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

More edit-warring by Badagnani

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

Same old story as documented in his RfC/U, the many 3RR reports on him, and most recently, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Badagnani.

This time he reverts 17 edits made by three editors (myself, Quiddity, and Gwalla) [1], then reverts Quiddity's attempt to restore the material: [2].

His contribution to the talk page between these two edits, and only recent comment even vaguely relevant to his reverts, is one about working together: [3] --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in several disputes with Badagnani. I'm currently involved in one now with him, on Talk:Buddha's delight. But the way I approach the issue with him, is much different than how others do it. I use the discussion page and wait a bit. My experience tells me that Badagnani has only the best intentions for Wikipedia, but his method is somewhat eccentric. It seems that he expects other editors to understand and agree with his POV without much fuss, as if we were all inside his head along with him. This perspective often leads to edit wars because frustration levels rise on both sides. I think if we all calmly use the talk page with Badagnani, things will work themselves out and everyone will be happy. I would like Badagnani to make an effort to put himself in the minds of others for once, and in this example, I would like to see him try to understand where Ronz is coming from. Far too often, Badagnani puts us in his head, and that isn't reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen he just repeats his point of view, and reverts any changes against as "massive blanking", or has his MO changed? Verbal chat 10:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly one way of looking at it, but there are multiple perspectives on it. I'm coming from a different POV. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia has many different personalities, and it takes a certain kind of person to use this site for any period of time. Some people have strengths in one area, and serious weakness in another. Badagnani does a great deal of good work here, but when it comes to dealing with anyone who disagrees with him, he has problems. As others have mentioned in previous/ongoing discussions, Badagnani needs a mentor. I've found that he is open to reason, but it takes some effort to get there, and some editors find it easier to edit war. Simply saying that "he repeats his POV and reverts any changes" could apply to many editors here. Looking at my discussion with him on Talk:Buddha's delight, I think Badagnani makes some really good points, but the chasm between the way he goes about doing things and general policy and guidelines is very wide. All I'm saying is let's at least try to bridge that gap with more discussion. After some discussion, Badagnani does get around to compromising, but we all need to work towards that goal together. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been at Talk:Buddha's delight too, and see nothing different: the usual false accusations of stalking, and Badagnani revert-warring to keep completely unsourced material on grounds of appeal to personal status - "An enormous amount of research went into the writing of this article (by a WP veteran)". Why should the rest of us have to compromise to humour an editor who is at odds with a long list of content/conduct policies, guidelines and conventions, and is producing a trail of substandard material and bad interactions alongside whatever good? It's not merely about style of handling disagreements; he appears not to understand stuff such as the importance of WP:V, and how we don't write articles by personal compilation of primary sources. 86.148.152.232 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please put aside your anger and try to see this with clear and calm eyes. I wasn't asking anyone to compromise against their will. I'm asking for those involved to take a different approach, one that works harmoniously towards a satisfactory resolution rather than the edit warring and reverting that seems to follow the same group of editors who complain about Badagnani again and again. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever the ip user is, be wary of Viriditas' sockpuppetry accusation.--Caspian blue 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been discussing a related subject on the talk page of Badagnani and myself. I am glad you are following both discussions on our respective talk pages, but I am concerned you are falling back into your previous pattern of harassment and stalking, a behavioral pattern that has got you blocked in the past. I would like to strongly suggest that if Badagnani needs a mentor, you should be required to have one as well. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're just threatening again with the bogus accusation: I've never wikistalked him but he has. I've been trying to cooperate with Badaganani in a very good air today, but the person like you rather ruined his reputation. I'm so sad to reconfirm that that kind of disruptive behaviors is your typical character since I've seen more than third time. You must brush up the definition of stalking and meatpuppeting that you did for Badagnani. I don't remove anything on my watchlist after I edit so would many others. So my warning to the anon about your vengeance is no wonder. However, I see your block records in the past are also very impressive, so I don't find any good from your blatant threats. Please do not threaten constructive editors any more. That is only harmful to the community.--Caspian blue 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are free to follow the discussion on our talk pages, but your obsession with our talk pages is a bit troubling considering your past pattern of bad behavior. To recap what I said below, if it continues and is brought up here again, I will support your immediate ban. Thanks for listening. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is no wonder that you're deliberately distorting my comment again and harassing more. I'm not watching you at all because I have never visited you or do not need to waste my time. You're wikistalking and digging my talk page to harass me. If you continues this kind of disruptions and which is brought here again, I'm surely convinced that the community i better off with you. Thank you for providing such valuable evidences on your disruption for your impending future. You know what? Anyone who say a curse is going back to the initiator. Good luck! --Caspian blue 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of bad behavior I'm talking about. You made a series of false statements and then accused me of "deliberately distorting" your comments. You seem to only be here to cause problems, not to help resolve them. You really aren't fooling anyone. We were discussing edit warring by Badagnani, but it's clear that his detractors are just as guilty, if not more so, of the same bad behavior. I would encourage you to put aside your anger and frustration and turn over a new leaf. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who has produced a series of false statements and then accused me of wikistalking him. I have a religion, so I don't want to see such highly inappropriate comments more coming from you. Enough is enough. -Caspian blue 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. To recap, you wrote above,"Whoever the ip user is, be wary of Viriditas' sockpuppetry accusation." No such accusation has been made. I expressed concern with the dynamic IP SPA's following Badagnani around, with Buddha's delight (and Talk:Buddha's delight as one example). I asked Badagnani if he knew what was going on,[4] and he responded with the following on my talk page:

The dynamic IPs (I think in the same range) began showing up about a week ago at a handful of articles, usually using longish edit summaries that show familiarity with WP, take a legalistic and fairly aggressive tone, and accompany removals of text or references. Often the IPs would begin operating once a day had come to a conclusion and various editors at the pages in question had already "used up" their two reversions for the day. I wouldn't guess who is doing this, but what I do know is that it's wrong.[5]

I then followed up with a comment about how the IPs always showed up right around the time of another editor.[6] And earlier, I mentioned that I found this to be a form of harassment.[7] Using dynamic IP's to revert a single editor and harass them isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. No outright sockpuppet accusation was ever made, contrary to your claim. Isn't it interesting, however, that you appear to be defending this type of bad behavior? Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me as "The lady". Funnily, I've thought of you as a female. Do not try to excuse your ill behavior. Didn't I ask you for "No more disruptive behaviors and harassment". You feign to be surprised that your plan on the open place while you're indeed wikistalking to my talk page and mocking me enough. Your history tells me that you're indeed having a big problem with incivility such as frequent WQA reports. Whether you further trying for the sockpuppetry case based on your view is not my concern. I concern about somebody who might get trapped in your behaviors, very unfortunately. Why don't you stop such harassment campaign? Writing the last is not winning, my milady.--Caspian blue 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, you have trouble with common English phrases (The lady doth protest too much, methinks) and generally misunderstand what is being said. This is why you often ignore the issues under discussion and engage in repeated aggressive displays as compensation. It's ok, I understand why you act this way. But in the future, if you don't understand something, just ask questions. Don't engage in wild speculation and aggressive displays fit for animals. If you can't address the topic under discussion, such as why you defend the use of SPA IP accounts who follow Badagnani around, then just remain silent or plead ignorance. Otherwise, your repeated digressions into wild fantasy and personal attacks make you look silly. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel very lucky that we have no common interest in editing areas. Again, you're making up another story. I have not defended the IP at all, but just alarmed him/her to be aware of the accusation thrown by you. Then, h/she might not use Ips. As I'm seeing your vicious personal attack campaign and threats, I think I really can have more patience in dealing with Badagnani's problematic editing. Thank you for the valuable opportunity.--Caspian blue 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that I edit cuisine-related articles, and you showed up to demote Cuisine of Hawaii during one of your last disputes with Badagnani. I logged a protest over your last dispute with Badagnani, and you went to the top of my contribution list and suddenly "showed up" for the first time ever approximately three minutes after I edited it.[8] You have a habit of "showing up" to articles like this whenever you disagree with someone. It's called hounding, and you need to stop doing it. Please don't reply with the excuse that "it was on my watchlist" because it wasn't. You edited the page for the very first time three minutes after I did because it was the last edit I made on my contribution list, and you've done this to many editors. The problem with dishonesty, is that you can't keep track of what is true and what is false. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is certain that you see, what you want to see. That's why your imagination has no value to me. You're obviously incapable of assuming good faith. At that time, I was editing "many cuisine articles" other than Korean cuisine. Almost every cuisine articles are on my watchlist because I'm interested in improving such articles unlike you. Your sudden show-ups to Eugene, Ronz and their edits do not add up at all. That's called indeed "hounding" and reverts for Badagnani are called "meatpuppeting". You have harassed and threaten them and the admin who knows the whole situation regarded your behaviors and view are way off the mark. Now you're expanding your specialty to me. No thanks for more excuses on your disruption.--Caspian blue 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me bring you up to date. I have more than one diff. You hounded me over at Cuisine of Hawaii because you were upset about your dispute with Badagnani, a dispute that I had commented on in a discussion with you during the same time. You visited my contribution list and followed me to that article during the discussion. While you were hounding me, you were also hounding Badagnani in separate articles, and you were following his contribution list as well. And the admin who "knows the whole situation" apologized on my talk page. Hopefully, you will find this update educational in some way. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your imagination.--Caspian blue 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the page history of the article in question, List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, I see 153 peaceful edits (many by Badagnani) from inception on 29/01/2006 to 25/03/2009, that is roughly 50 per year. There have been over 150 edits to the page since Ronz's first edit on 24/02/2009 (50 in the last 2 days), not to mention 2 afds and much heat on the talk page and several user talk pages. It seems to me that Ronz, having manifestly and deliberately stirred up an edit-war on and about this page, is now complaining about it. A simple solution would be for Ronz to remove the page from his watchlist and police the other million or so list pages, many of which are far worse than this one. There is List of symphony orchestras in the United States, for instance. Or is just Eastern lists that need attention (cf List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, afd'd and deleted by Ronz et al)? Occuli (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's comments like these are the best support that Badagnani gets for his tendentiousness, then he most definitely needs a block. Arguments that assume bad faith and intentional disruption are of no help. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith has been amply demonstrated on this particular list; AGF was exhausted long ago. Ronz has now (yesterday) followed the 2 unsuccessful afds with an immediate rfc on the talk page. I would consider a block on Ronz for perfecting a new variety of Wikihounding, WikiPitBulling or similar. The jaws are locked and there is no respite in sight. I take it that it is just Badagnani-related lists that are to be subjected to RonZealotry. (I am watching List of symphony orchestras in the United States, a Badagnani-unrelated list.) Occuli (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You made me check to see if you were an admin, because you're saying like above. Don't make such the wrong impression to others. I see your bad faith instead.--Caspian blue 11:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Badagnani again. I warned him at Talk:Nokdumuk last Sunday not to further edit war with editors, but that does not work obviously. At that time, he may have breached or been close to 3RR violation to several articles as wiki-stalking his another opponent. My suggestion is just to report Badagnani to WP:AN3. No need for further him indulging in endless edit warring. Even before Ronz and Badagnani battle, Badagnani has been always edit warring with multiple editors for his nonsensical insistence and made bogus accusations like "blanking". If I would've reported his 3RR violations, his blocks (more than 4 blocks perhaps?) would have been piled on. Enough is enough. Mentorship? Who's gonna take the hard job? One admin failed it already. I guess Viriditas will do the honor.--Caspian blue 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I am pleased to announce that my discussion with Badagnani on Talk:Buddha's delight has led to fruitful results. Perhaps this demonstrates that a calm and direct discussion with Badagnani can work. In the future, I hope more editors will engage Badagnani in this manner. It is the least we can do for our fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Why do you think I have not reported him once to ANI/AN3 regardless of his numerous 3RR violations and wrongdoing to me and editors for a long time? Badagnani wikistalked not only me but also other editors (Jeremy, Tanner-Christopher, Melonbarmonster) to harass them. I was once in your position - I created many articles or edited per his requests and persistent nagging - and did discussion with him in calm manner with patience, but that did not make him changed a bit. He is still doing the same behaviors and I gave up my hope that he will be changed. Please do not boast your one time effort. I still recall "your dreadful threats" to Eugene. What a first impression.--Caspian blue 10:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I may have been here longer than you, and I have been involved in other disputes with Badagnani. These things have always worked themselves out to completion. We cannot "change" others, only ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Some quick research shows that you have met him much less than I have. You have a even willingness to revert for his sake even though you know those are wrong. However, I can agree with your last sentence, and my impression on you seems valid.--Caspian blue 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry you feel that way. I will ignore your false accusations as I find them childish and impolite. We simply have a different approach to Wikipedia. For example, I believe that this kind of behavior is not acceptable from any editor, and anyone who does it should be banned. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh, you're obviously "wikistalking" and "harassing me" again. I've been already ignoring your absurd accusations and threats because I don't see any slight possibility for our cooperation given your repeated such behaviors. You're quoting the 20 min. research which are mostly filed by abusive sockpuppeters or SPA, and including Badagnani' absurd accusations. I already told the admin about it. However, I have a lot to say about Badagnani's long-term wikistalking and harassing of me which can be confirmed by adminstrators in Korean cuisine. While you can enjoy your hypocrisy. Anyone who frequently threaten and curse editors like these [9][10][11][12][13] should be banned from the community indeed. Don't forget that one admin thinks your behaviors and blind defending for him is very troubling. Why aren't your behaviors consistent with your lecture? :)--Caspian blue 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
              • If you need help with your English skills, feel free to ask. There are no "threats" or "curses" in any of those diffs. I would also be happy to provide you with any links to online dictionaries if you need them. I think the record is pretty clear concerning your disruptive pattern of behavior, and the next time it happpens and is brought up here for debate, I will support your ban without any hesitation. That is neither a threat nor a curse, just a statement of fact. So please, continue your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                • What a cheap attack you're relying on. I've been attacked for my English in only a few occasions by "notorious harassing editors" such as abusive sockpuppeters. Those have been repeatedly indef.blocked by my RFCU, so that's why I've falsely accused by them. Thank you for another reconfirmation on my first impression and valid criticism on you. You're truly repeating such disruptive pattern of yours. So go on. Your another "curses" and "threats" are all being recorded in the history.-Caspian blue 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • I think part of the problem is your poor comprehension skills. The other part is your need to generate conflict through attention-seeking behavior. Your attempt to derail this discussion has only provided further evidence of the people behind the harassment campaign against Badagnani. I want to personally thank you for shedding light on that topic and demonstrating the real problem at work. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Some of your problems is your complete denial to look back on yourself and not to know when you have to cease your behaviors. As I said, some admin thinks of your talking highly troubling and threatening. Your attempt to discredit my valid concerns on him is only proving that you're letting him continue his problems, rather trying to fix them. You do not assume good faith at all on editors who disagree with you. My relationship with him is up and down, but you're just getting down and down. No thanks for "more opportunities" to know about you. --Caspian blue 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • As I said previously, I am pleased with my past interaction with Badagnani on Talk:Buddha's delight and many other articles I have been in a dispute with him, such as Muntazer al-Zaidi, (see also User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_26#Your_comment). Perhaps if you would stop edit warring and reverting Badagnani, you could spend more time on the discussion page and less time on AN/I. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • "Another false accusation and lies. Edit warring? Why don't you do better research instead of making up such imagination. You mean your recent edit warring and reverting for Badagnani? I don't recall any edit war with him in my several months. My time has been wasted by your disruption. As I said "enough is enough".--Caspian blue 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                        • More recently, on April 24, you threatened to continue harassing Badagnani "forever" by keeping the RFC open.[14] I don't think RFC's are used in this way, and WP:BATTLE comes to mind. You have an obvious grudge against Badagnani (and evidently anyone who questions you). Perhaps it would help if you just ignore him from now on since you seem more than a bit obsessed with him. Making veiled references to my talk page discussion with Badagnani is creepy enough. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Another false and vicious accusation based on your creepy imagination. I said, unless he does not comment about it, the RFC would not be wrapped up. That is an advice for his sake. Other RFCs that were filed even later were wrapped already. Your endless WP:HARASSMENT and threats here are really intolerable. Your obsession with such ill imagination for Badagnani is no wonder. Now, say about "my alleged edit warring with him". Your habit of lying and making bogus accusations indeed are proven as one of your typical characters. Desisting your such behaviors is your burden of your life.--Caspian blue 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The RFC will be closed at the appropriate time, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia is not your personal, private battlefield for you to harass someone "forever". Frankly, I encourage you to take this to arbcom. There is so much evidence against you at this point, I think the case will backfire on you. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • A great deal of my time has been wasted by your harassment.--Caspian blue 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Reminder: This is a discussion about "more edit-warring by Badagnani". Nobody is forcing you to participate. If you feel compelled to do so, perhaps you can get back to your original statement where you recommended that I should be Badagnani's mentor.[15]. In other words, you began this discussion by discussing me. And now you call the discussion you started, harassment? I'm talking about my direct experience with Badagnani and I'm proposing solutions. What are you putting on the table besides nominating me as a mentor? Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Indeed, the discussion is about Badagnani, not me. Thanks to the acknowledgment.--Caspian blue 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but if the user is blatantly ignoring and disregarding the RFC against him and continuing to engage in the activity that has led to the RFC in the first place, then, as has been done in the past with other users, a block may be necessary and probably an indef one until the user decides to address the RFC. MuZemike 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMO, the RFC was started as a vendetta against Badagnani, and some of the editors participating there (both in the creation of the RFC and as commentators) were hounding Badagnani to the point of following his contribution list and reverting all of his edits in retaliation. To me at least, the RFC was made in bad faith, although some of the concerns there are of course, legitimate. It's akin to catching flies with honey, and this RFC is dripping with vinegar. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break, section break

• As an aside, see Talk:Music of southern China#Merges. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely indifferent observer checking in. The topic of discussion is framed in the title, the "bickering Bickersons" need to stop the carping and go back to the original question, how to deal with an editor's contributions that have not been helpful. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

I think I've addressed that topic in full.[16][17][18][19] If there is something I've missed, let me know. Basically, this dispute with Badagnani involves a small group of people who have prior disputes with him. I think Badagnani means well, and most of his contributions are helpful. But there has been edit warring on all sides here, and each party needs to take responsibility for contributing to the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If all agree, let's call this a day and move on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree with that summation, and his ideas in the 4 diffs linked, and his conclusion. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree that the only people who dislike Badagnani and can't work things out with him are in this small group that he's accused of stalking him and reverting all those edits. There are many other people, myself included, who have spoken against him in the RFC and in the last ANI thread and in previous ANI threads. I had no prior history with him when I ran into a dispute with him at Talk:Musette last September, but he behaved exactly the same way (that is, terribly) that he has in all the other disputes I've seen. And if he's so blameless, why can't he offer any defense of his actions himself? It's pretty ridiculous in my eyes for him to be excused based on one or two other users inventing a defense for him.

He should have been blocked based on the last ANI discussion; clearly, there was no kind of consensus otherwise, but no admin wanted to go ahead and actually take action so the thread just got archived without any resolution, as seems to happen a lot with Badagnani. Propaniac (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Propaniac, I spent some time looking at the example you gave above, namely Musette and Talk:Musette and I'm afraid I disagree with your overall assessment. According to the page history, Badagnani has been editing this page for years, beginning on 19:30, 13 August 2005. He also edited it as an article and after it was turned into a dab page. User:Tassedethe tagged it for cleanup on June 3, 2008[20] and you responded to the request on June 26 by removing the majority of the content as extraneous per dab guidelines.[21] No message was left on talk about the deletions, nor was any material moved to the talk page. Badagnani first noticed the deletion on September 7, 2008 and restored the missing material.[22] At this point, Propaniac should have used the talk page, but he didn't, and that's when the edit war began, with a third user User:Philip.t.day, showing up to revert Propaniac's deletions/cleanup.[23] Badagnani was the first to use the talk page[24] and his usage was polite and courteous, adhering to all manners of civility and respect. Propaniac showed up to the talk page almost 13 hours later after reverting again, and the discussion became sarcastic, and full of incivility. Now, that is in the page history, and everyone can see it. Regardless of who is right or wrong here, it is how we communicate with our fellow editors that matters the most. Propaniac did not treat Badagnani in a civil fashion, and expected Badagnani to just agree with him because Propaniac was doing the Holy Work of Jimbo and Larry. Propaniac could have slowed down a bit, asked for input from the dab project, pursued a third opinion, and tried to work out a compromise with Badagnani. Instead, we get this diff from Propaniac taking a stubborn stance, saying "I'm not going to back down on this and allow you to change it back to the old version, no matter how long you drag this "discussion" out by saying the same things over and over..." But, User:Philip.t.day and User:Badagnani were against the change. I think this could have been handled better, and some kind of accommodation made, either by educating editors about the dab guidelines or by moving the deleted content somewhere else. In summary, Propaniac felt that by his writ and Holy WikiPower, the dab page would be cleaned, by hell or by high water. This is not the best attitude to have in a collaborative environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't imagine that anybody is still reading this, but I'll respond anyway for your sake. The first thing you fail to note in your version of what happened are the edit summaries that Badagnani left when he originally disagreed with my cleanup. If he had said, "I don't agree with removing all this text, let's talk about it," that would have been fine. (I highly doubt that the ensuing discussion would have been more productive, but it would have gotten off to a better start. Instead he said "restore considerable text blanked" as if I had simply done it randomly with no cause at all. On his next revert, his entire summary was "rv blanking; no good" which is an INCREDIBLY rude thing to say and certainly could not possibly be considered productive discourse in any possible manner. (You also don't mention that Philip.t.day promptly reverted himself and apologized for undoing my edits; your presenting him as a supporter of Badagnani's POV is totally deceptive and makes me sincerely question your motives.)

So yes, I was very annoyed already when I began the Talk page discussion, because Badagnani had already been very rude and dismissive towards me in his edit summaries. You go on to say, "Propaniac did not treat Badagnani in a civil fashion, and expected Badagnani to just agree with him because Propaniac was doing the Holy Work of Jimbo and Larry." That is absolutely ridiculous. I expected Badagnani to agree with me because Wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation pages are very clear, and I could see no reasonable way that Badagnani's version of the page could be considered to remotely adhere to those guidelines. However, I invited Badagnani over and over to provide some specific reason why my edits should not be made, and he did not. His arguments were that the new version was inaccurate and incomplete (but he would not point to any actual inaccurate or incomplete portion), and that I was misreading the guidelines (but he would not point to any specific part that supported him or did not support me; there's no indication he's ever actually looked at the guidelines).

So yes, after several days of Badagnani repeating the same accusations in literally the same language, but refusing to offer any specific point that we could actually discuss (what the hell would you expect me to do when he says fifty times that my wording is inaccurate, but won't name any specific inaccuracy? What is there to discuss? How could compromise possibly be reached?), I told him that repeating the same thing over and over would not cause me to give up and let him restore his version; it's clear that that was the only possible outcome he was looking for. And, again, you're simply lying if you're suggesting that I did not seek to educate Badagnani about the dab guidelines, or advise him to move the deleted content elsewhere; I quoted the relevant guidelines and offered extensive explanation about how they help a dab page meet its purpose, and I suggested that he could start a new article that could be linked from the dab page, but he would never confirm that that was even his complaint.

I had thought you were simply overlooking some of Badagnani's transgressions, but your view is so objectively wrong on so many facts, always in his favor, that I really do wonder if you're for real or if you're only pretending to be the only person on Earth who thinks that Badagnani comports himself perfectly well in a conflict. Even if I were as rude and stubborn as in your version, you fail to explain why Badagnani couldn't point to any specific thing wrong with my version of the page. Maybe my discussion with him would have gone completely differently if I had coddled him, complimented him, wheedled him, but if that's what Badagnani requires in order to discourse like a rational person, that's his problem, not the problem of every other user. Propaniac (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right about Philip.t.day reverting himself; I missed that, and I've struck it out above. If you had assumed good faith you would have chalked this up to a mistake. Instead, you began to engage in wild fantasies, speculating that I'm "simply lying" a "supporter of Badagnani's POV" making you think I'm being "deceptive" and "questioning my motives". This is exactly the kind of bad behavior from you I'm talking about, and I want to thank you for demonstrating it for everyone to see. Just because I see things differently than you doesn't make me a liar, and just because I made a mistake, doesn't mean I'm deceptive or supporting Badagnani. I'm here because I've been in nothing but disputes with Badagnani, but I have handled each one differently than many of the folks here, and they have all been resolved. Throwing out guidelines and quoting policy at Badagnani isn't considered a "discussion". You already admitted that you were angered by his edit summaries (which I find nothing wrong with by the way) and that led you to engage in your incivility and edit warring. I don't see anything actionable here, but I think your attitude needs an adjustment. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My questioning your motivation was not purely because of the error with Philip.t.day (although it can't have been an easy error to make, missing his apologetic edit summary directly on top of the one you referenced). It's also because your version of events completely skips over the actual discussion that took place. You ignored my many, many appeals to Badagnani to present a clear problem with the page that we could work together to rectify. You ignored my attempts to explain why his version of the page doesn't meet with guidelines, and you ignored my efforts to suggest that he start a new article with the deleted information (and you were "simply lying" if you were suggesting that I did not do either; if you weren't suggesting that, you weren't lying). And now, in your subsequent reply, you've ignored my appeals to you to explain what should be done when Badagnani says that a page is inaccurate or incomplete, but he can't name any actual inaccuracies or incompleteness; when he says that I'm misreading the guidelines but he won't point to any part of it that supports him. The reason I never brought the issue to other editors is because I literally, sincerely, had no idea how to phrase his argument in our dispute, because he wasn't making an argument; he was making statements with no supporting information to indicate their validity, which led me to believe that they are not valid. He was certainly welcome to seek other editors' input himself if he thought that anyone would agree with him; I am 100% certain that if I had brought the issue to other editors familiar with disambiguation page guidelines, they would have agreed with me, because there is no possible reading of the guidelines that supports his version of the page (and he gave no reason why the guidelines should be ignored in this specific case). Propaniac (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Take a step back for a moment. Has it occurred to you that Badagnani does not understand disambiguation guidelines? Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely assumed that to be the case initially, which is why I quoted the guidelines that indicated a disambiguation page should be a bulleted list, with one bluelink per entry, at the beginning of each entry, all of which are qualifications obviously not met by his version. He completely and totally ignored this, as if I hadn't said anything about the guidelines at all. Later he said that I was misreading them, but that was all he would say, not any kind of explanation about how his page met the guidelines. But according to him, he has "read and knows the guidelines well" (and appears to be offended at the suggestion he might not know them). Do you believe that I should have just kept trying to explain the problem, when a) it does seem pretty clear to me already; b) he himself insists that he doesn't need explanation, he understands them better than I do; and c) he's indicated a perfect willingness to just ignore what I write if he doesn't understand or agree with it? Propaniac (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

When someone doesn't understand something, quoting policy and guidelines at them doesn't work. You need to talk to them on their level, in plain language, and get them to ask questions, so there is a back and forth going on; As I said above, if you had brought in the dab project after your first pass, they would have taken over from there. There are some very helpful members on that project who I have called on to help me in the exact same situation you experienced with Badagnani. These people are really good at using simple language to explain disambiguation to people who don't get it. In the past, I have been in your situation, so I understand where you are coming from. You are assuming a level of technical expertise that Badagnani may not have. In order to deal with this situation, you have to change your usual strategy. Viriditas (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would never assert that I'm always 100% successful at choosing the best words to make something clear. However, I'm still skeptical that the problem in my interaction with Badagnani was that he did/does not understand what a guideline is, or that the part that I quoted at the top of the talk page required any level of technical expertise (beyond familiarity with bullets and wikilinks) to understand, or that he couldn't say, "I don't understand what this is or why it means we have to change the page" instead of ignoring it completely, telling me I'm the one who doesn't understand, and proclaiming his own expertise. If someone ignores what I have to say, I take that to mean they don't care, not that they don't understand. If anyone had told me, "There was a similar issue with Badagnani before, but User X was able to reconcile it with him, so I suggest asking User X for help," I would have been happy to do so (oh, and I'd be very interested in a link to the previous similar dispute you referenced), but I had no way of knowing that this was not an isolated issue and I don't believe any of my actions were unreasonable.

You now seem to be taking the attitude (and I'm not being sarcastic here) that despite being a very experienced user, and despite his repeated assertions that he understands the situation, anyone dealing with Badagnani should assume that his problem is a lack of understanding even of quite basic Wikipedia concepts, and continually try to make the issue clearer and clearer, and eventually he'll understand and then he'll be able to work productively. Even if it's true that he really doesn't understand, I strongly disagree that the burden is on every other user to make that assumption and keep trying to explain things to someone who says he needs no explanation. If he chooses to respond antagonistically instead of by saying, "I don't understand this," he's not making the effort towards productive discussion. Propaniac (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The burden is on the user making the contested change. And that burden involves using the talk page in a collaborative fashion. You tried to force your changes into the article, whether right or wrong. And when you encountered resistance from Badagnani, you didn't follow WP:DR. That is my position.Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's really easy for me to understand now how you can defend Badagnani so fervently: your entire defense never actually acknowledges anything that he does, or didn't do. You just blame the other person for not being able to find this magical, elusive formula that will turn him into a reasonable editor. But for all your talk about WP:AGF, even you couldn't look at what he actually wrote on that talk page and pretend that he ever treated me like someone with a legitimate issue that deserved his attention or respect. (And yes, when he refuses to provide a single reason why I am wrong, no matter how many times I ask him to, I will continue to think my view is the right one. And when you refuse to tell me what exactly I should have done that I did not do, I will continue to think that you know I tried my very best to work with him and you're just too entrenched in this charade to admit that he's impossible.) Propaniac (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat myself in case you didn't read what I wrote in this report. I have been in nothing but disputes with Badagnani, for years. I am not here (or anywhere else) defending Badagnani. Because Badagnani will not defend himself here, I am playing devil's advocate. I have also played this role in other pages, and I have tried to mediate in several articles. In some cases, I have reverted to a previous version of a page that Badagnani edited because the discussion had not yet concluded. In other incidents, I have pursued my investigation by trying to ask questions of his detractors. I do not know Badagnani. I do not communicate with him offwiki. More recently, I have engaged in a discussion with him on my talk page, where I expressed my concerns with his editing style. I also left him a warning on his talk page. Some editors think that my actions mean that I am "defending" him, but I really don't see anything to defend. Rather, I am trying my best to understand why these disputes keep arising. I have several theories, none of which I have discussed onwiki just yet, but in my experience, Badagnani is reasonable if he is treated with the same respect all of our editors deserve. Without going through my contribution history, I can't tell you how many disputes I've had with Badagnani, but if I had to guess, I would say there must have been around 5 or so. Each one resolved themselves after a day or two, with no hard feelings. The resolution always involved some form of compromise, either on his end or my own. You say that I'm "entrenched in this charade", but I don't see that. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. I didn't participate in the RFC because it was inherently biased against him and I found it to be motivated by anger and spite. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(Backing up indents a bit for the sake of sanity.) Perhaps you see some kind of difference between advocating for someone, and defending them, that I'm not aware of. I never intended to suggest that you know him outside of Wikipedia; I did intend to suggest that you have decided that all the blame for Badagnani's many disputes are the fault of the wide range of other editors who have been involved, and you'll continue arguing from that position beyond all reason. Calling yourself a devil's advocate does not dissuade me, since by definition a devil's advocate will argue for a position whether or not he is actually convinced of it himself.

Returning to the subject of respecting other editors and assuming good faith, in my mind (and perhaps you disagree) part of assuming good faith is that when another editor does something that you think is wrong, you assume they had a reason for doing it and they are entitled to know why they were wrong (and in the process perhaps you realize that you were the incorrect one after all). When Badagnani undoes any edit that removes text (which seems to be the action that most consistently leads him to disputes), simply on the basis that text was removed, and totally failing to address any edit summary that explains why the text was removed (or dismissing such reasoning with "no good"), Badagnani is not being respectful and is not assuming good faith. He is similarly not being respectful when he ignores other editors' reasoning on the Talk page, even if he doesn't understand it, or ignores their questions when they're trying to understand his point-of-view. I believe that is why he has so many conflicts. Maybe you still think he's entitled to ignore everyone who doesn't state their reasons or ask their questions in the right way (or who gets annoyed at the first couple times Badagnani dismisses/ignores them and becomes less courteous in later attempts), but if you could convince Badagnani to stop ignoring people, even if it means he has to cede to their arguments some of the time, I believe that would put quite a dent in the number and the ire level of his disputes. Propaniac (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with propaniac as I share a similar experience on my first interaction with Badagnani. To claim this is the fault of some small group of editors is false. Anyone who disagress with Badagnani gets treated the same way. Whether he knwos them or not. Wikipedia doesn't need that kind of editor.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, can you provide a recent example like Propaniac? Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that I can as you read the email I sent you. That only happened 4 months ago and shows his behaviour was the same then as it is now as was prior to that by all accounts. His behaviour hasn't changed. For an editor that has been here 4 years, 4 months is plenty recent [25]. I don't stalk him, but following some of the links that have been provided at the RfC and in the AN/I threads on him his language has been exactly the same since his interaction with me 4 months ago, which shows he has hasn't changed his behaviour at all. Badagnani also refused to get involved with his own defense at that time, and is doing it yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, I acknowledged that I received your e-mail on your talk page at 09:15, 1 May 2009.[26] However, I do not discuss the contents of private e-mail onwiki. (In the spirit of Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence) You are, of course, welcome to discuss it here, so that was why I was prompting you to do so. The diff you give above is not very specific, so perhaps you can pick the most egregious incident and briefly link to it? Or, feel free to discuss this in any way you like. You could even repost the links you sent me here. Unfortunately, I no longer have your e-mail due to several issues with my inbox. Please send it again if you can. I took a look at the diffs in the section linked to the diff above named, "User:Badagnani personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and stirring the pot" and didn't find anything out of the ordinary or problematic. Maybe you could find one that you think is the best example. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing problematic about repeatedly lying about what a user has said and insulting them multiple times over a period of 2 days? Wow. You and I have a very difference definition of problematic. Those diffs are well laid out and explained. He repeatedly lied about what I said for 2 days and when called on it, just moved on to other insults and other attempts to misrepresnt different things I said. #8 is the most telling about his behaviour. After literally begging me through numerous insults and misrepresntations to engage on discussion on an article page (which was fairly pointless in the context of the discussion since we were having a policy discussion that had far reaching implications beyond a single article), his first response was to insult me after I did what he wanted [27]. You can clearly see there was nothing uncivil about my tone in the comment prior to that and yet badagnani's response is immediate personal attacks and insults. Anytime he's asked to explain what is wrong with my tone, he refuses to explain it. The reason I put quotes around good was because the policy was specifically addressing there be a good reason for the galleries inclusion. Not to mention that message wasn't even in reply to him but a different user, in addition to his insults and personal attacks he edited my comment to thread it after his.[28].--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see lies and insults in those diffs. I'm not saying they aren't there, I'm just saying that I don't see them. If you can focus on one specific article or incident, it will be easier to take a look. Keep in mind, that you are talking about things that you have interpreted, rather than what is actually there. For example, if I hold up one hand and ask you to count my fingers, it is likely that 10 out of 10 people will say I have five fingers. There isn't really an interpretation here. It's a "truth" we can agree upon. Likewise, try to pick a specific incident where there is little room for interpretation and where many users can see the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to interpret there. He makes claims, he's asked to provide evidence to those claims, instead he ignores those requests and moves on to other false claims. I Already focused on a specific diff for you and spelled out exactly what was wrong with it. After a long campaign of insults he repeatedly asked me to post on an article talk page and after doing so he continued further insults. If you don't think that someone labeling your contribution to a discussion as tendentious and disruptive is an insult or personal attack, then let me be the first to tell you that you contributions to this discussion clearly are. As for insults and lies: here he outright lies about my actions in this dispute: [29]. I did nothing to indicate I was going to continue to remove galleries without further discussion (as soon as that discussion started and not once since have I removed a gallery from an article), and a month before this all began I attempted to engage him in conversation by posting several pieces of talk to one of the article talk pages that he was heavily involved in[30]. Not once in the month I waited did he respond to it. Here he is lying again try to claim I never tried to discuss things [31] and again [32], here her claims I want only 1 image for all the articles [33] which is a lie. He can't produce a single diff where I've ever said that, and yet again more lies [34]. He tries to paint me as someone who was going to ignore consensus and yet after my application of bold and a discussion which result in no consensus I didn't continue at all. How many lies and misrepresentations would you like? Those are all the blatant ones. You wanted a recent event. I gave you that. You wanted a specific event. I gave you that. I also gave you a play by play of all the blatant lies. Anyone who has a look at the discussions that took place over those 2 days can clearly see that I didn't say any of those things he claims I said. In addition the style of language he used and his behaviour then is identical to now. Telling users to moderate their tone who clearly aren't being uncivil, or instead of continuing the debate simply making an insult and calling for everyone to get back to work on the encyclopedia. Then when finally called on his behaviour refusing to defend his actions and letting some other user fight the battle for him.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you either didn't read my comment above or ignored it. You are giving me examples of "he said, she said" and that isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're burying your head in the sand and trying to set some unreasonable parameters to try and make it look like he's done nothing wrong and that isn't helpful. I gave you multiple examples of his outright lies, all surrounding a single article as you just request. Patbingsu. He repeatedly, in several areas over 2 days stated that I wouldn't engage in discussion over and over and used that to misrepresent me and disparage me, and yet there is very clear evidence from my diffs that I had attempted to have discussion on that page. There is no "he said, she said". He said, its an outright lie, end of story. Even after corrected, he just repeated it over and over. You wanted evidence of his disagreeable behaviour and problems with the way he edits, you have it. Anyone who disagrees with him gets insulted and disparaged. Regardless of whether or not they're part of this small group as you claim, or someone who has never interacted with him before. The same language and tactics he users with this group of users are the same language and tactics he uses with users he's never interacted with before. Trying to ignore that doesn't make it go away and is the crux of the problem. Several questions were put to him about the content of the articles in an attempt to move forward with him, but most of his responses contained no furtherance of the discussion and instead resorted to personal attacks, insults and outright lies. Even when he would say something related to the actual content discussion, it would still often include some snarky comment. The simple truth is this: Your claim that his behaviour has anything to do with people hounding him is false. Given his behaviour now mirrors the behaviour then and I had no history with him, you cannot make that claim as some kind of defense of his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, your diffs weren't clear and only represented your interpretation. For a live, current, and clear-cut example of what is going on in direct relation to the topic of this thread, without interpretation see: Talk:Chaozhou xianshi and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Badagnani_reported_by_User:Redheylin_.28Result:_warning.29. The problem here has been commented on by an uninvolved third-party, and does not require any interpretation by the involved parties.[35] In other words, this is unambiguous evidence. Do you understand? Before I comment on this new situation, I've invited Redheylin to give us his take on the issue.[36] I've also left a strongly worded message on Badagnani's talk page.[37] Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin responds, but cannot indent any more! Certainly Badagnani has been most uncivil and appears to wish to block work on pages in which he has any interest. While I attribute good faith to his actions as far as possible, I have asked for collaboration, civility, citations for contested material etc to no avail. The trouble is; the user damages wiki with his edits and does not clean up. For example, he has been advised recently that a "rogue" page Chinese National Music has been spawned by another user as a result of an edit war with him, but the page remains. Similarly Music of southern China has been stalled and wrecked and a mass of fixed redlinks, removed duplicate and contradicted material, corrected English, citations etc have been replaced by him by means of unnegotiated reverts. Whatever flavour of "faith" is involved here, (I understand Viriditas view) the results of Badagnani's editing in this sphere are indistinguishable from vandalism. Practically, it will take days to make any improvements to pages in which B decides has has a stake, and that's not acceptable since he makes no improvements himself. Redheylin (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Anthony Appleyard's link above posted at 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC), and summary over at Talk:Music_of_southern_China#Merges, you performed multiple cut and paste moves, including redirecting an entire article that Badagnani had been editing, Chaozhou xianshi, to Music of southern China without any discussion.[38] To date, there is no consensus for your edits.[39] and you have acted unilaterally without consensus. This seems to be a pattern with all of the editors complaining about Badagnani. You then spent the last 24 hours edit warring with Badagnani on the article[40] and ended up reporting him for edit warring,[41] knowing full well that if he had been blocked, you would have been blocked as well. This appears to be some kind of provocation. In any case, this does not excuse Badagnani edit warring in turn, but it does show a pattern. An editor shows up to a page that Badagnani has been editing and begins making a series of extreme changes without any discussion and eventually starts an edit war with Badagnani, and then, after starting the edit war, complains about Badagnani on his talk page and then files a report against him. There seems to be a pattern here of baiting Badagnani into edit warring, but I cannot be certain that is entirely true for all incidents, nor does it excuse Badagnani's behavior. But all parties appear to be responsible for this continuing conflict, not just the reaction from Badagnani that seems easy to elicit. It looks like people are repeatedly pushing Badagnani's buttons and baiting him into making reverts. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, you already know that I am editing music articles methodically and in good faith and do not engage in edit-warring. Your view amounts to this - "if anyone edits a page that Badagnani owns without seeking his permission, they deserve all they get" Redheylin (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You say that you do not engage in edit warring. What is this, then: [42], [43] Are you going to sit there and say that this is not edit warring? Those are two reverts of Badagnani, by you. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to sit here and say this is not edit warring, and I am going to sit here and say that you have asked my opinion, you have got it, you have assumed bad faith in it but there is no complaint against me that I am required to answer. I shall then sit here a little longer and repeat that your contention amounts to this: "If Badagnani is involved in a page, editors must expect he will destroy constructive work". Well they do, and that is what this is about. Redheylin (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then, I will sit here and say that you are misinformed. Please read WP:EDITWAR. Your two reverts of Badagnani [44], [45] are defined as edit warring. If you still dispute this definition after reading the link I gave you, then I suggest you find an uninvolved administrator to support you on this. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You have asked for my statement and you have got it. You have alleged bad faith hereabove in order to defend destructive editing and page-ownership. Edit-warring includes wasting editors' time given in good faith. I do not wish to have my time wasted by you or Badagnani so our conversation is finished. Redheylin (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm defending "destructive editing and page-ownership"? Where? Provide diffs, please. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Observation

Viriditas, hi. I hope I'm not interrupting this thread at a bad spot. I'm noticing something about this conversation. Various people can cite instances where some conflict with Badagnani didn't go well, and you are generally able to point out that, in each instance, the editor conflicting with Badagnani failed to follow best DR practices. I think you're right. You're right that revert #2 is already edit warring. Most editors, however, sometimes make a second revert before using the talk page. It's a bad habit.

However. If it is the case that any failure of other editors to precisely follow all of our dispute resolution suggestions leads to an acrimonious conflict... that's not so cool. Anyone who can't handle the fact that most editors are fallible humans, subject to frustration, anger, pride, etc. isn't going to do very well here.

Where is this perfect editor, with whom Badagnani can work constructively peacefully, given the current situation? Here we are, needing a real solution. We can say that "someone should" find the formula to unlock this guy's collaborative potential. However, until/unless someone steps up and actually does it, that's not a solution.

I know that you're not limiting your criticism to Badagnani's "fan club", because I saw that you also are advising him to change his style, and I hope he hears you. I also know that there is no point criticizing Badagnani here to his critics; just as there is no point in criticizing them over on B's talk page. However, I do think that you're... making the same mistake for which you criticized the RfC. Namely, the above doesn't taste like honey. How are you catching these flies? How will you catch the next batch that arise after this group, because Badagnani's habits haven't changed?

Tricky, ain't it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GT Bacchus - I'd point you to the page Music of southern China where Badagnani was advised that the Chaozhou xianshi article that is still in place there was being prepared for that page and was invited to contribute. The text was then thoroughly checked by me so that no salient material was removed unless contra-indicated by the available academic sources. This was done because B had carried out an identical revert on another related article, nanguan, also claiming in the history that valid text had been removed (but refusing to identify or paste in the text in question). I am leaving out another dozen unexplained reverts by B. Therefore, after another careful check, I reverted with a note "please identify the text you want included". Another revert followed without information, so I tried again, this time with a note on the talk page, to be reverted again without information. At that point, realising that this was clearly edit-warring that was not aimed at improving the article, I reported the incident. All the time, Badagnani continued an abortive "conversation" in which he made various allegations about me and claimed he could provide citations for contested material but would not do so - however, he made no attempt to inform me of his actions on other pages or his reasons for them. Similarly, while procedural explanations may be found for such actions after the event, you will look in vain for any information to other editors as to what these procedural lapses may be - and, of course, you will find that such lapses have also been committed by B himself - the reverts you mention being an obvious example. Procedures are designed to facilitate improvements to wiki articles, not to justify prevention of improvement. Your point is right, if I understand you correctly - it is not possible to require, I think, that all wiki editors should be trained to deal with this kind of behaviour or induced to accept that it is in any way reasonable, beneficial or acceptable. It is like the boy soldier's proud mother: "Look, they are all out of step except my Billy!" Redheylin (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, hi. There's a lot of history to this situation... Did you catch this thread a couple of weeks back? I think we understand each other, and basically agree. Unless someone can come up with a plan to prevent the continuing disruption that surrounds Badagnani, we're going to be forced to ban him. I don't want that, but I'm not seeing another alternative that is remotely likely to take place.

One solution would be that everyone who interacts with Badagnani, both now and in the future, somehow learns precisely just how to pitch each utterance in each interaction to avoid all the egg-shells, trip-wires and hair-trigger car-alarms that seem to surround our friend B. I think the probability of that solution happening is 0%.

One solution would be that we convince everyone currently in any dispute with B. that they're in the wrong, and that they should disengage and make room for other, more collegial editors. This would work if everyone except for the (dozens? scores?) of us who have locked horns with the guy somehow are all able to avoid essentially identical conflicts. I think the probability of this solution coming to pass is 0%.

One solution would be that someone, somehow, communicates to Badagnani that his own style will have to change, because "if you're sure it's always everyone else, it's a good bet it's probably yourself." After trying and failing to get this point across, and seeing others before and after myself try and fail, I don't believe that the probability of this solution occurring is much above 0%.

Unless one of these numbers can be brought up to at least 1%, I think we have to block the guy. Can anyone say why not? Is there any other path out of this jungle that will actually work, in this world? The time for gazing at beautiful ideals is past. We need effective action, unless we want to be back here, rehashing this same thread next week. And next next week. And the week after that, and the week after... you get it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The best solution for dealing with Badagnani is for editors to follow WP:DR. It works, and we won't have to deal with content disputes masquerading as behavioral problems in the future. The question is not why we don't have to block Badagnani: The question is why we do. The edit warring under discussion involves multiple editors, not just Badagnani. So, if you are proposing blocking Badagnani for this incident, you will have to block the other editors as well. This original incident report is based on a content dispute over at List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, a content dispute that seems to be working itself out on the talk page with calm discussion. In closing, it should be observed that the original editor who filed this incident report[46] began WP:DR procedures on the article in question 24 hours after the incident was posted to AN/I.[47] I therefore recommend closing this report as resolved. Due to the complexity of this case and the involved editors (and administrators) I also recommend that any further discussion on this matter should involve the opening of a new arbitration case where the behavior of all parties will be examined. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"The best solution for dealing with Badagnani is for editors to follow WP:DR". Yes, clearly. How are we going to make that happen? If we can't make that happen, what's plan B? I'm not "proposing blocking Badagnani for this incident". I'm proposing that, unless Badagnani is blocked, or some miracle occurs, this won't be the last "incident". I'm not talking about an incident; I'm talking about a pattern, and whether or not we are able to break it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He is currently blocked for edit warring and for not using the talk page on Chaozhou xianshi. Anyone who still has a problem should take it to arbcom. Since there are a number of admins watching him now, I'm sure escalating blocks will follow if there are any more incidents. To answer your question, we can't make anything happen. It's up to Badagnani. How he responds to the problem is his responsibility, whether he is right or wrong. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I hear you say "It's up to Badagnani," and I also hear you say, "the best solution is for [other] editors to follow WP:DR". Both of these are good suggestions. Maybe the current block will encourage him to change; maybe another longer one will do it. Maybe ArbCom will have to do it. Meanwhile, I get the impression you're calling for some kind of changes from other editors, those with whom Badagnani has clashed. As far as encouraging that, what can we do? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing can be done other than practicing what we preach. I can't control anyone but myself. In a society, when we can't control ourselves, others have to step in. That's why we have arbcom. Freedom is easy to talk about, but it entails a great deal of personal responsibility. If you think about it, everyone who ends up at arbcom has given up their freedom to resolve a dispute on their own, and they have done so willingly. Sadly, most people prefer it this way. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, this is all very easy to agree with, but it seems to go against what you were saying above, like, yesterday. I'm still trying to figure out what solution you're suggesting we implement. Is it simply "lead by example"? That hasn't worked so far; shall we give it another year? Is your suggestion that we use some combination of persuasion and force to make his detractors all change their behavior? Who is going to make this happen? Is your suggestion that the next dispute go to ArbCom? Sounds fine.

You talk about freedom... I don't really think in those terms, so I don't know what to say... Everyone's "free" to do whatever they want, but who cares? The question isn't "what are we free to do?" The question is "what shall we do?"

Earlier, you were strongly recommending that "other editors follow DR". Show me the money; tell me a real plan. I'm not patient with platitudes here. There is an ongoing problem that needs solving. If the current block doesn't solve it, then we either do something, or we sit around complaining about how someone should do something. I recommend the former of those two choices, probably in the form of escalating blocks. Maybe that would help him realize that one person can't act outside the standards of the community and then realistically expect everyone to adapt to themselves, and to their special needs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please try to see the forest for the trees. We are here because Ronz feels his freedom was impacted by Badagnani, who in turn, feels his freedom was taken away when editors began harassing him. And we can see the rest of the comments from other parties, who also feel that their freedom to edit Wikipedia was lessened, and they blame Badagnani for ruining their Wikipedia experience. And they all share the same thing in common: Each one wants to give their freedom to the community because they don't think they are free in the first place. This is not a platitude, it is the direct, underlying problem. If you want to solve it, you first have to actually look at it, from all sides. Otherwise, you are only addressing one aspect of it, and your solution will be no better than that offered by the blind men and an elephant. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to see what you're saying. People are upset because they feel their freedom to edit Wikipedia is being limited by the behavior of others. If this is the "direct underlying problem," can you help me see how that points towards a solution? If we understand that people feel their freedoms impinged on.... then what? How does that indicate where we go from here? If thinking in terms of freedoms is important, please show me how.

If you're going to compare me to a blind man for possibly not agreeing with you about the true essence of the problem, then I hope you will at least take my hand and lead me around the elephant. Can you show me what we're supposed to see, when we think in terms of "freedom"? I'm all ears. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a philosophical discussion of freedom. Reasonable people can agree on the meaning of the term in the context that it is used. I wasn't comparing you to a blind man, but you have admitted to only seeing one side of this issue. For example, I don't think you have ever acknowledged Badagnani's claims of harassment. From what I can recall, you have always poopooed the idea, mostly because you believe that Badagnani won't listen to you, and I get the sense that you are angry at him because he doesn't take your advice. I think you have to get beyond your personal likes and dislikes and try to see this from another POV besides your own. Everyone is not free to do what they want. In a community, freedom has limits. There are consequences to our actions, and harassment, edit warring, and incivility are met with restraints upon our freedom. The editors in question have been allowed to act with few consequences. Perhaps you will do something about that in your sanction proposal. There is another form of freedom that is more important. It is the freedom, the choice, to not react in a given situation. Nobody is forcing anyone to harass others, to revert, to edit war, to make impolite comments, to attack other editors. Every time an editor blames Badagnani for the "problem" they find themselves in, they are relinquishing their freedom to choose another method of resolving the conflict. I agree with Occuli, Quiddity, and SamuelWantman on this matter. No matter what faults Badagnani brings to the table, it is the stalking and harassment, the incivility and personal attacks by the editors who complain about him, that is the more serious problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

External comment: I hadn't realised this was still going on. Viriditas, I don't think this is a fair portrayal of the situation. As I said when I endorsed the RFC [48], Badagnani dramatises others' edits in relation to himself. At Talk:Wolfberry, where I interacted with him, he was (falsely, in my view) describing straightforward edits as, variously, "vandalism", "hyperaggressive", "stalking", "highly damaging and disruptive", "impoverishing our articles", "very, very wrong" long before any of the more recent discussions. As far as I can see, he's not being stalked or harassed, merely getting the attention that any editor gets who shows repeated problematic conduct or editing patterns. I can't see any reason to give special dispensation to one editor who has a thin skin and WP:OWN problems. As GTBacchus says, special rules - apart from sanctions on Badagnani - are unworkable. There'll always be new editors running into him who won't know those rules. And besides, it's expecting application of double standards: seems it's OK for Badagnani to remove unsourced material without discussion [49][50][51][52], but not OK whenever anyone removes his, many, unsourced additions. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not address a single point I made in the above comment, but replied to tell me that I was "unfair" and then went on to talk about your experience on Talk:Wolfberry. You make it seem like I am defending Badagnani's bad behavior, while ignoring my concerns about the harassment. I'm not sure what the point of your comment was, but I disagree with it. The talk page you linked to shows the same characters engaging in the same bad behavior and very little productive discussion. My point stands. Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what was unclear. I'm saying I think he is mistaken in his claims of harassment - that Talk:Wolfberry exemplifies the way he dramatises justified edits as being persecution - and that you are mistaken in treating such claims as fact. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: See Talk:Âu Việt#Source. In my opinion, Mr Badagnani is a good editor but you should have a special methods if you want to work with him. Blocking him isn't not a good choice because it will hurt a lot of editor and remove an dedicated watcher of non-popular article such as Asian foods, Chinese music or history of Vietnam.

If we couldn't have a outcome here, why shouldn't we re-open this sanction proposal or make a new one.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I agree that he's a good editor when not involved in these conflicts. I also agree that one needs "special methods" to work with him. How are we going to let people know about these "special methods", and how can we expect that other editors will agree to follow special rules when interacting with this one editor?

Do you see how this is a problem? I don't know how we can maintain "special needs" editors in any way that will actually work, not in some ideal world, but in this one. The solution that is suggesting itself now seems to be escalating blocks, whenever he edit wars, until he is either gone, or realizes that he may not edit war anymore. Perhaps 1RR probation would be a good idea? I wouldn't object to that probation covering incivility as well, because Badagnani clearly expects a high level of respect from others that he seems absolutely unwilling to provide in return. The rest of us reap what we sow - I don't see why Mr. B. should be any different. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the ball was dropped on this because you took some time off to pay your respects at a funeral and take care of business. Per Amore Mio, why don't you reboot the sanction proposal? Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. He hasn't come back from his block yet, so let's see what happens when he does. If everything goes well, and there's no more edit-warring, then maybe everything will be peachy. If not, I'm going to suggest a probation, in which behavior guidelines are made extremely clear, in particular regarding reversions. I would prefer to use a new thread for that, so this one can go away if we're done with it. (Do we have to tag it "resolved," or something?) I think I'll go see if I can compose an email that might be worth sending. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GTB - Yes I see the history. I was coming to it fresh and wished to draw B's attention to improvements I would like to make to the Chinese music field, to articles that are to be amplified carefully in adherence to academic sources. I am not concerned about "my freedom" to do this; I am concerned about music students being able to find reliable material through wiki. There are holes in the treatment so far, and there are problems like a template pointing to a disused category, poor linking to central musical articles..... But there is a whole world of wiki music and life is only so long. If I have to "dispute resolve" a simple matter like the requirement for citations every single time, it aint never going to appen. No, I knew nothing about bloody rice noodles, liqueurs and dogfood. To find out as fast as I did I had to let civility wait on boldness a slight amount. I am sorry to be the cause of an editor being blocked yet - those China music articles can and ought to be improved and I have done nothing but ths backroom stuff for days. Practically speaking, anything that produces a few weeks of healthy editing I shall be glad of - whatever it takes. Redheylin (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

@Mr GTBacchus: I could understand the differences of 'ideal world' and 'real world'. In my opinion, B's problem is his habit of keeping the status quo, considering all editors ,who remove contents without adding anythings in return, "vandals" or "censors", and his pride of 100,000+ edits; so we could deal with them on a simple way: ask B for sources, wait, and edit or delete. This is my special method which could give B some face and let him have no reason to stop my editing.

Because of B's long and dedicated contributions for Wikipedia, I would feel something regrets if B got blocked. I think we should have some "isolation solution" that prevent B and other editors from warring each other like the fourth choice. A solution like that one could give B as well as other time before edit and saving page so that we could stop this long-time and destructive conflict on a less painful way. If I could propose, I would like to suggest the following community restrictions:

• If B edits (an) article(s), other editors (who usually conflict with him) must wait three days before revert/change that/those article(s). Other editors could comment on the talk page of that/those article(s).
• If other edits (an) article(s), B must wait three days before that/those article(s). B could comment on the talk page of that/those article(s).

--Amore Mio (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to place restrictions on editors, you'll have to specifically name those editors, and show evidence that those restrictions are based on their own violations of Wikipedia policy. You can't put an edit restriction on anyone who ever disagrees with B. I also strongly disagree with the premise that a large number of edits is any way indication of a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Quantity != quality. Dlabtot (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dlabtot. My discussions above is just suggestions for consideration. I'm new here and I can't remember or check all B's conflicts so that I can not list all parties here. Besides, I totally agree "Quantity != quality" but many of B's contributions are really helpful and constructive (that why I said "long and dedicated contributions" instead of "huge contributions".). In sum up, I wish everyone could remember my opinions while dealing with B's problems (in future).--Amore Mio (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Temporary end

Mr B has been offline for a time and we still couldn't have an outcome. Shouldn't we temporarily end this discussion?--Amore Mio (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl

I've archived 163kb worth of this conversation inactive since May 7 to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl. –xeno ^talk 21:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordian Knot Solution

Let's call this the "Gordian Knot" solution.

This thread and all the preceding and future ones are simply absurd at this point and going on years-long. Vintagekits and KittyBrewster are oil and water, but per content policies and naming conventions both have a leg to stand on. Brownhairedgirl does some good work in this area of baronets but apparently keeps inserting herself into all of this mess and fight between them. Here's a simple solution. Lets just get it done with. I just expanded and clarified this based on feedback, and put it up as an essay/proposal at Wikipedia:Gordian Knot Solution/WP:GORDIAN:

1. All the involved people are topic banned, broadly construed, from ANY of the specific topic(s), or their talk page(s), or discussing the topic(s) in related community discussions beside possible WP:RFAR action.
2. All the involved people will go to a user sub page of their choosing and hash out a compromise amongst themselves. They will have to come to a common understanding. Consensus here is not numerical, such as 66%/33%, but they can amongst themselves use methods like polling or voting. Or pulling straws. Or counting coup. Or whatever they wish to use, to get to a final solution they all are agreeable to. If the parties want, they can appoint a mediator, or a negotiator, or a bodyguard. Whatever they would like, as long as it gets them talking.
3. Other users may weigh in with advice or suggestions on the talk page, but the "Main Page" of discussions is restricted to the 'involved parties'. The purpose is to get them working together as directly as possible, to cut their own Gordian knots.
4. Once they agree on a binding plan of action, with binding penalties for failure to comply, they can post it to WP:ANI for review. Once a decent number of users sign off on their specific Plan, the topic ban comes off of the topic(s), and any additional restrictions they agree to amongst themselves go live. They write their own penalties, rules, and restrictions. Any previously uninvolved (uninvolved in any administrative action with any of the three) Administrator can enforce the Plan with admin tools if required.
5. None of them may use any available admin or higher level tools in regards to the restricted topic area while this is under discussion, or against other participants in the discussion/planning.
6. If the discussions for crafting a plan appear broken down, the next stop for the participants is directly to WP:RFAR; the topic bans/tool use bans remain in effect until they come back to finish the Plan, or the RFAR concludes.
7. If they want to revise their Plan, they all go back under topic ban until it's revised.
8. Any of the users, once the Plan is first live, can appeal to end it/break away from it by requesting WP:RFAR.

Let's try this--if they really want to work on this topic area, they need to decide what works. Until they can, they continue trying to figure out what works until they do. If the content is more important than their own views and agendas, they'll come to an agreement quickly. If not, there are other things they can work on.

If this works, we can apply this to a whole host of hotspots on Wikipedia. rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions / Clarifications

I have a few questions:
1. Once this sub-page is established for the three of them to use, could others comment on the talk page? If not, would comments to individual user talk pages be allowed?
2. If comment from others is allowed, what prevents that descending into argument and how would that be controlled?
3. If no input from others is allowed, couldn't there be concerns that the agreement reached is imposing a solution on the community? Perhaps the agreement needs to be put out for comment both by editors in the area for NPOV etc and administrators for workability in a monitoring sense.
4. I wonder if involvement of a mediator to keep the group on track, and to bear broader policy in mind, would be a useful addition? The group would still need to reach unanimity and having an outsider involved would allow everyone to say that the result was 'fair'.
I do think the idea is really good, but also suggest that refinements may make it even better.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Replies. 1) I'd prefer the "Main Page" be hard-restricted to just them, like an Arbcom Proposed Decision page, for simplicity's sake. 2) Keep it on the talk page, and out of the way. Heard, but not in control at all. 3) That falls under if people endorse their plan when they drop it back on ANI--if it's half-arsed, it's back to talks they go with no endorsement, topic ban still in place. 4) A mediator may help, but could easily defeat the point them mutually agreeing. People should be here for the content, not their own POV for a given topic. This is the simplest way for problem cases to force the issue -- agree and work together freely once other options have been exhausted, or you have other options in what you can edit. rootology (C)(T) 05:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Support this plan and why

1. I wrote it. rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Certainly worth a try, as: (a) it saves ArbCom from a long case, along with all the time and effort from other editors that a case involves; (b) if effective, there are lots of other areas it could be used; (c) it requires no administrator effort except as far as enforcing the agreement goes, which would be straight-forward so long as the agreed "rules" are clear; (d) the editors involved in the dispute have ownership of the solution, and (e) if they can't agree, they remain topic-banned and others can get on with coming up with solutions without disturbance by the existing dispute. EdChem (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Worth a try, as our usual methods haven't worked. I think it's in the spirit of Wikipedia as well, to let people solve things for themselves. It has the additional advantage that among them they represent the range of possible views, and have at least as much expertise in the area as anyone else here. DGG (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I could support this if the three protagonists are prepared to give it a try; it could possibly succeed if the 3 wanted it to, but for this to happen BHG would have to leave her Admins tools at the door and not ban VK when he argued his point of view. They would all have to to admit previous errors and I'm not sure they will. I suspect, VK could be persuaded to admit that at times he can be an offensive arrogant bastard, but I am less sure the other two can see the errors of their ways. I was very interested to be reminded on page 7 of today's Times (the London one) that five years ago an all party of British MP recommended abolishing the current honours system because they are associated with "rank and class" and "OBE redolent of an Imperial history." and the "CBE renamed Companion of British excellence." Now, that is the indisputable published view of the British Government (who originally handed these honours out and continue to do so) had VK said that, Kittybrewster would have pressed for BHG to block him. I suspect, a large part of the problem is that they feel VK is not deferential enough, but we have come long way since I was involved in the stupid battle to remove "the most noble" before Wikipedia could even mention a British duke [53] (a practice long abandoned by the court circular except on the most formal occasions) People have got to be able to edit these pages without comments such as this [54] from Kittybrewster's socking and banned friends. Finally, BHG has to learn some self control; and stop accusing anyone advising of stirring and supporting only VK whose opinion does not completely coincide with her own. Anyone who is notable can have a Wikipedia page and should do, including baronets, Knights princes and princesses, but everyone should be allowed to edit them in a non POV, deferential and obsequies way. So let them have a go at sorting this out themselves, if they want to, but I don't hold out much hope. Giano (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I wrote the above before reading this edit by Kittybrewster [55], that coupled with this latest attack on VK [56] make it too hard to see that there is a way forward expecting them to sort the mess themselves. Giano (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Support. I'm in favor of any plan that will reduce the disruption. This proposal puts the burden on VK and KB to reach an agreement if they ever want to return to editing the topic. I have no illusions that they'll ever do so but it won't be the community's problem any longer.   Will Beback  talk  09:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. I am willing to engage in anything that stops the distruption and keeps the Baronet articles in check.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this plan and why

1. There is too much bad blood to expect anything productive to come out of a direct discussion on the issue. BHG and VintageKits can barely contain themselves, even with lots of users here trying to keep the peace. Mangojuice^talk 06:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   That's sort of the point--this will never end without a contentious RFAR or them agreeing to work out something. This clears everyone's plates and saves an RFAR. If they're here for Wikipedia, they'll sort it out. If not, no loss for the rest of the community and the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   You're supposing one thing, that the three of these folks will come to any agreement. I don't think that's going to happen at all. There's no desire to compromise, and too much "I'm right, you're wrong" on both sides. The RfArb is apparently going to only last a little longer then a week, so believe it or not (and I'm having just as much trouble as anyone else, believe me!), it's the quickest route. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   A complex RFAR with years of history in < one week?! And I thought I was looking for a way to cut knots simply...! RFAR is certainly viable, but why not at least see if they can hash out something if we push the trio into a room together? We have nothing to really lose, here. rootology (C)(T) 06:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think it unfair to them to judge in advance that it will not work. It may not, but it will not do any harm. The more we can keep out of arb com, the better, and I'm sure arb com feels the same. And it has a mechanism to deal with failure as well. DGG (talk)

   DGG, I've dealt with this area for years here on Wikipedia. I'm familiar with all the players, and dealt with them time and time and time and time again when I was an administrator. I even volunteered to be a mentor of one of the parties way back when this whole thing started (if I only knew then what I knew now!) Trust me on this. Talking it out is NOT going to happen. And Rootology, that "just over one week" notice comes straight from NYB. on RfArb SirFozzie (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. It seeks to topic ban BHG and me from an area in which we have a positive contribution while requiring us to feed buiscuits to a POV chiwahwah. It is unjust and assumes the chiwahwah will accept logical arguments which he won't. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Come on KB, retract that statement, please? You're not doing yourself any good here and just making things worse... SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Kittybrewster, this is intollerable behaviour, and largely what has led to this mess. If VK called you a dog, you would have him banned. I realise you are being idiomatic and have said this without thinking through the implications, so please just appologise and let's try and get this show on the road. Giano (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Vk has terrier like qualities. I do not seek to have Vk banned from boxing articles to which I think he contributes positively. He was topic banned and it worked until the ban was lifted. then he criticises me for fleeing. Gianoo criticises me because of past edits by people who voted as I did (and a recent IP address who edited in a way I disagreee with). Bad game. I am not playing. I will not get sucked in. Easy solution out there. Just what I requested; reverse his edits and reimpose the topic ban on him. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I rest my case. With 2 of 3 of the participants against this, approach, I am even firmer about opposing it. This would only work if it was something they all agreed to. Mangojuice^talk 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. This plan is unjust and unworkable, and is based on a lack of understanding of the issues.
   • It is based on the mistaken assumption that all parties to a dispute are somehow equally at fault, without actually examining the issues.
   • It sets out to exclude editors who do make a substantive contribution to an area in order to balance the exclusion of an editor whose invovement is limited simply to periodic interventions bristling with hostility both to the topic and the editors who work on it, and who ignores WP:BRD (see the discussion above)
   • It ignores the fact that when discussion of these issues has been attempted, Vintagekits simply refuses to engage on the substance, and endlessly repeats the simplistic mantra he is "enforcing policy". (WP:NCNT is a guideline not a policy, it does have an important exception to its general principle, and wikipedia works by consensus not by one editor deciding to "enforce" policy, even if they are right).
   • Even at RFAR, Vintagekits is still denouncing those who oppose his mass moves as being "without concrete evidence. Facts not ficton please!!". But evidence of the disruptive effect of those moves has already been posted at ANI. These five diffs all identify problems, and only one of them is from me: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]
   • The proposal to lock me and Kittybrewster into a 3-way discussion with Vintagekits ignores the expertise of the other editors who have supplied concrete evidence of Vintagekits approach to page moves, In doing so, it structurally biases the discussion in Vintagekits favour. It also excludes User:Choess, who has already agreed to review the naming of all baronet articles on a list supplied by Vintagekits
   • My main area of interest is not in baronets, it is in Members of Parliament. I am involved in this solely because a significant number of MPs before 1918 were baronets, and an exclusion from baronets has the effect of excluding me from significant chunks of my work on MPs because one editor (and only one) indulges in mass page moves. To take a few examples since 1st May, the topic ban would have prevented me from writing Ernest Craig, Sir Richard Martin, 1st Baronet and Sir John Leigh, 1st Baronet‎‎; it would also have prevented me from categorising and otherwise improving a series of other articles, such as [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]; and it would probably also have prevented me from working on articles on parliamentary constituencies, because nearly all of those I have worked on recently include some baronets in the list. None of that has been in any way controversial, but the proposal is the exclude me from all of this work in order to provide some sort of "balance" with an editor whose only interest is in mass page moves. How on earth does that help us to what we are supposed to be here for, which is to build an encyclopedia? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I agree with Mangojuice, SirFozzie adn BHG. Any solution to this issue needs to be simple. I'm gonna reiterate my earlier suggestion, which btw does not require the assent of either KB or VK. At this stage though I would also place KB on at least 6 months of civility parole too--Cailil ^talk 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I had objected before to the proposed restrictions on KB, but in view of this, I withdraw any objections to Cailil's proposal. It's the best way of restoring calm by separating two editors who seem to be seeking out a conflict rather than avoiding it, but I would add to Cailil's proposal a topic ban for KB on boxing articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Another version of a solution: Without antagonism from Kittybrewster, Vk would not need a civility parole (which it has been agreed don't work anyway). If people are rude they get banned. There is no doubt the two need to be kept well apart. I would suggest topic banning them both from baronets/titled people for a year, with the additional proviso that KB is topic banned from boxing (no hardship for him) and the two should not intentionally edit the same page. BHG should voluntarily agree to cease using admin tools against VK, in the unlikely event he re-offends another admin can easily deal with him. Also, I think people need to realise that a lot of VK's comments are a sense of humour rather than a sense of malicious intent. I think this is a pretty good compromise and solution, if it goes to Arbitration, their gamble could leave them far worse off. Giano (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   With the addendum to ban them both also from Arbuthnot related articles (the other "battlefield") and to set them on probation after the expiration of the bans, I would support this.

   ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, I will go with that. Incidentally was't Killer Chiuaha here a moment ago [67], has someone reverted her by mistake? No, I can't spell it either [68]. Giano (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oh that was me, sorry.

   ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   "I would suggest topic banning them both from baronets/titled people for a year, with the additional proviso that KB is topic banned from boxing (no hardship for him) and the two should not intentionally edit the same page." VK "wins". He has no interest in Baronets (so he's said and I believe him), but he gets his enemy banned from a topic KB is interested in. Apart from apparently writing about a lake that shares his family name (a real stretch to call that a COI), noone has pointed out where KB has breached COI since he was warned off that, something like a year ago. So I don't see why he requires a topic ban now. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   [69], [70], [71] They may only be minor and helpfull edits, but are nevertheless examples that he can't keep himself out of these articles. I should also add that in my eyes to request an article by another user User_talk:VegaDark#Please_create_User:VegaDark.2FJames_Arbuthnot_.28wrestling_coach.29 [72] is the same than to write the article self.

   ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   In response to Giano, I am happy to promise to cease using admin tools against VK, but I strongly urge that we have some sort of mechanism in place to prevent the situation arising again where I see a rapid-fire series of page moves which will be a big job to unravel. That could be a topic ban on him editing in area where (as Bastun points out) he has no actual interest, and in particular against him engaging in mass page moves, and a topic ban would be the simplest and clearest option. If Vk is not topic-banned from this area or banned from such page moves, then please please can we have some other admin as a mentor or such-like to avoid leaving other editors in the situation of having to clean up afterwards if he resumes this?

   In response to Bastun, I had until today supported the notion that a topic ban on baronets for Kittybewster was unjustified, for all the reasons Bastun sets out. But this morning's action by Kb in AFDing an article created by Vk seems so pointlessly provocative that while it doesn't realte to baronets, it bodes ill for his ability to work in areas of conflict.

   Final point: Vk's incivility is not simply a result of provocation by Kb, and has been directed towards many other editors who expressed a view on this wikidrama. In fact, the only point in the last week's dramas where I see Kittybrewster having provoked Vintagekits is in today's AFD. As to the claim's Vk's incivility is in fact humour that others don't appreciate, the fact remains even all the "bullshit" "be very scared" etc really is his idea of humour, then it's completely inappropriate humour for such a controversial editor heading into an area where he has had so many previous conflicts. Call it civility patrol or call it something else, but the use of language guaranteed to anatagonise is unacceptable in real life and much more dangerous online, where people cannot see any smile which accompanies it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   You are becoming extremely boring BHG. Glib unsubstantiated comments repeated over and over again in the vain hope that it will become fact. You were more distruptive in this whole episode than I - thats a fact! Lets put this "move rampage" bs to bed once and for all. You knew for years that there was a issue with regards the naming of Baronet articles - yet you stood by and made no attempt to correct the article titles. You waited until it had reached a point were more articles were incorrectly titled than correctly titled. If you had started EVEN ONE discussion to try and sort all this out then all this could have been avoided - but you didnt, you used your position as an admin as a bulldoozer and moved them back without considering the substantive issue or discussing it. I will ask you this again because you seem to duck it every time - how many article titles did I move and how many do you consider to be incorrect moves?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Vintagekits, I'm sorry if the truth bores you, but that's your choice. Please do try to calm down a little and try reading WP:NAM. You write as if there was some huge emergency here, some disastrous untruth being propagated, when there was nothing of the sort: the worst that was happening was over-disambiguation (because the titles are the recommended form of disambiguator for baronets). That should be corrected, but it's not an emergency.

   If you genuinely thought that there was terrible neglect or malice leading to over-disambiguation, and that everyone else was being appallingly negligent, you know perfectly well that your interpretation of the guidelines was not shared by others who know the subject. The simple step to do was to raise a discussion about your concerns, not to blame others for failing to resolve a perceived "problem" which appears to cause great distress to you, but not to others ... and if you were not satisfied with the outcome, to open an RFC.

   WP:BRD says "don't be reckless", and setting forth to make mass moves which you knew would be controversial was just that: reckless. I have not yet done a full assessment of all the rapid-fire moves you made. You were moving them at the rate of one every two minutes, which is completely insufficient time to make the checks for ambiguity which I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=287945775&oldid=287939608 outlined on your talk page], and to which you have not replied after 4 days. I find that that those checks need about ten minutes per article, and I deplore your tactic of making a moves without checking and then demanding that others do the research on every single article to check whether the moves were justified. As you well know, I posted at RFAR a set of links to identified bad moves which you had made, and yet in none of those cases have you apologised for the error. Instead in most cases, you accused the person who did the research of trying "disrupt and provoke" when they restored a needed disambiguator.

   You still rant away on this without ever acknowledging all the points made about the need for disambiguation both between existing articles and redlinks, and insist that you moved the articles to "correct" titles as if you had never read WP:NCNT. I'm astonished that a week after this started, you are still in attack mode, blaming others for your own failure to do enough research before moving articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   I am completely calm and not in the slightest angry - but if it makes you feel better you can repeat over and over that I am an angry, aggresive thug! I have done nothing that you havent - but you have acted more disruptively than I, the only reason you are being shielded is because you are an admin. You say I did not do any checks - that is completely incorrect - every article I moved either was a redirect to the incorrect title or was a relink - its cant be any more clear than that. I will ask you this again because you seem to duck it every time - how many article titles did I move and how many do you consider to be incorrect moves?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Vintagekits, as you very well know, I'm ducking nothing. Some of the problems caused by your page moves been reported at ANI by at least five different editors, and I posted a collection of the links at WP:RFAR (see here). Why do you continue to pretend that you have never seen any of the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

All this could have been avoided if you "had lead by example" - as you as supposed to do as an admin. If instead of insitating an "move war" you had tried to discuss the issue all this could have been avoided - but you didnt - you feel hook, line and sinker for KB's bait and look where that extremely poor error in judgement has left you. If you had asked me what was going on or tried any way to resolve it with me that you would have found me more than accomodating. You didnt - you bulldoozed your way through the issue using you admin powers as a cosh. I will ask you this again because you seem to duck it every time - how many article titles did I move and how many do you consider to be incorrect moves?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, I did initially try to discuss it with you, before it became clear that as usual with you, discussion was futile. When I explained about the dismbiguation issues, and in particular your conversion of a disambiguation page to a redirect, you replied "a page you created to distrupte and cause trouble". This aggression and refusal to consider another perspective on applying the guidelines makes discussion with you futile, as still illustrated a week later by your continued refusal to respond to the details already posted of the disruption caused by your moves, or to my post on your talk page about the checks needed for ambiguity. But I don't think athta nything anyone says is going to dissuade from your view that your aggression and continued refusal to consider other perspectives on your mass moves is evidene of the malice of others. Whatever this is all about, Vintagekits, it could have been resolved long ago if you were not so consumed with rage about the topic of baronets that you point-blank refuse to calmly consider the objections lodged by half-a-dozen editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no agression - and I am perfectly calm - you need to calm down and stop being so emotional - that is what started this trouble in the first place. You had the same opinion of the guidlelines when it suited you but now that seems to have changed - now that it doesnt suit you - that comes across as hypocritical to me. You continue to duck this questions because you know you caused this trouble - I will ask you this again because you seem to duck it every time - how many article titles did I move and how many do you consider to be incorrect moves?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made your position quite clear. You refuse to discuss any of the documented problems caused by your page moves unless and until someone has sat down for hours to do a detailed analysis of every single one of them and provided a statistical summary. Sorry, but I am not playing. You have been editing for long enough to know that it is the responsibility of every editor to justify the edits they make, and I see no purpose at all in spendng the time now to doing a full review when you point-blank refuse to discuss the problems which have already been identified by Benea, Phoe and others. Whatever you are trying to achieve here, I'm not playing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew you would duck it - you should be ashamed of yourself. I have never ducked a discussion or a conversation on any subject. The above shows that you were rash in the extreme and embarassed yourself beyond reply. Like I have said time and time again - all the articles I moved had either were either a redirect or a redlink - you agreed with that in the past but now it seems you have changed - in the past you have said that I should stick to what the MOS states but now you say dont - your stance has been motived by trying to drag up previous disputes instead of applying wikipedia policy or guidelines. The best thing you can do is resign as an admin.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Mmmm perhaps, but some people do have a very odd sense of humour, and I really think that is all the "be very scared etc" was. If they are both topic banned from "baronets" (I think we ought to include all titled people) then they won't be moving pages - will they? The Arbuthnot pages need to be included in the ban too, KB should really not be editing them anyway and they will only prove a source of further conflict. Perhaps someone could write up the terms on a designated page somewhere, so we can clearly see what we are talking about. Giano (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Response to various. I don't see how requesting someone else to create an article is a COI - it's not as if he provided the content. I haven't examined the diffs where KB has recently edited Arbuthnot articles, but if they weren't reversions of obvious vandals, then KB is doing what he was asked not to do. And AfD an article started by VK... *sigh*. That's pointlessly stoking a fire. Re VK's civility - Giano linked elsewhere to Archive 7 of VK's talk page recently, in the process making little of some of the actions that got VK blocked for several months (which, Giano, were not "threatening death by email" but rather was twice posting an editor's street address, in a "I know where you live" manner. And this was all around Troubles disputes... I'd forgotten just how bad VK's incivility could sink, a la that dished out to Rockpocket. His excuse then was "Irish humour" - it didn't wash then, and it doesn't wash now. VK and KB both need to cop themselves on. And Giano needs to be less partisan in his defence of one protagonist only. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Far from being partisan I am suggesting that two editors both be treated in the same identical fashion. I find behaviour such as this very hard to defend, but I don't see the point of sactioning him further, although I know some do. If this solution is accepted, I am not pressing for a further and harder look at BHG's use of her tools against VK. There is little point addressing problems that are unlikely to be repeated. I am merely trying to find a satifactory solution agreable to all, and as the many Admins who have tried will tell you, that is far from easy. Giano (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Playing Devil's Advocate here, I would say if we are treating them in an identical fashion, lets ban them both from boxing and baronets. Thats clearly not something you would support, Giano (nor should anyone else, as Vk has shown time and again that he is a very constructive contributor in that sphere and any interest Kb has in boxing would likely be for antagonistic reasons). By the same token, banning both from Baronets has a similar same effect: in the interests of "playing fair", it has the practical outcome of removing a long term constructive contributor because his nemesis got antagonistically involved in an area that he has little interest in. The obvious solution? Ban Vk from baronets, ban Kb from boxing and the first one to step over the line gets banned from the other subject too. Rockpocket 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Rockpocket, I like that idea of banning each of them from each other's favourite territory, esp if the ban is permanent (so that we don't have this popping up again in 6 months or a year or whenever). With 2million articles, wikipedia is more than big enough for both of them, so long as they avoid tweaking each other's tails, and this solution allows both of them to keep on contributing in their area of their expertise. However, they both do need to be topic-banned from mainspace on anything Arbuthnot-related. If either of them sees a problem with those articles, let them raise it on the talk pages.

   If we combine that with a task-force on baronets renaming (Choess using Vk's list, Kb+vk excluded, any other interested parties free to add whatever expertise they can bring), we can both resolve the issues which led to this tangle and sort out the substantive issue in dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Of course you like RP's idea - because it gets you off the hook and keeps any decenting or critical voice off articles about Baronets and promotes the staus quo that has created the issue of incorrectly titled articles which you have failed to control. You are wrong to say that I have no interest in articles about Baronets - in fact I have a very keen keen interest in them - its just that my interest in them doesnt come from an arse kissing perspective and I have a more critical eye for them. In fact who was it that wrote this Baronet article? - there are many very good Baronets out their and they deserve good, well written and informative articles - but there are also many very poor articles and my interest is in cleaning them up for clearing them out.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Vk, I'm surprised that even at this stage you resort to yet more abuse about "arse kissing", but then you did post at quarter-past-midnight on a friday. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Agree partly with BHG above, but baronets do need to be included: VK does not cause problems with boxing; KB causes problems with baronets.If VK were writing only in a glowing terms, and about boxers he was related to, or personally friendly with, we would all rightly concerned. There is more to KB's baronet editing than is on the surface, while we can all smile indulgently at such edits as this [73], it would be a brave man who removed it; you, Rockpocket, know as well as I that instantly one of his socking banned friends would be there with a tirade of abuse. This is part of the problem with KB's sycophantic writing of Arbuthnots and baronets. People are concerned, and some even irritated, it is causing a problem. VK is not the only person who wants action there. As long as KB is editing in this field there will always be trouble. You only have to study his actions today (for which he is currently banned) to see that he is as capable of disruption, baiting and trolling. Lets have an end of it - if he likes he can write about the Italian nobility, there's a huge empty field there, for him to play in. He can be as nice as he likes about them, I won't complain. Giano (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Rockpocket - that is pretty dumb logic. Boxing articles is not the issue here - Kitty cannot edit articles about "those with titles" or "Arbuthnot"s in a neutral manner.

   I would agree that all three are topic banned for editing artciles for titled individuals - with the exception that I can edit articles for titled individuals that are involved in boxing and BHG can edit articles for titled individuals that are/were MP's.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Vintagekits, what on earth are the grounds for that proposal? Exactly what problem do you allege that I have introduced into articles on non-MP baronets that requires a topic ban? And how many boxing baronets have you unearthed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   How have stated that you have no interest in Baronets except for ones that are MP's - that is the logic. Re Boxing - The specific article that sprung to mind was the Earl of Lonsdale - one of the founding fathers of the sport. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   I also have no interest in American football or soap opera, but occasionally edit in those fields, usually when disambiguating links after page moves, and I do similar maintenance work on non-MP baronets. Are you suggesting that editors should be banned from parts of the encyclopedia they don't have a particular interest in? That's the only basis I can see for a topic ban, because you have offered no evidence of any problems that you allege that I have introduced into articles on non-MP baronets, unless this is just a sour-grapes ban-the-editors-I-don't like proposal. So come on Vintagekits, set out your diffs for all terrible things you reckon I have done to articles on non-MP baronets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Vk, you say Kitty cannot edit articles about "those with titles" or "Arbuthnot"s in a neutral manner. Coming from you, that statement alone is unlikely to convince anyone. We all have inherent bias that creeps into our edits, that in itself is not sufficient to ban someone from editing on that subject. If you can show the Kb's edits to baronets are persistently so biased that it is systematically hurting the project then you may have a case. I'm not familiar enough with Kb's edits to make a judgment myself and you, with respect, are not neutral enough on the subject of Kb to be a reliable judge. It may be true, but you need to show, not tell. I'm still waiting for someone to justify how BHG's edits deserve a topic ban and how that will help the project. Rockpocket 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

KB's multiple blocks for COI in this area for one. As for the logic behind BHG's block - how about her abuse of her admin powers when involved in this subject, her mass renaming of article titles against the MOS and her refusal to discuss the issue or engage in dispute resolution and the aggressive and provokative continuation of renaming when an admin had asked her to stop and engage in a discussion. Didnt take long for your slants POV perspective to shine through RP!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1. If KB and VK were going to be mature and seek a resolution, we would nto be here at all. They aren't, they haven't, and ordering them to is pointless. Topicban for six months or a year or forever; just do it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I oppose this on two grounds, 1) Vintagekits and Kittybrewster could both start a fight in an empty house, let alone when crammed up together on a user page and 2) it assumes BHG is at fault just as much as the other two and that banning her from the area of baronets would help rather than harm Wikipedia. I've said all along that no one really needs to be banned as long as the proper guidelines are adhered to (i.e. discussing the issue before making any moves), but there really is no benefit in blocking BHG. She should not have blocked Vk while she was in dispute with him but that is a seperate issue, unrelated to her behaviour within article space, which as far as I can see has been nothing but appropriate. Banning her from the topic would restrict her work in this area unfairly and pointlessly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Jackyd101, I think concencus is against blocking BHG from editing baronets, but your point that she "should not have blocked Vk while she was in dispute with him" is noted. Personally, I doubt we shall find a concencus here to avoid the looming arbitration case, so perhaps we are all wasting our time posting here. Giano (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Giano, it seems to me that we are very close to a consensus here, and I think it would be a pity to give up now.

   So far as I can see, there is broad agreement that:

   • Vk should be topic-banned from baronets
   • Kb should be topic-banned from boxing
   • BHG to give an assurance not use blocks in this area

   I think that there is probably also agreement to ban both Kb and Vk from Arbuthnot articles, but that's not properly tested yet.

   The seem to be only two points of disagreement:

   • whether Kb should be topic-banned from all baronets articles
   • whether Vk should be on civility patrol

   If we focus on those remaining two points, we may find a solution which gains consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   PS would it help to bridge the gap if Kittybrewster was given some sort sort of supervision for any work on baronets? Someone who could investigate any reports of COI editing, dodgy sources, peacock terms, or other problems that people want to raise, and who would be in a position to report to ANI if anything went awry? If we had someone who monitored Kb's work, we could have reports to ANI on a proper overview if alleged problems arose, and who could identify if there was any pattern of abuse rather than a few isolated errors. This "supervisor" could also raise issues with Kb as they arose. I'm pretty sure that if there was such close scrutiny it would produce the optimal outcome of continued content creation but without problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think you have just returned us to square 1. Let the Arbs decide on a solution. I can see how to solve this, but you seem to want to eat your omlette and let the chicken keep the eggs. that's not possible. If an Arb comes up with a solution, that would be good, and I'll listen. I silently read more of your baronet pages than you realise, something has to be done, you clearly don't see it. So let's go to arbitration with it. Giano (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Giano, it's a pity to turn away from a solution, particularly when you don't identify why you reject my summary.

   I'm also rather fed up with your repeated innuendo about "your baronet pages". I only create articles on baronets who are MPs, who are presumed notable, and which I expand if I can find the sources. I was very pleased that for a moment this afternoon you seemed to be backing away from your earlier repeated attempts to smear me as some sort of part of (or lackey of) the monday club sockpuppet crew, as per here, where you accuse me of "cohorting with them".

   If you are actually seeking a solution, please focus on trying to bridge the gap rather than spreading baseless muck in the hope that some of it may eventually stick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

   "the monday club sockpuppet crew" Oh so that's who they are the Monday Club, no wonder VK stood no chance, let's go to Arbitration on this, it's beginning to stick in my throat, and so are you. Giano (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Seems a slightly odd way to put it, given that Vintagekits has outlasted all but one of them.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Giano, the monday club connection was all thoroughly documented by ONIH at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman after a lot of very impressive detective work, which led to them all being banned. You commented on it shortly afterwards (see here), and you have referred to it often enough since, so I dunno why you feign surprise.

   You now appear to be applying some sort of attempt to apply guilt-by-association to people whose editing overlapped with that sockpuppet who were purged over a year ago, and to be using that as the basis for rejecting a community solution which is within reach. How exactly do you claim that editors banned over a year ago caused Vintagekits to go on a move rampage as soon as his probation expired, and then react with hostility to half-a-dozen editors who reverted some of his moves? You appear to be determined to find some conspiracy involving me and Kittybrewster, with no evidence to support that claim, and to be deflecting discussion away from a solution to the problems in the hope of finding some sort of original sin. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, take it to WP:SSP, but the muck you are throwing at me has nothing to do with bringing this case to a close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   You are becoming shrill and dull BHG, I have accused you of very litle and have thrown no muck. Let it go to Arbcom - is there a problem with that? Giano (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Giano, calling me shrill is just more deflection (and besides, one my of heroines was given the same label).

   The problem is that arbcom will take a lot more time and energy, which could be better used in article-space rather than in diff-harvesting. At this point, we have I think, only one significant area of dissent, which is to a topic ban for KB on baronets. Rockpocket and Bastun object, so I suggested a possible compromise. I think if we totted up numbers, there's a large majority for a topic ban. We could run with that or consider a compromise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   In my view, a topic ban on baronets and all titled people for Kittybrewster is non-negotiable. I know it sounds tough, but he has had his chances and blown them. This is a reputable project that anyone can edit, even the Irish without fear or hindrance. I no longer trust the information and references given in the baronet pages, I have watched too much and seen too much. He never learns as today has proven. You all complain about VK, but his work is good and trustworthy. Topic ban them both from Arbuthnots and all British titled folk and we have agreement. If not, let the Arbcom decide this. Giano (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   This has nothing to do with Vintagekits' nationality, and please don't drag all that Irish stuff up again or we'll be here for the rest our lives. Vintagekits is not the subject of sanctions, complaints or occassional abuse because he is Irish, it's because he can be aggressive in his interactions and reckless in his editing even after two and a half years here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   BTW, Giano, I'm Irish too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Giano. Kb's actions today, in the boxing sphere, were pointy in the extreme. No-one is defending those (not even Kb himself, on reflection) and it will very likely result in a topic ban on boxing. So be it. However, your statement "he has had his chances and blown them" is big on bluster but rather lacking in substance with regards to baronets. What exactly has he done to justify topic ban (other than be guilty of associating with some now banned editors)? Is it because asked BHG to intervene with Vk's reverts? If not, could you describe these chances that has has blown and explain how they differ from the numerous chances that Vk has blown, yet is still permitted to edit in his sphere of interest? You have been a big advocate of treating both sides fairly in the past, but I'm not seeing that same balance here. If we're missing something then please show us, don't just tell us (because, with respect, you are hardly a neutral observer when it comes to Kb, and you clearly have your own grievances with his associates). Rockpocket 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. two idiots who can't fight their way out of a paper bag using teamwork should not be put, relatively un-referee'd, into a ring. Solution also goes beyond what I'm willing to see imposed on BHG. She shouldn't have to endure those two pinheads for months on end, she should just agree not to use her admin buttons as relates to Barons, Baronets, Baronettes, Barettes, Barettas, Baretta or his parrot, and so on. I have ZERO confidence that EITHER KB of VK can comport themselves with even the barest modicum of maturity and manners. Just outright topic ban them both, indefinitely from anythign related to the above list, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I've been thinking about this, and I like the notion and the spirit it was suggested in. The idea to force problematic users onto the same side is the right one. This idea needs refinement, and a much better test case than this particular mess. It also doesn't account for the simple fact that sometimes the users need to be segregated from eachother and problem areas for a long period of time before there is any chance of reconciliation. On balance, I must oppose.--Tznkai (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, yet again

Bearing in mind the huge debate above, the forthcoming arbitration case and past history, can some uninvolved Admin please attend to this matter [74] before yet more hell breaks lose. I have asked Vintagekits not to comment, as I feel this is the wisest course of action, while KB is dealt with. Giano (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the substantive merits or demerits of the AFD nomination, Kittybrewster AFDing an article by Vintagekits at this time is precisely the opposite of the sort of disengagement which is required to end the conflict between them :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy kept the AFD, whatever else the person is clearly notable per WP:ATHLETE anyway, which leads me to the fact that Kittybrewter doesn't know much about notability or he just AfDd it to annoy Vintagekits. Something which I shall be asking him now. Black Kite 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the subject of that article had been as completely and clearly non-notable as a single discarded beer can in a landfill site, Kittybrewster's actions in making that nomination were entirely inappropriate because of the history of conflict between them. Regardless of the merits, it was only going to create more wikidrama :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The one thing I thought everyone could agree on, regardless of their position on any other issue, was that Vintagekits makes valuable contributions to boxing-related articles. So what, and I mean this most sincerely, the fuck? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster again

As I already posted on RFAR, Kittybrewster is violating [75] [76] [77] [78] his topic ban (discussed above), and claiming it is invalid. Could someone please enforce the ban?--Tznkai (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So far today, he has nominated a perfectly acceptable page written by VK for deletion, now he edits in defiance of a topic ban in a field that he knows VK would be instantly banned for. How much of this baiting is VK upposed to silently take. Or do the rules only apply to VK? Giano (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours, for the WP:POINT violation and the incivil comments about VK (comparing him to a dog). I do consider the topic-ban valid, FWIW, but it may not have completely clear support and I don't want it to become the focus of any further discussions on this block. Mangojuice^talk 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Support this block This is one of the rare times when I do support a block, KB has to see that if he is happy to see sanctions applied to VK, he should realis that the same rules apply to him. This baiting had gone on long enough. Giano (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved and likely to remain so, but this was a very good block. AniMate^talk 17:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I also support this block. I expect this was a WP:POINTy edit from Kb to illustrate that he too can go to Vk's subject of interest and antagonise. Not clever. Whats patently clear now is that these two editors need to be kept apart. In their own corners - away from each other - they both can be useful members of the community, so lets keep them there. Rockpocket 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, support this block. I came very close to blocking KB earlier merely for AfDing one of VK's articles, this works just as well. Black Kite 18:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As another uninvolved who doesn't want to get involved, the block seems appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• This section is currently 201 kb, nearly 40% of the entire ANI pagesize. Is the discussion nearly complete? If not, perhaps subpaging might be a worthwhile idea. –xeno ^talk 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Block, Oppose subpaging. ThuranX (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban - Kittybrewster & Boxing

I have topic banned Kittybrewster (talk · contribs) from any article related to Boxing, broadly construed. Per my notice on said editors talkpage, I have extended the ban to commenting on any talkpage of a related article that Vintagekits has edited in the last three months and commenting on any boxing related subject that Vintagekits has also commented upon in the previous year. Should consensus be that my actions were premature or overly harsh, please strike my notice to Kittybrewster should I be absent or tardy in doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. This isn't a comprehensive solution but it's obviously necessary.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse: It's a good stop-gap, I think we are finally dealing with matters long overdue. Giano (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Query I assume there was an incident that provoked this? Could you link it please?--Tznkai (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Giano links it above, but this is what prompted it. – iridescent 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is some incompatibility of actions here. LessHeard vanU notes on Kittybrewster's talk page that in imposing the topic ban for Kb on boxing articles, "it is my hope that you recognise that this is part of an attempt to keep both you and Vk editing in areas of Wikipedia where you both have made valuable contributions, and to diminish the areas of potential conflict."[79]
  However, as Kittybrewster points out in reply,[80] that is not the effect, because Kittybrewster has also been banned from the area where he has made the biggest contribution (i.e. baronets).
  I think that LHVU's intentions were great -- to keep both editors contributing but out of each other's hair -- but the various proposed and actual topic bans need to be considered together rather than applied piecemeal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that Kittybrewster's topic ban from baronets is still open to negotiation - consensus can change - and Kb can agree to limits in respect of areas of concern. This would be an ongoing dialogue. However, removing editors from articles in which they had not previously edited in any major manner and which are in the area of interest of another editor with whom they do not have a good relationship seems a pretty reasonable policy. Rather than review all the parties contrib histories to find overlaps and then determine who has primacy, I think these topic bans should be applied as they turn up - and perhaps the parties concerned will decide to not intrude upon each others "territories" which will lessen the workload. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight again

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please review recent conduct. Edit warring again (to 4RR in 25 hours) on Obama-related article.[81][82][83][84] then launching[85] and edit warring[86] incivilities against various other editors on another (indirectly Obama-related) political page. I won't take the trouble of compiling all the details - they should be obvious. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's latest game is to argue that wp:NOTNEWS means we can't include citations to reliable sources from the media. This is an interesting position to be sure. But it's mistaken. I'm happy to discuss the content and have always requested that the personal attacks and grandstanding against me cease. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an utter misrepresentation of my content position, but I'm not going to bother responding to retaliatory counter-accusations. Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And indeed all the details are clear. I posted: "There is no Wikipedia policy that notable events are only notable if there's a conviction. What a bunch of illogical silliness. Clinton was never convicted of anything nor Bush. So perhaps we should start removing all the issues and problems they've had from their articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)"

And Wikidemon engages in an attack on me saying "Please do not use article talk pages to complain about other editors." This is totally inappropriate and is the type of far out and abusive misstatement that Wikidemon uses to attack me. So I've asked him not to grandstand and to focus on the content. The edit history is clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you need to at least state what action you are calling for. Looie496 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(out of sequence) I would request help in whatever form that may take from an attentive administrator regarding ChildofMidnight's latest round of edit warring, gratuitous accusations, and attacks on other editors. ChildofMidnight is a long-term problem editor who attacks me and other editors regularly in support of some partisan and sometimes fringe conservative political issues, and attacks me with particular determination whenever he/she is here at AN/I. I'm not advocating anything in particular, just hoping to calm the unpleasantness from an editor who refuses to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and he also invoked a claim that I'm engaging in BLP violations. This is a serious charge and something he's done before. To be clear, here's the content under discussion:

• In 2009, the Nevada Attorney General and Secretary of State filed a criminal complaint against ACORN and two employees over its use of a quota system for voter registrations by employees<ref>[http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10299051 ACORN Facing Criminal Charges], CBS News Las Vegas channel 8, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/04/criminal-charges-filed-against-acorn-two-employees/ Criminal charges filed against ACORN, two employees], Las Vegas Sun, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30567548/ ACORN charged in Nevada voter-fraud case], MSNBC, May 4, 2009</ref>

As there are no named individuals I'm having trouble seeing the BLP violation. Am I allowed to call this abuse of policy what it is? How am I supposed to deal with this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only are there no individuals named in the Wikipedia text, but no individuals named in the referenced news article. The suggestion that there is a BLP issue is totally specious and is either recklessly uninformed on BLP or lacking good faith. Bongomatic 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect: Levenson said the two former ACORN organizers named in Monday's criminal complaint — Christopher Howell Edwards and Amy Adele Busefink — no longer work for ACORN and would not be represented by the organization. (from the cited source) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be moot because I see from the text here that ChildofMidnight may have been blocked, but I never said the ChildofMidnight was engaging in a BLP violation. I made some abstract - and correctly stated, I believe - comments about the nature and bounds of BLP in response to another editor's comments about BLP. And in fact I was arguing that unproven criminal accusations against individuals raise BLP concerns (not necessarily a violation, just raising concerns) but that accusations against organizations do not. Wikidemon (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing arbitration case on Obama articles yet there's an edit war. Gah... looking it over, if I see that a block is necessary somewhere then it'll be coming momentarily since the article's on probation. Wizardman 02:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I see he's adding unrelated new accusations to his initial bogus report. Come on. This needs to stop. I'm a good faith editor trying to collaborate. Someone needs to stop this abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is he allowed to keep refactoring his report? He made a bogus accusation. And then when it was exposed he added new allegations. This is endless. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as his new allegation goes, someone else added soem content. Scjessey objected that it was a quote. So I added it back and suggested he paraphrase it if he wanted. I engaged in discussion on the talk page and was hit with a bunch of accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. Same old story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That includes quite a number of odd accusations, and patently made up nonsense. I don't believe I've accused ChildofMidnight of a BLP violation or bad faith here, and my expanded report was a matter of a simple edit conflict. But I don't want to be a party to this report getting sidetracked with that. Wikidemon (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. As is usually the case, CoM has managed to convert a report into his/her unacceptable editing behavior into an innocent-sounding content dispute, which will no doubt go stale and result in no action. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the personal attack listed isn't really much of a personal attack. But the edit warring is certainly blockable, and i'd be intereste in hearing why I shouldn't use it. Wizardman 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I apparently got beaten to the blocking. Support it. Wizardman 02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support the long-needed block as well. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to the judgment of more experienced hands regarding what is and is not a personal attack on an article talk page. In one paragraph (diff in my initial report) he/she accuses me and three other named editors variously of personal attacks, grandstanding, abuse, "obscene" censorship, playing games, vandalism, not acting in good faith, POV pushing partisanship, and harassment - quite a full paragraph that. Whatever that looks like standing by itself, the same editor has made these accusations against me, generally unprovoked, at least a few dozen times in their six months of being here. Having to deal with that is a real drag on my editing experience here. Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Incidentally, may we mark this one as resolved? ChildofMidnight is blocked for 24 hours and Scjessey is on Wikibreak in lieu of an identical block - both of which have the attention of ArbCom now) Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Childofmidnight is clearly the victim here. Seriously, Wikidemon, give it up! --The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that ChildofMidnight was making personal attacks on an article talk page, fabricated a new round of nonsense complaints about me and an abusive retaliatory claim when reported here, and got blocked for edit warring, I would gladly give up having ChildofMidnight do that anyday. This really ought to be simple. An editor disrupts an article; editors are unable to calm it there so report it here; administrators make their own decisions about what to do. Please don't use AN/I to cheer on disruption, or blame those who report it. Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon needs to stop with false accusations, abusive erports, and personal attacks

Wikidemon's latest personal attack that I am a "long-term problem editor" is outrageous. I've spent a lot of time providing diffs of the personal attacks and abuse coming from Wikidemon and others. He needs to cease the personal attacks, stop twisting my words and making false accusations and focus on the content and start abiding by guidelines. This is disgusting. He comes here complaining about a supposed personal attack when he is the one who launched a round of false accusations as the diffs clearly show. So I ask him to stop grandstanding after he makes a false accusation against me and then launches all these new attacks on me and this latest grotesque personal attack. Make him refactor that bullshit. It's disgusting and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe ChildofMidnight has ever supported accusations like that, though he/she has been making them ever since joining the project - I'm certainly a legitimate, good faith editor. Please don't let this editor blow smoke to distract from their own editing issues. Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon pounces with AN/I complaints, or complaints to some other board, after Wikidemon's confederates goad someone into either a violation of a guideline/policy or into something that could be interpreted as a violation. The idea that citing a news article is somehow WP:NOTNEWS was a ridiculous statement made with the online equivalent of a straight face by a Wikidemon confederate, then supported by other, equally ridiculous statements by other Wikidemon confederates -- editors who have been working closely with Wikidemon for well over a year at Obama-related articles. They have the numbers of editors to either enforce their own consensus or block any opposing consensus from forming -- because editors who value their sanity don't want to tangle with them. They really can't lose: Either they simply roll over your objections with their numbers or, if they get lucky, they make you angry enough to commit some violation that Wikidemon can then exaggerate with his trademark "[editor name] again" heading and trademark "long-term problem editor" language. Wikidemon has done this so many times that the pattern should be obvious to anyone even half awake. ChildofMidnight, if they don't get you now, they will later, because you have the capacity to get angry over their ridiculous distortions of logic, like the idea that the latest in a long line of indictments against ACORN organizers for violation of election-registration laws is somehow a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Don't you understand that the ostensible reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on with them? Their discussions are about power, not anything to do with facts or reasoning. The goal is to enforce the party line for political advantage, not to get the reader nearer to the truth. CoM, you need to be more cynical, because it's the only way you're going to avoid getting angry and then doing something dumb, because what they're doing is totally, 100-percent, allowed under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Do I need to provide diffs? -- Noroton (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sakes! I think that's one of my trademark responses to being flummoxed. Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being blocked together for edit warring on the same article Presidency of Barack Obama.--Caspian blue 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. Scjessey was at 3RR in 25 hours over removing the same content that ChildofMidnight was at 4RR trying to reinsert (the difference in numbers arises because one other editor tried to insert it, and two others tried to remove it). Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• You're still defending Scjessey in this situation. Why didn't you go to 3RR board since you accused that CoM clearly reverted 4 times in 25 hours. By the way, I think Scjessey's block should've been longer given his frequent edit warring.--Caspian blue 03:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How am I defending Scjessey? The two editors aren't really comparable, but I don't agree fully with Scjessey's content or policy position,[87] or the edit warring.[88] There was no point filing a 3RR report because no technical 3RR violation. My issue was mainly what I perceive as disruptive incivility/accusations from an editor who would not stop. Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just topic ban them both from Obama-related articles and each other. Jesus christ. Jtrainor (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. About time, too. //roux   16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

By "both" I assume you are referring to ChildofMidnight and one other editor. CoM, Scj, and I are all parties in the ongoing Arbcom case on the larger subject of of acceptable behavior and article probation on Obama-related articles. Noroton is not a party and has been away from the topic for a while. Complaints very similar in substance and tone to the above were brought against me a dozen times or more last year. Please don't jump to conclusions - the fact that an editor is often accused of things, or files reports here, is often not a direct reflection of their actual work on the project. To know what really happens you have to review the edit histories in depth, which takes a fair amount of work. Hence, AN/I is usually only concerned with current trouble and how to avoid it. Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought CoM was already topic banned from Obama-related articles. Don't recall where I read it. Could be wrong but I could of swore I saw it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, CoM is not under any topic ban. The matter was discussed in depth at least once here and did not get anything remotely approaching consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is, f'fucksake, an encyclopedia

Re "goaded"; if you are goaded by comments on a website supposedly dedicated to building an encyclopedia then you should question your motives for contributing to the project. If responding to your "idealogical enemy" is more important than building NPOV content, then you are participating in the wrong project. If you are interested in building an online encyclopedia, then it is your responsibility to break the cycle of claim and counter claim. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned "goad" so perhaps you're responding to my comment. Let's just talk hypothetically here to illustrate the point. Presumably, a good Wikipedia editor wants to build NPOV content, objects to non-NPOV content and can get into a conflict with editors who want to add non-NPOV content. Disagreements over NPOV can become heated -- in fact, they naturally tend to become heated on controversial subjects. At that point, either side may repeatedly go up to the brink of incivility or do other things, such as reverting or alleging incivility and -- can you believe it? -- even peremptorily remove the comments of an editor they are in dispute with, alleging gross incivility.

There are all sorts of ways one side (or, often, both sides) can keep annoying the other side until someone finally blows a fuse and does something that an admin will find a blockable offense. Knowing that you've been played like a fiddle, unfortunately, doesn't always make you any wiser the next time you get into a tussle with the same parties. Sometimes it makes it even easier for you to blow a fuse. And it doesn't help one bit to be truly interested in building an online encyclopedia. It may even make it easier for you to get upset when you see what ideological POV pushers are doing to the encyclopedia.

The problem is that the more you care about presenting a subject in an NPOV way, the more it hurts to see editors prevail who obviously don't care about NPOV, which you can see based on the silly, silly things they say and their lack of interest in trying to understand the other side (which you can see quite clearly when you see how these editors ignorantly disparage points of view not their own, even when better arguments are made or when these editors don't bother to explain themselves at all).

An encyclopedia that values both consensus and NPOV assumes that there are so many editors who value NPOV more than their own point of view that they will overwhelm the POV pushers. The assumption is frequently false, and it's a systemic, Wikipedia-wide problem, especially for any really controversial subjects in politics, religion and elsewhere. There are very few clear processes for editors to follow in the more intractable disputes. So bold editors with enough committed supporters in one corner or another of Wikipedia can get quite rough on editors they disagree with, and they can also produce very biased articles. Wikipedia's current set of policies, guidelines and unwritten practices pushes unwary editors into a kind of trap in which they're encouraged to push for NPOV, unbiased articles but frustrated by editors who know the ropes but have either a different view of NPOV or don't really care about NPOV. Wikipedia allows savvy editors to operate what is, in effect, an editor-crushing machine. Since there are plenty of people on both sides of any major controversy, there will always be raw material for that machine to crush.

That's how good editors get victimized: They're naive enough to believe that Wikipedia's stated goal of NPOV is somehow achievable when a group of savvy POV pushers occupies a certain set of articles. Good editors should back off, not for the sake of the encyclopedia, but for the sake of themselves, and they should accept that Wikipedia just isn't capable of producing unbiased articles on most controversial subjects. Wikipedia just doesn't have the set of policies and guidelines needed to do that. Any questions? -- Noroton (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting article but I don't see it becoming an official policy, since deciding if somebody edits from a neutral point of view is often very hard to decide, especially for non-specialists. Also going for a topic ban after just one warning (even if some may deserve it) is over the top and could lead to all sorts of mistakes and unfair bans. In the case of sockpuppets, if I understand correctly, if somebody has been banned from WP and comes back with a sockpuppet they should be blocked immediately even without a warning. Laurent (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• After reading it, I came away with the same impression as Laurent. It is also difficult to see what is pro- one side or another not only for specialists but by different sides at different times. Even the basics: when does the time-line of the dispute begin? First century, Seventh century, Nineteenth century, 1948? Everything has a potential agenda behind it, and a minefield for admins wading in with a policy which while straightforward is devilishly difficult to employ in actuality. And the inevitable: once an admin uses the policy, he or she becomes "involved" and is no longer viewed as a neutral by one side (or perhaps both sides) so the enforcement becomes wheelwar bait. Best to let the arb committee handle the over-the-top behavior and us mere admins to deal with our current policies - 3RR and page protection takes care of lots of the issues. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• You two both know that Wikipedia talk:Neutrality enforcement is the proper place for those sorts of comments, don't you? Any suggestions, comments, or observations posted here will be lost in a sea of archived noticeboard incidents in less than a week. Whereas discussion of the proposal on its own talk page is likely to be still readily locatable years from now. Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with disruptive editors at Talk:Keratoconus

Keratoconus was formerly a featured article. There has been a long-standing content dispute over a small section about an emerging treatment option. The very short version is that a series of SPA accounts related to Brian Boxer Wachler have repeatedly added information about an experimental treatment used by Boxer Wachler. Recently a consensus seemed to have been reached on the talk page to remove information releated to that form of treatment. Since then the accounts have repeatedly reverted the removal and continue to argue on the talk page despite having been very clearly and firmly asked to find another forum to settle the dispute.

I'm asking for User:Corneadoc and User:Scubadiver99 to be blocked for their disruptive editing. It may be helpful to look at this thread from January 2008, which is where I first tried to resolve the dispute, and these sockpuppetry cases. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think objective "eyes" will help resolve this situation. Administrators who analyze the discussion will likely observe Delicious Carbuncle and RH unilaterally attempting to prevent any mention of an alternative form of crosslinking called "epi on" in article. My last post sums the status of "epi on" crosslinking on May 8 as legitimate and non-experimental. Also cited are two studies, one in a highly regarded peer-reviewed journal, but they were not allowed to be in Keratoconus article by Delicous Carbuncle.

This same person made accusations of sockpuppetry but no guilt was found. Now, Delicious Carbuncle is evoking the Administrator noticeboard venue to achieve his/her goal. You will see from my comments in Discussion that one cannot help but think there is some vested interest in the "epi off" crosslinking technique which would explain why someone is taking such draconian measures to prevent mention of an alternative form of crosslinking in Keratoconus article. Corneadoc (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what happens when medical articles don't follow WP:MEDRS. When articles are based on primary sources instead of reviews, there's really no way to resolve disputes. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, but this isn't about the content dispute. Corneadoc and Scubadiver99 have been reverting the change, against consensus ([89],[90],[91],[92],[93], & [94]), and will not stop arguing about the change on the talk page. They have been asked to take it to another forum (WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc) but have chosen to repost the same disingenuous arguments and unfounded accusations. It has become disruptive, hence the block request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I looked over the talk page, and had a hard time figuring out what consensus is. How about doing a talk page RFC to establish consensus? I'll participate in keeping order if it would be useful. (I'm not an admin, in case that isn't clear.) Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, given the state of the talk page, that it may be difficult to see the consensus, but please note that three separate editors have restored the reversions made by Corneadoc and Scubadiver99. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to summarize the pattern of strategies of Delicious Carbuncle to suppress any mention of epi-on crosslinking. All verbatim exerpts below are verifiable on Discussion page of Keratoconus article:

1) Delicious Carbuncle accused me of sockpuppetry which was not supported after investigation.

2) Then Delicious Carbuncle states epi-on crosslinking is fringe theory as justification for removing it from Keratoconus article. This was refuted:

To quote from WP:FRINGE: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (such as plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future."It sounds like undue weight is being given to a procedure that is not generally used or considered anything over than experimental at this time. Unless you can find sources to show that it is used by more than a few doctors, I'm of the opinion that it should be removed from the article entirely, based on WP:UNDUE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Epi-on crosslinking is not "theory" and therefore "fringe theory" does not apply- epi on crosslinking is a real procedure that has cited results on real patients. Scubadiver99 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC) The word 'theory' is not relevant here: the same Wikipedia policy applies to any practice, undertaking, or school of thought. —BillC talk 07:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

3) Then Delicious Carbuncle states that I failed to provide references on epi-on crosslinking although I had previously provided them:

Since Scubadiver99 has failed to provide supporting references, I'm comfortable removing the section on "epi-on crosslinking" from the article. Anyone else have any objection to me doing that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

These were references I had provided, but seem to have been ignored: a. Chan CCK, Sharma M, Boxer Wachler BS. The effect of inferior segment Intacs with and without corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin (C3-R) on keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:75-80. PMID 17189797 b. Pinelli study http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=3797

4) Then Delicious Carbuncle misrepresents articles data and methods and attempts to use misrepresentations as grounds for article dismissal:

One is by Pinelli et al on Pinelli's experimental treatment of 10 patients (5 of which were a control group) and his experiments on rabbit eyes. Similarly the Boxer Wachler et al paper deals with a 21 patient experiment. I'm sure this discussion will be continued, but please take it to WP:3O or elsewhere. I'm hoping that we can finally be done with the constant bickering here over this small section. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Delicous Carbuncle, making a blanket dismissal of two studies that show a technique that you do not support is clearly inappropriate. Additionally, the original Wollensak study published in American Journal of Ophthalmology in 2004 had how many eyes? Answer: 23. Somehow in your opinion 21 eyes in the Boxer Wachler et al paper is invalid and should be 100% dismissed and buried. Gee, that makes sense and is completely fair (sarcasm here). The Pinelli study was a study in patients, not rabbit eyes. 10 eyes were in each group of epi on vs epi off and the improvements in each group were the same. I just have to wonder since if you don't have an ax to grind, then do you have some financial connection to UVX or the US FDA clinical trial that uses only epi off? Your insistence of burying anything and everything that scientifically supports epi on crosslinking is really suspect. Scubadiver99 (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

5) Delicious Carbuncle now tosses in this accusation sockpuppetry again merely because two people are making a similar point that appears to be in conflict with his/her passionate support for epi-off crosslinking:

I believe User:Corneadoc is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Scubadiver99. I will be re-opening the sockpuppetry cases (the previous ones were inconclusive). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

6) Then Delicious Carbuncle says the two studies are experimental, then says they are just the opposite (very confusing and unclear what is actually meant by that comment). Comment includes intimidation to "be quiet or else I will ask for your accounts to be blocked":

those references do not show that epi-on is anything other than an experimental practice (in fact they show the opposite. If you or Scubadiver99 post here about epi-on again, I will ask for your account(s) to be blocked for disruption. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what path is motivating Delicious Carbuncle, but it does not appear to be following the path of the truth which is that there are two proven ways of performing crosslinking for keratoconus in patients- epi-on and epi-off. Scubadiver99 (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This whole brouhala is over the simple concept that epi-on crosslinking should be merely mentioned in Keratoconus article as another way to performing crosslinking. That's simply it. It's not about one technique better than the other. It's just about a mere mention of epi-on crosslinking. That's it. Scubadiver99 (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

While I doubt anyone has the patience to wade through the above posting, let alone Talk:Keratoconus, let me state again that my posting here is not about a content dispute, it is about continued disruption by two accounts. I won't bother refuting the inaccuracies in the above summary other than to clarify that the quoted text "be quiet or else I will ask for your accounts to be blocked" is a complete fabrication. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a request for opinions on the talk page of the article. I think you are probably right, but it's too difficult to understand what has happened to proceed without more input, in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible personal attacks over multiple pages, disruptive editing

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

Appears that isolated disputes about unsourced or possibly POV material on the Steinway and Sons page have rapidly become a series of personal attacks by Fanoftheworld (or insinuations at any rate) spread over various talk pages, with some tendentious editing thrown in for good measure.

1. Personal attacks on the Rachmaninoff talk page: 1, 2, 3
2. On the Steinway & Sons talk page: 1, 2, and in countless other places on the page, though these are the most recent
3. On Broadwood & Sons AfD page: 1, 2, 3
4. User talk page: 1, 2,
5. Editing to make a point: 1,
6. Warning for personal attacks here; for adding promotional material on Steinway to various pages, here.

There's more, but these seemed the most salient. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The following was moved from AN (duplicate conversation):

Please check the Steinway & Sons talk. Improvements towards neutrality on the article have become very difficult due to one of the editors who has entered a war with other editors, making things impossible to other editors wishing to improve the article. This user has started editing oddly other articles (automobile, Sergei Rachmaninoff etc). What is the right tool for this situation? --Karljoos (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume one or more users has tried talking to the offender directly? Perhaps informing him/her of policy. Assuming that does work, dispute resolution is the way to go unless there is something particularly egregious in his/her behavior (such as blatant edit warring or personal attacks) that would require immediate admin action. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(end of moved section)

I think that Alexrexpvt only wants to get me blocked, so he and 4 other users can make their changes on the Steinway article without my opinion on the talk page. I don't think this is the Wikipedia style - the Wikipedia is for everybody.

The administrator's are very welcome to write me, especially because some of the links above are taken out of a context. And administrators are of course also very welcome to write me to hear about the many personal attacks that some users have written to me. And to hear how they are hunting me. And to hear examples of the way these users talk to me ("Bullshit." and "Well, if you, *******..." and more). Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My 2cents: Most of those diffs don't really constitute personal attacks. bad WP:Wikiquette, sure, but not personal attacks. The possible exception being the accusation of someone being a copyright violator.

The "to make a point" edit is indeed very POINTy.

What I actually find most troubling, however, wasn't even mentioned above. It seems editor has added "(this famous artist) uses Steinway pianos" do dozens of articles, mostly without any edit summary and sometimes also using the 'minor edit' flag. That combined with his deleting of similar info from competing piano company articles makes me very strongly believe he has a conflict of interest here and is trying to promote the Steinway company. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, at least 650 of his 877 article space edits are to article directly related to Steinway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Fanoftheworld to explain his apparent COI here. Barring a reasonable explanation I would recommend a block per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Blocks and possible also for generally disruptive editing/uncivility. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from Binksternet. I'm an involved editor and I agree with ThaddeusB that the above diffs are bad Wikiquette but not quite personal attacks. I disagree with Fanoftheworld that Alexrexpvt only wants to get FotW blocked. I think that getting FotW to realize that the wiki is not his or her personal vehicle for Steinway promotion is the ultimate goal. Getting FotW to work in a collegial fashion; that would be a fantastic result. How do we achieve this? A series of punitive blocks might do it, or not. I don't know the solution. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just discovered this via the Rachmaninov (forgive my spelling, but I prefer the 'v') page. WP:BLOCK and a larger Wikipedia consensus hold that punitive blocks are not the way to go. Blocks should be preventive; if Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs) continues to add spammy material to articles in which he may have a conflict of interest, a preventive block may be necessary to stop the spam. Furthermore, a series of blocks should only be used for repeat offenders who ignore warnings. In this particular case, the former seems to be true, but the latter is not.

Personally, I believe that each individual addition of the Steinway information is only of marginal spamminess (if that's a word at all), but the combined edits of Fanoftheworld make me think otherwise. An explanation needs to be given for his affinity for Steinway articles; if no satisfactory response is provided, a preventive block, per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Blocks, is necessary.

On the issue of personal attacks, Fanoftheworld is being tenacious, but I see no grounds for a "personal attack" block. His tone certainly needs improvement, however, and he would also benefit from reading WP:POINT, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:VERIFY. I can address specific concerns at individual talk pages if necessary in regards to these pages. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 03:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did agonize over whether to characterize these edits as "personal attacks". WP:NPA seems to subsume every instance of commenting on a contributor, not the content, under the rubric of "personal attack", and that's why I thought it might be appropriate. At any rate, as several editors have noted, they're really just the tip of the iceberg with regards to tendentious editing. I don't especially want to see Fanoftheworld blocked, despite what he may think, just steered towards consensus-building. Alexrexpvt (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Crazy block by Connolley

Why was Peter Damian blocked for reverting the insane edits of an anon IP on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article? Why has the article been locked down ostensibly to protect against the IP edits, but the IP not been blocked? Why was Damain (myself) blocked? Madness. See my remarks on Jimbo's page (he is protecting these lunatics, it seems). 86.132.248.254 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you pre-announced your intention to get yourself blocked, it isn't all that surprising. I think you're one of those people for whom drama is like cocaine, and you started feeling withdrawal symptoms. Looie496 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, protection and blocking is overkill. Only one of them, please, when dealing with edit warring. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it normal for a blocked editor's block to get extended for blatant block evasion? In addition to posting here, this IP posted twice to the article talk page and then to a user page within the space of less than ten minutes.[95] Even if the block is wrong, there's no excuse for complicating matters by evading it. Surely this experienced user knows how to use the unblock template. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Although I believe Peter has done this before... I think. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for block evasion, and anybody is free to extend Peter Damian's original block. --auburnpilot talk 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semiprotected, for the benefit of the highly-persistent IP who will not discuss. This action was unrelated to Peter Damian's editing, and his recent use of a sock to evade his block. Damian went to great lengths to violate 3RR, apparently trying to prove a point, and was blocked by WMC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"…and his recent use of a sock to evade his block."

What sockpuppet?

More generally, is it our job to run Wikipedia without reference to, interest in, or opinions about content?24.18.142.245 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that only one party to an edit war is blocked, especially as the unblocked party has previously been blocked for their editing of the same article and is apparently a pov warrior, and specifically it is WMC who actioned the sanction. WMC is now responsible for 3 of the 5 blocks on the Peter Damian account. I note that WMC took no other action, leaving it for another to sprotect the article nor - as noted - sanctioning the other edit warrior. I feel that this gives the impression that WMC acted disproportionately in sanctioning an editor with whom they have a history regarding blocking. I shall ask WMC if they wish to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I do. Your impressions are incorrect. PD broke 3RR, so I blocked him. As far as I'm aware, no-one else did. I'm fairly sure that PD intended to merely tweak our noses by using his "quota" of 3R/24h (in which case I would probably have blocked him for edit warring), but mistakenly went over the line. As you'll have seen from PD's subsequent contributions, he did all this to make a point and appears to have succeeded, so is presumably happy with the outcome William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian edit warred with summaries like "about the 6th revert" and then flaunted this on an administrator's talk page, twice. Further he turned the question of whether the administrator would block him or not into a way to make a WP:Point confirming that "I don't have to 'discuss' with lunatics." which constitutes both a personal attack and a stated intention to edit war more in the future, with the assertion that not-blocking would be taken to be implicit permission to do so. How is anyone surprised that this resulted in a block? He begged for it. The semi-protect was done by a different admin for a different reason. Mishlai (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have commented in an ongoing discussion on my talkpage, there are no problems with the block of Peter Damian for the policy violations but I have a concern that there was no other action taken in regard to an edit war (plus the fact is was GMC again who blocked PD). If the block was for disruption, one from the drop down menu I use where other policy violations do not suffice, then there would be less concern; edit warring does require other parties, and resolving edit wars usually entails either sanctioning more than one party or protecting the article involved. GMC's action has, as I said, the appearance of being disproportionate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Peter Damian has continued to evade his block using 81.151.180.208 (talk · contribs) and Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs). Both are blocked, but if this continues, the original block will have to be reset. --auburnpilot talk 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps resetting it now would be appropriate. PD is well aware that block evasion is not permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just added 72 hours. This kind of stuff is tiresome. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy is just yanking our chain. He went to Wikipedia Review admitting to being a previously blocked user (by Jimbo, no less) and claiming that he would sockpuppet but adding good content (which he did, up to a point), and use that to attempt to persuade financial contributors to desist from doing so. However, no admin, including myself, was prepared to give him that satisfaction; we do not dance to the tune of blocked users. However, knowing something of this guy IRL (a minor academic, but no more than that), I suggest it's about time to bring this to an end as far as we can, and I propose a formal ban of User:Peter Damian and all his sockpuppets. A plague on all their houses. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• When his siteban was lifted it was against my better judgment: per Wikipedia:Standard offer I prefer to see banned editors demonstrate a fundamental respect for our standards by refraining from evasions of their ban; after several months of that most of them can earn another chance. This one tried to earn his way back through persistent ban evasion, and the block history since his return is not encouraging. Nonetheless, let's give him a fair shake if he's willing to give us one. If he posts a statement acknowledging that site policies apply to everyone (including himself) and pledging to abide by this and any future blocks (or appeal them by normal means)--then I would support a good faith reduction of 24 hours from his current block. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if linking off-wiki discussions is appropriate, but since you seem to be trying to evaluate intention/attitude [96] Mishlai (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A post at his user talk would be adequate. We've all had days when we saw red for a while and then thought better of it. A clear demonstration of that is all that's needed here. Durova^Charge! 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't simply a user who is having a bad day and seeing red, but a user who has been blocked repeatedly under numerous different accounts (Peter Damian (talk · contribs), Peter Damian II (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs), Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs), and several IPs). This is a user who seems to believe he is entitled to act a certain way and do certain things without accountability, simply because he's been here longer than others. This is a user who just today refered to me as an entirely useless person and a prick; he also referred to William M. Connolley as an arsehole. Frankly, he has earned his current block and should be happy it isn't longer. --auburnpilot talk 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And he referred to me as a member of The Cabal. Nonetheless I am willing to let bygones be bygones if he is. What could be fairer? After all the dry cleaners returned my black velvet cabal robes three days late. I was forced to attend last week's Cabal Cocktail Party in a black silken dress--so 2006--so I'm not in a mood to toe the party line today. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅I'd suggest a slightly less holier than thou attitude than evidenced above. Peter does hard graft on articles, and is prepared to take on many articles that attract high levels of POV editing. he also does rigourous research and references his material. The complete absence of admin intervention on the IP editor involved in this and the failure to deal with editors who play to the limit of WIki rules while refusing to deal with questions was a contributory factor here. Peter has a short fuse but that tends to go with the territory. If you check the edits he made :evading" they were to talk pages only not the articles. We need to spend a bit more time understanding the context in which these actions take place. Peter is easy to provoke, and doing it is a "game" for some. Verdana comes closest to a mature attitude above, what would be nice would someone with admin powers spending some time looking at the content debates and then checking the behaviour of editors who keep to the letter of the law while driving others to frustrated excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Peter needs to learn to keep his temper under control, but he makes tremendous contributions to the project. The talk of banning is absurd. Seriously, if we perma-banned every snarky user the place would be a ghost-town. Those of you who think Peter should be banned need to ask yourself if it's worth losing his contributions. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, we have plenty of great article contributors who don't feel the need to either get in trouble or wear the fact that they are article contributors on their sleeve when they get in trouble. I don't understand the mentality that if you rack up enough article edits, block evasion isn't block evasion anymore. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter has posted in reply to the offer above.[97] Apologies aren't needed, btw--just a commitment to avoid the same problems in future. Also agreeing in principle with Protonk: good content work doesn't generate an exemption from policy (think how many policies I'd be breaking if each featured credit earned a get-out-of block free card). So in good faith let's take a day off the block; Peter's met us halfway. Durova^Charge! 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Other blocks by Connolley

If we're allowed to even question this admin's actions without risking further blocks, I'd appreciate comment as to whether this or this is considered appropriate admin behaviour, (background is here). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Imho it is not because WP:BLOCK says that blocks can only be issued "to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm" and I see nothing of that in this block. While the section about self-requested blocks was removed, I think any admin should be very careful not to take remarks on any other talk page as a request for a block. Especially not when the user they are blocking just criticized their admin actions, because then it's unlikely they are impartial enough to judge this situation correctly and should not perform further admin actions on users involved. Regards SoWhy 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That block strikes me as a bad decision. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that blocking someone because they asked you to is about as bad as a decision as asking to be blocked. Chillum 01:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's far worse, because the blocking admin ought to have known better. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask to be blocked, I certainly didn't intend for this to be read as a request to be blocked - Why?! and had I (maybe I could use an enforced wikibreak), I would have written "Could some admin please block me, thankyou". However the whole PD saga seems to have too many admins over-reacting because they can, not because they should. Making any sort of comment on this is the behaviour that attracts blocks for the wikicrime of lese majeste to admins, I posted a tongue-in-cheek recognition that I knew this was likely to happen (and felt the point about PD was worth making anyway) and then this admin was foolish enough to think that such a mis-use of a block, even when the target had already raised its likelihood, was still a valid action.

I'm required to WP:AGF, so my bock must have been for one of four reasons.

1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia.

2 Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit.

4 Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms

Now please, if I have damaged WP, please point out my error. If I was critical of an admin's actions over PD or their right to act in that way, beyond reasonable and fairly tactful discussion of whether we couldn't find a more productive way to act in the future, then please point it out.

Now I can't see any such thing in my recent actions, which leaves only:

3 Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.

So admin Connelly's block is only explicable by either assuming his bad faith (which is impermissible), or a new interpretation of blocking policy such that any discussion of admin's actions, no matter how measured, is reason for an immediate block.

That is not, I believe, how an open system of governance is meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we credit Andy by assuming he is somehow less capable of knowing better than an admin. Admins are just people not infallible gods, they don't always get things right. While the block was not the brightest move, requesting it to make a point was about on the same level. Chillum 01:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So your defence of a bad block is that the blocking administrator is more or less dim than the editor who (s)he blocks? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't see a defense for this one. Permit me to be crude. Andy was either fucking around or spoiling for a fight. In either case, WMC shouldn't have taken the bait. It's his responsibility to refrain from doing so. Period. I don't like "requested blocks" one bit, but this plainly wasn't one. However, on the grand scale of things we ought to be caring about, this ranks relatively low. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo but state more strongly what a couple of other editors have already mentioned—this was just a horrendous block, and while it's over and done with now I'm astounded that William M. Connolley seriously thought it was a good idea (but then again maybe he wasn't taking it that seriously). It's pretty difficult if not impossible to read Andy Dingley's comment as a serious request for a block, and even if Connolley thought that's what was going on he should have at least clarified it first. I have no idea what the backstory to this is and don't particularly care, but whatever it is it does not excuse or justify a block of this nature. I don't think there's anything further to do with this right now, but unfortunately William M. Connolley has made some poor decisions about his use of the bit in the past and now we have another example. At a minimum I would ask William to please stop and think for about 30 seconds before doing something like this again. There is no universe in which that block would have ended up as a good thing for the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, for many more "horrendous blocks" (section written by me, my old user name)Ikip (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Likely image copyvios—hundreds of files

MRDU08 (talk · contribs) has uploaded hundreds of images that appear to me to be clear copyright violations. There is a history of notice messages on his/her talk page (all of which MRDU08 has ignored), but he/she is now tagging images with "I created this work entirely by myself" and licensed with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, which will make the bots stop. But it seems terribly unlikely that this user took original photos of all those beauty pageant contestants, and also drew hundreds of flag images. I have previously tried to engage this user on a related issue, but MRDU08 has never replied to any message left on his/her talkpage. I'd like another set of eyes to look at those image contributions before going ahead with deleting the images and perhaps blocking the user. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to guess that with just this image that the maps are taken probably from Wikipedia and the colors added in with MS Paint. They just look like they are made on VERY quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith user who's just uploading images of his own work. Although there's some suspicion as some images look extremely professional, such as File:MRD 1991 Melissa Vargas.jpg.jpg, there could be a chance that he's a proffesional photographer. -download ׀ sign! 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I'm not worried so much about that kind of image; it's the claim that images like File:Mía Taveras.jpg and File:Flag of Paris.PNG are self-created. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mía Taveras.jpg seems to be pulled off a blog or imageshack. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Download: I'm more inclined to believe WP:DUCK than WP:AGF here... But that's why I wanted more opinions. My guess is that the user has good-faith intentions to add pictures to his/her favorite Wikipedia topic, but isn't concerned about copyright. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment entirely. The image file size and ratios are indicative of being grabbed from web-pages. If he were a professional or amareur photographer it is more likely that some much larger file sizes and much more consistent aspect ratios are being used. My guess is that he is a good content contributor who doesn't understand the copyvio policy. I'm going to look more at the images to see which ones are really obvious. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd characterize the user as "a good content contributor." He's already created a number of hoax articles dealing with beauty pageants and Dominican Republic provinces that have been deleted at AfD.[98][99][100] It's a wonder that he hasn't been indefinitely blocked before this. Deor (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No metadata, claims images from a 2005 beauty pageant were created by himself this month. Nuke. Durova^Charge! 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Given User_talk:MRDU08#Your_moves, it's clear this is not a user who pay much attention to what others are requesting of him. This many months of violations should be enough for most people. I suggest a strong warning that the next copyright violation he has uploaded will result in a block. At the very least, given the ones we clearly know about, he needs to explain to use whether images like File:City Hall in Moca.jpg, more difficult to determine, are really his or he's just been lying the whole time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the fact that he has zero talkspace edits (all page moves) and minimal user talkspace edits (majority actually in Spanish) should clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I randomly fed some images into Tineye and got:

• File:MRD 2005 Renata Soñé.jpg <= [101] - might find a few more here as well
• File:Municipalities of the province of San Pedro de Macorís.jpg <= [102] - is this a Wiki mirror? What is the license? MER-C 07:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

contributions is a pretty obvious role account for the Miss República Dominicana Universo, likely created for the 2008 pageant. It's likely they own the copyrights to the images being uploaded, but they're giving no evidence of permission. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, judging from MRDU08's user talk page, he/she likely does not speak English (or at least does not speak it as a primary language). It might be worth asking someone to translate a necessary request for confirmation of permissions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree w/ that conclusion too. I think it is obvious that the account was named in the fashion you describe, but it is not obvious at all that this means the account owner is the pageant operator. Furthermore, there is no indication that the pageant owns the copyright for the bulk of these picture (rather than the photographer at the shoot). And again, if they were the pageant operator and did own the photos, why would they upload compressed jpgs in sizes and ratios common to websites or promos? Protonk (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen similar behavior before in role accounts. I've got a couple thoughts as to why this is. First, organizations have press kits and promo materials made to standardize their appearance in the media, and to make it substantially easier for media people to write about their organization. Second, it's likely that the agent or agents responsible for editing Wikipedia on behalf of this organization do not have access to full-resolution images, and likely wouldn't seek access because of the extra time and trouble involved for their superiors/clients and themselves. But, I agree, it's not blatantly obvious that the account is related to the pageant.

But... if the account isn't a role account, then the username itself is inappropriate per WP:IU, as it is deceptive (leads outsiders to believe that the account is being operated by the pageant operators). Yet, if it is a role account, it's in violation of m:ROLE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploaders have a proactive responsibility to demonstrate that the images they contribute are legal. AGF doesn't mean assume competence; it only means we assume the intention to comply. There is no evidence at all that this person has a right to upload this material, which is presumptively under full copyright. Durova^Charge! 16:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Turkish Flame and mass page move disruption

Bilateral-relations articles never cease to cause trouble. Turkish Flame (talk · contribs) has long been one of the editors focussed on creating these relations stubs and obsessively enforcing ill-thought-out naming conventions on them. He was repeatedly warned not to move such articles against consensus. Now for the last few days he's again be on a mass-moving spree, this time moving dozens or hundreds of articles to a new-fangled naming scheme "X – Y relations", again with nominal rather than adjectival forms, and spaces around an en-dash in the middle this time. This is based on a misreading of WP:DASH, which explicitly confirms that (of course) such compounds are not surrounded by spaces. He was also repeatedly warned that there is no consensus for moving adjectival forms ("Greek-Turkish relations" or "Greco-Turkish relations") to the clumsy and un-English nominal forms ("Greece–Turkey relations"), which is also against the guidelines agreed on by the relevant wikiproject [103].

I've given him a block warning, but am now at a loss how to clean up the massive disruption his moves have again caused. We're talking about a big number of articles again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves there's a script for that devised after page move vandals, but I can't remember exactly where it is.  GARDEN  08:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: here's a record of his prior warnings. Three prior threads on his page regarding bilateral relations articles ([104], [105], [106]), and one related to another mass page move spree [107]. Can we please now install a full topic ban on him against making page moves? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban With an indef block if he ignores it. And I think that's probably too lenient. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Update: He's now at last responded and seems to have accepted the guideline I pointed him to, and has begun to undo his edits, so maybe we can consider this resolved. Perhaps it might still be good if somebody uninvolved could drop by on his page and impress it on him that he ought to be careful in future not to make mass moves without prior discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Would it be possible to do a "page moving" ban? I haven't found proof of one move he has made where there has been a discussion and consensus to move. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Improperly Deleted

User:Seresin‎ deleted a RfC on User:Either way as Improperly certified. This is incorrect as myself and another editor had signed on the RfC to certify it (2 sigs are needed to certify). I have asked Seresin‎ to reconsider his deletion and restore the RfC with no response. I bring this here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seresin has offered his explanation here for those interested. You didn't get "no response," you got a response you didn't like. either way (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the RfC. Discussion about the validity of the certification should take place on the talkpage, and consensus formed whether to delete or simply fix the concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard vanU, much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would like any disinterested parties watching this to weigh in here on the certification, please. seresin ( ¡? )  23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Posible vandalism at Catalan people Article

Resolved

 – content dispute - not vandalism. Reporting editor warned, subsequently blocked for NPA. Toddst1 (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Following a very polite dispute about the factual accuracy of the lead paragraph of this article in the talk-page, two annon users 81.37.144.56 and 83.56.176.180 (but I really believe it is a single one) are constantly removing references without a single explanation as can be seen in the Revision History.

I ask the admins to block the article to annon users for a while. Thanks. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that that's vandalism and dispute resolution is that way. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious

Resolved

 – Registered and anon editors all blocked (again!), many thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My quacking chum, User:Nimbley6 has a new sock: Noyougirls55 (talk · contribs). Could a considerate admin aim their WP:DUCK-shooting shotgun and dispatch Noyougirls55 to the great duck pond in the sky?

Background material for the novice hunter may be found here.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a punt.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(Groan!) Well, thanks for sending the sock down the river. Hopefully the sock master will go south for the winter. Thanks again! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nimbley6 is now socking as 78.144.121.179 (talk · contribs) - could someone zap? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone is interested, if it edits Leon Jackson it usually is. Anyhoo, I've blocked this one too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks! Though I am extremely disappointed at the lack of puns... ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh how I hate weekends and school holidays. It's back, editing as 78.144.83.232 (talk · contribs). Could a WP:DUCK-hunting, WP:BLOCK-wielding, WP:SOCK-cleaning admin stomp please? Nimbley6 appears to be unsure what "indefinitely blocked" means. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now if I could only find where I put my light gun . . . TNXMan 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Alas, no light-gun puns from me, I'm all out of photonic puns. Thanks again, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, at least tomorrow is Monday, right?! The little troll will be back at school (and, apparently, the school are wise enough to forbid access to computers. Anyhoo... a fresh IP has popped up: 78.144.95.111 (talk · contribs). Could some kindly school-master or school-marm educate my school-chum? 1000 lines - "I must not sock when indefintely blocked..." Thank you! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I keep on having to do this - to whom do I send my bill? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• You mean you've not got the cheque from Student Awards Agency for Scotland? It should be in the post, I'll chase them in the morning. Meantime, many thanks. Unfortunately a rangeblock is probably out of the question, because the ISP uses several ranges. My hope is that with enough blocks, and enough reverts, the silly little troll will get bored and go off and find a more suitable activity for a Scottish youth. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Disney vandal?

Resolved

 – User has been blocked -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User Ofetenview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the {{bannedmeansbanned}} tag from the talk page of banned user User:Madagascar Esape 2 Africa. It's hard to imagine why anyone besides the banned user himself would remove the tag. In addition, this editor has already shown himself to be disruptive, having vandalized The Skeptic (film) --Rrburke^(talk) 16:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've informed the user of this discussion. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK. It may be useful to take this one to SPI, though, as I rangeblocked the four main Bambifan101 IP ranges earlier today. Black Kite 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet/probable meat puppet

I will take this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if deemed more appropriate. The reason I posted here instead is that the user in question is clearly editing under the persuasion of Douglas Kmiec, but I have no real reason to believe it is Mr. Kmiec.

The last time Dkmiec (self acknowledge account of Douglas Kmiec) was on Wikipedia he was warned about his COI editing of Douglas Kmiec. Today, a brand new user Gwmthomas shows up and his very first edit is to remove a warning from Dkmiec's talk page. He then proceeds to edit Douglas Kmiec to remove the {(tl|COI}} tag among other things (currently ongoing).

I have warned the user, but I could use some admin eyes on this situation. Also, any editors that want to work on cleaning up the (obviously POV driven) article would be appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It does look WP:DUCKY but there is a chance that this is an earnest Kmiec-admirer concerned by the treatment of the subject on Wikipedia. I don't see any harm in sending it to SPI; the results will be useful if the purported sockmaster were to strike again. Skomorokh 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and opened an SPI and requested checkuser, since that is the only way to get any clue about the nature of the two accounts' relationship.

Also, thanks for making an effort to clear up some (of the many) POV problems in the actual article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I fear it would need a rewrite from scratch to be a proper biography. Hope the SPI case is productive, Skomorokh 02:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Case closed, enforcement needed

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dkmiec has been declined by administrator Avi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on the grounds that "This account passes the WP:DUCK test; a CU is unnecessary". However, no action seems to have been taken against the alleged sockpuppet or sockmaster. Skomorokh 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruuta 25 uploading copyvio images

Resolved

 – User blocked. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruuta 25 (talk · contribs) has been concerning me for a while now. He is indefblocked from es-wiki, and has thus chosen en-wiki instead as his dumping ground. Basically all he does is edit a large array of journal-like pages in his userspace all day long, it's something to do with his conversion to Islam; he has almost no contributions anywhere outside his mainspace. He is also obsessed with 9/11 and spends a lot of time uploading copyrighted 9/11 images and posting them in his userspace (it's not just 9/11, though, he has also uploaded a bunch of TV show screenshots that have since been deleted); see Ruuta 25's upload log) for details. On top of all this, he refuses to communicate in English with anyone, per this and this, and in fact his English proficiency is probably not good enough to participate here even if he could; he basically uses his userspace as a mirror for whatever garbage he wasn't allowed to put on es-wiki (see, for example, this page).

Given his constant uploading of copyright violations, I would like to see the user indefinitely blocked. I held off for a while on posting this thread (his refusal to communicate, and to edit anything other than his userspace, is annoying but not necessarily blockable), but just today he uploaded another copyvio file and it needs to stop. By the way, I have asked User:Jmundo to watch this discussion and help with Spanish, in the off chance that Ruuta 25 comes here and posts in Spanish. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Refusal to communicate, absolutely no usefulness to the project and putting the foundation in legal jeopardy? Not a happy camper. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've taken the liberty of blocking this user indefinitely. Under normal circumstances, 72 hours would have been enough to give this user a chance to read WP:COPY, but since he's been indef'd on the Spanish Wikipedia for similar behavior, I didn't think there was a need for a grace period. Blueboy96 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good move, this seems like the right course of action. Marking as resolved. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

69.208.77.168

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

Hi, having a bit of a problem with this good faith editor who seems to remove "award-winning" from every page, for various reasons explained in their edit summaries. They blanked my messages to them, so if somebody could lend a hand please? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have undone some of them, but generally I'm not sure there's admin action to take here. The user appears to be acting in good faith, this isn't vandalism, and it's potentially a legitimate criticism. Dealing with unresponsive editors sucks but the only way this is likely to end in administrative action is if the user breaks WP:3RR. Oren0 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Those edits all look fine to me. We don't generally include things like that in the opening sentence – see "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman", "Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States", "David Robert Joseph Beckham OBE (born 2 May 1975) is an English footballer who currently plays in midfield for Italian Serie A club Milan (on loan from American Major League Soccer club Los Angeles Galaxy) and the England national team" etc etc etc. – iridescent 21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They're not actually only removing from the opening sentence (although most of their edits are). But reverting back-and-forth 'till we break 3RR isn't the solution. I guess it's doing no harm not having it there, just that removing that from so many pages struck me as wrong (especially when the award-winning is referenced). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Using "award-winning" is actively discouraged by at least one style guideline; the awards ought to be listed, in context, at the end of the lead section instead. Skomorokh

But surely you can say "award-winning" so long as you also list them? For instance putting it into the intro and then listing the awards further down the page. Anyway, I'm off now, be back in a 27 hours 43 minutes 20 seconds ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, what would you be telling the reader then that they did not already know? It seems to me that the only constituency that would be affected would be readers who only read the opening lines of articles – and I don't think we're doing them any favours by not distinguishing between Oscars and Razzies. Mahalo, Skomorokh 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback error

Resolved

Before someone brings this here, I inadvertently caused a mass rollback of my edits from my contribution list and I am now in the process of fixing the error. Just wanted to make all aware that I am fixing it before someone reported some strange behavior :( JavierMC 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that. It even rolled back your rollback-related monobook.js changes. At first I thought someone had compromised your account (it came immediately after you changed your "online status"), but then it dawned on me what had occurred. Pretty funny when you think about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a hassle is what it was, ugh!! I think I fixed it all.JavierMC 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry all for the interruption, back to our regularly scheduled program.JavierMC 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

72.199.110.160: topic specific ban request

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

The Ayn Rand article has been viewed over 136,000 times in the last 30 days alone [108]. It is viewed more than articles of far greater importance to the Western canon of philosophy such as Rene Descartes [109], Immanuel Kant [110], or Jean-Paul Sartre [111] and is curiously viewed almost as much as the articles on Plato [112] and Aristotle [113].

To be sure, the article attracts its fair share of partisan traffic, tendentious editors and single-purpose accounts. (NB: almost 30% of the article’s edits come from anon IPs.)

The original intention of the ArbCom ruling for the curious case of Ayn Rand and related articles was to stop all of the bickering and disruption. ArbCom issued the following relevant enforcement points:

1. “Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.”
2. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.”
3. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.”

Now consider the case of 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The anon IP has been editing Wikipedia since 7 October 2008. The user has roughly 1,300 edits under its belt, dispelling any notion of being ignorant of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

An analysis of the user’s edits reveals that it is largely a single-purpose account used for the editing of Ayn Rand-related articles [114]. Indeed, 160 has edited the Ayn Rand article more than any other editor [115]. By themselves these facts would not be problematic were it not for the following:

1. The “abuse filter log” indicates the new user has removed verifiable content over 30 times in the past few months alone.
2. The user has been blocked for edit warring and disruption. The first time on 26 April 2009 by MBisanz for a period of 31 hours. The measure was ineffective.
3. The user does *not* discuss its edits on Talk pages. Rather, it chooses to edit unilaterally forgoing discussions leading up to WP:CONSENSUS.
4. The user persistently and aggressively reverts edits it dislikes. example, example, another example . (Note: there are many more examples).
5. The user has been asked multiple times by multiple editors to take its contentious edits to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and consultation. [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]
6. The editor is known to be uncivil, rude, and disruptive.[122][123] [124][125]
7. If it disagrees (which is often), the anon IP loves to shout at other editors in BOLD CAPS. One of too many examples to cite here: [126]
8. The user assumes bad-faith of others who edit collegially. [127]
9. Now there is talk on the Wikipedia Review that anon IP 160 is none other than James S. Valliant himself, the author of a minor partisan work, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which received absolutely no attention in either the media or academe according to JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Google Scholar. Should this IP verification prove correct, anon IP 160 might be in breach of a conflict of interest.
10. Indeed, should this IP trace prove correct, anon IP 160’s repeated re-insertion of Valliant’s work throughout the Ayn Rand-related articles makes a great deal of sense. The conflict of interest alone should garner serious consideration as the user is unable to edit neutrally.

Overall, my recommendation is to enact ArbCom’s ruling and ban anon IP 160 from Ayn Rand-related articles. Currently, the user is blocked for a period of 1 week [128]. The block is insufficient. The history of this user suggests that further disruption to Ayn Rand-related articles is inevitable. Thank you for your time. J Readings (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that a ban is a social mechanism. If he breaks it, it needs to be immediately and strongly enforced. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This ip is currently blocked for a week, following a discussion on my talkpage. It should be noted that the article is already semi-protected, so the block on the account is in respect of the civility, WP:OWN, and other issues. The tariff of one week was agreed since the previous block was for one day and the suggested 1 month block was felt to be too large an escalation. The ip has been notified by the blocking admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that the block may be lifted if they agree to use the talkpages and obtain consensus for their preferred changes. Any discussion here that may vary these actions should be promptly notified to the ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP won't engage with anyone. That's the problem. Maybe the threat of dropping the block-hammer on him every time he tries to edit a Rand-related page will fix that. I don't know... but I doubt it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's the way things work. First, talk to the editor, then second, enforce our editing norms with escalating blocks. An eventual topic ban would be difficult to enforce (since it would largely rely on the WP:DUCK test and similarity of IPs) but not impossible. Thatcher 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, though, we do already have the ArbCom ruling which prescribes topic bans, enforced by blocks, for the conduct of the IP editor.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Other editors have expressed some opinions on this issue at User talk:EdJohnston#Lock down of Objectivism article. It's worthwhile to keep enforcing the rules against disruption, since this is something that admins can correctly do, and it is likely to be beneficial in this case. Since this editor is a fixed IP with 1,300 edits, a topic ban could have some effect. The ban could be lifted if he will agree to change his behavior. The 'talk to the editor' option doesn't work for this guy, since he never responds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Tomballguy

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

Could someone take a look at the edits by this person. He seems to have recreated several pages previously deleted (e.g. Wheel_of_Fortune_Wheel_Configuration, including putting messages up telling other users not to renominate the page for deletion. Warning that pages will be recreated [129]. Martin451 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BumLawd

The purpose of this thread is to create awareness of an ongoing incident, not to call for any particular action. BumLawd (talk · contribs), a new account, created List of deaths through interference with the anus, which was quickly renamed to List of deaths from anal disease and trauma. Ensuing edits showed clearly that the article is a troll designed to make fun of people who have died of AIDS. Edit warring has followed. Admins are involved. Further drama can be expected. More news at 10:00 on your local station. Looie496 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have informed BumLawd of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The two men headlining the list by no means 'died of Aids'. No one is being 'made fun of', but that's what you like to call the addition of referenced justifying information that's been insisted upon by others and that I'm happy to supply. What have you done to enhanse and support the article content? .. think of a whole number less than 1.BumLawd (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

We now have a contribution from Swevel (talk · contribs), a brand new account that made a series of trivial edits to Wing, then edited Talk:Abortion, then plunged into the drama described above. Looie496 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked both accounts as sockpuppets. Their similar edits and similar edit summaries seems reasonable enough to deduce that they're operated by the same user. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from anal disease, anally introduced disease, and anal trauma. I recommend that Khuntlessness (talk · contribs), a participant in the multiple moves of the article to different titles, also be looked at as a possible sock or meat puppet. Deor (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Konstrukiv (talk · contribs), whose first edit was a "keep" vote at the AfD. Let's eliminate this crap as quickly as possible. Deor (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 In progress I'm working with a checkuser on IRC right now. We're weeding out socks of an old time vandal User:DavidYork71. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been deleted per SNOW and CSD G5. لennavecia 04:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Dominic helped sort out DavidYork's accounts and the various IPs. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unresolving - reposting occurring by User:Colorect, see List of rectum related deaths. Exxolon (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Deleted, blocked as sock. Bencherlite^Talk 07:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Colorect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made an unblock request (of sorts) - anyone else care to take a look? Bencherlite^Talk 07:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Unblock declined, as request doesn't address the reason for the block. Euryalus (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mascot Guy?

Quack? --Rrburke^(talk) 03:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User was already blocked May 7 as a sock. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Steam5

Resolved

 – Steam5 appears to finally understand that edit-warring is wrong, and IP will be warned as well

This user is having a dispute with an anon IP User talk:99.7.171.33 regarding a year of birth on Natasha Yi. I've already posted on the article talkpage when I checked Steam5's contributions and saw he'd added an indefblock template to the IP's talkpage. I'm certain he's not an admin, doesn't have the ability or authority to block someone and certainly shouldn't be trying to trick an IP into thinking they are blocked when they are not to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Relevant diff is [130] - can a real admin weigh in please. Exxolon (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This editor is simply angry and clueless, not malicious. Writes like a young teenager. Looie496 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Steam5 has been an editor for a very long time, they should know that this isn't the way to solve disputes. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone checks I did notify Steam5 about this thread, they've deleted the notification on their talk for some reason. Exxolon (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologized, I am not strong enough as an administrator, but User:99.7.171.33 kept on changing the wrong year, I told the anonymous IP to stop and keeps on doing it over and over again. I know that in fact she was born in 1979. Steam5 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of them should be blocked for edit warring. Just look at the article's history.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't block me from editing, I made the right editing and other contributions. Plus I didn't made vandalism. Steam5 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Steam5, you have been around long enough to know how to get little disputes like this one resolved. Poor judgment, but don't block him for this.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't made poor judgment, I am quite that she was born in 1979 not 1981 go to the article's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Steam, I don't think you're helping your case here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am helping, I don't want an anonymous IP user to change the wrong year to 1981, I said on the article's talk page and I already talk to the IP's talk page is 1979 let me repeat one more time 1979. Steam5 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that if an IP edited changed the year again, you'd revert it once again? Toddst1 (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. To make the correct year of birth 1979 a year that she was born. I don't want an anonymous IP user to change the wrong year to 1981. Steam5 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats edit warring. Read and understand WP:EDITWAR before you reply or get yourself blocked. Matty (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Read my comments above Matty and I don't want to get blocked and I'm waiting for a reply to Toddst1. Steam5 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Natasha Yi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), this sounds like a case of Wabbit season! Duck season! MuZemike 05:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You might as well be wrong, there is no reliable source referencing her birth date on the article. Regardless, WP:EDITWAR doesn't care if you're right or not, it's the act of constantly reverting users that is the problem. Instead of reverting the IP over and over you should have assumed good faith and asked them why they were changing it and then asked for additional input on the talk page. The block notice was very inappropriate as well, you've been here since 2005 and should know better. Matty (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading between the lines I get the impression Steam5 thinks that as a registered editor they/their edits outrank/have priority over an IP editor/edits. Steam5 - this is not the case, we treat all editors as equals whether registered or not. Exxolon (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I was watching "The Price Is Right" while Barker was host and she was a former Barker's Beauty, I already went to The Price Is Right website at CBS.com and there was her bio, And CBS.com said she was born in 1979. Steam5 (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Link, please? I don't see anything likely at http://www.cbs.com/daytime/the_price_is_right/. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Natasha is no longer a Barker's Beauty and her bio is removed on the website. Also, Anonymous IP user 99.7.171.33 was involve in an edit war by editing the wrong year of birth, but the IP user did not participate in the discussion. Can you write a warning to 99.7.171.33's talk page for a little warning, Also, one user named Matty is trying to accuse me for blocking from editing. Steam5 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I found a different website and that has her bio, Her bio is at AskMen.com, and I found her correct year of birth it is located at AskMen.com it is under biography and AskMen says the year was born was 1979. Go ahead and take a look. Steam5 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE RIGHT OR WRONG. What matters is the way you went about handling the dispute. You edit warred, threatened another editor with blocking then tried to trick them into thinking they were blocked. As you've been here since 2005 you really should know better than this. Exxolon (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While we have your attention Steam5, can you pay closer attention to your use of edit summaries? They are an important part of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment that although an ip has every right to edit, we should remember that an anon ip is more likely to add false information than a logged in user. We seem to be piling on a good user who has contributed signicantly to wikipedia. Steam5's edit history shows no 3rr violation, and if it did, he obviously feels that this is some form of vandalism, and vandalism is exempt from the 3RR policy. Many editors are shouting ASSUME GOOD FAITH, yet no one seems to assume good faith that Steam5 thinks that this is vandalism. If so, then Steam5 is helping the project, not hurting it. That said. I feel it was bad judgement on the part of Steam5 to add a blocked templete to the ip's talk page. Steam5, you know better. I think a lesson was learned and we need to move on. Don't block Steam5.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening administrators! Take a look at other websites

that was born in 1979, AskMen.com, Amped Asia, CelebrityFuzz.com, Mystique Magazine, ModelCruz.com, FanMail.biz and eBay and other websites says 1979. Steam5 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening. This isn't about being right. I think you are right, and most everyone posting here thinks you are right. However, even when we are right, we do not edit war. Do you understand? AniMate^talk 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Just check on any of those websites located above and any website should say 1979 and I found one more at FanPix.net. Steam5 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Steam5, you're missing the point and seem to be refusing to hear what we are saying. We all know she was born in 1979. We all know that edit warring is wrong. You know she was born in 1979. You refuse to understand that edit warring is wrong. Get it? AniMate^talk 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ermmm.. just to be clear, changing a birthdate to one that is known to be wrong is vandalism, and as such is exempt from 3RR. //roux   17:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't known to be wrong until he bothered showing us some sources here. When two users are both insisting on reinserting unverified information, that is edit warring. AniMate^talk 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the edit war guideline and I understand the guidelines, and anonymous User IP User talk:99.7.171.33 made the edit war the make the wrong year of birth to 1981 and 99.7.171.33 did not participate in this discussion and won't talk back could you write a message for a warning to 99.7.171.33 on the IP's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the IP didn't make the edit war. It takes two people to edit war. Don't do it again, and I'll drop a warning for the IP. AniMate^talk 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we can solve it, take a look at other websites that is located above that I already said for the links and I hope will not edit war between me and the IP user, could you write on Natasha Yi's article talk page for the correct year of birth that's 1979, other websites also say the correct year of birth 1979, and no registered and IP users not to change the wrong year of birth. Could you write a message to Natasha Yi's article talk page for a little message and everything will be resolved. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to add a reference to her birth year. Just make sure to follow WP:Sources. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User NJGW removing sourced content

There's no severe disruption that requires immediate action by an admin, please follow the dispute resolution procedures. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am writing here because I don't see any piece of hope of having a serious, respectful discussion with this particular user, as I can now see clearly that their only purpose is to edit-war and whitewash the article The Mismeasure of Man. User:NJGW has removed the word "controversial" claiming that it's unsourced and that the book is only controversial to psychologists covered by the book. The latter reason, away from being an inaccurate and false fact, is of course a ridiculous reason to remove, as it still makes the book controversial. As for the first reason (unsourced), I was really surprised that one would ask for a source for this; the book is well-known to be controversial (even highly controversial); this is a known fact even among professors who support the book. And looking back at the revision history of the article, I found that the word "controversial" has been there for over two years now and NJGW in particular edited the article before this time and they did not object about the word until they decided to team up with the other user who removed the word three days ago. This is, of course, not a reason to keep the word but it is an indication that NJGW is skirting an edit-war and attempting to whitewash the article. Despite that, I brought this source (recall that NJGW first removed the word because it's "unsourced"):

Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2002). "Memorium for Stephen Jay Gould". Biology and Philosophy 17 (3).

So what did NJGW do then? They removed this source saying that it's, in their own words, "a throw-away line from an obit". First, whether the source is a "throw-away line" or not is not up to NJGW to judge. Second, what NJGW calls an "obit" is a journal article written by a neutral and well-known personality, and it directly calls the book controversial, and this is all what's relevant. By NJGW's logic, anyone can easily select whatever sources they want to back an agenda. What I am asking for here is to warn the user not to remove sourced content for nonsense reasons. Hcp7 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This board is not for content disputes. I suggest you visit the page for requesting third opinions and follow the directions there. //roux   06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more than just content dispute. There is an edit-warrior who is continuously attempting to remove well-sourced material that unquestionably meet the Wikipedia guidelines under nonsense excuses. I think this needs one of the admins to handle the situation. By the way, I would appreciate it if you share with us your view on what's going on. Hcp7 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Vegkilla/HellinaBucket

Resolved

 – Editors have stepped back, and been advised that both sets of contribs are under scrutiny. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I was accused of harassing User:VegKilla and blocked for it 2xs. I had one block removed with the suggestion/directive to leave VegKilla alone and not disturb him and I am fine with thatm however this user is now following me around Wikipedia and randomly reverting edits I've made without any reasons why. I can not do anything about this myself as I do not wish to be blocked again and lose my priveleges here but this seemed to be the board to report that problem. The page that was reverted is the Professional Bull Riders article page. I had removed the bullet headers becuase they amounted to trivia and put that clearly on my edit summries. Can an admin look into this and stop it, I am bound to not to contact the user and will not break that so this seemed to be the most appropriate place to post my issue. Sorry that this disrupts your day.HellinaBucket (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My revert to PBR was justified and correct in every way. However, as soon as I realized that this revert involved HellinaBucket, I reverted my own revert. HellinaBucket has no grounds for asking anyone to contact me, and he has already been indefinitely baned for asking other people to contact me.VegKilla (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not allowed to post this on Vegkillas page, to do so it would be construed as further harrassment. Can someone on this board post the code, I realize that may seem childish but I was blocked indef yesterday for apoligizing and would not risk it again.HellinaBucket (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(Non Admin Response) - I took a look at the edits you have removed and to be honest I think VegKilla was right to revert them. You removed 5 seperate sections as trivia that weren't trivia, they were standard information, milestones, and the like. Just because they were bulleted doesn't mean they are trivia. Trivia would be saying that, for example, one the world champion bulls now lives on a farm in Oklahoma. That would be trivia, but what you removed isn't trivia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How can the article be rewritten better then to make sure it doesn't look like Cliffnotes? In my often wrong opinion the info on retirements or champions should be handled on their own pages. I could be wrong though. HellinaBucket (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Broadcast teams" section could look a little neater but sometimes a list is needed when you can't put years and information into words. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the lists, but if you can put the information into better terms through a paragraph or two and hold all the information together, please do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you for weighing in, I appreciate that. I will wait for a final determination from this board just to be safe though, don't want to be accused of harrasment again! Very delicate situation here.HellinaBucket (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• To update Vegkilla is now following me to other users Talk pages and reverting my comments.HellinaBucket (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Moved comment above this to bottom of thread to keep things in time order. The edit Hellina is referring to appears to be [131]. Exxolon (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I have posted a warning to VegKilla's talk page after this deletion of HellinaBucket's on another user's talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No comment on the dispute, but be aware that VegKilla was, at that point, in the middle of a discussion with me involving a completely separate matter, so I'm curious as to why HellinaBucket suddenly felt the need to post on my talk page. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • • • HellinaBucket contacting you was completely inappropriate and directly in contradiction to the promise he made when his indef ban was lifted. The only possible reason for contacting you was that he witnessed our friendly disagreement, and noticed that you might be in a position to become my enemy (and thus his ally).VegKilla (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • They've removed the warning, I will notify them about this thread in case they are not aware. Exxolon (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)It appears that VegKilla has realized the err of their way on removing the post and promised not to do it again. Hopefully they keep to their promise. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I do not think that there is any post (of mine) that I removed (involving this issue), and I definitely do not recant that I am the victim. I admit that I should not have reverted HellinaBuckets contribution to This flag was red's talk page, but whether I reverted it or not, that contribution is more than grounds for HellinaBucket to be indefinitely banned (again).VegKilla (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true, however my comment in no way invovled anything Vegkilla had done or said. My comments was only to the Anon ip to say that was entirely inappropriate. Unfortunately I was looking at your page at that point because of our issue to further post anything that was said about me. I would suggest letting the Admin handle this one though as it is a very delicate situation.HellinaBucket (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you exolon, I was NOT aware of this tread. I received that warning and will not do anything like that again. I adamantly refuse to respond to anything including the name of HellinaBucket in any public forum that HellinaBucket can access. This mater is being dealt with (and has been being dealt with for days) privately.VegKilla (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any post (of mine) that I removed (involving this issue), and I definitely do not recant that I am the victim. I admit that I should not have reverted HellinaBuckets contribution to This flag was red's talk page, but whether I reverted it or not, that contribution is more than grounds for HellinaBucket to be indefinitely banned (again).VegKilla (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the block correctly HellinaBucket will be blocked again if he contacts you. If he contacts the Man and the Moon and talks about you, he might get an admonishment, but not a block. Not an admin might see it diffrently, but posting on other people's talk page isn't not grounds for block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect that one or both of HellinaBucket and VegKilla has been monitoring the other's contributions - if either of you are still doing that (for whatever reason) I'd strongly suggest that you stop now. For example, HellinaBucket, you now seem to realise that posting on my talk page while I was corresponding with VegKilla was - at best - misconstrued by other, non-involved parties (not least myself). If you both stop monitoring the other's contributions, and follow the advice given here and on your talk pages, a great deal of future drama can be avoided. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep VegKillas name out of my mouth and hands and only want the same courtesy. I understand he is very upset and did have previous reason to be, that's why I apoligized. if the sensless reverts like the Professional Bull Riders stop I'll be a happy camper. I do not want any further issues with this either, it's allready been enough drama.HellinaBucket (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And Flag you are correct I did start monitoring after my edits were reverted without edit summary. Again I refer to the above.HellinaBucket (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason I specified "for whatever reason" was that I felt sure that if either of you were doing this it would be with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, you should now stop (if you haven't already) - it may or may not be apparent, but there are now many eyes on your (both of you) contributions. I've got HellinaBucket's and VegKilla's contributions open in separate tabs right now, and I would be highly surprised if I was the only editor doing this. Step back, both of you, and let less-involved editors watch for anything dodgy. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, again I just want the drama over!HellinaBucket (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, sorry for bugging you with it.HellinaBucket (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Eliyyahu and Judea and Samaria Area

Recently Judea and Samaria was moved to Judea and Samaria Area after I raised the problematic name on the talk page [132] and then two weeks later formally proposed a move [133]. A week after that, an admin who as far as I know has no history in the Israel-Palestine conflict are closed the proposal recorsing consensus on the move.[134]

Two weeks after that user:Eliyyahu rolled back thde article to a version [135] nearly 80 days old cancelling out the edits of ten other editors and then moved it back to the original name.

I reverted this activity and posted to his user page explaining why such conduct was unacceptable and advising him to obtain consensus for any move. [136] I also posted to the article talk page. [137]

Eliyahhu has now reverted again without any explanation on the article talk page [138] and in a way which loses the edit history of the current article [139]. I am about to rollback as this will mean that the article will be reconencted with its edit history, although I realise that this might be construed as edit-warring. I am therefore bringing things here. I'm sorry to have to raise issues to do with a subject that is already at Arbcom, but I think you will understand why I've seen this as necessary.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng

(moved from WP:AIV)

First of all, sorry.I am not very good at this, I am new to the medium and so dont know how to report users. i have been working on the New Kadampa Tradition page, basically just putting non-NPOV and inadequate citation banners on it. The NKT is a HIGHLY controversial UK Buddhist group (just Google the name and add 'cult' or 'scandal') who have a gang of editors/sockpuppets who have been bullying people off their pages (NKT, Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden Controversy and kelsang Gyatso 9the groups leader for years) The gang members have been blocked/banned before for unfair practices but, once back online they continue bullying people off the pages, removing banners, and properly sourced material, replacing it with pro NKT and pro Shugden supporters material and generally using the articles to prmote themselves and their version of events. I AM guilty of messing around with one of them a little, taking the mickey on his user page but generally what i am guilty of is placing banners on these pages to warn people about the other side of the group, something they are doing their best to hide. Users Truthbody, Atisha's Cook, Truthsayer 62 and Empty mountains are all gang members who are also members of the anti Dalai Lama group. They have accused me of vandalism repeatedly becuase i keep putting an NPOV banner on the page, threatening me with moderators but never calling them in (thats a tell tale sign they are worried about external scrutiny IMO) I have changed very little content, I am just putting the banners back on to warn the public-please read the talk page on New Kadampa Tradition-there is also some strong evidence for sock puppetry and manipualtion of fact there. I am not after banning them I just think in the interests of the genral public the pages need banners-the group even have an ex 'cult' members site called New Kadampa Survivors with nearly a thousand members-yet nothing is mentioned-nothing about sex scandals, cult allegations, anti Dalai Lama protests NOTHING, Its like the criticism doesnt exist. PLEASE WIKI Editors-help sort these people out before they bully more reputable editors of the internet. Below is an excerpt from just one page about how these people are behaving, undermining the credibility of wiki and endangering the public. Surely this cannot be allowed to continue. The page is at http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/wikipedia-dorje-shugdens-enlightened-lineage-or-how-to-make-history/#comment-988

With respect for truth and a loathing for cyber bullying Yonteng BTW This proves the theory that the internet is NOT leading to greater wisdom but is the realm of mob rule and last man standing wins-It brings the name of wiki right down-No wonder people are starting to talk about using WP 'as far as it can be trusted'If I were runnign the show i would just thorw the whole thing out and not let any of the parties use this important medium as a battleground

Wikipedia: Dorje Shugden’s Enlightened Lineage or How to Make ‘History’

I gave up to contribute on Wikipedia.

NKT editors were very busy to establish Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector on Wikipedia, and finally they have successfully accomplished this aim. Now this rather recent and minor view has become the main view in Wikipedia’s article on Dorje Shugden. Further, the use of sources like Xinhua News Agency and Die Weltwoche in the introduction section of Dorje Shugden Controversy are mediocre for an encyclopaedia. To be able to include these dubious sources in the introduction section the NKT editors deleted quotes from Mills’ research. There are plenitude of other dubious sources added by NKT editors which replace now formerly quoted 3rd party Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.

For more than one year now Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, like Dreyfus, Kay, von Brück, Mumford or Nebesky-Wojkowitz, as well as other qualified scholarly papers on the history of Shugden worship (and / or the Shugden Controversy / New Kadampa Tradition) have been repeatedly deleted or misrepresented on Wikipedia – in almost all cases by a group of engaged NKT editors – or these qualified sources have been blocked by them as being “heavily biased”; and for a long time NKT blogs and anonymous websites made by Shugdenpas replaced Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Now the academic sources are just not mentioned any more or they are presented only marginal, and in a way that it does not interfere with the World-view of NKT.

The history and talk pages of Wikipedia, as well as the notices on the Adminboard, offer everybody the chance to explore this for himself. The last notice on the Adminboard can be read here: Users Emptymountains and Truthbody. Other strategies included the sockpuppets of ‘Wisdombuddha’ or multiple accounts fom the same IP. One year ago an editor, who was not involved in editing these articles, gave already a notice on the Administrators’ noticeboard, stating

...these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they’ve conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don’t know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don’t need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea...

and since then nothing has really changed, hence, a “fruitless case”.' PLEASE READ THE LAST ENTRIES ON THE NKT DISCUSSION PAGE about my banners. They are rampant!YontengYonteng (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This user was reported here for 3RR and attempted outing. Emptymountains (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun's conduct at Swansea Metro

Welshleprechaun is disrupting the Swansea Metro article, reopening an old edit war he was involved in that was settled in February 2008 [140] (also see his talk page archive). Instead of abiding by the "bold, revert, discuss" process and/or pursuing dispute resolution, Welshleprechaun is constantly re-inserting his contentious edits after being challenged.[141] I have warned him about his conduct on the article talk page,[142] but he's disregarded this [143] and continues to try to bully objecting editors into accepting his POV.[144] Three editors (RFBailey and I in the current dispute, and in the Feb 2008 dispute, MickMacNee) disagree or have disagreed with his edits.[145] Pondle (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit-war was not settled, I discontinued editing rather than breaking 3RR and edit warring. It's ironic that Pondle, who comes from Swansea, finds my edit bias as omitting the information would mislead readers into thinking that Swansea has a metro system, whereas it does not and is unlikely to any time soon. There is nothing wrong with clarifying that the system is not a metro system as most articles titled X Metro are in fact metro systems, unless the intention is to mislead readers. A bully is not simply someone who disagrees. Perhaps you could explain in what way my edit shows POV? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my most recent edit summary, "Metro" does not exclusively refer to light rail. See King County Metro, Austin Metro, etc. And you can edit war without breaking WP:3RR, but it's still wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the city of Ottawa has mass transit, but light rail is but a dream. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to except the third opinion (User:SarekOfVulcan). But Pondle, you have no right to call me a bully simply because you don't agree with me. It is clear that no POV-pushing was involved in this, and you continuously seek to revert my edits when no other editor would. Can you stop this little vendetta please? You know what I'm talking about. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mengistu Haile Mariam

I am writing with regard to the biographical information titled Mengistu Haile Mariam. Dears sir/madam, you posted completely falacious information regarding Mengistu's early life. I guess that information was provided to you by a member of ruling junta clans of the current ethiopian governemnt. You have to balance the information you get, and you must be hold accountable for any abuse of information under data protection and privacy policies. In this particular case, you have breached the legal threshold by posting an information which is compeletly fabricated, racist, and offessive of the individual in question. The only thing I couls say is I fee shame on you for acquiring someone's information from third party and posting false data with out cross check. Shame!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.254.184 (talk) 09:30, May 10, 2009

I moved this to the correct noticeboard, I think--Unionhawk ^Talk 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where this belongs... it was initially on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, but, I truly have no idea where this belongs or if this belongs on any noticeboard.--Unionhawk ^Talk 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article talkpage? I had a look, and there seems to be citations for much of what is written - although I have not checked the references themselves - so there isn't a BLP issue as far as I can see. As this has been transposed from the original place it was posted I doubt there would be much point in asking the ip what specific concerns they have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a legal threat to me, so it should be deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat; IP did not mention taking any action, and "you have breached the legal threshold" is a mere statement of opinion. Rodhullandemu 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)IP 89 has a point. The article has plenty of good sourcing (BBC, Associated Press, Times of India) for Mengistu as a perpetrator of mass murder, but the complaint focuses on the "Early life" section of the article and has nothing to do with that. The first two paragraphs there focus on two relatives of Mengistu and have no sourcing. Some of the information in those paragraphs could be embarassing or even libelous regarding those relatives, and in any case, that information isn't crucial to the article or even important to it. So if someone hasn't removed that passage by now, I'm going to do it. (Done: here and here.) So, yes, shame on us for having those paragraphs in the article. -- Noroton (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, IP 89 seems to be referring to the remaining part of the "Early Life" section, which is footnoted to the Paul B. Henze and Bahru Zewde sources. It's worth a note on the article talk page, and maybe a WikiProject page that someone has disputed this. I'll do it. (done [146] at talk page; [147] at WikiProject:Ethiopia; [148] at WikiProject:Africa) -- Noroton (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A Case of wiki-Hounding

Editor FyzixFighter has been engaged in a prolonged campaign of wiki-hounding. Since I opened my account last April, FyzixFighter has only ever come to physics pages to undermine my edits. There are no exceptions to this rule. This wiki-hounding has taken place on a number of pages including centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. His style is to claim not to have any opinions on the topic and then to proceed to undo the coherence and contents of my edits by purporting to quote from reliable sources. Recently he has been distorting the facts. At centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), he attempted to turn the centrifugal force into a centripetal force. He has now followed me to the combined centrifugal force page and yesterday he undid a sourced edit of mine and replaced it with false information. On having this false information pointed out, he admitted it but nevertheless continued to undo my edits.

I can give a list of dates that will help to confirm this allegation,

25th April 2008

28th April, he went to the administrator's noticeboard and accused me of disruptive editing. Arguments continued into May and June.

23rd July 2008, he reverted an edit of mine on centrifugal force which has now finally been accepted in the light of sources provided.

23rd October 2008

31st January 2009, "Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction".

16th February 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".

22nd March 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".

23rd March 2009,

24th March 2009 "Faraday's law of induction".

A few days ago, he returned to centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference). When I deserted that page and went to 'centrifugal force', FyzixFighter also deserted that page and followed over to 'centrifugal force' were he has continued to undermine my edits. David Tombe (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)