if any) for the measure imposed here - I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So your attitude is 'Yes, others did bad stuff, but since Mastcell filed this about K4T, we cannot and will not look at others, even though they're clearly part of the problem'? That's hardly the way to get anything productive done. Further, if I have to go off and file a separate thread, I'll do so, even to the point of being K4T's voice in all that. That's right, I'll go so far as being banned for meatpuppetry, if that's what it takes to keep this thread, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, open until we get some real resolution. Ncmvocalist's attitude of willful myopic behavior persists only with the tacit approval of a pro-obama cabal who seem intent of one by one reipping down all opposition. I'm fucking disgusted by this attitude, and Ncmvocalist's not the only voice by a long shot. To look at ONLY K4T because Mastcell named ONLY K4T is asinine, and Ncmvocalist should lose his admin bits for this vendetta attitude. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Ncmvocalist is not an admin. –xeno (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm. Then he ought to quit closing all the threads related to Obama troubles as resolved and making declarative judgments and so on. Preempting discussions and so on certainly makes him appear as an admin. He needs to refrain from closing any more threads about Obama related topics and any involving Editors tied to such articles, like WB74, K4T, LotLE, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't researched the history so I cannot speak for motives or what caused what to happen. Anyone that denies that WP has a liberal bias doesn't understand WP's bad image on the internet. WP is not seen as an unbiased or reliable. We need to improve on this.

Mr. Obama's article does need re-write. There are too many flaws to start. Subtle bias is one as well as the choice of material covered. Unfortunately, this makes Obama look bad to the astute observer (but may fool the casual reader). This is a pity since Obama is a historical figure and the presumptive next President of the U.S.

I call for admins to try to bring civility to the article and to start a new principle for the article, i.e. neutral consideration of edits is very important in this case and that counting votes is flawed since Obama has more supporters than the other guy and every supporter (whether of Obama or the other guy) is sort of a meatpuppet of other supporters. So if 60% of editors say "McCain is Bush", that still wouldn't be WP material even though there would be a consensus. Presumptive (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2

I wonder if anyone would care to step in and examine Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2? The user has been involved in edit wars in the fairly recent past, but no warnings or actions were taken. At this point, all of his additions have been reverted as simply WP:OR or not WP:V. I've placed a note on the users talk page, and need to step back, and unfortunately there's no other place for me to bring this up. The 3RR notice board won't work, since I'm not risking an edit war myself, so we won't even get to that point. Advice? Intervention? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notify him of this ANi. Beam 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr, have you notified him of your personal complaints that you lobbied in front of this notice board? Beam 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having had some involvement with the editor in question I have notified them of this discussion. Also would like to extend some concerns about Falcon's edits as some are POV pushing. treelo _radda 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, but as Treelo says above, they've been notified. Since nobody seems too concerned one way or another (i.e., only Beam has replied to this ANI thread, the editor in question is quiescent at the moment, and nobody has approached either me or the editor on our respective talk pages), I'm guessing it's nothing to deal with. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take the time to look at the situation, I'm just a regular jerk, but I'll still give my recommendation. What action do you want to see? Beam 22:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My query here was a rather generic can someone look into this, rather than any specific action, for a reason. Three people have raised their eyebrows over this editor, adding unsourced, controversial, and point-of-view material, and getting into involved in edit wars when their contribs are in question (reverted, or brought to the talk page). Since I'm emotionally involved with the subjects at hand, I wanted ask for a deteched person to examine this. That would be a routine review of the editors contribs, talk pages, and interactions with (and from) other users. Since my own messages have not elicited a response, maybe someone else can get some cooperation. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy does seem pretty focused on adding unsourced opinion and game guide fluff. He's already been warned for edit warring, though; I'm not seeing any additional actions that can be taken against this user at this time. He would likely benefit from finding a mentor; however, if he continues this behavior, I'd support a short block to get the message across. GlassCobra 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me a bit, and I'll give it some attention. Beam 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Grawp vandalising Commons

Resolved

 – Vandalism vanquished. Beam 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

:)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lundeunge.jpg - apparently a vandalised template, though I'm having trouble working out where the vandalism has been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Never mind, it seems to have been fixed now. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC) This is a persistent and consistent vandalism; I've seen it maybe half-a-dozen times in the month or so I've been patrolling. is it the same vandal? also, would it be possible to write a bot to watch for it and snip it (and the IP that posts it) as soon as it pops in? --Ludwigs2 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC) I'm starting to suspect that some of these moves are being done by copycats, some are targeting specific targets more than once, Grawp constantly jumps to different topics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC) well, the Grawp thing usually aims at templates (which would limit its range of targets), and it's a very elaborate bit of code, so it must be pre-fab and might be passed around between different vandals... it would be nice if we had some data on how often and where it pops up, and maybe from where, to see if we can localize the region it comes from. any admins bored enough to want to do the grunt work?  :-D --Ludwigs2 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC) well, it's tough to say where all these trolls are coming from. nevertheless, Each of us should Deny them recognition. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC) (Comment removed) -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Paranoid much? Sounds like Grawp has already won if this is the mentality that you all revert to. Chunkiermunky (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Denying him recognition, or throwing accusations towards a known troll site that has a running beef with us (I have spake with Xeno since; it's not who I thought it was vandalizing Commons; thus, comment above removed)? In either case, we are understandably paranoid - he's recently taken to email bombing people, hoping he hasn't found someone who's heard of a spam filter. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC) [unindent]He found the account creation mailing list a while back, yikes. Let's just say I don't look forward to the day he figures out the ORTS system. As if those poor folks don't deal with enough nastiness... L'Aquatique[talk] 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Whoa, ideas... Tan ǀ 39 03:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Lawrence Solomon

• Lawrence Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lawrence Solomon has criticized, in the press, the actions of User:William M. Connolley in regards to articles on the subject of global warming.[29][30] (The argument has echoed to other places, including the media blog of the American CBS network. Connelley Connolley has nonetheless continued to edit the biographical article on Solomon, despite being asked to leave it to others because of the obvious conflict of interest.[31] Request outside opinions. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - apparently a similar issue regarding this user has been discussed here before. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't spell my name. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I've moved the conversation here due to the possibility of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing. I'm just looking for consensus that WMC shouldn't be the person editing Solomon's article. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the last few edits (and there are only a few in the last several weeks), and see no sign of problematic editing. In particular, with such a low number of edits the claim of "ownership" is absurd. Moreover, if we allow any journalist to simply get rid of critical voices on Wikipedia by writing an article on the critics, we will run into problems with WP:NPOV immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, doesn't this open up the possibility of people who have articles about them being able to control, to a certain extent, who edits the article? Mr. X doesn't like what Editor Y has written about him, and would prefer Editor Z, so he criticizes Editor Y to the press and all of a sudden Editor Z's input is no longer balanced by Editor Y. Why Wikipedia want to hand over that kind of influence? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits that Connolley has made to that article so far seem fair and uncontroversial. As long as it stays that way there shouldn't be much of a problem. Lawrence Solomon may think differently about it, but that's up to him. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - By way of full disclosure I will point out up front that WMC and I have had our differences of opinion in the past which had become heated. Given that, I would merely point out the following:

• [32] and [33] have already been reverted, the first by me and the second by User:Oren0.
• My reversion of his first edit merely brought the Lawrence Solomon article into conformance with the The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud article where we had extensive discussion, [34], and had already worked out a consensus wording, [35].
• WMC's response was to try and start up the same discussion in the Lawrence Solomon article on the same issue as he had in the deniers article.
• I would hope that WMC would see fit to refrain from editing either of the above two articles given the criticism he has received in the press on this very topic, i.e. using the BLPs of his enemies as a forum. I would submit that whether or not that is even true, if he wishes to avoid even the hint of impropriety this particular BLP would be one to avoid for what should be obvious reasons, lest he prove that criticism correct.
• As you are all aware WMC has many friends and there are many editors who share his views in these areas. Those editors will be more than capable of defending those viewpoints without the obvious entanglements that WMC faces or the potential damage that might result to Wikipedia.

Take these observations for what they are worth and decide for yourself whether WMC is being controversial in his editing of these articles and whether he has a WP:COI in this case. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed WP:COI in some detail, the opening sentence provides a reasonable summary: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." So, if we are to decide whether a WP:COI exists in this case the first question to answer would be, does WMC have any self interests with respect to editing the BLP for Solomon and/or The Deniers? I think that the allegation of WP:COI here boils done to the following:

1. Lawrence Solomon, rightly or wrongly, has publicly written about the conduct of WMC here at Wikipedia in a strongly negative manner, see [36].
2. It is, therefore, in WMC's own self-interest for Lawrence Solomon and his works to be discredited because this will cast doubt on his accusations regarding WMC.
3. WMC has on several occasions made disparaging remarks regarding Lawrence Solomon's credibility here on wikipedia, see [37], [38], [39], [40] as well as on his personal blog, see [41] and [42].

I will not offer any opinion here. I leave it to others to weigh this information accordingly and determine whether these issues and WMC's conduct rise to the level of WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I will offer an opinion here. This is not a correct application of policy. What if someone notable makes a public statement abusing collectively everyone who edits Wikipedia: can none of us then edit their article? You propose anyone with a blog can CHOOSE who is eligible to edit the article about them just by attacking everyone else. Why don't we stop this sort of silly time waste and get on with what matters, like the vandalism problems etc.?--BozMo talk 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question: If I beat the shit out of him for his comments about us 'pedians than yes, I should not edit his article. Beam 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not weighing in one way or the other. I am only offering up evidence for consideration by others who can be more objective than myself. If this evidence amounts to nothing then simply ignore it.

On the narrow issue of this having an effect on Wikipedia's ability to offer objective criticism, if the criticism in question is only supportable by one individual (or a small handful) I would question whether that criticism belongs in the encyclopedia in the first place. At that point it begins to look very much like someone (or a small group) using the encyclopedia as a forum (basically Solomon's point) rather than it being truly objective criticism. The encyclopedia has many voices and we should rely on them all, not just a few. I very much doubt that those supporting the consensus view are so limited in number as to worry that the elimination of a single voice on a couple of pages is going to cripple their ability to offer criticism. They are, after all, the overwhelming majority as we keep hearing. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI is simply a guideline for editors who have just arrived at wikipedia, who are not yet familiar with the wiki rules who may have a conflict of interest to stick to, in order to make sure they don't violate the usual wiki rules like NPOV when editing wikipedia. If WMC is violating NPOV or does something else which is objectionable, then that should be discussed. WMC is, of course, a very experienced wiki editor, and WP:COI doesn't apply to him. Arguably, WP:COI is redundant and should be deleted. Most editors edit anonymously anyway... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis is correct that WP:COI does not apply, or, rather, that it does not apply directly. However, editors with very strong feelings about a topic are generally advised to exercise caution with regard to it. The situation which is raised by this report is a serious one, and there is an appearance, rather easily seen, of a cabal supporting Connolley. I am not claiming that there is a literal cabal, but it became clear to me when I came across Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight that there was a troubling pattern of what appeared to be tag-team reverts, uncivil edit summaries from the beginning, all the way up to improper blocking by an involved administrator. Attempts to bring this to the attention of involved administrators, on my part, were met with incivility and what I can only describe as arrogant dismissal. I have avoided, so far, forcing any issue, hoping that these editors will recognize the damage that is done to Wikipedia when a group of editors, and especially if it includes administrators, become attached to some POV as being NPOV, with any new editor with a contrary POV being, then, a "POV-pusher." NPOV, actually, is not in opposition to any POV, but transcends them; another way of putting it is that it includes them, though, because of WP:UNDUE, it isn't quite that simple. In any case, I'd highly recommend Connolley avoid editing, in way likely to appear controversial, articles on his critics! While it is not literally a COI, as described in WP:COI, it is, in substance, and it could come back to haunt him. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing to look at is conduct. If he does anything, then deal with it, but until then, let it ride. WMC is generally a pretty cool guy, or at least he has been in my interactions with him. Jtrainor (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a pattern here of administrative abuse and a lack of consensus in Williams edits.

Based on past edit history, it will not be long before William starts blocking Lawerence as he has before, dozens and dozens of times.

What I can't figure out, is that other administrators get their admin friends block editors they are in edit wars with. I guess some admins can act with total, open impunity on wikipedia.

Lets be honest here, William has enough supporters who will back him up no matter what he does. Those supporters will tell say "let it ride", as above, and this dispute will be quickly forgotten, just like the dozens of others.

PS, please no admin threats on my talk page, lets keep the discussion here. Inclusionist (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that articles on scientific topics are different in nature than articles on politics and require different rules. We have had bad experiences with uninvolved Admins protecting the Global Warming page until editing disputes were resolved.

By consensus we only allow peer reviewed articles as sources. If a few new editors come along arguing that this consensus violates wiki policies and start edit wars, the last thing you want to have is a neutral Admin who has no background in science, who sees this as a content dispute. It is far better to have Admins who are experts in the field like WMC and Raul to use their Admin tools to protect the integrity of the global warming articles.

It may be that this is a bad idea for politics articles, because there you usually have equally valid POVs. But in case of scientific articles the only valid POVs are what you can read in the peer reviewed scientific papers.

On the global warming page itself we don't have problems anymore, because everyone (including the few sceptics) has accepted the consensus and sticks to it. But there are related articles like the one about the book by Solomon, in which ridiculous claims are made. All that WMC has done is to make a few edits directly related to the topic. E.g. he wrote that some of the people Solomon calls scientists are not scientists. This is something that is verifiable. There is absolutely no conflict of interest here.

Conflict of interest can be potential problem. but not in this case. You can e.g. imagine that WMC and Solomon were rival scientist (working on some other topic than global warming on which there is no consensus), supporting different theories. Then you could imagine WMC writing negative things about a book written by Solomon in the wiki article about that topic, citing his own papers. Count Iblis (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Docmartincohen

I previously expressed concern over this user - my concern is, at this point, deepened - it appears to me that the sole or primary purpose of this user's editing Wikipedia is to promote his own work, and denigrate that of people he sees as his opponents. Since having his page '101' as a teaching method for Philosophy deleted, which was a promotional article for a book he wrote, he's been making numerous edits promoting his own work: [43], [44].

In addition, there have been serious problems with him seeming to crusade against other people in his field - tagging two articles as COI with little evidence, and maintaining a page that is seemingly slated for deletion as an attack page.

I'm not sure what to do here - as someone who nominated one of his pages for deletion and tried to courtesy blank the attack page, I feel too close to really step in, but I think somebody needs to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The attack page has now been deleted per consensus, so that is now moot. With only the diffs provided, I don't see the actions as being self promotional but rather providing a basis on which to hang original research comments into the article - I am stretching the meaning of WP:OR to including material supported by off-Wiki (even if published) references that were created by the editor. As such I feel that the problem is more about introducing WP:OR to effect a bias in the POV, in so much that only Docmartincohen is presenting that viewpoint. Under those circumstances perhaps a request for comments should be attempted to see if there is any consensus for either the viewpoint or its supporting references. Once there is consensus it isn't, then it may be removed and any reverting be regarded as vandalism. At that point the services of a sysop may be required. That is my thinking, FWIW. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's an academic with reputable publications. It's not OR for him to add those - I've added references to my publications into articles that needed discussions of their academic coverage. But I have always been scrupulous about notifying relevant WikiProjects, making mention on the talk page, and clearly flagging my COI. This isn't OR, and it's explicitly not OR.

The difference between his actions and mine are that my contributions to Wikipedia span much more than that. The degree to which this user's edits have been to promote his own publications is problematic, and it is a COI problem much more than an OR problem - I suspect that his work is notable, and that there are areas where it should be discussed. But his involvement in the matter makes it harder, not easier, to figure out how to appropriately engage it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

While commenting that I am unfamiliar with both the subject and the schools of thought (sic), it still seems that the article involves value judgments which are sourced back to self authored references. It would be more appropriate for this editor to reference a comparable publication, if one exists. If one doesn't exist, then my point of the content being OR remains. I took the deletion of the article regarding his publication/theory as being evidence of no independent review establishing notability, but perhaps you could comment on that? However, it is apparent that this is something that a discussion on an Admin board is not going to resolve. I suggested that an RfC may be appropriate, but perhaps you might try for a third opinion instead? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I should declare an interest here. I'm Jeremy Stangroom. I'm the subject of many of the accusations of Docmartincohen. (I should say straight away that they are all absolutely false; I have no interest in my Wiki entry, and to be absolutely honest, not a lot of interest in Wiki. Sorry!) Anyway, I'm building a dossier of his activities because there's a good chance that I'll pursue legal action against him - though not, I should say, Wiki. If you want to get a sense of what's been going on then you should check out the activities of these users - some of them now blocked (note I am not saying that these are all the same people; that is up to other people to decide): Wikigiraffes, Dremeraldgibb, NoPointofView, Wikisquirrels. You might also be interested in IP ranges that begin: 86.220.*.* and 90.17.*.*. If you're really very keen then the User "Flash" on Wikipedia Review also makes for interesting reading. If you want to check some links out then these are worth looking at (just search on my name):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive447#Baggini_and_Stangroom:_The_problem_of_.27living_persons.27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:90.62.211.186

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/VivianDarkbloom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HandThatFeeds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton#Ophelia_Benson.2C_Jeremy_Stangroom.2C_Nick_Mallory.2C_VivianDarkbloom

I know people tend to think that there are two-sides to every story, that there's no smoke without fire. But actually in this case there is only one story: the accusations against me have not one iota of truth. Happily the evidence supports this proposition, and I also think that I have enough evidence to support a legal action. Thanks.

--Jeremy Stangroom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.75.237 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartincohen, Wikigiraffes, Dremeraldgibb, NoPointofView, Wikisquirrels all confirmed as sockpuppets and blocked accordingly. The users are a strong match per checkuser, and the consistent attack targets, and those of the associated IPs, make it an idiot certainty. Admins should expect this person not to quit any time soon, and to sigh, revert and block as needed. I would suggest IP blocks be kept to no more than 24 hours, though - David Gerard (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how does someone get a doctorate in philosophy with spelling that bad? - David Gerard (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I resembel that remark. (Although my doctorate is in Mathematics. Now, a doctorate in Englist literature....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In some places and for some people (although I am not saying this is the case here), as long as the signature on the cheque or credit card slip matches the one on the piece of plastic... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:Lenerd

Lenerd (talk · contribs) has been editing here for just about a month (with a single edit from one year ago) and has been indefinitely blocked for some minor mistakes, and without any warning. Confusion is understandable, since he did things such as blanking a number of categories from an article, [45] giving a user warning to the editor who reverted this, [46] and making the redirect Pig Empire. He has, however, explained all of these things, [47] [48] and none of them appear to be vandalism.

The first admin to review his unblock request does so pretty blindly, and doesn't even seem to look at his edit history or his unblock request. [49]. The user puts up another unblock request, around the time I was looking at the unblock request category. I leave a note for the original blocking admin User:Sandstein at User talk:Sandstein#User:Lenerd. In this time User:Ultraexactzz asks for a further explanation and Lenerd provides one.

Sandstein reviews, more discussion goes on, and to me it's pretty clear that this editor is not here to cause disruption and understands the basic gist of our rules. See User talk:Lenerd#You are indefinitely blocked for full discussion.

However, for some reason Sandstein has not unblocked this editor, whom shouldn't have been blocked like this in the first place.

So I'm bringing it here for review. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what others think. Lenerd is not your typical vandal, that much is clear; he has made productive (if generally automated) edits and mostly seems to be here with the intention to do good. However, he's engaged in blatantly disruptive conduct in a number of areas in a relatively short span of time, which is why I have blocked him for the reasons given on his talk page. I've made clear at the outset that I don't mean this to be an infinite block. I have stated that I will unblock him if he convinces me that he understands what he's done wrong and that he won't do it again. That has not happened so far. The gist of his responses on his talk page is that, while he may have been excessively zealous in some areas, in general he feels entitled to do as he pleases. I've also made clear at the outset that I won't object if another admin unblocks him if they feel that he is not or no longer a problem. But in that case, I would expect that admin to continue to watch his conduct and to intervene in the event of continued disruption.  Sandstein  06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support an unblock, but only after Lenerd promises to strictly avoid disruptive editing, and familiarise him/herself with our copyright policy. Also, his TWINKLE access should be disabled for a long time due to[50], which is way too close to outright trolling. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Over-reaction. I've seen admins leave warnings like this to established users when frustrated. We have no evidence that this is actually an issue. He's been warned, so lets see how he does. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• No objection to an unblock, here. I very specifically declined the second unblock request, because it looked like a double-post of the first one - repeatedly making the same request for unblock is forum-shopping-ish. I noted the decline as procedural, in order to avoid prejudicing a future request. I also asked for more detail on the edits that caused the block, as ntoed, and I'm reasonably satisfied with Lenerd's response. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I add, in reference to Sandstein's analysis, that a mentor for Lenerd might not be a bad idea. This sort of thing is indeed disruptive, and Lenerd needs to be aware of what is acceptable and what is not. Having an experienced user to assist with that would be of value, I think. I think it's a good block, but can be lifted under the conditions that Sandstein cites. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support an unblock. This user has been far from perfect but indef blocking an editor who seems to be acting in good faith without a single warning seems entirely like overkill to me. Oren0 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons outlined at the user's talk page, I do not believe that most of the edits I blocked the user for were done in good faith. Even if they were, they were still disruptive, and I think we should have some reassurance that the user does not intend to continue to disrupt Wikipedia if unblocked. As I said above, under these conditions, I'm not opposed to an unblock.  Sandstein  06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They were mildly disruptive, at best, and he wasn't warned before being blocked. I see no evidence of malicious intent, and it's obvious he understands you now. You're just asking him to jump through hoops at this point. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking him to jump through hoops. The hoop I am asking him to jump through is labeled: "I understand that I did X, Y, and Z wrong. In the future, I will not do it again, but I will instead do A, B and C." That's because he still seems to think he's mostly done all right.  Sandstein  09:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the blocked user's frustration - ideally, the entire problem is that there is no prerequisite to read all policies and guidelines (indeed, some users are totally full-bottle on some, while totally clueless on the existence on others, even if it's been over a year since the user commenced editing on Wikipedia). For this reason, more education and counselling is needed when problems like this are spotted, preferrably prior to blocks. To that extent, I'm not comfortable with an indefinite block being imposed as a first resort.

More recently, the blocked user stated on his talk page, "I stand by my claim that I had done nothing wrong." This does nothing to indicate whether he will stop making those edits that are considered disruptive or will continue, and whether he actually does get it. (Ideally, this would be so much easier if Lenerd explicitly stated that he will stop making those problematic edits specified.) But one thing is certain; we've never forced users to make assurances unless (1) they want to be unblocked before their block expires, or unless (2) they've been blocked several times and still continue with the same misconduct (to the point they're blocked indefinitely). In this case, the block should've fallen in the first category, but currently, cannot expire (so there is no way of determining if the misconduct will stop). This is why I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt and the block should be changed to a definite period (like a week) - the user could then still be unblocked the usual way too. But if the problems continued, the next block being indefinite under the current terms (could legitimately fall under the second category due to the variety of issues) and would not not have any legitimate opposition, and there'd need to be a lot more education/counselling - even through mentoring. My view anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could have issued warnings and/or limited blocks first, and that's what we ordinarily do. I chose to approach this problem editor differently because I believed that such an approach would not have been effective, and his conduct after the block appears to bear me out. However, I'll not involve myself further in this matter if Lenerd does not want to address the concerns raised by his conduct. As mentioned above, I'm fine with any administrator taking whatever action they deem necessary in this case, but I do expect that administrator to attend to any problems that may result from an unblock.  Sandstein  22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you take a look at his most recent edits to his talkpage, he still refuses to admit that he did anything wrong. Until that happens, he should remain blocked, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 20:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think he did much wrong. I feel it's a bad block based on reading the diffs in this thread. If there is something else I'm missing please illuminate me. I think he should be unblocked immediately. With a dose of Good Faith intevenously I feel he shouldn't have been blocked at all. Just some lessons about templates and reverting, even if you are right, should be given. Unblock asap, imo. Beam 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  Check out the diffs Sandstein provided in his initial rationale for the block at Lenerd's talkpage. They may change your mind about Lenerd's "good faith" in this instance. S. Dean Jameson 02:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did. Here's the rationale for the record. Yes all those edits suck in their own way, but with some intravenous faith, about 50cc, I think an informational warning or dialog would have been preferred. Beam 04:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comfort women

Guys and gals, we badly need more admin eyes on Comfort women, our current Korean-Japanese hotspot. This is worse than Liancourt Rocks. (Not least because it's a much more serious topic and having continuous edit warring on it really looks bad on Wikipedia.)

I made the mistake of expressing an editorial opinion (gasp!) on this article while trying to deal with a tendentious sockpuppet (thanks Moreschi for blocking User:Lucyintheskywithdada), so I'm currently not in a good position to wield the banhammer as I'd wish. That means the article is without any close admin scrutiny right now.

There's Japanese tendentious editing in trying to include a long undue-weight passage trying to relativise the Japanese crime by sharing the blame with the evil Koreans, and there's Korean tendentious editing in trying to spice up the article with unencyclopedic emotionalising material such as long repetitive lists of atrocities, detailed witness reports with all sorts of colorful details and so on.

Top of the to-be-blocked list right now are Logitech95 (talk · contribs) and Northwest1202 (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I have just topic-banned Logitech95 (talk · contribs) and Danceneveril (talk · contribs) from all Korean-Japanese articles for two months each, for their activities on Liancourt Rocks, Korea under Japanese rule and elsewhere. We need very forceful admin intervention in this field, as per the latest discussion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to take it on my watchlist for a while, as I've never edited in this area (I think). Are there any on-point ArbCom remedies covering this area, or is it basic blocking policy only?  Sandstein  06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also protected the article for a week to stop the ongoing editwarring; this should give it some breathing space.  Sandstein  06:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only officially the article probation on Liancourt Rocks (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks). I'm of the opinion that we should just act as if it covered the whole Japanese-Korean mess, Balkan-style. I can't be bothered to ask Arbcom to endorse it though, we should just do it on admin consensus alone. Why not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. We should be able to deal with this here ourselves as well as they can, unless there's dissent about it. DGG (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese-Korea article area is getting more and more problematic. I support the topic bans. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never edited or read the article in question, but will gladly watchlist it. If I am accused of a pro or activist bias in either direction, as I have been on other articles I never actively contributed to, I will resign from Wikipedia. This is an important topic, and deserves full neutrality across the board, as any Encyclopedia (and this wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, no?) should do. Feel free to decline my offer if you think I cannot be neutral in disputes. Jeffpw (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• It seems Logitech95 has edited the article again, despite Fut. Perf's sanction - I don't think it officially passed when Fut Perf. notified him though (it would've, had a draft sanctions idea like the one below, passed). So I'm going to warn him again - if he continues to edit in the area after that warning, someone needs to block him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It seems Fut Perf. beat me to the warning and blocked him already for 2 weeks. I do think it's excessive, given what I said just now, and that after 2 blocks, 1 week is the usual duration for the next block. Anyway, I'm recording the topic ban as I noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Declined the unblock, but I think a block of one week is more in line of this offense. Feel free to refactor the block or whatever, and monitor his replies on his talk. seicer | talk | contribs 12:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I check his latest addition and really begin to wonder whether he falsifies information with sources to all articles that he edited. Please take a look at Talk:Korea under Japanese rule#Logitech95's addition.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Logitech has a separate section on this ANI page now - the block was extended to a month for block-evasion/sockpuppetry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Japanese-Korean disputes, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be notified of these provisions by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing these provisions will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Talk:Japanese-Korean disputes/Sanctions#Log of blocks and bans.

---

Modified from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, removing inappropriate references to the arbitration process. Two things to consider: interaction with the Liancourt Rocks arbitration and I'm not particularly sure whether the bit about the AC and desysopping is appropriate. Hack away. MER-C 10:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again

• Past ANI Archive38 on 2channel and Nanshu

I've noticed that editors deeply associated with 2channel, Japanese biggest internet forum resume their systematic meat/sockpuppetry again. I predict this same disruption would repeat again because Checkuser system does not hold info more than 4 months and they know it and discuss about it.

Among them, User:Nanshu, being deeply associated with the Korean bashing forum also falsely accused me of abusing RFCU system to ANI to to evade much attention to them. I found his plot on one of 2channal pages. After this, Nanshu scarcely appeared to Wikipedia. Anyway, whatever article he has edited has been strongly opposed by Korean editors because of his tendency of exaggerating and distorting information to minimize Korean culture and history.[51] His view is always same as follows. Korea had been a tributary state of China but luckily saved and modernized by Japanese colonial rule. "Koreans always cook up with new theories to make themselves superior than Japan regardless of their Inferiority". He claims that Korean influence on ancient Japanese history is minor, so removes such information. Whoever objects to his tilted point of view, he accuses them of doing vandalism, even thought those accusation are actually content disputes cuased by him[52][53][54] This can be recently seen at Talk:Kangnido and Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. At Kangnido, he deliberately has repeatedly removed Korean geographer's credit in the lead and claims it as a mere Mongol's copy or tried to merge the article into other articles.

He also frequently makes personal attacks against me like "harmful to Wikepedia", "useless hard worker"[55], "doing things in unconstructive ways", "nuisance" and "obstruct" of Wikepedia[56], because I don't agree with his crooked point of views. Also his edit on Yeongeunmun Gate has been disputed by several editors, and 2channel people ridicule the gate and article as a symbol of Korea's humiliating diplomacy. So I put {{NPOV}} tag and he has tried to remove it as calling me "vandal" as his usual.[57][58] He also accused me of not improving the article. On the other hand, I have a lot of interests aside from Korean history, and he disappeared so often. Therefore, I don't feel urgent to edit Yeongeunmun Gate. He suddenly reappears again today and make a threat of accusing me again. I think this user's behaviors are totally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Earlier his such behaviors were watched and pointed by several admins too. He also creates articles by hearsay to denounce Korea such as Samurang which has been up for AFD. I believe his reappearance is just as same as the last case. Japanese editors are recently being blocked for their violation of policies, so try to remove their common enemy like me out of Wikipedia. They consult about how effectively to remove me like RFC or Arbcom files. They regard Wikipedia as places for their political propagandas or battlefield. Unlike Nanshu's accusation of "useless harmful editor", during their absent time, I've created or edited many "useful articles", so got more than 10 DYKs. Therefore, I believe their disruptive behaviors make editors unable to article in a peaceful and constructive way.

Moreover, they said they would move their forum to other places, but still retain the bashing forum within 2channel. According to their page, their meatpuppetry plots are evident. They still stalk me and other editors and record every move related to Korean history or Japanese, Chinese history. You can find my name mentioned there so many times, including even today and yesterday's my activities[59][60]2channel meatpuppeting 1

Japan-Korea related articles are really necessary to being brought from more adminins' attentions. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes/Yamashita's gold (redux)

User:JimBobUSA has been warned many times about deleting a credible/reliable references (such as a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel".This suggests that he either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (1) novels, (2) scholarly books and (3) book reviews.

I have been involved with various disputes with User:JimBobUSA regarding the content of the Yamashita's gold article. Protracted, agonising discussion with him goes nowhere. He seems impermeable to reason and viewpoints other than his own prejudices. He did not respond at all to my suggestion of formal mediation on January 14. User:JimBobUSA seems prone to lawyering and to be disinterested in consensus and cooperation. As User:Hesperian noted here on 18 July:

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".

I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with User:JimBobUSA directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. I think a stern warning, with follow up action if necessary, from someone other than me may help. Thank you. Grant | Talk 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've participated in discussions in both Yamashita's Gold and Japanese War Crimes and corraborate Grant's description of JimBob's behavior. JimBobUSA appears to be either unwilling or unable to correct his behavior so administrative corrective action is probably necessary. Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No satisfaction on the previous complaints, so here we go again, eh? Grant65 fails to mention that he is the only one who has warned me, for removing his false references. I will post below (again) from the only source used to support his reference(The Seagraves novel), a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books.

• The Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate
• Are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese
• The book is full of errors
• One of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity
• The Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have take the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book

Maybe I am over thinking this, but what part of the above makes a novel scholarly. Moreover, it makes for a grand novel, with bits and pieces of real history, fictional characters and buried treasure. Nevertheless, it falls way short of “proving” the Seagraves conspiracy theories are anything but storylines in a novel.

Here is the last complaint thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#User:JimBobUSA_.5Brevived_due_to_non-completion.5D Jim (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To balance out the complaint, I would like to copy/paste this editor posting to Grant65:

"You appear to be asserting ownership. I removed some material and adjusted some other material due to lack of independent evidence of significance. Please find references from outside of the walled garden of the Seagrave conspiracy theories. In particular, please show evidence of discussion of the supposed CIA link in independent reliable sources - discussion in major national and historical journals, for example. Right now you are supporting "several historians" being in support of this theory, but all that is evident to the disinterested observer (I have no history here and am not American) is an amusing conspiracy theory promoted by two people who happen to be historians. There is no evidence of proper historical rigour, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. This applies particularly to the 2002 court finding, where you draw directly on primary sources without the benefit of analysis in reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS, and note that this seems to be Grant65 versus all comers, which is never a good sign." Guy (Help!) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above can be found [here]Jim (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, JimBobUSA has merely demonstrated the point that had been made about about his selective/biased use of sources. He refers to the Seagraves' book as a "novel" (some novel) and misrepresents the tone of Johnson's review. He has also failed to post other admins rebutting Guy's comments on January 29. QED I think.

And I will keep re-posting this until some kind of action is taken. Grant | Talk 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

SYSTEM BUG: rollback replaced a page by an irrelevant page instead of reverting

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history .
  • In page Unidentified flying object, at 02:13, 26 July 2008 User:68.6.121.57 replaced a word "they" by "there". This was a good-faith edit, but wrong, so at 04:18, 26 July 2008 I reverted it by rollback. But the rollback mechanism, insteads of reverting, replaced the page by a copy of an edit of page Massoud Rajavi (which is a page which I have never edited).
  • At 08:25, 26 July 2008 User:Rursus noticed the change and reverted it, and complained to me in my talk page.
  • In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history , the automatically-generated edit info line "04:18, 26 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (75,793 bytes) (Reverted edits by 68.6.121.57 (talk) to last version by Kingrook)" gives the page length of the UFO matter that should be in that edit, not the page length of the Massoud Rajavi matter that is in that edit. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing happened earlier today, see here. It replaced the page with Henry Cavill in this case. As above, the byte size was consistent with what the editor intended to do, not with what was actually in the article. Someone needs to do a Bugzilla report I guess. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It happened to me as well, except that, instead of replacing Talk:Pikachu with another page, it blanked the page. I didn't realize it had done so (I could see the edit I made and didn't see a blank page) until User:A Man In Black reverted it. However, in my case I was editing normally, rather than using rollback. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more instance I encountered today of the same bug. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread over at WP:VPT discussing this issue: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug: revisions/pagesizes/pagerendering/wikisource not matching up, resulting in blanking or page replacements. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, rollback is for obvious vandalism not something that was done in good faith. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 10:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Filed at bugzilla as bug 14933: "New revisions occasionally created with wrong text on enwiki". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per DeadEyeArrow, rollback in such circumstances was inappropriate. "Undo" would have had the same expected result (and may not have corrupted the page as did Rollback) or by editing the previous version. In this one matter it was useful in finding a possible bug, but was rather naughty. I proclaim that Anthony Appleyard look a bit sheepish for not less than, oooh, a minute for misuse of the tool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem rollback has anything to do with this bug: most of the examples given so far have been ordinary edits. As for the inappropriateness of rollback, I'd say undo without a custom edit summary would've been no better: neither gives any explanation of why the revert was done, leaving the original editor to figure out by themselves why they were reverted. Undo with a custom summary would've been better, though. (Incidentally, if you find yourself doing a lot of such reversions of good-faith but mistaken edits, you may want to consider installing TWINKLE and using its "AGF rollback" feature. It's even available as a gadget these days.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "AGF rollback" is any better than a regular rollback or undo without a summary. Without an explanation as to why the edits need reverting, it's like saying "I see that you were trying to help, but you were wrong for reasons I won't explain."--Father Goose (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

AGF rollback allows for a custom edit summary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, sorry. Point taken. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Still seems kinda patronizing to me, though, and I've seen it used without edit summaries, which makes it doubly so.--Father Goose (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The "AGF rollback" edit summary comes across to me as saying "No offense meant, but I'm going to politely slap you in the face with this trout. I hope you don't mind." --Carnildo (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, SORRY. I won't do it again. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Starstyler

I seek an Admin's assistance as this above-mentioned disruptive USER has left a degrading racist remark on my user talk page even though I had politely cautioned him repeatedly not to use weasel words on any articles of wikipedia. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified him of this thread? If not, please do so now. Beam 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That comment's not racist. I'm so sick of people here abusing the term racist. It's a stereotypical comment (i've never heard of that stereotype though) but it is not racist. Please stop calling things that aren't racist, racist. It may not even be stereotypical. Maybe it's him just being a jerk. I don't feel any admin action is needed, a warning would suffice. Beam 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is racist slur and I had cautioned him previously on three separate occasions on three other editors but this is the last straw, note also I am not a newbie, I had left him a note telling him of this. Check before you speak, please. Anyways, he has been blocked following a series of copyvios, disruptive edits and personal attacks of his own doings. You may strike off OR archive this section later. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User blocked by User:Toddst1. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the racist slur? I'm not being rhetorical, please tell me. Beam 21:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

here slightly modified here. –xeno (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How is that racist? That's bullshit! So saying Ameriwhore or a Ameripoor is racist too? This isn't even funny. It truly bothers me when people cry racist for stuff like this. It actually degrades the victims of actual racism. Beam 21:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling somebody's opinion bullshit isn't really going to help... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't call anyone's opinion bullshit, and I'd appreciate you not insinuating I did. What is bullshit is the mindset that any slight of that nature is racist. As I said, would using the term Ameripoor be racist? Beam 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether racist or not, it is a grievous personal attack, and deserves a block.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it grievous, and I wouldn't consider that alone worthy of a block. Combined with all of his other actions, a block is more than deserved. Beam 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, what you may consider grievous is not important - racism is in the eye of the beholder. You appear to fail to understand that other people have value systems that differ from you, and are not therefore helpful in situations like this. I think you should read more and opine a little less often in the immediate future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you need to not patronize me. I have every right to read and opine. And my "value system" has nothing to do with this instance. As Bugs, and Ramdrake point out: Ameriwhore, and Ameripoor are not racist. I'd ask for an apology, but you'd probably tell me that my value system is wrong again. Beam 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a slam against Singapore. How does that make it racist? Is there a Singaporean race? I'd call it uncivil and biting, but it's not racist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you so much Bugs. It's appreciated, especially after vanU seemed to try to belittle me. Beam 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• GUYS, please read up on Ang Mo & Sarong party girl this two terms, they are considered as racist remarks in my part of the world. This user had made just such a remark on my user talk page using those two terms and I deemed it as an insult too if you fail to see it that way. But as we are all entitled to our own views of things, I will respect it and leave it as such same time wished you'd do the same too. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That's why I asked what was racist. I figured it was something like that. If it's true and those terms are considered racist, that I wouldn't contest it. But to say Singawhore or Ameripoor is racist is ridiculous and sad. To attack my "value system" and morality because I feel that way is even worse. Beam 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of concentrating on how others mislabeled the words as racist, perhaps you can instead think about why someone thought it was insulting to them before simply dismissing their complaints as "bullshit" or whatnot? When you handle complaints like these, don't just accept or dismiss based on the face value of the complaint. —Kurykh 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Way to not read the thread. I said the idea that "Ameripoor" is racist is bullshit. Which it is. Beam 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were wrong about that, did I? I'm just saying that your method of handling complaints is poor. —Kurykh 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, if you had simply wanted to know what term was racist, especially since you apparently didn't understand some of the terms used, perhaps you should have asked and waited until you received a response, seeking further clarification to make sure you understood precisely what part was considered racist and why, before making assumptions? Bearing in mind your second comment (first was asking him to notify the other involved party) was "That comment's not racist. I'm so sick of people here abusing the term racist. It's a stereotypical comment (i've never heard of that stereotype though) but it is not racist. Please stop calling things that aren't racist, racist. It may not even be stereotypical......". You did ask when Dave responded but again after Xeno pointed you to the whole comment, rather then waiting for a response or seeking further clarification (e.g. you called have asked which specific part of the statement is racist), you simply said again "How is that racist? That's bullshit! So saying Ameriwhore or a Ameripoor is racist too? This isn't even funny. It truly bothers me when people cry racist for stuff like this. It actually degrades the victims of actual racism." If you really feel you can't wait for someone to respond, perhaps do your own research of terms you don't understand before making such presumptive comments...? Also, I don't see anyone attacking your value system. What one person has said is that in his/her opinion, your value system is not relevant to this discussion since in this discussion we are concentrating on user Dave and the poster of the attack, and their value systems. You are welcome to disagree with this view, but please don't accuse someone of attacking your value system because they feel it is irrelevant to the discussion. P.S. You may want to read WP:AGF. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That was sure one long post. Maybe you didn't read Xeno's post in depth (all two lines of it). He said what was racist was Singawhore. I said the idea of that being racist is bullshit. The original poster did not specifically point out what was racist. I take racism very seriously. Saying "Singapoor" or "Singawhore" could be a stereotype. I didn't think people from Singapore were stereotypically poor or stereotypically whores which is why I said I had never heard of that stereotype. Maybe if you read what you asked others to read you wouldn't write a 1400 word post like that. I'm happy the person got blocked, I'm unhappy this turned into a "Beam sucks, I left my good faith on the floor, so Beam definitely sucks." So unless you need the last word, or someone else wants to attempt to show how I suck, archive this. Beam 12:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I think you just don't get it. Yes, Singa-whore is way out of line, so is amerawhore. When you take somebodies ethnicity and alter the way it sounds to make it an insult then that is a ethnically based insult. I have seen your interpretation of other personal attacks before Beam and I think you should probably stick to other areas because you seem to be off base more often than not. If people criticizing your point of view bothers you then don't subject yourself to it, but nobody has said you suck, nobody has attacked you as a person. It is only that you keep contributing to an area where your understanding is not compatible with the rest of the community. Good block. Chillum 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes Beam Ameripoor is out of line too. To pick an insult that draws attention to a nation's failing economy like that is a bit of a low blow(grin). Chillum 15:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and on a more serious note, saying that something isn't racist because the group of people being slammed is a country instead of a race, while semantically correct, misses the whole point. We condemn prejudice based on ethnicity as well as race folks. Chillum 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that the comment is based on prejudice, as opposed to satire? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Singawhore? Satire of what? Singapore or prostitution? Chillum 17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Satire of an apparent stereotype that Singapore is overrun with prostitutes. Vaguely reminds me of something Dennis Miller said about our very own Washington, D.C.: "The city has more Escorts than Budget Rent-a-Car." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Prisongangleader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a self-evident sockpuppet, likely user:Fredrick Day. This was based on the contribution history:

1. 10:57, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (creating article)
2. 10:58, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (fixed cat)
3. 10:58, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (+ tags)
4. 10:59, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ ({{WikiProject Education|class= |importance=}}) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
5. 13:39, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:Prisongangleader‎ (hi)
6. 13:39, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User talk:Prisongangleader‎ (hi)
7. 13:43, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:Prisongangleader/monobook.js‎ (importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
8. 13:44, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) Thor Halland‎ ({{subst:afd}}
9. 13:46, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thor Halland‎ (fails wp:bio and about 100 other policies...)

Very obviously not a new user, then, and pitching straight in to AfDs with a brand-new account looks to me to be disruptive. Feel free to unblock if you think the main account has a legitimate reason for this sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment. this user seemed to require some help with malformed AfD requests. Unless this was a scheme designed to make us think this account was not a sock, I can't imagine Allemantando/KoC/fred day needing help putting an AfD together. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be blocked based on username alone. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Without a warning and a chance to change it? Protonk (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• as an update, he's likely editing under Special:Contributions/87.114.2.150. wording is similar. WHOIS resolves to england but not the same ISP or region as fred day. Either way it is enough to submit an SSP. Guess I'll learn how to do that now. :) Protonk (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be worth just updating/adding a new request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be. The RFCU is here. I personally don't see sufficient evidence to open a RFCU on this user in connection to fred day, but that's me. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A little background:

It is important to note that User:Protonk is not exactly a uninvovled editor.

User:Protonk got involved with Prisongangleader when user Prisongangleader started to attack my changes/merges too Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron‎, which User:Protonk didn't support himself.

User:Protonk has been arguing against PGL's block since then.

Myself and other users have found several other socks, of the same editor:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Prisongangleader

Same:

1. use of the word "bent",
2. same knowledge of wikipedia policy,
3. same edit warring on Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron‎.

Keep in mind that User:87.114.2.150 two contributions:

(00:50, 27 July 2008) (00:47, 27 July 2008)

...were after User:Prisongangleader was indefinitely banned on (18:59, 26 July 2008),[61] so even if User:Prisongangleader is not User:Frederick day, User:87.114.2.150/User:Prisongangleader was still violating his indefinete block.

Inclusionist (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I don't appreciate the insinuations you make here in the slightest. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry is there anything factual incorrect here? I removed the mistake about you being an admin. Again, please respond here, not on my talk page Inclusionist (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There are errors here. Since you've asked me to continue this on AN/I, I will do so, but I'm not happy about it. First, your continual vague insinuations about me and PGL are totally unwanted. You began them here, here resulted in a request (here) for you to stop these insinuations. Following this request you REPEATED these insinuations above (and elaborated upon them) here. When I asked you to retract these insinuations again you responded only by asking if there were factual inaccuracies. So I'll reply. first, it is an assumption of bad faith to treat my relationship with PGL as a collaborative one. Second, it is factually inaccurate to act as though I did not support the idea of a merger in ARS/WICO/AIW more generally. I assumed from the start (even helping to archive talk pages) that you had consensus to merge these pages and were acting in good faith. I even spent considerable effort messaging Reallyhick and Benjiboi to plead with them to treat you as a good faith editor, not a vandal. I commented in assent with PGL when he noted that merging member lists between projects might be unwise, especially member merges between AIW and ARS (not all ARS/WICU members are inclusionists). I further cautioned you against calling PGL a vandal and a stalker when he had vandalised nothing. Those are the facts. The insinuation on a very public page such as AN/I that I am in league with a blocked user is totally unacceptable. I'm asking for the last time. Please retract it. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, is it not a fact that:

1. you have advised PGL several times how to handle his indefinete boot,
2. that you have argued in PGL's support in the checkuser,
3. that you asked the admin who booted him to retract the boot,
4. that you have been arguing for him here?
5. That I removed/retracted all of the comments against PGL you found offensive.
6. that you and PGL both were opposed to the merger.
7. that you are not an uninvolved editor in this dispute.

If will rewrite this section. But it goes both ways Protonk, if you want me to do what you ask, I ask for the same in return:

1. You gave me a warning for cutting and pasting a warning template which another editor put on my talk page and putting this warning template on his page, but refused to give the same editor a warning who originally gave me this warning template.
2. Don't post on my talk page again. I asked you nicely not to, and you did anyway.

I personally feel that your enforcement of wikipedia rules has been incredibly one sided. Inclusionist (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see how it is going to be. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

87.196.144.26 (talk · contribs) AKA 87.196.216.116 (talk · contribs)

87.196.144.26 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) The person using this IP is being really disruptive. S/he keeps making undiscussed genre changes on a lot of pages about pop singers and their albums. According to Realist2,this IP address has actually been doing this genre thing for months. This is really disruptive. If the IP has been "doing it for months",s/he has probaby been blocked before and they keep changing their IP. If this IP has been blocked before,please block it again. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what he has to say. Of course, if someone feels that his editor is a lost cause, he can have his say using the unblock template. Beam 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like the first step in proper bold/revert/discuss editing. If there is evidence of edit waring please bring it back here, but I don't see any blockable offenses through my cursory look at the edit history. Also be aware of WP:OWN. There is no rule that edits need to be cleared first. --Selket ^Talk 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, another content dispute unnecessarily brought to ANI by this editor? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well,the IP is clearly being disruptive. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What the...? This IP still hasn't been blocked? What are you sysops waiting for,an invitation? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, the IP had stopped editing half an hour before you made this thread, and hasn't edited since. And please watch your tone. –xeno (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well,if the IP starts being disruptive again,will s/he be blocked? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone mentioned above, changes to articles do not need to be discussed before hand. This flows from WP:BE BOLD. Just because the editor is an IP does not make his suggested changes to the articles any less worthy of being properly considered within the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Since you only talked to him twice about it, I'd like to see some further discourse with them about it, but if they edit-war to put their changes through, then I could see them being blocked. –xeno (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually,changes don't need to be discussed,but genre changes always do. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that? (sincere question, don't work in music much) –xeno (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well,I used to get reverted for making undiscussed genre changes,but when I discuss them,I never get reverted,so I assume it works like that for everyone. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: As I added to the title,this IP has changed their IP once again (to 87.196.216.116),and is making undiscussed genre changes to Good Girl Gone Bad again. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

← If it's not a guideline then I don't see how we can hold making seemingly good faith tweaks to genres over an IPs head as a blockable offense. I never really considered Rihanna to be "hip hop" either On further consideration, Jay-Z's parts of "Umbrella" could be considered hip-hop - nonetheless - talking with the IP should be your first step. –xeno (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Juggernaut and Phil Sandifer

• Juggernaut (comics) - See also it's history, and it's talk page.

Due to time constraints, I'll provide links later (or someone else can if they wish). I just felt there should be "some" notice here.

Phil Sandifer has been (I'll say "nearly") wheel warring through unprotection, pushing his "preferred version", then complaining when others have reverted to m:The Wrong Version, which apparently is any version he doesn't approve.

Two other admins involved: J Greb and Emperor.

When J Greb reverted and protected the page, Phil complained, and attacked the admin and his action.

I was asked by J Greb to come offer a 3PO; I did some reasearch, and I subsequently asked Emperor's opinion. This looked rather bad, and seemed rather clear. However, since there were several people involved in the revert warring, I protected, rather than just block phil, while asking that phil and J Greb (though the latter mostly to quell Phil, and to attempt to hopefully calm things down) not be the ones to unprotect.

Though again, phil complained, and attacked me and the action.

Well today, phil did anyway. I'm not a fan of usage of blocking for "punitive" uses, and I had intended on unprotecting the page shortly anyway, so I don't intend to block phil, or reprotect the page, unless need arises.

However, I presume that that doesn't mean that what phil's done is "acceptable". I've left a note on his talk page regarding this, with a warning that if he continues these past actions, he may be blocked.

I welcome others' comments/thoughts concerns. (I'll be notifying several other comics' project admins, including J Greb, and Emperor.) - jc37 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You say, twice, that Phil attacked an editor and their actions. Attacking actions/content/edits is fine. What do you mean by attacking you, or J Greb? Diffs of the attacks would be appreciated. Beam 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm really not seeing a problem here. It's not as if Phil is a problem editor, he is very knowledgable on this topic, I don' see anything disruptive going on. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• m:The wrong version is wholly inappropriate to cite here - it's a humorous essay pointing out that a page is always protected on a version that offends somebody. Protection policy has always stated that you *do not revert a page before protecting it*. In fact, it clearly states "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content which clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons." So both this protection, and the earlier protection by J Greb, both of which were prefaced by reversions, were already violations of policy. I lifted the first after making an accidental and substantial edit (J Greb had neglected to put a protection tag on the page) with the goal of breaking ground in the dispute that was raging over the page. When this change got wide praise, I figured OK, let's drop the protection and see if we can move forward. Which, frankly, we were doing, making Jc37's subsequent policy-violating protection unwise - an objection I voiced when he did it.

Given that, my un-reverting of Jc37's revert before protection - which I did only because he had not yet protected the page - I did it while he was in the process of making the change - does not seem out of line. Quite the contrary, it was a quick, common sense move to prevent a protection that was totally out of line and out of process. The alternative would have been bringing the matter to AN:I as the clear policy violation that it was.

My lifting of the protection was, perhaps, mildly arguable. I was surprised to see that the page was still protected after 12 days, and went to look at when the protection was due to expire. To my utter shock, the protection, which had already violated policy in its reversion, also violated policy in that it was indefinite. Which is insane - protected pages are bad, and indefinite protections are a terrible idea in the article space, as they are all too often forgotten about. They have always been discouraged, as m:Protected pages are conisdered harmful (a meta essay that seems all too often forgotten in our anti-vandalism and "oh no there's a mild disagreement that isn't even a revert war, let's protect the page" paranoia these days). So I lifted the protection. No edit war sprung up - the page has sat untouched for almost 24 hours. So it was not, as they say, a big deal.

On top of that, the dispute is in part a dispute about our basic content policies on fiction articles. As two administrators involved in the comics WikiProject, I am saddened to see the lack of support for the position of enforcing our policies and improving our coverage in this area. I've always pointed to the comics WikiProject as one of the good projects, which could be used as evidence that it's possible to cover fictional subjects in a manner that is both detailed and good. The utter lack of material support in arguing against POV-pushing fanboyism that these two administrators have provided is very distressing in this regard. Apparently they are willing to promote an inaccurate view of the protection policy that is overly paranoid about what an edit war is, but are unwilling to enforce basic quality standards. Very disappointing.

In short, Jc37 and J Greb's actions on this page have been poorly managed. I have for the most part been willing to play along with the heavy-handed way they've conducted themselves, and have not attempted to create drama over the issue. I have contented myself with minor corrections to their worst violations of policy. To be dragged to AN/I for these minor corrections to their policy-violating actions that have amounted to active protection of poor standards for articles is distressing. I thought better of them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't get too airigated, Phil - indefinite does not mean forever, only that there is no automatic expiry date. But I do agree that there is no obvious justification for protection of that article at this time. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that indefinite protections can be lifted, but I really do find them to be very poor choices in almost all cases. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to ruffle any feathers Phil. But your taking over the page was not praised. At least three admins had a problem with it. Not to mention other users. After you made it clear through your actions that neither version that was being discussed could be used, only the version of the page you made. We were simply trying to work with what you were allowing. As it is the page is laughable. And I don't see anything constructive getting done while you lord over the page.TheJaff (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I count three people who responded favorably almost immediately on the talk page, and one who, while he still had some issues with the article, saw it as an improvement. The only person to out and out criticize it was you, with Cosmos Keeper, as I said, having some reservations. The claim that I was or was not allowing things is laughable - I am no more able to "allow" things than you are. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. You completely change the page. And when someone else tried to make a change they had to pass the "Phil test" or it would get reverted. That's pretty cut and dry. As to who was on your side. The only one who seemed to have any stake whatsoever was DrBat. So you had one supporter. While I had Cosmos. Not to mention the admins who were upset by your actions. So it was what 5-2 against you? All of this is my "Professional Opinion".TheJaff (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is so full of lies that it is unworthy of response. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your actions speak louder than my words ever could.TheJaff (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My actions have been to defend Wikipedia's policies and expectations about articles in this area. I have no concerns about how they will be viewed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Or if your actions are correct apparently.TheJaff (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet at AfD

Bernard Edlington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a near-certain vanity autobiography by Nexusb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sockpuppets are appearing on the AfD: Charicoo3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Chiewan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A pound says Yama88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user. I have warned but not yet blocked Nexusb, I have not done anything about Yama88 because I'd like someone else to have a quick look, though I feel this one is a definite candidate for the duck test. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the socks, but I'm not sure that Nexusb is Bernard Edlington. I know first-hand that living in Japan can affect your English writing skills (unless you keep them up by editing Wikipedia on a regular basis ^_^), but a lot of these edits strike me as being made by a non-native English speaker. At any rate, while I think Yama's contributions basically prove they are not a new user and point strongly to their being another (slightly more sophisticated) sock of Nexusb, it might be worth waiting until the debate has closed an filing a checkuser request in order to confirm this suspicion and make sure that all the sock accounts are properly dealt with. --jonny-mt 07:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I said "is or is closely associated with" - Edlington's company is called Nexus, and his initial is B, but that is circumstantial only. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

Resolved

 – Already fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the main page article is T206 Honus Wagner but the "(more...)" link at the bottom of the article goes to T206. Could an admin fix it? Thanks! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1

Myself and A Man in Black have been harassed by him for a while, due to conflicts at various talk pages. He also thinks we are both the same person (just because we edit the same places, and disagree with him). I've brought this up to an admin, here: User_talk:Xenocidic#User:SLJCOAAATR_1_causing_problems_still, which caused the admin to leave a note. The note didn't stop the user. See User_talk:SLJCOAAATR_1#Comment for more information. His user page here: User:SLJCOAAATR_1#Wiki_Friends.2FAllies_in_Editing, right by my name on his user page: "So totally AMIB's alt!". Also see: [62] for more proof Skeletal just seemingly ignored what the admin said. Other links (which were posted on the admin's talk page, before the admin left a note on his talk page), include: [63] and [64]. So besides the accustations, poor attitude, insults and bad faith, he talks about hacking people. I've tried talking to him a few times in the past, but he wont listen. I'm simply fed up with his behavior and his poor attitude. I've tried to ignore it, but he responds to just about every post I do with a rude comment or an accustation. When he's not doing that, he's posting on his friends talk pages with the same type of thing. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun stuff. I'm giving him a little warning and pointing him at WP:COOL. That should help, but a block isn't in order quite yet, I don't think (but I find I'm a bit soft with the blocking...). I might watchlist the page as well, but I think I'd need to expand how many changes it shows... Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm SLJ's friend, and the only reason why he's popping his lid is because AMIB's getting away with murder. If you look through the WT:WikiProject Video games archives on the talk page, you'll see him swearing his head off, also on the talk page of List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), he swore to me when I was pointing out evidence that he didn't know that much about a group of articles and shouldn't have made major edits on something he doesn't know that much about. If anyone deserves blocking it's him. I'm not saying his edits were in "bad-faith", I'm saying he didn't know enough about the subject at hand. And why wasn't SLJ informed about this? If a user has a chance of getting blocked he has the right to try and explain himself/herself and prove himself/herself innocent. As for the case of suspected sock-puppetry, why can't he suspect that someone's a sock-puppet? Or are you saying it's bad to try and prove someone's going against Wikipedia policy?Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Xeno for directing me here!

Rob, once again, before trying to get rid of me (Which you keep denying) take a look at the full story. All you've done here, is try to build a puzzle with 10 out of 100 pieces, read a newspaper article that has white-out spilled over 5 out of 7 paragraphs, etc., etc., etc. And again, you've proven my point further. AMIB & Co. are allowed to editwar, swear/curse, be uncivil to users, etc. BUT, the second me, or anyone oppossing AMIB & Co. does, it's the end of the world. Some of you have even gone as far as pleading for help. As for my suspection of you being a sockpuppet of AMIB, sure, I don't have any proof that you are, but, I don't have proof that you aren't either. And the fact that you two never post anywhere near the same time period makes me all the more suspicious. Good day Rob, and read the full headline in the paper today. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You just need to calm down, instead of being so angry all the time just because we disagree with you and your friends. Yes, AMIB has sworn and done some edit warring. However, I haven't, so don't group me in with him (just because we both don't agree with you). Also, what is all this AMIB and co. about? I don't see anyone regularly disagreeing with you, except for myself and AMIB. Provide some evidence, otherwise it looks like you are overreacting on the matter. All I've done is disagree with you, and you got upset and had to drag it this far. I've dealt with your false accustations, uncivility, bad faith attitude long enough. As for the sockpuppet nonsense: there is a check user feature on Wikipedia. Ask someone to do it on me and him, I have nothing to hide. Once it's done, then you can stop that nonsense. Anyway, here is some new links that show his continued poor attitude: [65], [66] and [67]. The first is an accustation I'm lying, the second is him yelling at people and the third is another false accustation. Also note: Lifebaka posted a note on his talk page, which he obviously ignored. He hasn't changed his behavior, dispite the fact many people have told him to calm down, keep his cool and so on. Lastly, making a section here isn't about blocking. It's about getting help with a user and problem. So stop assuming I'm out to get you blocked, because that's far from the truth. I just want you to calm down, instead of harassing myself and AMIB, as well as anyone else that disagrees with you now (or in the future). All these garbage accustations and comments towards me need to stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another link: [68], more nonsense. I have never once said I wanted him blocked, he is just assuming. I'm very sick of this. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AMIB & Co. is simply what I call the group of people that are for the merging, as AMIB seems to be the leader. Sheesh. As for over-reacting? Lololololololololololololololol...Can't...stop...laughing!!! AHAHAHAHA!!! Rob, the only over-reacting here, is you. lol. Like I keep telling you, don't build the puzzle with only 1 tenth of the pieces. Before you suddenly came into action, AMIB was harrasing all of us, and using VERY foul laguage with us all, and whenever someone told him to relax, he only got more violent. When you came into play, he started playing the "Innocent little boy" act. If you don't believe me, I'll dig up some proof. So, seriously, Rob, relax, and find the missing pieces of the puzzle. K? Thx. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and, Rob, you should've told me about this, instead of letting an admin tell me. It's "uncivil" as you would say. :P Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the hacking, that has nothing to do with this. See Triple F's talk page, for more information on that. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A neutral hand to guide SLJetc. away from treating WP as a battleground might be nice. I am obviously not the right one for that job, for numerous reasons that should be apparent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More links of his rude behavior: [69] and [70]. Then there is this: [71], instead of responding to my comment, he just blanks most of his talk page. Then there is this: [72], more uncivil behavior. I think someone needs to mentor him, and let him know how policies work here. This isn't the place to just attack whoever you want. Stop spouting on about puzzle pieces. Whatever happened in the past, doesn't give you the right to be rude to me. I've disagreed with you, and agreed with a person you hate: that does NOT justify your attitude towards me. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found it more than obvious that you're trying to get rid of me. Stop denying it. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Get over it. I want you to settle down and leave me the hell alone. This has nothing to do with getting you blocked. Either stop being paranoid about it, or LEAVE ME ALONE already. I'm not going to stop denying something I'm not even doing. I have every right to disagree with you about how articles are edited, you just wont accept it in a mature manner. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.178.250.89 adding false box office information to film articles

71.178.250.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding false information to both film articles as well as articles found in Category:Film box office. I've reverted all the List articles in the category, but was hoping someone could either revert the others with a script or rollback or something. This apparently has been going one unnoticed for a while. Thanks to anyone who can help. JPG-GR (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We ned some eyes here

DreamGuy is back editing the Jack the Ripper article - or rather, edit-warring the page and discussion again. First, he starts adding in the same edits (1) he failed to find consensus for two months ago. I understand that, following BRD, when this is reverted (and the massive changes were contentious), the final component is discussion, which was - as always - lacking from DG. When alerted of this on his usertalk space (2), he removed the message (3) noting "removing bogus warning from harrassing user from this page, posting warning on his talk page." This was followed by the "warning", which was pretty much both a personal attack and a threat (4).

Simultaneously, DreamGuy has been undoing a recent archive of months old conversations - again without consensus or discussion. He apparently feels that conversations made back in May and June to continue to be active, simply because he disagrees with their assessment (and consensus). He ignores requests to start a new section regarding his concerns.

Rather that continue down this very familiar path of DreamGuy, where he eventually gets hauled in front of either ArbCom Enforcement yet again (due to his behavioral restrictions) and he mini-retires only to start the same disruptive editing yet again, I thought it best to bring the matter here right away. While I am definitely tired of this extraordinarily disruptive user's continued presence in Wikipedia, I realize that we have to give him yet another chance to fix his behavior, and maybe he's turned a new leaf, and simply doesn't know how to act politely when facing dissent. Maybe a few folk familiar with this user's past could stop by, have a spot of tea and help the fellow along. He is certainly not going to accept it from anyone who's pegged his behavior in the past. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I will have a word with him, if no response is given, we should assume his actions are to deliberatly harm Wikipedia, and he will be dealt with accordingly. Chafford (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused here. User:Chafford isn't even an admin. Why does he think he gets to assume someone is out to cause harm and needs to be dealt with? What about WP:AGF? DreamGuy (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had issues with DreamGuy for years, but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that his actions are to "deliberately harm Wikipedia". I believe that he's acting in good faith, he just gets carried away on some issues that he cares alot about. He's done off-wiki writing and other work on the topic of Jack the Ripper, and feels strongly about it. Having said that, however, it's worth remembering that he is subject to ArbCom restrictions, specifically, "If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked." He has violated those restrictions, especially with edit summaries such as these: "rv bad faith effort to close discussion on topics still under dispute", "rv bad faith edit", "removing bogus warning from harrassing user from this page". Obviously, reverting another established user with an edit summary of "rv bad faith", is a pretty clear violation of the ArbCom ruling, and would warrant a block. It has also concerned me that I have never seen DreamGuy acknowledge the legitimacy of the ArbCom ruling, nor has he ever promised to do better. And the banner at the top of his talkpage, in my opinion, is a violation of the civility ruling on its own.[73] My personal recommendation, especially considering DreamGuy's long block log,[74] would be an indefinite block until he promises to abide by the ArbCom ruling (and clean up the incivility on his talkpage). However, because of our history, I'm obviously not the administrator who should be making that call. --Elonka 17:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For most of your comments, Elonka, see below. Regarding the sction on my talk page being incivil -- other admins have not had a problem with it, and the ArbCom was aware of it when the ruling you mention was being made and did not make any mention that it could not be there. In fact it was exactly the same kind of warning that additional posts from certain people told not to post there anymore that you ignored and which was deemed harassment when you got blocked way back when, so you know for a fact that such a warning is valid and has been recognized by other admins -- and it explains why you especially are upset by it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Arcayne is just here doing a first strike because I said I was going to start the process to have him disciplined. I was hoping to talk to various admins for advice first, but it looks like he wants to just jump in here with his misleading accusations again.

The basic situation as it is now is that Arcayne has in the past tried unsuccessfully to have me banned from the project on several occasions, and has said that if ArbCom refuses to do anything he will do it himself. He has taken it upon himself to perform actions that in practice essentially ban me from editing the Jack the Ripper article. No matter what edits I make, or how I explain them with edit comments, he as a matter of routine over the past year, has always reverted every single last one and demanded I gain. An old ArbCom decision said I had civility problems, and, yes, it was true, and I have made great strides in remaining civil in the face of supreme levels of highly aggressive uncivil behavior aimed at me. ArbCom did not ban me from editing any articles, and indeed admins who have looked at my edit history say that my edits are in general a great asset to the encyclopedia, other than an unfortuante history of conflict, which from my view largely comes from my tackling spammers and people who introduce POV and uncited claims in articles that tend to attract some nutty ideas. Why Arcayne thinks he can set up his own personal ruling that I be banned from editing an article is beyond me, but I think that admins ought to make it clear to him that such behavior goes way beyond acceptable behavior.

As far as Elonka, she has a long history of choosing to interpret anything I do as a violation thanks to a longstanding grudge based upon her getting permanently banned at one point (clarify: obviously it didn't, as she's here now. when I saw that she had been indef blocked after I reported her activity, I was the first to say I thought her behavior did not warrant such a severe punishment) in the past after she had left harassing comments on my talk page for months. In this particular instance, Arcayne has clearly demonstrated bad faith, and my pointing that out is not "assuming" bad faith or personal attacking him, it's just the natural conclusion of what he has been doing for a year. Insisting that he has to personally approve all of my edits before I make them is arguably bad faith, but when he reverts all of my edits with the claim that I need to discuss things on the talk page first, immediately after he has just deleted the conversation off the talk page, I honestly don't know how anyone could possibly justify that as anything but bad faith. I would think that if Elonka took the time to get past her animosity and investigate the edits in question she would agree that Arcayne has made highly inappropriate actions. Here are edits to show what I mean:

Here are my recent edits to the article (note that I made these individually so that single ones could be reverted if someone had an issue -- Arcayne just reverted back to an old version of the article -- and that I provide edit comments):

"Removed uncited claim that's just wrong", "Writing on the Wall: change to Goulston Street Graffito, per reliable sources -- three quoted and plenty more could be provided.", "Goulston Street Graffito: no source given the Scotland Yard preferred this interpretation. In fact we know that it was not favored by a majority of officials", "Goulston Street Graffito: trying to fix screwed up ref tag so article text between it and next ref tag actually displays in article", "Goulston Street Graffito: probably a better way to fix the ref, but this should do it", "Modern perspectives: the geographical profiling being mentioned here was not done by Scotland Yard, it was done by Dr. Kim Rosmo (sic - Rossmo), and his conclusions were misrepresented on the documentary", "Goulston Street Graffito: "the wall writing" is just awkward", "See also: no real reason to list this one on a JTR page... if we list all unsolved serial killers, or even somewhat famous ones, we'd have a long see also list", "Additional reading: certainly not recommended as additional reading by anyone in the field, the book is almost universaly panned"

Look at those edits, and tell me if those look to be improper in any way.

Arcayne shows up later and first deletes almost the entire talk page: "archived older/concluded discussions" despite that some of the removed posts where added just that very same day. He then reverts all of my edits in one fell swoop: undo a lot of changes that appear to not have a consensus for change. Use the discussion page to build one, please note that many of the changes were to recently added sections, like the part about the geographical profiling, so Arcayne had no way to think those did not have consensus. he then moves to post a "warning" to my talk page "Please use the discussion page: new section") which says I should use the talk page of the article -- the same thing he had just erased! (Plus Arcayne has been told several times that his "warnings" on my talk page are not constructive -- both myself and an admin have in the past told him that he should no longer post to my personal talk page and please leave all discussion to article talk pages, because continuing to do so was being harassing). So I tried to bring the article talk page back to what it was so recent discussion could be restored, but he reverted and claimed: "no, I am sorry. The most recent of the archived conversations was concluded over a week ago. Please stop being disruptive" which is simply not true, it was active as of that same day. I also restored the article to the edits I had made, saying that Arcayne did not have the right to blind revert the entire article. After that a number of other editors made changes, but when Arcayne saw that I had put my changes back he undid ALL of our edits: "then add them, after finding consensus, one by one. Don't add them in and expect us to swallow it en toto. You are being disruptive, and you will not be asked to stop again". He then added a very uncivil comment to the talk page (this edit) where he tries to restart an argument by making claims that had already been responded to and disproved on the version of the talk page that he had erased, and which he rants that authors on Jack the Ripper are all money-grubbing amateur hacks that should be ignored (this is a constant theme of his on the talk page), despite several of the authors I have added cites for over the years (Martin Fido, Philip Sugden, etc.) being highly respected professional academics and historians.

And this is not new behavior. He's been doing this for about a year now. In the previous flap the edits I made which he reverted included spelling fixes, changes where I added new sources for sentences tagged as needed sources, fixed spellings of author's names and all sorts of things that nobody can have any reason for assume there'd be "no consensus" to do. More diffs can be provided if necessary, but a look through the history of the article and talk pages brings them up pretty rapidly.

So, please, admins: what are the rules on WP:OWNership of an article? I know what they are, but despite my pointing it out to Arcayne and other editors on the page, Arcayne still just takes it upon himself to declare that I am never allowed to edit the article, and that if I do he'll revert each and every change. Would someone please officially let him know that such behavior is not allowed here? DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have moved to WP:AE. I recommend closing this ANI thread. --Elonka 04:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna Quist (talk · contribs · logs) and The Anarchist International

Anarchist International was AfD'd to death and re-created more than once (similarly, but differently), and salted. (I was completely uninvolved, as far as I recall.) It recently popped up as The Anarchist International, which to me smells like a wrong title at best. It had already been userfied so I deleted it. I didn't salt it, and while I was writing my reasoning for deleting it, it was re-created. I don't have any strong feelings about it, and I have to say that everybody involved is being polite; there's no big drama (yet). Another unrelated admin should take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

HI. I recreated whilst trying to remove the CSD#G4. This appears to be a substantially different article from the AfD and may not be G4. WP:DRV does not apply. The original AfD is NOT CONTESTED. Instead the editor has tried to improve. I am also neutral (but I did CSD the last version). A number of experienced editors have been involved in guiding this editor (User:Delldot, User:Maxim). I think more discussion should take place. See the chat at User talk:Anna Quist. --triwbe (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted with the above) Interesting case here. Anarchist International, written by User:Anna Quist was deleted as unverifiable/possible hoax as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International, and subsequently deleted twice more as a repost when she tried to reintroduce it. It was userfied to User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International where Anna partially rewrote it, adding many external links such that admin User:Maxim granted her permission to publish it, which she has at The Anarchist International. The article has a decided lack of claim to notability or reliable sources. A person using the same pseudonym was banned from Anarchism.net for trolling, and I strongly suspect our blocked editor User:74.208.16.12 to be the same individual behind the Anna Quist identity (cf. search for "ochlarchical").

In the meantime, Anna has been adding comments to anarchism-related articles with absurd claims about the following supposed groups: "The probaly largest anarchist organization in the world today is the Anarchist International", "The probably largest anarcha-feminist organization in the world is the Anarchafeminist International", "The probably larges green anarchist organization in the world is the The Green Anarchist International Association (GAIA) ", who all, strangely enough for such prominent organizations, all link to the same website. A possible explanation from the actual International Federation of Anarchists which Anna's group appears to impersonate is here (denial here). The picture that emerge is that this is a group of a handful of people who have been operating for decades now, inventing fronts for themselves to appear as a prominent organization, and spamming themselves everywhere in sight.

(Some optional additional context: "Nobel Peace Prize 2006 and Anarchy.no" and "anarchy.no" from Libcom.org;"Wow, you folks are amazing!", and "AI on Wikipedia"/"In case you've been wondering what the AI-lings have been up to" by our very own Zazaban (talk · contribs) on Anarchism.net. When the anarchist communists and anarcho-capitalists are in agreement, it really must be something.)

So what is to be done here? WP:AGF and take this to deletion review, with a caution to Anna to be more careful adding unreliably sourced content from a conflict of interest to articles? Or cut to the chase with a block? Disclaimer: I am a participant in the Anarchism task force and misguidedly tried to make sense of the Anarchist International article. Notifying Anna of this thread. Skomorokh 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think one more AfD should do the trick. Documenting all of this, and the past AfD's, and notifying the admins who have deleted or otherwise salted it, and anyone else who has a connection. Synergy 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have been posting on anarchism.net and if Anna Quist's behaviour on that forum is any indication on how she it(we on anarchism.net is not sure if Anna is actually a woman or even if it is only one individual posting under the login Anna Quist) will behave here. It will ignore any warnings and it will keep posting the same thing over and over no matter what. Per Bylund the owner of anarchism.net has a strong policy of not banning for any reason but was forced to ban Anna Quist for a week which didn't work in the end as other alleged Norwegian people such as Jorgen V. likewise allegedly involved in Anarchism International(though we think it is the same person or persons as in Anna Quist just on another account and computer) came and haunted the forum. I see no other remedy other than a block. If User:Anarcho-capitalism deserved to be banned(a solution that seem to have solved a lot of conflict). Anna Quist definitely deserves a block at first sight of distress. Lord Metroid (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some more input on this? The article is currently back at Anarchist International; should it go to AfD or DRV? I'll take Synergy's advice barring dissent. Skomorokh 13:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Anna if she would prefer the article to be speedily deleted #G7 so that she may try to improve it and recreate it later. A 2nd AfD, the other choice, if it gave a del decision, would be the final death of this article. Can we give her time to respond ? --triwbe (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but I would like to see some action against her other behaviour, specifically copypasting heaps of text in irrelevant locations (see the section immediately below this, WP:ATF), and the obvious falsehoods she has introduced about the supposedly most popular anarcho-whatever groups as shown above. I think we need to ask whether she is an asset to the project as things stand. Skomorokh 14:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved The Anarchist International to the very salty title Anarchist International, because I'm sure that if the article is to exist the latter is the right title for it. (I tried to say this earlier but couldn't get a connection to WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is no response to the CSD/AfD question in 24 hours I will ask for CSD so that Anna can have another chance and save it from a risky AfD. --triwbe (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. It's being torn to shreds in the mainspace. Skomorokh 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough time has already been wasted on this. I don't think that the article should have been allowed to reemerge; but since it was allowed to do so, let it go to AfD again, and sooner rather than later. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And off to AfD it has gone. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The so called "anorg-warning" is entirely false

The reason for the deletion of the first AI-wiki-page was the so called "anorg-warning": This document is entirely false, quoting from my talk pags: "[edit] Anarchist International Anarchist International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log) De-prodded, posting on behalf of Zazaban. Prod summary was "Per WP:HOAX; http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html and WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR" delldot talk 02:01, 28 June 2008

The http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html is a total hoax, the stuff on this link is about 100% rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) (UTC)

Strong Delete Per above. There is strong reason to believe this organization consists of only User:Anna Quist and at most 2 or 3 others. No evidence has ever been offered up of otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC) delete in favor or anarchy, lets delete it!Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Strong Delete: No verifiable evidence of the existence, let alone notability of AI. Significant amounts of the material on the anarchy.no site have been shown to be plagiarized, and other material simply copied from Wikipedia itself. Libertatia (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Vanity/COI issues as well. History page shows that two primary editors are self-proclaimed members of the "International." Libertatia (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This is also false and rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html .(Anna Quist (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))"

---

If you have any questions about AI I will answer

(Anna Quist (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Attack post/defamation on Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

Hi. There was a rather defamatory post made by an IP (Special:Contributions/122.109.146.74) at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page (dif). I've reverted it from there, and Zzuuzz picked it up on another page, but I'm wondering (given that the person's full name is mentioned) it should be removed from the history as well. Thus, I raise it here. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any obviously identifiable personal information; still, it can't hurt to pass this over to WP:OVERSIGHT for review. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed oversight as the pages are high traffic and admin deleting them will likely cause server lag. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't worried as to which way it should go, but figured it was worth raising here either way. Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic user Rjecina

• User:Rjecina seems to be engaged in problematic behaviour for quite a while - persistant habit of personal attacks against other editors, edit warring, deletion of referenced material, removal of warning tags related to this, repeated personal attacks and disqualifications of other editors in edit summaries, refusal to talk to other editors etc. Could someone please try to cool him down and make him follow the basic wikipedia rules. Joka (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence, please. Also note that this user has few, if any, edits, and that User:Rjecina has a recent history of being stalked by brand-new accounts. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina has in particular made offensive remarks against me (calling me "nationalistic editor", "nationalistic SPA account" etc. He repeatedly removed my warnings (related to these remarks, and also related to removal of valid referes) [75], [76]. He repeatedly removes valid references, in particular, article Srbosjek that has been nominated for deletion (he has asked User:DIREKTOR to nominate the article as evident from their talk page, but this user has honourably admited that returned references are valid and prove the item existed; similar thing happens in article Miroslav Filipović‎ and Petar Brzica - for instance, he puts misleading information in edit summaries, saying that only english language references are valid [77], and keeps removing valid references despite being warned of the wikipedia policies (and srbosjek article has been kept since references provided have been deemed credible by wikipedia comunity; similarly, DIREKTOR has refused to follow him in other articles in which he is edit warring despite the references provided). He seems to be thinking every one user who is restoring the references is one user who he is obsessed with; that he is engaged in edit war with some users (like User:J. A. Comment who he has slandered claiming he is a banned user), some of whom might also be problematic, is certainly no excuse for this incivil behavior. I have not been editing wikipedia since last year when I put references to Srbosjek, and recent deletion proposal has drawn my attention to this again - I am certainly not a new user, as I have edited wikipedia occasionaly since 2003 (I have added some photos that are now deleted and described them, and was more active in the past as evident from my talk page); in any case, no editor should be exposed to personal attacks, slander, accusations, and referenced material should not be removed like that. Joka (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My two red cents - from [78] you can see this

Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper warning is given here [79],[80] which reads:

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([81]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see from the archive where Rjecina was harrasing others - baselessly claiming that the others are someone's sock-puppets:

• Procrustes_the_clown: [82], Marechiel, Votec: [83], Mike Babic: [84]

[85],

Removal of references and complete contributions without any explanation, or on baseless accusiations that these contributions were made by banned users:

• Srbosjek: [86], Ljubo Milos: [87], Miroslav Filipovic: [88], Petar Brzica: [89]

--66.217.131.99 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: two IPs added the previous comment: this is the first IP's only edit on Wikipedia, the second IP deleting the first one's signature has one more edit from 2006.

Also note: in the case of Mike Babic see the diff:

Probably unnecessary, case is obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

which is also confirmed by another admin.

So please check the diffs above. Squash Racket (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is the same anon user, who is editing from dynamic IP; I have noticed that user in the 66.xxxxx range is one of the people who Rjecina is warring with so my guess is that it is that person; certainly, there are a few users that Rjecina has been harassing for a while; I only got involved in this after noting that srbosjek is up for deletion again, and got attacked by Rjecina - his issues with other editors should not be excuse for attacking me or anyone indeed, and comments from people who he was edit warring with for quite a while before are indeed helpful here; my strongest objection is to removal of warnings and personal attack-type edit sumaries, that I have experienced, but certainly Rjecina issues go much deeper. Disruptive behaviour like that seems to go against anyone who disagrees with his removals of sourced material. Joka (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) again...

Resolved

 – indeffed --Rodhullandemu 12:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned user now editing as Heteroguardian (talk · contribs).--Ave Caesar (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

banned user Logitech95 (talk · contribs) again...

Resolved

 – see note below

Logitech95 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) currently banned by Admin Future Perfect atSunrise.[90]

This banned user now editing as Factmen(newbie), Shawnjw15(newbie) accounts.

Logitech95's edit [91] reverted by Future Perfect atSunrise [92]

Factmen (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) [93][94]

Shawnjw15 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) [95] Manacpowers (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's blocked for two weeks not banned (block-wise) though he is topic banned. Anyway. This looks obvious to me so I'm blocking the socks indef and tagging them. Plus extending Logitech95's block two weeks, to total a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Property is theft!

Resolved

 – Article protected for a bit and participants pointed at DR. — Coren ^(talk) 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been a slow-burning edit war at this article primarily between Jemmy Button (talk · contribs · logs), who wants certain reliably sourced but possibly irrelevant or misleading information removed from the article, and SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · logs), who maintains the material is well-referenced and relevant. They have been reverting each other and talking past each other for about a week, although only reverting at a rate of about twice a day. I had enough of it and posted comments to both of their talkpages and on the article talkpage to the effect that the edit-warring should end and they should agree, pursue mediation, disengage or be faced with a bloc. Shortly after Jemmy reverted without bothering to leave a comment on the talkpage or explain why he was reverting in the edit summary. I think this merits a block, as he obviously does not intend on ceasing edit-warring: "Of course I am edit warring! What else can I do when the other editor will not respond and is edit warring?". Failing that, a final and unequivocal warning to cease or be blocked from an uninvolved admin would help matters.

Disclaimer: I am involved in the content dispute, and have generally favoured including the disputed material, so don't take my word for any of this. Your attention is appreciated, Skomorokh 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article and pointed everyone at dispute resolution. — Coren ^(talk) 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo and JJL

A rather difficult situation has been playing out on the Talk:Taekwondo page over recent months, and I'd welcome administrators' comments on how best to proceed:

The Taekwondo article has a history section in which theories concerning the martial art's origin are cited: that taekwondo is of Korean origin, that it's of Japanese origin, and that its origins are a mingling of influences. Edit wars and protracted debates have focused on this section, with the two extreme positions being represented by User:JJL and User:Manacpowers. JJL asserts that taekwondo is essentially Japanese karate and that no reliable sources say otherwise; Manacpowers asserts that taekwondo is Korean, and that sources support that.

While neither have comported themselves well, JJL has been particularly disruptive by questioning the appropriateness and reliability of nearly every source that presents the Korean position. This usually takes the form of asserting that the source doesn't meet WP:RS[96], doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV, that its author is unqualified or biased[97][98], or that its inclusion is inappropriate under a host of Wikipedia guidelines (WP:UNDUE, WP:SOURCES, WP:NONENG, etc.), sometimes a bit rudely.[99][100] While raising questions is fine, the volume and intensity of such questions (and the effort required to respond to them) has ground productive editing nearly to halt and to me suggests an effort to game the system.

I, User:Omnedon, User:Nate1481 and other editors have sought compromise and have tried our best to accommodate JJL and to address the points he raises. The position JJL supports is presented neutrally in the page along with the others and is backed by reliable sources, some of which I researched and added myself. However, he won't stop debating and seems to have as his goal the preferred placement of the Japanese view[101] above the opposing "myth".[102] I'm happy to do anything I can to ensure a fair and well-cited presentation, but months of discussion and two attempts at mediation have so far been fruitless, and he seems no closer now to acknowledging opposing theories than when we began.

What is an appropriate step at this point? I welcome any assistance! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid things are now turning a bit hostile, with JJL trying to characterize me as a belligerent. (The latest is in this thread.) Things are certainly spiraling and I'm at a loss to know how to proceed! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Reporting a Threat for Ban in Violation of the Banning Concept.

Hello, I would like to report a complaint for an administrator's violation of the statement "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." ? I have recently been insistently threated by User BalkanFever to be banned for punishment due to variance of opinions on the article Aegean Macedonians. Please visit my personal discussion page. User_talk:Dimorsitanos#Your_comments.

Thanks you. In expectance of your response.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BF isn't an administrator. I'll be happy to notify him of this thread though. Beam 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I read it, you were warned that you may be blocked, not that you may be banned (there is a difference), and the reason for the warning wasn't a variance of opinions, but because of what BalkanFever perceived as being a personal attack by you, on him, not once but twice. _GB^T/C 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning in that case was fair. Let's all try to drop it and move on to articles, please.--chaser - t 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not focusing on whether it is fair or not. But, I do know this was in violation of this page's statement "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." and obviously this so-called personal attack did not aim to disrupt the course of the wikipedia project. It aimed to avoid using expression as "crap" against a nation's sensitivity towards an offensive, as stated at the wikipedia macedonian-related conventions, term of "Aegean Macedonians". As for what a user perceives as personal attack is up to his comprehensive abilities.

--Dimorsitanos (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are considered disruptive in and of themselves. When you interrupt another editor's rhythm to call them names, they lose train of thought, have to spend time responding, either by asking you to stop ro getting admins, who in turn have to interrupt their editing, or else let the offending editor continue such assaults until they become a bully, or are thoroughly ignored, at which time it's likely that they begin making directly disruptive edits to articles to get their way because they are being ignored. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not disagree with that. But please inform me of what offensive means in wikipedia. A remark of crap, or a question of civilazation. I know this may disrupt your editing course for a while, but I believe matters of proper conduct are significant enough for the wikipedia course, as they are being mentioned at the wikipedia policies.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

When you find yourself in any kind of disagreement on Wikipedia, don't make comments about other editors at all. Comment only on article content or the topic at hand, along with any sources. Even what you think of as the mildest of nudges or hints about another editor can (and likely will) be taken as an overbearing slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is what Gwen points out bad enough, but then some overzealous user (or even worse admin) will get you blocked for such a thing. Even if you were right, the comment is barely uncivil in the strictest interpretation of WP:CIVIL. Beam 17:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If my sensitivity towards a wikipediately recognized as an offensive term is treated as an unacceptable uncivil personal attack, it's like admitting this community is a lobby shieldind overzealous administrators. That's what I wanted to know. You proved my point. Thank you for that.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessary take what Beam says as proof that Wikipedia is saturated with overzealous admins. I don't think any admin would block you for saying "Are you civilized?" and I agree that calling other people's positions "crap" wasn't really WP:CIVIL, but I would take what Gwen said into consideration. –xeno (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dimorsitanos, likewise I must say, you weren't blocked and would not have been for such a mild remark. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know, thank you.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that with a mild remark made like that, by anyone, should not be blockable via WP:CIVIL. But some administrators get trigger happy and at the slightest proximity to WP:CIVIL you get a 24 hour for it. Or, worse, an admin who is arguing with you or just doesn't like your POV, or is friends with the other party in the dispute, and you say a "mild remark" you might get blocked. Beam 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

IP 75.51.224.162‎, and the Empire of Somple...

The IP address 75.51.224.162, as well as his/her/its username User:KenshinHolstein‎ and suspected sockpuppet (who admits to at least being a meatpuppet) User:SompleGovern‎, created Empire of Somple (a non-notable micronation with absolutely no mention anywhere other than 2 self-published articles on other wikias and a freeweb website). The article was prodded, 2nd'd, then wound up being CSD'd. The entire time, he/she/it has been argueing that the micronation is notable. Between the IP and the 2 usernames, he/she/it violated 3RR on a couple different pages (List of micronations, Republic of Molossia‎, and Micronation). He/She/It refuses to listen to any explaination of WP:V, and since the article was salted, has now started pasting a copy of the deleted article to Wikipedia:Sandbox [103] [104].

I'd just like to get a third (or fourth) party opinion on what to do about this situation. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

nonsensical RFCU

Resolved

 – already deleted. –xeno (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please take a look at this request for checkuser because it makes absolutely no sense. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

11:52, July 27, 2008 C.Fred (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CWii" ‎ (G3: Bad faith request created by apparent sockpuppet of indef blocked user) (restore) –xeno (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills article

Does every section need this? [105]. Does my head in just looking at the first two <!-- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - do not delete referenced sentences --> and <!-- This aricle is up for a GA review - please respect that --> . Bidgee (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

seems like something best brought up at Talk:Heather Mills. –xeno (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Hopefully this will be discussed on the article talk page but meanwhile I've removed the hidden messages as clever, good faith GA spam. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They were reverted back in. I took them out again. Twice. That someone would think this was appropriate, let alone necessary, is a bit depressing. Nandesuka (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave up after one try. Anything I could think of to say about it seemed too shrill. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

I have notified Raul654 (talk · contribs) and two other checkusers about this thread. I didn't contact him first because frankly I didn't think it would do much good, as I've expressed concerns about blocking patterns by Raul.

Raul has been blocking a simply ghastly amount of IPs in order to try to snuff out blocked Scibaby (talk · contribs). I've already expressed concern before that Raul is misusing his administrator tools with people he has a content dispute with (the thread was duly ignored: please note this does not include Scibaby, a sockpuppeteer). However, this blocking is simply above the pale; I don't have a checkuser tool, but I do see the several requests for unblock-auto affected by this every day, and I do have an IP range contribution tool which shows other editors on most of these ranges.

Range blocks include: /16:

1. 72.254.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
2. 207.67.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
3. 72.62.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
4. 68.27.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
5. 72.61.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
6. 198.172.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
7. 128.241.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
8. 72.58.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
9. 70.6.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
10. 205.212.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
11. 99.204.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
12. 99.203.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
13. 99.200.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
14. 66.215.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by Raul.
15. 68.26.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
16. 207.195.128.0/17 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
17. 66.215.64.0/18 - 1 year, AO ACB, ACB overturned.
18. 207.195.224.0/19 - 1 year ACB
19. 209.59.48.0/20 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
20. 99.204.37.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
21. 72.62.103.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
22. 68.27.123.0/24 - 1 year ACB
23. 205.212.78.0/24 - 1 year ACB
24. 128.241.109.0/24 - 1 year ACB
25. 71.196.216.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
26. 209.59.44.0/24 - 1 year ACB
27. 64.215.225.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
28. 207.67.151.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
29. 209.59.56.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
30. 207.195.244.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
31. 130.94.134.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
32. 128.241.107.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB

This is a lot of IP addresses, and it only includes the ones designed to get Scibaby (there are others that have been problems, such as 213.249.0.0/16 - 1 year, overturned by the Office).

I believe these IP ranges should be unblocked. WP:RBI works best when dealing with one banned editor, not hard blocking over a million IP addresses. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Concur This is quite a large block. I like to hear from Raul, but absent any comments, I think these should be removed. This is something not even IP block exemption can scale to relieve, at least that was not the intent of the policy when I proposed it. Yeah, these blocks need looked at. As an aside, Raul does some good work on the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum to above: All this for one sockpuppet? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Too much collateral damage, methinks. –xeno (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an impressive ammount of ranges, how come this was done for Scibaby AKA Obedium, when it hasn't been done for the puppeters with 200+ registered accounts and countless IP addresses? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious, what was the original block reason? –xeno (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have brought this kind of thing up before (as can be seen from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive399#Improper_block). From what I can tell, User:Obedium - sockmaster- was blocked because Raul determined he was POV pushing on a global warming article and blocked him (the only people Raul ever blocks are people who POV push against global warming and for intelligent design). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems the answer to my question is: "Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV." –xeno (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I missed that in the block log. But I thought this was obvious given the nature of the case :). The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a quote from that thread you linked me to. –xeno (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul tends to prefer a ridiculous "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" approach, and apparently is intolerant of any criticism of it. Just a heads-up; I've had a run-in with him in the past over a similar issue. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time I ran into Raul's enthusiastic range blocking; and I see their effects at regular interval on unblock-l— there is such a thing as unacceptable collateral damage, and I think this has crossed that line. I would hope Raul would acknowledge the fact that he may have been a little overzealous and that he might want to ease up on the /16 blocks a bit. — Coren ^(talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

He won't, although he should. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Solutions

For this particular instance, is there a consensus, or can we discuss unblocking these specific ranges? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to wait to hear from Raul what the reason for the blocks are. Some time ago when he detected increased scibaby activity he protected all the Global warming related articles. So, perhaps something similar is going on and he has tried a different tactic.

This is necessary to prevent the editors at Global Warming page from wasting their time reverting an Armada of scibaby socks. When that happens their editing pattern betray them and they are banned without doing a checkuser per WP:DUCK, and WP:Waste of Time as happened to User:Shenstar :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we could be turning away potentially valuable contributors with these rangeblocks, as evidenced by the numerous unblock-auto requests that come through. It seems we're making a trade-off of user time spent protecting a small set of articles and potentially losing valuable contributions to a larger set. –xeno (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While some banned users are real pests and require drastic action to keep them off of the project, I wonder if these blocks are the best way. In my experience, banned users who have access to many IPs usually stop using an IP after it's been blocked, even if only for a short time. Unless he keeps returning to the same ranges perhaps shorter blocks would serve the same purpose while signifciantly reducing the collateral damage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A wonderful solution would be to desysop Raul. Unlike Bedford, Raul actually did something wrong--and so the community (and only the community) should endorse desysopping him. He's caused way too many problems. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, he is only causing problems for the global warming denial propagandists. Anyway, this is the previous case and my proposed solution, which admittedly is not so easy to implement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And the unfortunate souls who happen to use ISPs that are allocated IP addresses in that same range and who would like to contribute. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't they just ask for the block to be overturned? In these cases one could allow them to create an acount and then notify Raul about that created account so that the new editor can be monitored to see if it is not Scibaby slipping through the net. Count Iblis (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot of hoops to make a potential good faith contributor jump through. I would gather a good number of them say "sod it" and are lost forever. That proposed solution sounds like it could benefit from the stable revision enhancement. –xeno (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's Response?

Has anyone been able to contact him? Has he made edits since being notified, is he ignoring this? Email? Does anyone know his usual log on time? I think there shouldn't be any mass revet action taken until we hear from him. Unless he's ignoring this, than I say some further discussion is warranted immediately. Beam 01:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He most certainly has edited since; his last was just over an hour ago. I was looking at this earlier. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Raul doesn't usually edit wikipedia on Sunday. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tile join blocks

Just a note that Raul has also blocked large ranges of UK dynamic IPs when it would be simpler to just protect the articles that this one attacks. There are swathes of the most popular IPs blocked for 1 year, including BT, Tiscali and Sky. The thing is that even these rangeblocks are completely pointless, because short of blocking the entire ISP (tens of millions of addresses in some of these cases), one can just reboot the router and end up with a completely different IP anyway. I am on BT and my IP bounces between absolutely dozens of /16 blocks every time I switch off my PC and router. Examples;

• 81.153.64.0/18 (BT)
• 79.76.0.0/17 (Tiscali)
• 90.200.0.0/16 (Sky)

Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Half-cocked

Let's not go off half-cocked here. I just handled an unblock request from 207.195.224.0/19. There were only about 8 active IPs on that range, so I took a closer look. That range is owned by a hosting company. Hosting companies frequently host misconfigured web servers that act as open proxies and many hosting companies don't give a flying fig about the security position of their clients. Every IP on that range that has recent edits is an anonymous proxy, so I've reblocked the range with a different reason. Anyone who unblocks Raul's blocks without a damn thorough check and who thereby enables vandalism or socking is going to get a personal trout slap from me. Thatcher 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's reply

First, I'd like to start this out by noting that The Evil Spartan has a history of making false and/or misleading statements about my actions, based on either ignorance or a distorted understanding of them. He has apparently chosen to continue this trend here. Above, he says that Obedium was the sockpuppet master, and that I blocked him because I disagreed with him. This is false on several counts - Scibaby was the sockmaster - he was the first one discovered, based on a checkuser request , and was blocked by William M. Connelley. I had nothing to do with that particular block. Months later, I did block Obedium for vandalism, and a few days thereafter (following some checkuser queries) I changed the block reason to include being a scibaby sockpuppet. All of this is available in the Scibaby and Obedium block logs - had Evil Spartan bothered to check them. Apparently these thing are "obvious" to him, the actual facts of the case not withstanding. It's not the first time he's leveled that particular false claim either.

Now, about the range blocks -- The Spartan suggests that we Revert-Block-Ignore Scibaby's misbehavior. There are several problems with this approach - first, that it demonstrably doesn't work. He simply creates new accounts and comes back. It's been almost a year since he was first caught and blocked, but several hundred socks later, he shows no signs of stopping. The only method that has proven even half effective is to prevent him from registering new accounts. Second, constantly dealing with Scibaby's nonsense burns out the people who actually have to clean up the damage (Raymond Arrit quit over it). I'm sure it's easy for Evil Spartan to suggest that people RBI, given that he hasn't actually done a scintilla of work dealing with Scibaby. Those who do edit these articles, however, are quite clear in their desire to keep them Scibaby free. He wastes a great deal of time and effort from other contributors that could be better spent writing articles. Third, the ranges do not affect anyone with an account. People who do not have accounts can contact unblock-en-l and ask for one. Fourth, the ranges above were not blocked willy-nilly. I avoid blocking highly active ranges - if a /16 is active, I block the /24. Thatcher has already noted this elsewhere in this thread.

To reply to Will Beback - I started instituting year-long range blocks in place in or around February. (After shorter ones failed to stop Scibaby) He still hasn't stopped. Therefore, if after 6 months of consistent range blocks he's still coming back, it stands to reason that shorter blocks will not stop him either.

And lastly - I'm not even going to get into how ludicrous Kurt's comments are. Anyone who's seen his participation elsewhere on Wikipedia should have a pretty good idea of the soundness of his judgment. But to rebut one thing he said, he claimed (falsely) that I edited an hour before he did - several hours after I got Spartan's notice on my talk page. Apparently Kurt has issues reading dates and times. My last edit prior to this one was a full 20 hours before I got The Spartan's note on my talk page, not (as Kurt said) an hour before his edit at 01:32, 28 July 2008. Raul654 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are several hardblocks, could they be tweaked to anon-only? –xeno (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Use of carefully applied, anon-only range blocks to help control this level of disruption is fully justified. Volunteer burn-out is a serious issue when dealing with serial sockpuppeteers, and it's dismaying to see those who aren't actually dealing with the sockpuppeter giving back-seat advice on what would actually work to those who are dealing with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If the options are spend all our time cleaning up after jerks, or just quitting and doing better things with our time, because we can't take serious measures to stop said jerks, I think it's obvious what most people will be doing. ThuranX (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Based on Rauls experience, and vested nature into the project, I'm inclined to give Raul the benefit here. The rationale sure makes sense. I apologize Raul. Continue the work you do. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the fact that people/IPs can request to be unblocked is enough to determine that this did not belong on AN/I, as this is a topic that does not deserve to have anyone waste their time on, let alone should Raul, with his constant dedication and experience here, be questioned in such a strange way. Can't this be closed and killed already? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Have the hardblocks been tweaked yet? –xeno (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone is requesting unblock for any of those IPs to create an account, why would it matter? Wikipedia acts preventively, and so far this has been effectively preventive. Your concern seems unwarranted and would not stop the socks from being created. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Raul. — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. It isn't that an ip couldn't request an unblock, it's that an actual new editor, the most valuable resource in all of the lands of the 'pedai we hold so dear, might not know what a template is, or even where the { symbol is on their keybaord. And when they realize they are actually blocked, they're already gone. Beam 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's turning away new editors. As an editor whose ip (from one of the places I regularly edit from) falls into one of the blocked scibaby ranges, I can attest to the fact that I'm unaffected by the block once I log in. I'm not aware of what particular disruption scibaby has caused, but I do know that a disruptive sock farmer can cause frustration enough to inspire an exodus of existing volunteers, so it makes sense to take aggressive measures to halt the disruption in order to not lose valuable editors. There's enough information on the block message that comes up for a potential new editor who hasn't created an account yet to contact the blocking admin to ask for help to proceed--I know there was enough info for me to email Raul the first time I got hit with the scibaby block message just to let him know the block was hitting a regular editor's ip. I don't see any real negative effects caused by these blocks, especially if it's effective in stopping the disruption. --MPerel 05:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hagger"

I randomly chose to browse Wikipedia by different languages and noticed that Tigrinya (spoken by Eritreans and northern Ethiopians) was on the list. As I have an interest in languages that developed alongside with Coptic, Greek, and Ethiopic, I decided to check it out.

I saw that the main page said "HAGGER" at the top, and that sort of freaked me out, because User:Grawp, who has a sort of obsession with typing "hagger" and using socks, sent me an email filled with disturbing spam, and prompted me to email an alert User:B, the guy who blocked Grawp from emailing others. I was also surprised because main page in other languages can be edited anonymously.

...It turns out that it was a single revision made by an anonymous edit authored by 67.83.35.73—here's the diff page.

In fact, in that page, the screen is still covered by the edit, so better yet, here's the history.

What makes the whole thing even worse is that it took six hours for someone to spot it, and it just happened to by myself.

Now I really think there should be some sort of common protection for different languages—something that covers vulnerable pages like George W. Bush, the main page, and so forth.

...does anyone know how connected these languages are and how they are currently regulated??? Also, is there a way to intercede in such matters in different language versions? ~ Troy (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias are common targets for them as security and response time increases here. I believe there is, or was, a discussion regarding global sysops ongoing, which would speak to the issue of under-represented other-language projects. –xeno (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why the heck can someone edit the main page? I've never heard of it. One other question: when you say that there was a discussion, what would be the conclusion on that? Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Poorly configured, I suppose. See: meta:Metapub/Archives/2008-07#Global_sysops_.28poll.29_.28closed.29 - The results of the poll are yet to be announced. –xeno (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a dead link to me. ~ Troy (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC) :/

Try again, or this direct link. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

About editing the main page -- some wikis don't have full protection on the main page or don't have the full protection cascaded --> the az.wikipedia's main page got hit by Grawp a couple days ago too. And what happened to global rollback? I thought there was a discussion about that too? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You've read my mind. There should be global rollback.

You should know that some languages have no admins or only one admin, though, so it's quite complex.

There should still be semi-protection at least—I'm willing to pressure for some sort of solution if I have to. ~ Troy (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, if there are few or no admins, rollback should still be granted to someone. ~ Troy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is really just an easier way to simply load up an old version of the page, edit it, and click save... Just in case you didn't know. Also, cross-wiki vandalism can be reported here (meta:Vandalism reports)–xeno (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that the Tigrinya Wikipedia has zero admins, and zero admins is too few for any Wikipedia. I note that it's no longer possible to get a realistic view of the ratio of users to admins, though, because of global login. Apparently I'm now considered an editor at the Tigrinya Wikipedia, because I clicked over there, even though I don't even have a Tigrinya font on my computer to display the language, much less could I read it even if I did. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a proposal at Meta to implement a global sysop bit, which would have addressed cross project abuse of this type and worse. English language Wikipedians prevented it from passing, and when a modified version got proposed that would have exempted English language Wikipedia, English language Wikipedians shot that down too. And many if not most of these cross project abuses originate at English Wikipedia and migrate elsewhere. If it sounds like this project is collectively behaving illogically and making life harder for the other WMF projects' volunteers, well--imagine what the volunteers on those other projects think. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it failed? I didn't realize. Where is the decision? –xeno (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At Meta. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes , the same link I linked above I suppose. They left the "poll closed - results unannounced" banner up for whatever reason. –xeno (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the same vandalism at the Tigrinya main page and reverted again. I think the proposal Durova mentions should be reconsidered. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max, part 2

Previous AN/I thread

User:Theserialcomma's tenditious editing continues unabated since the last AN/I I filed a little under two weeks ago. He continues to wikilawyer points into the ground. Occasionally he is right, generally he is not - see Talk:Tucker Max and note that most discussions have been instigated by Theserialcomma.

User also demonstrates ownership issues - his talk page edits and edit summaries frequently contain things such as "will be removed" [106] [107] [108] [109].

However, the real problem with this user is his unwillingness to refrain from personal attacks against me. Even if the personal attacks are not strictly "flames", they definitely violate the policy of discuss the argument, not the person.

These difs are not in chronological order, sorry. [110] [111] [112] [113].

When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks [114], he ignored [115], prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him [116], however, I stand by every last word of the "lash out". Speaking frankly, what I've tolerated from this user would test the patience of anyone.

User also failed to follow the RfC directions and write a neutral statement in the RfC, instead stating his PoV on the disagreement as the RfC summary. I don't have a dif for this as the RfC has ended.

As a concluding note, although there is no policy called WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE, Theserialcomma has engaged in hypocritical behavior. Here is a (correct) statement that discussion of individual users does not belong on article talk pages [117], yet, even in the diffs which while antagonistic, I didn't think warrented inclusion in an AN/I writeup, are alway addressed directly to, and about, individual users.

McJeff (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New dif, posted while I was writing this - manages to hit both incivil and OWN at the same time. [118] McJeff (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people are allowed to agree on here, but I figured I would give it a shot. It's almost farcical difficult he has been and it's a shame that he's using Wikipedia's own rules against itself. McJeff has been more than patient on this and the article is suffering. He's fighting to have decent sources removed simply out of malice and attempting to drive people away from creating a quality article by making it a frustrating experience - so he can use it to say as he pleases. If something can't be done about him, I think it needs to be locked down. TheRegicider (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? McJeff (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is for an AN/I discussion that falls off the page without having been addressed by an administrator. I am reposting it. McJeff (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussions seem inappropriately personal for an article talk page, but fall short of what would be termed personal attacks, so I cant see how to intervene as an administrator. I'd suggest simply treated them as if he meant to comment on the article by saying the same thing, but didnt know how to word it. DGG (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to increase the civility of the discourse between myself and Theserialcomma, but it's not working very well. I admit I started this discussion incivilly, but I am trying to amend that - he is not reciprocating yet. [119]McJeff (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

TSC's editing is a bit brusque, but in light of soem of what's going on at that page, like the hiding of an RfC, and contravention of the results, which read like more of a R3O than RfC (in that only one commenter appeared), I can understand the frustration. For clarit,y the 3O went for TSC's position, so three other editors asserted a consensus that TSC was opposing, and did exactly what they wanted before the RfC. Basically, there's a group of Tucker Max fans who won't let anything bad be said about the guy, and an editor seeking to include fairly reasonable criticism: That When confronted for proof, tucker max could provide no evidence of the truth of some of his stories. As Max is pretty much famous for telling such stories, proving him a liar about those stories is certainly notable. ThuranX (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculously off-base. First of all, there was never a 3O - Theserialcomma filed the 3O and RfC at the same time, and the 3O was deleted before it could be addressed. And, the reason the criticism section isn't included is because no sources that met WP:BLP could be located, not because "a bunch of editors won't let anything bad be said about the guy". And there was no "hiding" of any RfC's - the RfC is over, finished, and Theserialcomma's side won, the My Election Analysis article is no longer included as a source. McJeff (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A nationally syndicated radio show is a reliable source. The worst fault there is that it's probably closer to a primary source; additional sources might be needed. However, that's not the same as a lack of any sources. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Response: i could spend hours searching up diffs and trying to prove mcjeff wrong, and try to show that he's guilty of the the same things he's accusing me of, but i feel that would be an inefficient use of my time. if any admin takes these cherry-picked claims from mcjeff seriously, i suppose i will have to respond. but until then, i don't think the claims look strong enough to really respond yet. by the way, mcjeff had to bump this ANI from the archives because literally no admins responded the first time. it really makes me seem like he has some personal animosity against me. to any unfortunate soul willing to look at the Tucker Max situation and take the time and effort to really examine the reality of the situation, i will honestly salute your efforts regardless of the outcome. it's messy. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff claims "the rfc is over, finished, and ... (the article in question) is no longer included as a source." what he fails to mention is that he simply moved the anonymous blog from a source, down to an external link, and now firmly reverts any attempt to remove it. those are the facts, which were not mentioned Theserialcomma (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect request for Bleiburg massacre

Hi all. There's an exceptionally stubborn IP (89.164. ...) constantly removing the entire "Background" section of the Bleiburg massacre article and claiming its a "lie!" and that he knows The Truth. Pretty standard in these kind of articles, and normally they give up quickly enough, but this guy has been annoying other editors and me for weeks now. Could someone lend a hand by semi-protecting the article? The User ignores warnings and shifts his/her IP.

• Bleiburg massacre History page: [120]

• Used IPs (on Bleiburg massacre):
  • 89.164.37.8,
  • 89.164.1.50,
  • 89.164.27.224,
  • 89.164.5.220,
  • 89.164.0.246
  • 89.164.13.113
  • 89.164.7.135

• Warnings:
  • [121],
  • [122],
  • [123]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Shorty b

Twinkle misfire. The article is indeed a copyvio of this webpage. I was using twinkle to csd the thing but instead of speedy tagging it, it made me delete it. So do you think I need to restore it and tag it for speedy or should I leave it alone?--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So you wanted to just tag it to get someone elses eyes on it? Twinkle ought ask an admin if they want to tag or delete, because I know sometimes I'd rather tag things than delete, when I'm not sure. If it's blatant copyvio with nothing salvageable, I'd say leave it deleted. –xeno (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a few eyes won't hurt. But I think your advise is sound so I'll just leave it alone.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block this editor User:Shannonvanity

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, User page deleted per WP:CSD#G10. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I have to put up with this [124]. Also their actual user page looks suspect also - references to rape? Exxolon (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is inappropriate, and this user should be blocked immediately. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know this guy but, you're trying to block a user ecause he's gay, and admits to it? That's discrimintory, and serves no place on Wiki! Some of you people are pathetic! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Pray tell why he was using MY userpage to announce it? Exxolon (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Look a bit closer, Skeletal. It was vandalism to the reporting user's page. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the vandalism refers to the vandal accusing the reporting user of being such, and making it seem as if the reporting user placed that on their userpage. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Didn't notice that! Would've been nice if you had said that... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The link clearly show's the editor (Shannonvanity) and the page edited (My Userpage) - if you can't even work that out then you've got a real problem. Exxolon (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF, Exxolon. It was obviously a mistake, and Skeleton SLJCOAATR is sorry. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My AGF goes a little when I'm accused of being a "pathetic" homophobe. However I've accepted SLJ's apology on my talkpage and consider this matter resolved. Exxolon (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation edit warring

Resolved

 – CoolJuno blocked for 48 hours (block later extended for incivility on talk page)

Could someone please look at this. I would hope we could have full protection of the template on the version without all the references and contested content. Regardless I've reverted twice so will hold off for now. There is concerns of OR as well. Banjeboi 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So glad to see the talk page was respected. Looks like "Cooljuno" is at it again, ignoring consensus and the rules. Wasn't CoolJuno just here for the same behavior? ThuranX (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. See there for more on this same problem. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they've been blocked for editing-warring on this template before but I don't know if it's just them or not. As far as I'm aware there should be consensus before adding material and the footnotes on templates seems like a terrible idea. Banjeboi 02:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, before I even saw this, I just blocked him for 2 days for edit-warring on this template. CIreland (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone consider reverting the template back to the uncontested version? Banjeboi 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. CIreland, could you please review the history here and on that page and reevaluate if your block should be longer, given the lengthy build up and prior issues? ThuranX (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And this comment by the blocked user: [125] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just by the way, is it acceptable for Cooljuno's sig to look like this --Cooljuno411 (talk)? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks, disruption and continuted assumption of bad faith by User:Inclusionist

I'll be as brief as possible. I became aware of Inclusionist's actions when I noticed changes to the Article Rescue Squadron page. Inclusionist began a merger which was opposed by a number of editors (the details are archived on AN/I). That problem itself is basically smoothed over. In the ensuing discussion, Inclusionist made a series of unhelpful edits and unpleasant personal attacks listed below:

• here, resulting in a warning from me here
• The second warning here referred to this edit.
• Inclusionist received a "vandalism" warning from User:Realkyhick (Which I felt was out of place) and responded by "forging" a template message to Realkyhick here. The third warning followed here.

Since then, Inclusionist has continued to assert some that some vague relationship between me and User:Prisongangleader exists over my continued requests for explanation and retraction. The first two comments (on my talk page and on An/I) resulted in this request for him to stop. since then he has continued to assert that such a relationship exists, even going so far as to make statements such as "User:Protonk lost a supporter of his position when Prisongangleader was indefinitely booted, and has been arguing passionatly against his block since then." I have asked him to stop twice, first on his talk page (as I didn't want to cloud the block review AN/I with that discussion, then on AN/I. In response to this he has responded with some claims to further the assertion.

Given this user's block record, which includes blocks following accusations that another editor was a sock/vandal/etc, I would ask that this user be enjoined from making these accusations against me or blocked for some period. I don't consider this a matter for the dispute resolution continuum as it does not strictly involve me and another editor (though a bulk of the accusations do). I also do not consider this a "content dispute" broadly defined (despite the different content stances we have). I'm asking that the community be given some relief from disruptive editing, accusations and personal attacks. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I first met Protonk on the talk page of Article Rescue Squadron yesterday, after I made a merger that was unpopular with five editors, one being a sock. I reverted this merger, and apologized several times. This was how the merger was "smoothed over": I followed consensus, and personally reverted my own changes.

When I wrote about the merger on the talk page, user PGL began to attack this merger, along with Protonk. It was clear PGL was a sock, which JzG/Guy stated when he indefinitely booted him.

This hasn't stopped Protonk from continuing to give the sock advice, oppose the socks block, and argue with the administrator (JzG/Guy) who blocked PGL/the sock.

In an attempt to smooth things over, I removed all of my comments towards PGL on the talk page which accused PGL of being a sock, even though he was in fact a now indefinitely banned sock.

I received a "vandalism" warning from User:Realkyhick and responded by copying the same template on his talk page here. In his selective application of wikpolicy, Protonk warned me, here. Protonk admits that this template, "was out of place" above. But Protonk refused, despite repeated requests, to warn User:Realkyhick for the exact same template.

Through this all, I have been called a vandal repeated times by User:Realkyhick and User:Benonobi for mergering these three articles. There have been no warnings to either of these editors from Protonk, despite Protonk saying that I probably had no ill intent in the original merger.

I wanted to get this behind me, and I asked Protonk to stop posting on my talk page, and he continued to do so, demanding an answer to his questions.

There was some headway on Article Rescue Squadron today. User:Benonobi, who only yesterday was calling me a vandal and posted an ANI before even discussing the changes, approved and complimented some of my changes, leaving minor disputes. I reverted the changes to the Article Rescue Squadron, myself again tonight, to a version that User:Benonobi demanded, and logged off. Despite repeated requests to stop posting on my talk page, and saying to Protonk that I was leaving for the evening, Protonk created this ANI, and again posted on my talk page, stating he is posting ANI.

I find it ironic that Protonk is so eager to support an indefinitely banned sock, and at the same time so eager to block me for calling this sock, well a sock.

Please note that the 7 of my blocks on my account was requested by me, which would force me to stop editing on wikipedia. The last previous block was overturned because the admin who blocked me was involved in the dispute, and has a rich history of blocking dozens editors who he has been in edit wars, there was a lot of controversy over the block and it led to a RfC. Before this was a 07:04, 31 October 2007 block, almost a year ago, a minor edit war about subsection titles with me and another editor, there were no 3RR violations involved, and no warnings beforehand by the blocking admin. Before that was 15:17, 7 September 2006, two years ago, my last WP:NPA block, which was reverted by the blocking admin.

Protonk is selectively enforcing wikipolicy:

1. He ignores the repeated WP:NPA attacks of those who support his views, and
2. He has been vigourously defending and supporting an indefinitely banned sock.

I'm asking that the community to counsel Protonk to:

1. stop condoning and supporting editors such as indefinitely banned sock, PGL, who happen to support his viewpoint
2. stop selectively applying wikipolicy only to those editors who he opposes, while ignoring those same actions of those editors who support him.

PLEASE LET ME FINISH--edit diffs to follow. Inclusionist (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

blocked user 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs) edit...

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

this user blocked 18:26, 25 July 2008 for 48 hours by his personal attacks.[126]

Blocked period 18:26, 25 July 2008 ~ 18:26, 27 July 2008

But this blocked user created new accounts and edited as a newbie accounts for blocked period.

Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

anther Adminstrator worried about this,[127]

"I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing."

and admin worry about he is a possibly member of meatpuppet campaign which anti-Korean editing. [128]

I reported this to another admin Stifle. admin said "report his disruptive incidents at WP:ANI". [129]

This blocked user edited Taekwondo, Kowtow, Samjeondo Monument‎ for Blocked period.

Now, Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera [130]. exactly same behaviot of Pabopa[131]

210.231.12.98[132] and 210.231.14.222[133]. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa[134], too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.

Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

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

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

Manacpowers (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of these accounts have not edited in the last 12 hours. Since many throwaway accounts seem to be involved, it could be more useful to consider semiprotecting or watchlisting the set of articles (for instance Taekwondo, Kowtow et al) that are the most likely to suffer anti-Korean meatpuppet editing from 2channel.com. (This issue was discussed in a previous ANI report). Such a list would help the admins focus their thinking. Can anyone propose which articles should be on the list? EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo

There's an edit war at Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo between User:Longchenpa and User:ZuluPapa5. Both seem to have agendas in mind and both of them seem to be trying to own the article. However, Longchenpa is at least being relative reasonable and backing up his edits with sources, while ZuluPapa seems to be trying to whitewash the article by any means necessary. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The war was about whether she has had trouble for "10 years" or "23 years"? I just put it at "trouble for years" and left it alone. One of the lamer wars ever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Wilhelmina Will's no holds barred DYK race -- I propose a temporary ban for her

User:Wilhelmina Will has resorted to personal attacks in edit summaries,[135][136] for which she has been warned on her talk page, and to reverting substantive edits in articles in order to obtain the correct number of words for DYK.

Apparently she feels so secure in doing this that she is willing to admit that is her sole purpose for reverting.[137][138] I posted before on AN/I about her plagiarizing articles, and talked to her about it, but she did not respond other than to warn me away from her and admit she didn't understand what she had copied.[139]

This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace).

Based on this I have asked that the Mesodermochelys article be removed from candidates for DYK.[140]

She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award. She plagiarizes but isn't bother about it. The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately.

Is this what Wikipedia should be featuring on its main page? I don't think so. I think the main page needs a break from Wilhelminia. --Blechnic (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the DYK criteria are much stricter than the criteria for inclusion, an editor whose entire purpose is to create articles for DYK and rack up "medals" wouldn't seem to be bad on face. I can't speak to the specific problems this editor is generating but the underlying act should not be suspect in any way. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Willing to edit war, revert edits that increased accuracy and clarity in order to have the right number of words, and calling another editor "revolting" are fine by you if used for DYK, then? Ugh. --Blechnic (talk)

(ec) Oh please, Protonk, you seriously think that adding pointless verbiage to an article just to jack up its word count for DYK (which she admits doing - follow Blechnic's links) is serious, useful, appropriate editing? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know anything about the specific actions the editor in question has done. I'm just contending the general premise of this statement "This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace)...She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award." Protonk (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

She certainly did edit war for the purpose of the number of words for DYK: "My reason is to keep the main body of this article above 1500 bytes. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps something like a topic ban? No further DYK submissions from Wilhelmina until the community decides to lift the ban? If that's all she's here for, she's not doing the encyclopedia any favors. (Disclaimer: I have not evaluated Blechnic's post on the merits, but if his factual claims are accurate - which I have no reason to doubt - some kind of a circuit breaker ought to be tripped) (Another disclaimer:I am not an admin) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I suggest, no DYK submissions or credits for Wilhelmina. I'm more concerned now, after working on this latest article, about her accuracy. She clearly does not understand extinct organisms--what she is currently writing about. --Blechnic (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps the stated DYK criteria are stricter than the criteria for inclusion, but in practice, an editor can plagiarize an article from another source and have it included in DYK--then we have a big fat copyvio linked from the main page. Wilhelmina Will's behavior is sufficiently problematic that I think she (?) should be given a temporary time-out from DYK--there are credible concerns of plagiarism, and the personal attacks aren't helping. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame - there are oodles of straightforward stubs (especially in geography and botnay) just itching to be expanded out there without having to get mired in technical detail. I note Fritzpoll has offered to mentor, which may be constructive (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think any kind of ban is the answer. Wilhelmina, though a little unorthodox, is a quality contributor; we should not be persecuting her for adding new content. Further, I see little difference in the diffs you've presented, Blechnic; there is no need to go searching for a conflict merely because you dislike a user. I see no inherent problem with trying to get a lot of DYK medals; the end result is lots of high-quality articles for the project. GlassCobra 05:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't dislike or like her. Her contributions are not quality, most I've seen are copyvios or wrong. Her science is really bad. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There certainly was no reason to revert just to get the article up to the correct size. More can be added to the article, if that's the only DYK concern. The personal attacks while reverting to the ever-so-slightly longer version are problematic. Not to mention the factual accuracy of DYKs "extended" in this manner. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GlassCobra, follow Blechnic's links, look at her edit summaries and talk page comments. Wilhelmina clearly admits that she's making changes for the sole purpose of jacking up the article's word count just to fulfill her "dream of having made 5000 DYK articles". That is just not on. A DYK ban is the least disruptive way of dealing with this. She could still edit the rest of the encyclopedia to her heart's content, but her incentive to commit copyvio's and insert useless verbiage would be gone. And the ban could be lifted as soon as she sees the light about her conduct. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the history of Mesodermochelys, I agree that there are problems with Wilhelmina Will's conduct. But can someone point me to a diff illustrating the copyvio/plagiarism issues that people are talking about above?  Sandstein  05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was another AN/I, not this one. She copied a few phrases for this that should be, in my opinion, in quotes, but the article has mostly been entirely rewritten at this stage. I'll see if I can find a link to the other AN/I.--Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to at least most of the discussion.[141] I think her latest response to this AN/I thread[142] will pretty much say it all, along with her calling me a "revolting" editor in her edit summaries while reverting substantive edits to keep the number of words high enough for DYK. She didn't respond to the first AN/I, and her initial response to me expressing concern about her copyvios, as I noted above, was to warn me to never "cross paths with her again."[143] --Blechnic (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's start a tally, then:

• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Until editor gets her act together and accuracy is part of it. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Based not only on the attacks in the edit summaries, but even moreso the reversions to simply keep it at the right technical length (versus actually improving the article), I support a decent-length topic ban from DYK for WW. S. Dean Jameson 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Per Dean Jameson's reasons (personal attacks in edit summaries, accuracy issues, edit wars based on article length for DYK), I think I'd also support a temporary DYK ban for WW. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)