Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

probation, or something at Talk:Centrifugal force

Nearly a year ago I initiated this RFC , and ended up giving up in disgust and un-watchlisting the page. Random Wiki-happenstance led to me viewing the current talk page today, and guess what? Nothing has been resolved in over a year of argument. I'm no physicist, but it looks to me like the same conversation spiraling on and on endlessly, mostly with the same users who were doing the same thing last July. The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users! Personally, I'm not going to wade back into this mess, but I thought a post here might prompt... something, anything, some attempt at sanity through article probation or other WP:SANCTIONS or, something else that can end this madness. Honestly, this is one of the most screwed up things I've ever seen on Wikipedia, a circular argument that never ends, and users who apparently never tire of arguing on the same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you visited WP:WQA today :-) The problem when people who are involved in the sciences is this:

• in science, you're more important the more you write
• many scientists have different points of view on any given topic
• all scientists are right

These corollaries cause all the problems. (Note: the second is the only one that is actually true). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've popped over there and said that my gut feeling is that this saga won't stop without a topic ban. It is probably time to do something about it, it's been going on far too long and the discussions on that talk page would put anyone off from trying to edit the article, and we shouldn't allow that situation to persist. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This showed up at ANI in November last year (here) and was eventually closed after David Tombe and Brewers_ohare resolved to take their discussion off-wiki. Those two users (plus a couple of others) are clearly still up to the same endless arguing; I'm thinking topic bans may become necessary if this doesn't abate. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The pattern I am seeing at Centrifugal force and related pages is one of long term POV pushing by David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Basically, David Tombe is attempting to bring Wikipedia into line with his own peculiar views about physics. This is being resisted by several users. Recently, David Tombe has been [forum shopping in an unsuccessful attempt to gain an advantage over FyzixFighter, who is one of those resisting David Tombe. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] This diff] should give some idea of David Tombe's agenda on Wikipedia. More information about David Tombe's highly unusual beliefs about physics can be found here . Cardamon (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, it seems others are seeing what I see, let's take this to the next step:

Topic Ban on User:Brews ohare and User:David Tombe

• Should these two editors be banned from editing this article and it's talk page, and related articles due to their extremely prolonged arguments on the talk page?

Support

• Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for David Tombe only. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Having watched this play out for a while but being otherwise uninvolved, I believe a topic ban for David Tombe only would be the best approach. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support a physics topic ban for David Tombe only. I can manage my dealings with Brews, but David's disregard of WP:AGF & WP:CIV and WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, & WP:OR is just too much. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Tombe only.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Suppoert topic ban for Tombe only right now-- this is the least we can do to improve editing in this area. I've watched this for a year or so, and Tombe's behaviour makes an impossibly uncomfortable and disruptive environment for other editors. I don't see Tombe as an asset to Wikipedia, and we wouldn't tolerate his behaviour on other articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Tombe only. My attention was brought to this matter via a rant Tombe placed on Jimbo's talk page. Having run through the history of this all I'm seeing from Tombe is a stubborn attitude, which borders on harassment. A content dispute is a content dispute but for a year David Tombe seems to have done nothing but circle around this, he even made comment in this section when it would have been more appropriate in the section below. At this point it may be best if Tombe stepped back. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, or reinstate the complete ban for David Tombe. He has already been banned; it was overturned by a administrator. You'll note that David Tombe still believes that it's all a conspiracy against him.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• User:Brews ohare doesn't work well with others. That's a huge negative in the wikipedia which is all about collaborative working. I am agnostic on whether he should be banned, but he does cause significant friction with most other editors with his editing style.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support physics topic ban for David Tombe, see my comment below. --Steve (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So the numbers mount up for censorship as the pressure mounts up on FyzixFighter to reveal his reasons for trying to deny that the convective term in equation 3-12 of Goldstein is the centrifugal force. Six so far, including FyzixFighter himself! And how many of the other five have got a background in physics? David Tombe (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK you seven, you've hung your colours to the mast, so now it's time to do your homework. Six of you do not have a physics background and therefore couldn't possibly know what the dispute is about. So I would suggest that you all run along and and come back when you have carefully gone through the last edit of mine that FyzixFighter deleted, and present your evidence here in a clear and concise manner. We will be looking for evidence of unsourced material and/or original research. David Tombe (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not doing yourself any favours you know. Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia for experts, and consensus rarely favours the "I'm an expert so leave me alone" approach. If FyzigFighter is deleting sourced material, show us some diffs and we can all look at them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tombe, you do not hold a Ph.D. in physics, so by the standards of many people you have no physics background. I read through the Talk page of Centrifugal Force and I googled your name and then followed the links to crankish websites where you expound your views in the face of opposition from real physicists. I am sorry but I feel that a topic ban is the best solution for all concerned. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Six of you do not have a physics background and therefore couldn't possibly know what the dispute is about", as it turns out you don't know me, so I'd appreciate it if you stuck to the subject, which is your behaviour. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I see no reason to assert that the article proper is excessively edited, and I tend to think that long discourses on article talk pages are not intrinsically evil. A solution in search of a problem. Collect (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I completely disagree with both the points you make here, as the facts do not support them. The article is being edited much too often for such a trivial topic, and the talk pages for this topic isn't just 'long' is positively obscene. At one point I did the archive and the talk page archives were about a megabyte; and most of that was people arguing with David Tombe; it died right down when he was banned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you Wolfkeeper. I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd come along and join the party. But you need to get your facts straight. Those facts are very easy to check. I was banned from the end of July 2008 until mid-October 2008. The edit war raged continuously during that period. It is very easy to check. In fact, I was very upset at the time that because I wanted to join in, in order to back up editor Fugal. It was my attempts to communicate with Fugal on the side that got me banned permanently. What kind of justice was that? David Tombe (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you used sockpuppets when banned. You were trying to push your POV even when banned. Which part of banned don't you understand?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Any evidence for that? Even at this stage he could still be called on it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, most of the "sockpuppetry" was done on User talk:Fugal, where Tim Carrington West and the 217.- and 81.- anon IP's were David, and on other user talk pages. David did use the anon IPs 217.44.75.36 and 217.42.108.55 to participate in a debate on a centrifugal force article talk page while under a block. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Check out the indefinite block he received because of it: [2]- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You've just ducked the important point that the edit war raged continuously even when I was banned. You claimed otherwsie. You misrepresented the facts. David Tombe (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you used a sockpuppet ensure that, while you were blocked.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. As an interested party, my view is that the discussion is just normal WP back and forth. Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. As an interested party, my view is that the argument has gone on much longer than necessary because the controversial material in question was initially opposed as a knee jerk reaction on the erroneous belief that is was unsourced original research. Although that idea has now been dispelled, the momentum of those who opposed the material in the first place has kept the argument going. A wider investigation needs to be conducted before individual editors are singled out for sanction. This needs to be done by editors that are knowledgeable about the content matter of the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for full disclosure I know David off-wiki from another online community. From what I know of David and this situation, a topical ban isn't appropriate. I am on a mobile right now, and will expand my reasons shortly (3 hours aprox.) -- Ned Scott 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Err, scratch that, got my David's mixed up. Rest of it still stands. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have explained below why editing physics/math articles requires one to discuss the actual physics. A very narrow discussion limted to direct quotes from sources can lead to very bad articles. I have given a few examples of such bad articles. From time to time you can then have problematic editors, I also addressed that a bit in that section below. Banning people just becase they talk too much on the talk page is a very bad idea.

What you can do is organize the debates on the talk page better, have some votes on how to proceed with the article. Then if one dissenting editor keeps on reverting the article against the consensus, you can raise that here. That would be a better way to deal with any problem editors. Count Iblis (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Should the article and talk page Centrifugal force be placed on probation, with editors subject to WP:SANCTIONS?

Support

• Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As somebody who is at the very least peripherally involved in this debate, it wouldn't bother me if myself, David Tombe, FyzixFighter and Brews Ohare were all topic banned. There's enough people around that understand this topic to stop it going to hell in a handbasket, whereas with David Tombe on-wiki it requires constant watching.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A solution in search of a problem - I see no reason to object to the number of edits on the article page, so it boils down to being upset at excessive use of a talk page - which I think is insufficient to invoke any specific actions. Collect (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Banning people from entering into discussion is always going to be a bad idea, and will never solve any underlying issue/problem. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Ned Scott 02:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, see my vote in the previous section. Count Iblis (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let someone else edit it a while

It seems to me that there must be other people out there with the knowledge/expertise to write on this subject. Why don't the main contributors to the article agree to refrain from editing the article and talk page for, say, two weeks in order to let others have a chance at it? Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion is most certainly circular; the arguments seem to involve different frames of reference and a debate over which frame is correct/better (neither, according to Einstein!) An outside editor (willing to spend a significant chunk of time churning through sources and assembling a fair representation of both sides) would do will for the page. I also have to vote against the aforementioned bans. I fail to see where any one editor has been more uncivil than any others. Ban them all or ban none, but not some. Perhaps warnings all around? Clayt85 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for this suggestion provided all participants e.g. including Martin Hogbin, Dicklyon, Wolfkeeper, FyzixFighter, etc. agree as well. Inasmuch as the instigator of this brawl, Beeblebrox, has never actually indicated any interest in contributing to the page, nor have Darrenhusted & BWilkins, I don't expect much will happen during the hiatus. However, it would be great if revisions were (i) explained on the Talk page, (ii) sourced and (iii) balanced. Brews ohare (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm amenable to this, but I wouldn't include Martin in the list of participants that should take a hiatus from editing the article and talk page. He's only recently started to participate on the talk page, and I would like to see what he could do while we take a break. I'd also highly encourage that those like Iblis and CMD who think that just talking about the physics and going through the derivation will convince David of the errors of his ways and stop his fringe POV pushing to go ahead and try. It's easy enough to say, but doing it is another matter entirely. Others before you have tried to no avail, but maybe you'll succeed where they have failed. However, Brews, please don't discount the opinion of others like Darrenhusted and BWilkins just because they haven't participated on the article page. As I understand it, their opinions are based on David's action (failure to AGF and incivility) in general across multiple talk pages. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And I thought the point was that uninvolved editors gave their opinion. More to the point do you think that either the actions of you (ohare) or Tombe would encourage anyone to even try to edit any page that either of you have been near given the amount of drama you attract. What would happen if I made an edit at centrifugal force? Could I expect 4 ANI threads and two complaints to Jimbo as FF has been subjected to? At this point I would only try to contribute if I knew you were both banned from those pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to close/Summary

• This is turning into the same thing as the talk page we're commenting on, a very verbose debate in which nothing is settled. It would be good if a couple of admins came forward and stated if they felt it warranted admin action or not. Since this has gone into WP:TLDR territory, I will try to summarize the core points here:

• David Tombe and Brews ohare have had an extremely protracted debate for over a year on the centrifugal force talk page
• This debate does not seem limited to discussion of the article but rather is a debate about the science itself and therefore an inappropriate use of an article talk page
• Previous attempts to resolve this, including reports at WP:WQA, several WP:RFCs, and a previous report here have failed to resolve the issue
• David and Brews seem to feel that if you are not a physicist you do not have the right to comment on their contributions, and are unwilling to acknowledge that this is anything other than a normal talk page conversation
• There was a consensus to ban or block David Tombe last year for these exact same reasons, but an admin chose to unblock him and apparently did not follow up and make sure this behavior did not recur.
• The above suggestion that they voluntarily remove themselves for two weeks will not solve the underlying problem of an off-topic debate beyond the usual scope of article talk pages

For these reasons I believe some sort of administrative action is warranted, either in the form of a topic ban, blocking, or article probation Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained in detail in the extended discussion section, why the actions suggested by Beeblebrox would be a bad thing. One has to take into account that on this noticeboard page we only hear about disputes between editors. The fact that the way Brews edits articles has been very successfully used by me and others in correcting long standing and horrible errors without causing an disputes is a hard undeniable fact.

Now, it can be the case that an editor is talking too much on the talk page. But then it is up to the other editors to deal with that ocnstructively. Instead of moaning like Beeblebrox is doing here, one has to reach a conclusion on the talk page. If one editor is behaving in an obstructive way, then that canot prevent a consension being reached by all the pother editors. So, ultimately one can always proceed without that problem editor and if that problem editor still disrupts the article, you can come back here and raise more clear cut violations like 3RR etc.

If we take a shortcut by limiting Brews or David from discussing the physics/math on the talk page, then I see potential problems with other articles. We have had cases where extensive discussions based on physics were really necessary to settle disputes. In some cases there was one editor who was using sources in a misleading way and he was wikilawering. Now, such an editor could in the future come here and accuse the experts of talking too much physics and math. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary is inaccurate

• David Tombe and Brews ohare "debate":

Long ago considerable debate occurred over the nature of centrifugal force. That involved many editors, and was not strictly a Brews-Tombe back-and-forth. It was a well intentioned effort to reconcile Tombe's notions with those in the article by looking at several examples, some of which ultimately were added to the article.. That era has passed. Any recent Brews_ohare - Tombe exchanges have been short, constructive and related to content.

• This debate's subject.

I'd say present debate is focused upon the content of the article, and discussion has that objective in mind.

• David and Brews seem to feel that if you are not a physicist you do not have the right to comment.

A complete misunderstanding bordering upon deliberate distortion.

• There was a consensus to ban or block David Tombe;

A true statement, the ban served its purpose, which was to control name-calling and paranoia (not all on Tombe's side, I'd add). No recurrence of this behavior on Tombe's part.

• The above suggestion that they voluntarily remove themselves for two weeks will not prevent off-topic debate beyond the usual scope of article talk pages;

What is this about - preventing talk on editor talk pages? Preventing use of the article talk page indefinitely?

Considering that a large proportion of the figures and text in Centrifugal force Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and Reactive centrifugal force originated with Brews-ohare, and that Beeblebrox has never made an attempt to add content or to engage in discussion on these pages, his crusade here is peculiar. He is interested in influencing decision by rhetoric, not by principle. He has no direct experience with any of the editors he attacks anywhere that I know about, never mind on Centrifugal force. What are the motivations and the credentials of Beeblebrox anyway? Brews ohare (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You wonder why he hasn't tried to edit the pages given what has happened in this ANI thread alone. To any admin out there please put a lid on this. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox and Darrenhusted have made no attempt whatsoever. Don't tell me you are too bashful to even show up on the Talk page. It has not intimidated a lot of other editors: Rracecarr, Wolfkeeper, The Anome, PeR, FyzixFighter, Martin Hogbin, Henning Makholm, Dicklyon, Dougweller, Harald88, Fugal etc. etc.Brews ohare (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brews, whether the editors commenting here have tried to get involved in the debate on the article talk page or not is irrelevant. This is a report at ANI not an RFC. A report here asks uninvolved editors to look at the behavior of the editor(s) in question and give opinions based on the agreed upon standards of the Wiki community. It is not meant to get them involved in the actual debate on the talk page (that would be what an RFC or mediation is for), although it may lead to that. Stop trying to marginalize the comments of others by using standards that don't apply. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever guys. Must you resort to this sort of base tactics every time, questioning the intelligence and motivations of persons you don't agree with. Here's what you just don't seem to want to understand: it is absolutely not required that an editor be an expert on a subject before contributing to an article or a talk page conversation, so my credentials, and yours, are not really relevant. You both keep harping on the point that I have not participated in your debate, as if that makes any comment from me invalid. I would say it is exactly the opposite. Clearly, I don't have an opinion in your actual dispute and could care less which of you is right or wrong, meaning that it is easier for me to see this from an impartial outsider's perspective. Don't try to turn this around and make it about me, because it isn't, I'm hardly the only one who sees a problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is preventing you from participating editing the article or its talk page. So, what is exactly the problem? Just that there are a lot of discussions on the talk page as you wrote in the OP? While I agree that David may talk a bit too much, that alone cannot be a good ground for any action to be taken.

Many disputes on article contents have been settled by lengthy discussions witout escalating to major conflicts, so on this page you'll find no trace of such disputes. That happens far often than unnecessary discusions that go on for too long. But a lay person cannot be expected to see the difference. So, if David and Brews were sanctioned for talking too much then I could also be sanctioned for talking too much on thermodynamics talk page articles. You can easily imagine some editor with some POV that is based on a misunderstanding of a source to come along and the only way that can be refuted is by a lengthy argument, because you can't always refute a quote out of context by a quote that counters that directly. Count Iblis (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, with regards to David Tombe the problem goes far beyond just talking too much on the talk page. What is your opinion of the behavior described in the WQA report? Is such persistent behavior acceptable or not, and if not what is the next recourse in getting David to change such behavior? --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a far better way to address a problem. I.e. instead of complaining about very lengthy talk page debates, you cite specific incidences of verbal abuse. Sanctioning an editor based on that sounds legitimate to me in principle (I haven't look at all the instances of alleged abuse yet). Beeblebrox treats Bews and David in the same way based on their lengthy talk page discussions. I.m.o., that's wrong.Count Iblis (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As is typical with Wikipedia, you fellows are trying to kill the wrong people. This entire problem is due to FyzixFighter who intervened after much of the long discussion between Brews and Tombe was worked out. FyzxFighter then swooped in and deleted Tombe's edits, which were at the final stage, and wiped out all of the progress. Hence I am a bit surprised that you are not discussing a ban on FyzixFighter, as he is obviously the source of the current problem. Now we have Mr Beeblebrox stepping in to make things worse. He is trying to establsh rules for editing physics articles when he doesn't know any physics. I will make this problem clear. The physics community has been arguing about the physics of centrifugal force for at least 200 years. Does he expect that wikipedia will produce a satisfactory article on this topic if wikipedia tries to enforce a conclusion that the physics community doesn't agree upon? I think not. The problem here is Wikipedia procedures and the way it handles disputes. The correct way is to allow both view points into the article while telling the reader there is a disute and letting him decide. Wikipedia thinks they can avoid mentioning there is a dispute and then determine which side is the correct side of the argument. Such a procedue is bound to ruffle feathers and is more than likely going to lead to wrong information in Wikipedia. Apparently, Mr Beeblebrox believe that the best solution is to choose up sides, like in a children's playground, and ostracise the bad boys from the playground. That is not a solution and will only help to keep Wikipedia's reputation for erronous information intact, and confirm why that reputation was properly earned in the first place.72.84.66.220 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, the participants on the talk page are doing just fine without your participation. You say: "Clearly, I don't have an opinion in your actual dispute and could care less which of you is right or wrong, meaning that it is easier for me to see this from an impartial outsider's perspective." You are trying to solve a problem you have "seen" as a non-participant with no interest, assessed the "problem" based upon a partial understanding of what the back-and-forth is about (taking it as fruitless debate even when it is simply the evolution of thought), and interpreted the actions of other editors with no experience of your own in dealing with the participants, nor understanding of the structure of the discussion, never mind any other qualification. Forget it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Again, this isn't about me. I merely brought what I perceived as a problem to the communities attention. I think anyone can see from this thread that you have a tendency to go on and on and on and get in last word contests. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry sir but it is exactly about you. Your inability to understand the issues has resulted in a demand to kill two editors. That is simply wrong, and if you dont see that, you don't belong here in my opinion. This latest dispute was caused by FyzixFighter. Why didn't you make a move to block him? That would be a more productive move from my observations regarding the problems of trying to edit wikipedia articles. Mr FyzixFighter is always intervening when a compromise has been reached destroying the efforts of Mr Tombe to work out a solution. This is because Mr FyzixFighter doesn't know anything about physics and never will. He is just trying to cause problems for MR Tombe who does know physics. I don't think you understand the problems and simply want to kill the participants efforts because you don't understand them or physics.71.251.188.202 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion.

Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.

Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive AWB use to remove image placeholders

Stephen (talk · contribs) is removing hundreds or thousands of image placeholders. Another editor and I have expressed our concern about this, asking for a reference to a discussion on the subject. Can we revoke his AWB rights till he answers? Do you perhaps have other suggestions? Debresser (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: No, admins are approved by default. Long answer: I left this message on his talk page - if this task has consensus, you should file a BRFA so the edits can be done with a bot flag, if this task doesn't have consensus...well, then you shouldn't be doing it! =) He's not presently editing, so no immediate action is required, but I think a BRFA would be Stephen's best bet. –xeno^talk 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It actually appears there may be some consensus for this.

• File talk:Replace this image_female.svg#Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AmeliorationBot 2

While there isn't a clear consensus to remove the images, it appears there is one that they shouldn't actually be used.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's loose consensus not to continue adding it, but doesn't that final link somewhat prove that removing the image en masse doesn't enjoy consensus? –xeno^talk 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I've been removing the image placeholders when I come accross them as well. Mainly I've based the removal on this conversation, which states at the top:

• "From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and Replace this image male. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation".

Although I do think they look slightly garish myself, I have no strong aversion to them and was removing them based on what appeared to be concensus that they should not be used. Perhaps there is a more recent discussion that I missed? ponyo (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That bot request above was more recent, and it seems that the main objection was that there were too many ways for the bot to break things. I would urge that these removals not be reverted until a consensus to put them back in is obtained, since the consensus for having them there seems weak-to-nonexistent.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If consensus truly exists for these not to appear on articles, could we not just replace the image with a single transparent pixel? –xeno^talk 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate those bloody single-pixel images. Let's not, and say we didn't....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'm a touch uncomfortable seeing AWB used for anything that even smells a smidge controversial. On the other hand, there seems to be consensus that these images shouldn't be used (I say that having supported their use, previously, mind you). It was a good experiment, but hasn't worked out as well as we hoped it might. If there's consensus not to use them, why on earth wouldn't we remove them? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, because we like arguing about whether or not to remove them? ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mhm, it seems to be a catch-22 situation. No consensus to add them, no consensus to remove them. I support the removal, though if someone wants to edit war to keep the placeholder on I'm not gonna bother reverting the guy, it's a silly thing to edit war over. Wizardman 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, part of the non-consensus here is that they do work. Some see them as ugly, a POV and style issue IMHO, but they remain in the area of things we wish we had a better alternative for so leave them until we do. I like them and wouldn't use them if they didn't work. Until a better alternative - likely an image not seen as "ugly" - is produced there seems not overwhelming consensus to remove them. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, have you read the anecdotal evidence at User talk:Stephen? "I work WP:OTRS, and we get several image submissions per day, almost all of which are for articles with the placeholder image. It really does work for getting us free images. Sandstein 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) " –xeno^talk 21:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No consensus to add means: don't add any more. no consensus to remove means: don't remove them either. C'est simple. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I see no directive or concensus to forbid adding them, that would seem to be the same reason there is no consensus for removing them. There is just general dislike of their appearance from everything I've read. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? Is it that they're an embarassing reminder of wikipedia's schizoid attitude towards fair use? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I used to be bitter a bit as well, the goal is to produce free content for the world so really, ultimately, we want free images with no fair use requirements. Those can be seen worldwide whereas everything else gets masked in various ways. As our uploading images protocols is overhauled and more images are uploaded to commons the tide will change. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Having the sihouettes there might at least encourage someone to go get their Brownie and do a little celebrity-stalking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that centralised discussion got rather disjointed and highjacked but there was a very promising solution evolving out of the discussion before the politics tired us out and the solution lost momentum. It was the The text placeholder solution illustrated here. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have supported that as a solution, it uses a small line of text, and in that example is rather lost in the shuffle. I think the placeholders work because they are obvious and seen by all who look at the article. I also believe they may help inspire folks to contribute who may not think of that as an option. -- Banjeboi 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The silhouette seems like a better answer - it tells the viewer that we would like a photo but we don't have one. It's like IMDB uses. Unless we're consciously trying to avoid looking like IMDB. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the above shows that there still is some discussion needed on this issue. So maybe we can consider the following as what to do next:

1. All editors are reminded not to remove those placeholders for now until community has decided that this is indeed consensus
2. A new RFC is opened to discuss the pros and cons of those images which is advertised to the wider community using a watchlist notice. The RFC should include the question whether removal of those images should be sought.
3. If (and only if) the RFC shows that there is indeed consensus for those removals, then a bot account will be requested to remove those images.

This way, we can avoid cries of "stop him, there is no consensus!" and maybe settle the question once and for all. Even if said proposed RFC does result in "no consensus", we will have a result that allows us to deal with such situations in the future. Talking about the issue itself here will not yield any productive results and Stephen seems to have stopped to allow discussion to take place, so there is no further need for ANI discussion. Regards SoWhy 08:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I am a WP:OTRS volunteer who occasionally works the photo submission queue. I can attest that these placeholders are very successful at getting us free photographs. We get on the order of several dozens of photograph submissions per week for articles that have such placeholders. That's why I consider it disruptive to remove all these images without consensus. I propose that a bot revert these removals and I agree that we should have a RfC on the question whether we want such placeholders and whether they should be automatically added to or removed from articles.  Sandstein  08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A bot wouldn't be necessary, one could use mass rollback; with the caveat that it would also roll back the cosmetic changes made. –xeno^talk 12:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(I feel a bit bad for not knowing how to use mass rollback despite having been an admin for 3+ years). Per WP:BRD, I suggest to mass-revert all these changes and to ask Stephen to find more support for his actions first. Kusma (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See here. Probably best to enter a rollback edit summary before doing it: User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js. –xeno^talk 14:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass rollback to restore placeholder?

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, I can, however, use mass-rollback to restore these placeholders, with the above-noted caveat that cosmetic changes made in conjunction with the removal will be rolled back as well. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 14:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support it based on the fact that it would send a strong signal to every user not to make potentially controversial edits automated on a larger scale. If we just sit back and say "oh well, now it has already happened", we invite people to do similar things because they will not have to worry to be reverted... On the other hand, that would be quite many edits to rollback and as such, potentially, an unneeded drain on our servers that might be re-reversed if a consensus is found to allow such removals. I think the best course of action will be to quickly establish any kind of preliminary consensus by asking for input at multiple venues at the same time. Regards SoWhy 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support mass rollback as well.  Sandstein  07:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DDo it, I personally detest mass edits like these without support. Viridae^Talk 07:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Sandstein, support rollback. Garion96 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support rollback, I saw some removals on articles on my watchlist. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's a consensus not to add them, rolling back would be adding against that consensus. What's the harm in leaving them be? There seems to have been no edit wars started and only rehash drama that has already been debated by those who care about the issue (rather than the drama, here). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is imho that no new ones should be added but that old ones should not be removed either. So this rollback-proposal would only restore the previous (consensus) status-quo. Otherwise people could break this consensus and get away with it because others cannot revert them without breaking consensus themselves. This cannot be our goal, can it? Regards SoWhy 09:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus whatsoever against adding "new" ones. I do see rough consensus that for people who died before photography came into wider use they could be removed but certainly not for living people. I also see a general consensus that they aren't ideal but until a better placeholder image is created that these are the best we have, i notice they have been redesigned and discussed extensively in the past to improve their appearance. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence I think we should have a new RFC on the issue. I just don't think I am able to create one that people understand, else I'd have done so. ;-) Regards SoWhy 09:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots back from a week-long block and back to uncivil behavior

Resolved

 – Blocked one month ACB by Tanthalas39. — neuro^(talk) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

after returning from a week long block [[9]] for WP:NPA, i noticed that User:Nukes4Tots has been reverting some run-of-the-mill content disputes with the edit summary "RVV" (revert vandalism). I warned him about misusing the edit summary 'rvv' in cases where it is not actually vandalism, as that could be construed as uncivil, and he deleted my warning as 'destalkerized. go away.' I wasn't sure if he understood the message I was trying to convey to him, since I used a generic template to send the first message, so I left this personalized message with another example of when not to use 'rvv' (the misused rvv this time was here.) he then reverted my message with the edit summary rvv. I don't believe that he has interests in working well with others.

furthermore, he is leaving what could be construed as racist edit summaries. someone tried to add the mexican flag to an article and his edit summary was rv: el bandito. someone tried to add the filipino flag to an article and he reverts it as rv: filipino bandit, rv: cambodian bandit, filipino bandit strikes again, rv: filipino bandit, filipino bandit strikes again, turkish bandit.

Theserialcomma (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously hasn't learnt. I'd say block for a month, with the emphasis that it is his last proper chance. If he's not willing to contribute properly after this then I'm perfectly happy with an indefinite block or community ban. This might seem a bit hardarsed, but people failing to treat week-long and month-long warnings as enough of a hint aren't likely to change. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I recommend checking the datestamps on the diffs given above before leaping to any conclusions. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • yep. rv: el bandito was done today. the rest were provided for context of the pattern of his behavior, and hence are older. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Let's see. SPI that was inexplicably taken over by ArbCom with no information provided to the community, a staggering number of AN/I threads, significant block log for edit warring and personal attacks and refusal to learn from same... This user is not here to contribute in any meaningful way. Suggest community ban. → ROUX ₪ 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Works for me with all that. I note that arbcom haven't touched it. Should we give them a heads up about this thread? Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, their comment should be invited due to the socking issue. That needs to be clarified before a ban (if implemented) happens, as multiple accounts may need to be banned. → ROUX ₪ 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Blocked for one month. Tan | 39 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • See User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 57#Please send ArbCom a reminder. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Was there ever any response from ArbCom? → ROUX ₪ 03:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I wasn't informed of any result, so I presume the ArbCom never reached a decision. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma baiting block review

• I would like to point out that User:Theserialcomma has been blocked for one month for baiting Nukes: User talk:Theserialcomma#Blocked for a month for baiting. Some guy (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Another admin reviewed independently a few hours ago and passed on doing anything, but Theserialcomma just posted a malformed (probably won't show up on the unblock requests category properly) unblock request on his talk page User talk:Theserialcomma. If another uninvolved admin can go take a look I'd appreciate it.

Please note that contrary to TSC's claim in the unblock I am asserting no defense for Nukes4Tots actions here and not arguing for him to be unblocked. Theserialcomma caused a very large number of ANI threads over the last few months, though they were usually the victim in terms of direct abuse. This evolved into a situation where they pestered someone they knew did not want to talk to them at all, replaced a warning on their talk page after it was removed once. If this was the first time, AGF would presume this was neither intentional nor malicious. This is far, far from the first time. Even if it was still unintentional and innocent, the quantity of incidents rises to disruptive, and I can no longer AGF on the matter. There have been too many - a user who genuinely understands that getting along with the community is important would have stopped poking the stick in months ago.

The current civility poll section on baiting supports a community consensus that baiting is a problem and has been under-recognized in abuse cases.

I do invite review, but I am hopeful that we can start to set the precedent that if you appear on ANI too often even as the victim, there's probably something you're doing very wrong, and that you should expect to be held responsible for that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have procedurally declined the unblock request pending resolution of this review. I am on record saying that "baiting" is not a useful description of blockable misconduct. Still, Georgewilliamherbert, could you please provide the diffs of the edits that you believe constitute the misconduct that triggered your block, and could you explain why you chose a block length of one month for an editor who had not previously been blocked?  Sandstein  07:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A month does seem a tad excessive given the previously-unpopulated block log and lack of warnings. → ROUX ₪ 07:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I will follow up with diffs, but the proximate cause was the pair of warnings about misuse of "rvv" as a revert summary for nonvandalism. As I indicated to Theserialcomma on his talk page, he has been engaged in enough conflict with Nukes4Tots that he should not have been leaving warnings there - Nukes had repeatedly told him to leave him alone and not post on his talk page. TSC had a point about "rvv" - but should have sought an uninvolved user or admin to talk to Nukes about it. TSC knew or reasonably should have been expected to have known that any criticism he leveled on Nukes would be taken badly by now and would likely result in rude behavior. Even if we assume that the first warning was in innocent ignorance of that, putting it back after Nukes deleted it is either malign baiting or operating in sufficient ignorance of the effects of ones actions upon others that it rises to the level of negligence and disruption. The next response was to come to ANI.

One can assume good faith about malign intent in this - I don't anymore, but I can see how others might - but any reasonable person who had been in such conflict with another editor would know that acting in that manner would be provocative. The 1-2-ANI sequence was telling.

I do not factually know what TSC intended by this - but what he did was clearly poking a stick repeatedly at an editor he had been in conflict with multiple times over multiple months. If he was malignly baiting, then he should go. If he really didn't realize that this was provocative, that he was poking a stick in, then there is a serious lack of judgement regarding interpersonal communications, serious enough that it rises to the level of disruption.

The number of times he's come to ANI indicates the scope of the issue. I'll need to dig up the diffs. Those provided the background - this would not be a necessary or appropriate response to a first incident which could be characterized as baiting.

Regarding block length - I submit that if one is baiting, one should be held as responsible as the effects were upon the baitee. Nukes was blocked for a month.

If there's widescale disagreement with proportional responsibility (half or more of admins responding here disagree) then I agree in advance with any admin reducing that to two weeks or one week. I would like to see some healthy discussion on it first, though.

I don't intend to argue that Nukes4Tots has any lack of responsibility here - a number of admins have stated that they feel that WPMILHIST / WPGUNS editors have been acting insular and hostile, with Nukes being one of the two main culprits blamed. There is no support in the poll on civility for allowing baited people to get away with having responded aggressively in an uncivil manner. But there is clear support that baiting is not ok, and that it's been under-responded-to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think we got TSC's attention but a month is way too long, even a week is excessive for a first block. More punitive then preventative. I'd suggest commuting this to time served or 24 hours. If there is a repetition then something longer can be imposed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't consider Theserialcomma to be as innocent as he claims to be. His decision to continuously converse with Nukes4Tots, despite the fact that Nukes4Tots no longer wishes to communicate with this user (to elaborate, Theserialcomma was the one who initiated the SPI reports on Nukes4Tots and created the AN/I notices on Nukes' behavior), gives off an impression of baiting. Although this is a serious issue, this is only the first block for this user, so a month might seem punitive. I support the block being reduced to a few days or a week at most. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that TSC has a reputation of getting into disagreements with others, then making himself to appear like the innocent one in the situation, when he's not always completely innocent (such as the case here). Just from my observations of him. He previously initiated an SPI on another long term, good faith editor, User:Tothwolf. When that was closed (Tothwolf was not socking), TSC took Tothwolf to COI/N over a separate issue. This has happened to many people that TSC has run into on Wikipedia. Its a wonder people stick around with such harassment. Killiondude (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Having been in dispute with TSC because of his behavior towards Tothwolf (which is practically hounding), I agree with Killiondude. As it is some admins stand ready to block TSC if he starts hounding Tothwolf again, but any attempt to talk to TSC about the discussion is railroaded by accusations of IRC cabalism from him. I would suggest that any unblock be given a conditional that he honor Nukes4Tots' request to not contact him. I do agree, however, that a month's block for the first block is to excessive, but am against under a week because of his harassment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We are wrangling over the length of the block not the concept that a block is required. A month does seem rather long for this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) We now have fourfive admins / experienced users indicating that they think the block is too long. Would a reduction to a week be agreeable to the consensus? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Time served, in my opinion. It's the first one. Any further baiting or trangressions can result in a much longer block; we've gotten our point across. Tan | 39 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like about half the comments are days-to-week-ish and half for time-served-ish at this point. I would like further input on those and will follow consensus in a review later tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Time served is appropriate but a month for a first block, that is excessive. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Based on the above discussion, there's clear consensus to reduce to no more than a week, and credible argument for time served. I am going to reduce it myself at this point to 5 days at this time, and I am open to further reduction or simply an unblock if consensus solidifies further around time served. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, George, as the blocking admin, you should do what you feel is right. Don't worry about making the greatest number of editors happy; do what's right for the project. Are you preventing further disruption? What is your feeling on this baiting reoccurring after the block is lifted or expired? Whether it's a day or a month is really dependent on your judgment here. Consider our opinions, make a decision, state it, and stand by it. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I can't help feeling that you are selling out your own judgment. Tan | 39 05:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My judgement is and always has been that my judgement can at times be mistaken. One of the benefits of a functional diverse community is that if you listen, errors and misjudgements can be corrected, making everyone's interactions better. Academic communities, engineering work peer review and cross checks and signoffs, aviation and spaceflight crew resources management all suggest that being willing to accept constructive criticism and improve ones own work is far less likely to develop critical errors. I try to balance between decisiveness (necessary to perform any sort of enforcement effectively) and openness to feedback (necessary to avoid further propogation of decisive failures).

What I have seen is that there's agreement with the substance of the block but disagreement about the length. We have essentially no precedent here, we haven't done much baiting situation enforcement to date - I had an idea for how to approach it and did so, and people are concerned that it's overly harsh. That's good feedback. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On the gripping hand - TSC has just on his talk page claimed that if he's not unblocked earlier, he will wait for the block to expire, create a new account to avoid the stigma of this one, and "continue acting exactly as I have been". [10].

I do not think he believes that anyone else supports my conclusion that he was baiting. This is despite several other users and admins having shown up there and politely said so, and the thread above.

Could other uninvolved admins perhaps let him know on User talk:Theserialcomma that what he's proposing is not acceptable behavior? Continuing to behave as he did is the problem... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did. He reverted it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/COI/physical threats

i don't know where to start. User:Avianraptor claims to be a student of Frank Dux, ninja extraordinaire. He is probably teh article subject in question, but the more important thing right now is that he's making threats of physical violence. He also appears to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.121.103.42, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oni.maru53, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Publius352, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pamela_lee33, based on the similar vernacular, and the fact that they are all SPA's that only edit Frank Dux. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Report him to WP:AIV for those things, and they should cool his jets in short order. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indef'ed. I saw this on AIV but came here to see the genus of the complaint. Let me know if the other accounts start making the same kind of noises. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not again. We don't care if Bruce Springsteen is his shidoshi. MuZemike 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I met Mr. (er... Colonel) Dux IRL on one occasion, years ago. He's a bit of a self-promoter, and I don't condone threats of legal action or violence, but I can't blame him for being irate with the state of his bio. Though there are some solid references, much of it is sourced to self-published material or primary-source court rulings. It could do with a bit of editing from those versed in BLP problems. Skinwalker (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)refactored Skinwalker (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think he might also become irate at being called "a douche and a self-promoter"? In what way is that less of a BLP violation than much of the nonsense in the article itself? Risker (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have refactored. I meant to convey to non-specialists the general regard of the martial arts community for this person, which came across as a poor rhetorical flourish. Skinwalker (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, let me weigh in here, as I have become the focus of User:Avianraptor's ire and the focus of what I strongly suspect are two of his sock puppets. First thing today, User:Avianraptor posted this to me: "Yeah and the other hand will be going up side your head if you don't start talking to me with a little respect you worthless little prick."[11]. Serialcomma came along and removed a large chunk of the exchange. Soon after, a new account User:Justice4allseeker registered (45 minutes after Avianraptor was indef blocked) and jumped in, claiming I removed this and was somehow involved in a big conspiracy to supress something I had no involvement in editing in the first place. After I denied remving anything (which is clear in the diffs) and asked for an apology, yet another SPA User:76.22.87.15 comes along and claims I am really a sockpuppet of serialcomma (or vice versa). Comma's account is over a year old and there is no similarity in the articles or really even the types of articles we edit. I invite anyone to compare them and see if there is even a passing similarity. I am considering going through the tedious process of a SPI and I invited Avianraptor/Justice4allseeker/76.22.87.15 to do the same because I know I have nothing to worry about. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • And now he is back as User:Avianraptor2 telling us "By the way, expect Avianraptor 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc.....I'll keep coming back until you people listen." He also offers the venerable "I am not Avianraptor. He did use my computer to bring this matter to my attention..." as a defense to him not being User:Justice4allseeker. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a checkuser to determine if a rangeblock is possible.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to engage arguments

There is a discussion on Talk:Martin Luther King about the inclusion of a quote that may be illuminating of his character. Some editors refuse to accept that character may be a relevant aspect of the man. User:Jonund has presented arguments why he thinks it is relevant. They have been met with a dogged refusal to engage the arguments or answer concrete questions. This is a violation of WP:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing, which describes a disruptive editor as one who does not engage in consensus building:

• repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
• repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Two RfC:s have been submitted. One led to intervention by an editor (and administrator) that engages in the same kind of behavior that has been described as disruptive editing. The other led to intervention by an editor who takes the opposite position. The discussion on the talk page is long; much of the relevant material is found under the section RfC King's sexual conduct.

The behavior of some editors prevents progress in the article. In my opinion, it's a serious treath to wp:s integrity and credibility if a number of dedicated editors are able to stop the addition of material that they apparently oppose on dogmatic grounds. I ask for proper measure to be taken to guarantee that the editing process is not obstructed. I suppose a warning is the best way to start. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Allright. I'll hereby warn you not to misrepresent the arguments used by people with a different opinion. They have reviewed the sources, and concluded that the four sources given are actually one source plus three repeaters, and the first source is most probably based on hearsay from the FBI, not on proper research. I have also noted that people oppose the inclusion not only because of reasons of verifiability, but for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. No one opposes the section on his extramarital affairs, but the inclusion of one piece of dirty talk, based on such poor sourcing, is not warranted at all. This has nothing to do with "refusing to accept that character is a relevant aspect" and even less with disruptive editing. This is standard policy application. After two RfC's, it may be best to quietly drop this instead of continuing like this. Fram (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the many editors accused in this notice, I will add that Fram's summary pretty much covers it. The only editor who is really insistent on including the material under dispute feels that one exclamation that Hoover's COINTELPRO-era FBI claimed King made in a moment of passion, is so incredibly revelatory of King's nastiness that it must, simply must be included in the article, because otherwise people won't realize what a horrible, skanky blasphemer King was. (Full disclosures: I have belonged to at least one organization destroyed by FBI manipulations during this era; and still belong to AFSCME, the union on behalf of whose garbageworkers King was speaking when he was assassinated.) The insistent editor backs this up with references to how important this issue is to all the best theologians of his (the editor's) religious tradition as he interprets it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also one of the many editors accused, I think perhaps the admin who is alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. A review of the talk page will reveal two things: (1) that there is pretty much a single editor insisting that additional material regarding King's sexual conduct be included so that the article will conform to that single editor's POV regarding how the individuals who are regarded by some as a form of "religious icon" seemingly must, by definition, have their known shortcomings explored in detail, and (2) another editor who, as far as I can tell, thinks that a quote from King must be included because of "insights" it offers into King's personality, despite the fact that I am aware of no encyclopedias that include such information for such purposes, and that doing so very likely even runs against the spirit of encyclopedias, which is to present unbiased factual information. I would very much welcome a clear reference to either a policy or a guideline which indicates that either is considered acceptable, something I believe I have to date never seen. Otherwise, I have to very much question the motivations of an editor who starts a discussion such as this one regarding, basically, how editors who are ltimately trying to ensure the article remain NPOV are somehow behaving so badly that it has to be brought to a noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I was the admin alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. The OP does have a point; I'm not bothering engaging in the sourcing and verifiability issues, because I don't think the quote belongs in the article for reasons unrelated to the sourcing. I also don't think there's any admin intervention required here; nobody has taken any administrative actions in regard to this discussion, nor suggested any is necessary (except when a bit of edit warring was going on a few weeks ago, but that's ceased.) Slightly heated discussion is ensuing on the talk page, which is exactly where such discussion belongs. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As yet another one of the editors alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior, I don't care whether the sources are reliable, although I have my doubts. My view is that what King may or may not have exclaimed during orgasm doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, period. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We should be firmer about sanctioning editors who abuse the dispute resolution process (whether ANI or other venues). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My position is simple. There was an RfC, I came and commented, the majority of commentators did not agree with the POV of the editor who posted the RfC, the discussion continued, despite the consensus being against one editor. The RfC was closed, and I stated that as the RfC was closed and because the consensus was that there was no weight in the argument for inserting the material (drawing on several WP policies) I made it clear that was my position, and that as far as I was concerned the matter was closed, and took the page off my watchlist. So, I am surprised to see this is ongoing still. My understanding is that if one makes an RfC, and consensus is against the proposal on grounds in line with WP policies and guidelines, that is the conclusion - not that a single editor persists in agitating discussion until (through a process of attrition) he gets his own way. The arguments have all been laid out quite clearly, so I see no reason why we need to keep going over this, unless some new information has come to light. There ought to be a process where editors who place an RfC, but do not like the responses of commentators, then malign those who do not respond in ways that would favour them, are disciplined. What is the point of placing an RfC if you aren't prepared to accept the response you get? Those who responded in a way that contradicted the wishes of this editor were accused of various things - when clearly the bias was on the part of the editor who appears to have an axe to grind. Mish (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if an RfC is questioned, then the apparent next step is to seek mediation. I have already indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. Why this step was instead taken is something I have very serious difficulty understanding. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the RFC and argued in favour of inclusion. I've loosely followed the discussion since. After the RFC Jonund continued to put his case and, in my eyes, did so with very cogent argument. He raised several points which, as far as I saw, were not answered with anything other than claims that he was trying to insert a POV. I didn't see it that way at all and I have no idea what his POV is. I've no opinion on whether ANI is an appropriate venue for this, or whether the disruptive editing policy is applicable. Consensus is not about head counts. In my opinion Jonund has presented the superior and most convincing argument. John's suggestion of mediation sounds reasonable to me--MoreThings (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for having not looked over the previous discussion before posting here, and having forgotten that there were additional supporters of the idea. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think there have also been at least a couple of IPs arguing in favour. The first paragraph from this post by one of them sums up the way it looked to me, too, from a distance. --MoreThings (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As I recall there were a couple of supporters, and they fell quiet, but the consensus seemed to be not to insert. The issue of POV was raised by Jonund initially, as I recall, when people wouldn't accept his reasoning, which was basically along the lines that the information was relevant because of certain religious beliefs; it is a problem, and when accusing disinterested editors who respond to an RfC of having a POV, one shouldn't be surprised if it is pointed out that the reasoning for inclusion appears to reflect a certain POV itself. As I recall, the argument was that most Christians believed something, and this was evidence that King transgressed this standard of what a Christian leader should be, and that made the information relevant. I didn't think that Wikipedia was about endorsing specific religious views, and basing the eligibility of entries on that basis. The issue about the source was that it was an allegation about what a primary source said, that in itself being a problematic primary source as it was part of a counter-intellegence operation aimed at discrediting King, and that the material was challenged at the time and still is. As I recall, it was thought that if it were to be included, it should be so on the basis that it was an allegation that had been refuted, and not as something that could be verified beyond 'so-and-so said this', as we do not have access to the original source, and the allegation was based on a transcript. There was also the issue that the RfC was based on the wrong link - i.e., the link given in the RfC did not relate to a relevant source at all. This became clear at the close of the RfC, and was the point at which I felt I had little more energy to engage with the discussion further. With hindisght, however, I think that simply including a source on the basis that 'all Christians' believe 'such and such', and this source will make them realise 'so and so' was 'something-or-other' is bogus - especially when there is already extensive discussion about the guys philandering. The only sense I got that this source was worth including was because from this it would be clear to 'most Christians' that he was a blasphemer, and therefore not 'a man of God'. Sorry, I don't see this as a valid reason for including dubious material. To me that is not a POV, it is a no-brainer where Wikipedia is concerned. Of course, my memory is not infallible, and I don't have time or energy to go through the (long) discussion right now. Mish (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to basically agree with the above. The quote in question was challenged at the time, and thus would require indicating it was an "alleged" statement or something similar. If there were a specific reliable source which said something to the effect of, "based on this comment, it is clear that King committed one mortal sin while in the act of committing another mortal sin, and thus cannot be seen as being even a weak Christian", I could maybe, maybe, see that being included. But to argue that information must be included to substantiate an argument which no one produced evidence of a reliable source as ever making is at best crossing into POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with several of the points above but I guess this is probably not the place to rehearse the arguments. I think the thrust of Årvasbåo's incident report is that Jonund has been presenting reasoned argument which has met with no real counter-argument, but has been dismissed in the way described by the IP I linked to above. The way Årvasbåo and the IP describe the debate is also the way it loooked to me. I don't know what mediation involves but that certainly sounds to me as though it would be more appropriate than looking for any kind of administrative intervention, if that's what is being requested here. --MoreThings (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a neutral, secular point of view. Character may be relevant to an encyclopedic biography, but where the incident being described was obviously driven by a politically motivated attempt at discrediting a public figure, where no longstanding notability has been established, where the argument for inclusion is clearly being made in religious terms, and where no apparent encyclopedic grounds for inclusion seem to have been provided, what exactly do you expect? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If Årvasbåo is saying what I think he is saying, then, with respect, none of you what you have written above has anything to do with this incident report. It's not about the whether the quotation should be included. It's about whether editors have been refusing to enage Jonund in discussion about its inclusion. Anyhoo, I ought not to put words in Årvasbåo's mouth. --MoreThings (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, on re-reading your post, I see that I misinterpreted it, somewhat. I would reply that, from what I saw, Johund was indeed making his case on encyclopedic grounds. His case was that the other editors would not engage with him in a debate about whether inclusion would be encyclopedic. Anyway, I'm off to bed. --MoreThings (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that the quotation was at the time it came out argued as of at best dubious sound quality and coherence at the time it was first "released", making adding a quotation which was even at the time considered by some (yes, possibly biased) listeners as incoherent would be very likely violating neutrality rules, by taking one side's opinion over a possibly garbled quotation over another side's without any clear evidence to support taking that position. To include a possible misreading of an apparently dubious quotation as evidence of anything is particularly problematic. This is over and above the other existing concerns regarding the alleged content which have already been expressed here. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone previously uninvolved, it looks to me like consensus is firmly against including the quote at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the title of this thread, and looking at the things listed under 'are you in the right place?', where the topic of this thread is not listed, I have to ask: is ceasing to engage an editor's argument once an RfC has closed, even though he persists in maintaining he is right when the consensus appears to have gone the other way, something that needs administrative attention? I don't see how this fits here. Any action that needs to be taken should be directed at the person who posted the thread, like pointing out that Jonund did an RfC, that his arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it. Mish (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the discussion thread once more, I would counter the accusation of disruptive editing; for a start it was not the discussants who sought to make such an edit, and a long discussion was engaged with - disagreement is not failing to build consensus; rather this looks more like a case of WP:Tendentious editing on the part of one editor, in trying to force this material in, and disregarding the input of other editors and those who responded to the RfC. I cannot see that the discussion has substantially changed since my departure - and this was part of the reason I left. The page I just referred to makes clear that when an editor persistently makes the same point over and over again, it is wise to reflect on whether this is a POV issue. The same points were made, and contrary to the wording of this ANI they were responded to - exhaustively - but ignored, with the same points being restated again. I do not see how mediation will help in this, because there was an RfC and the editor would not accept what people said. All that is needed is for the editor(s) promoting the insertion to accept that, rather than escalating the matter in the hope that they can override the consensus not to insert it in some way. Now, if I do not respond here, or on the discussion page, again, it is not because I am refusing to engage the arguments - I have done that - and I consider there is no more to say. That is because I do not have strong views on this, unlike the editor(s) who seem to want it inserted (obviously, or we wouldn't all be here now, would we?). Mish (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mish, you say "[Jonund's] arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it." You go on to paint it as POV-pushing by a single editor. You imply both here and on the talk page, that you are not interested in further discussion. You finish up by saying that everyone who wants it inserted is probably also a POV-pusher. All of that is exactly the kind of behaviour that is alleged in this incident report. One editor whom nobody agrees with? There is Årvasbåo, who opened this report, Jonund himself, me, the ip I linked to above, and the second IP I mentioned. That's 5 people mentioned in this thread alone. POV-pushing? It's easy just to invoke these acronyms, but where is the argument to substantiate your claim? What exactly is the POV that is being pushed? I don't have a clue which POVs the others might hold about anything. The only POV we share is that the article would be better for the inclusion of the quote. What do you think my point of view is? What do you think the IP's is? I've named five people above who would dispute your claim that consensus exists for exclusion. What's wrong with mediation? --MoreThings (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That is not what I said. (Your statement is also self-contradictory). What I said was that the editor who brought up POV-pushing in the original discussion was Jonund, when those who responded to the RfC did not agree with him, and his arguments suggest something about his own POV - that we have to put this in because of something Christian's believe about blasphemy and he says scholars are agreed upon - nothing that actually relates to the sources. I said nothing about other editor's POV. What I said was about overriding there being no consensus to insert the material, I did not say why people might want to do that - I said nothing about POV in that respect. It is not I who accused editors of responding to an RfC on an article they had no history with of bad faith - that is implicit in the wording of this ANI. Sure, if mediation will help you to accept that people did not agree with the insertion, mediation could be valuable. But I am not sure I wish to engage in a process where, having engaged in an RfC in good faith, I once more have my motives questioned, and having gone through these arguments once, then taking the article off my watchlist when the RfC had closed, then being dragged here to account for why I had stopped discussing the insertion once the RfC was closed, and finding myself accused of disruptive editing of an article I had made no edits of before the RfC, or in connection with the RfC, and then have to go through all the arguments again. I would prefer to be doing something else, to be honest. Something a bit less trivial than whether a man who died 40 years ago might have said something while he was having sex with somebody he wasn't married to, and whether that is still significant today. Mish (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, Mish. I'm not looking to get into a tit-for-tat—just adding my 2p on here as I did on the RFC. Let it go whither it will. --MoreThings (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, nor do I. To me, this discussion ended when the RfC ended, and I am surprised that it is still going on. Mish (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To give the lie to my previous post, and to be sucked into a gratuitous tit-for-tat: I don't think the discussion is ended; I think it should be continue. Okay, no more, I promise :) --MoreThings (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not impressive. A number of editors who have been involved in disruptive editing on the article talk page spam this page with irrelevant posts, and a few administrators, who haven't bothered to investigate or comprehend what the dispute is about bite the person who brings up a serious issue. Nobody has yet dealt with the question raised at the opening of this thread, let alone answered the questions my opponents so obstinately have dodged for two or three months.

An early formulation of my questions was:

• Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a saint/hero/martyr?
• Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

Since the answeres amounted to a simple no, I elaborated the questions thus:

• Which objective criteria do you propose for determining which viewpoints are significant? How is it possible to dismiss the majority of theologians and philosophers as irrelevant? Aren’t you placing your own opinions above those, which is against WP:UNDUE?
• If you feel that it is improper appeal to theologians and philosopher because their position is a POV, are you aware that “The [WP:NPOV] requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly,” and “As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'”? On what grounds do you eliminate widely held perspectives? Or can you demonstrate that these quotes are invalid in this case?
• How do you deal with the fact that ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life? Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned?

If there is a case to be made against the inclusion of the quote, why don't you have the quote bueried by answering the questions? The avoidance to do so shows a very poor ability for a matter-of-fact manner, or a bad faith. There is no way to evade the questions and substitute answers with dogmatic positions.

Pace Luna Santin, Wikipedia is not written from a secular point of view. It's written from a NPOV, which means "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". You don't need to be religious to understand the quote's bearing on MLK's character and agree that it is important. I'm not trying to discredit King, but to give information from several sides, which enables the reader to get a nuanced picture of him. And even if I had political motives and where out for discrediting, that's not to the point. WP articles are judged on the merit of their contents and not the editor's supposed motives (sometimes bad motives render good results). There is indeed a longstanding notability in this case. Serious sources continue to report the quote. The encyclopedic grounds for inclusion become evident once you answer the question I have asked.

The verifiability part of the dispute now seems to have been settled. Let me anyway remind you that I always wanted to include also the statements of King's coworkers, to get all significant views represented.

For an example of a WP article who reports an incident perceived as evidence of hypocrisy, see Peace Now#General Secretary. Probably that incident was less offensive in terms of the values of the General Secretary, since he also had the law to take into account. Yet, editors find it relevant to point out behavior that seems to contradict his own values (which, in his case, are shared by few of his fellow citizens).

As the problem of disregarding questions that might settle the issue has not been solved, I appeal to disinterested administrators to take responsibility and intervene. I understand that the amount of text deters those editors, but WP cannot function with behavior on this level going unchalleged. --Jonund (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A number of editors who have been involved in disruptive editing on the article talk page spam this page with irrelevant posts: Those are fighting words. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it shows who is refusing to engage who's arguments. Clearly my responses were not engaged with, as they are regarded as 'spam' and 'disruptive' - and when I decided not to waste any more of time on somebody who simply ignored anything that was said to them, I get accused of refusing to engage with his arguments. Note that allegations about King's adultery are included here: [[Martin Luther King#FBI and wiretapping], so Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned? shows some confusion on Jonund's part, as it is mentioned in the only way possible - as allegations. On the one hand he says Since the answeres amounted to a simple no, when it was responded to with more than just 'no', in some detail as I recall. I could go through the inaccuracy and self-contradiction in more detail, but as that would be 'spam' and 'disruptive editing' according to him, I will do what I have done with the discussion on the article, I will be silent (and this seems to be what this is all about - silencing disagreement). Please note that I am not refusing to engage, however, I am simply being silenced. Mish (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic edit and subsequent comments by User:Kasaalan

A content dispute has been going on recently about some pro-Israel organizations in the United States. One of the editors in the dispute contacted me asking for my involvement, and while I replied to the question, will of course not get involved or take a side in the content dispute. However, because most will probably consider me an involved administrator anyway, I'm taking this here. Basically one of the editors in the dispute, User:Kasaalan, has made this edit, which separates Jewish criticism of the organization from non-Jewish criticism of it. Here is a permanent link.

I have contacted Kasaalan over this obviously problematic edit (again, I don't care about the underlying content issue and strongly urge admins in this ANI to ignore it, and leave it for content RfC or something), and what's really concerning is that he defended making a separate section for Jewish criticism, in a way that clearly misses the point and confusing pro-Israel groups with Jews in general. I will not go into a long soapbox to remind anyone reading this what parts of Jewish history this separation reminds of. Administrators: Please take a look and decide for yourselves. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to confuse all Jew with pro-Israel lobby or anything, however I can't use a title as pro-Israel for Jewish Virtual Library unless there is RS saying so. I tried to use a more broad title, since "Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties" got deleted, I didn't understand you before however do you now claim "Criticism by Jewish parties" is being offensive. If so you may just offer a general and less offending title, however a categorisation is needed since all parties has conflict of interest to the case, and accusing the involved party as Nazi, anti-semitic or such.

Do you specifically offended by "Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties", "Criticism by Jewish parties" or by both.

The original title I added was "Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties" now it is "Criticism by Jewish parties" to include as more general and less POV, however the title may change per discussion and if any more neutral title is offered I certainly use it, however except 1 source [National Post (note: National_Post#Criticism which is criticised for being anti-muslim etc. yet by a Conflict of Interest party Canadian Islamic Congress so not sure if criticism is accurate)] all criticism in the article is by Jewish or pro-Israel lobby or media watchdog organizations, Some organisations are clearly WP:POV such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia, some self-statedly "defenders of Israel". So there is possible WP:NPOV and WP:COI conflict exist on criticism section. Kasaalan (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I support using Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties if no better title is offered

Criticism by pro-Israel parties might not be accurate

Criticism by Jewish parties general (not sure it is any way offended, however if it is offended to you instead removal can you offer a better and more NPOV title)

The issue is the criticism section in the article is only limited to WP:COI parties so a note or title is needed somehow. Kasaalan (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you get offended by "criticism by jewish parties" title, if so offer a general, better and more NPOV title, however since all the parties and Jewish and their criticism is being anti-Israel or antisemitic, they have a conflict of interest to the case per ethnically and religiously one way or another. We are offering a vast criticism section which consumes more than half of the article, and the organisations origin should be noted one way or another. I tried to generelize the title, if anyone offers a better one we can use it. You should use discussion page, ask a RFC or 3rd party view before ANI anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Created a discussion page title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#ANI_over_Criticism_by_Jewish_.5Band_pro-Israel.5D_parties_subtitle over subtitle suggestion and discussions. Kasaalan (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's the well-poisoning or the yellow-badging that's more disturbing here, but this needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP. IronDuke 16:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This editing is highly problematic. You need to stop labeling Jews. It reminds me of this and other problematic articles you've been involved in. Enigma^msg 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists is a good list article that needs expansion, I am proud of my additions, not sure why would anyone opposes List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists article or tries to delete it in the first place anyway My edits definitely improved the article [12] while you try to delete entries [13]

Since we had personal conflict over your and my edits, I read your adminship review while stood highly against your adminship for any Middle-Eastern or Israel related IP article we should first note that.

According to your Adminship Review, Pauly Shore is one of your "best contribution" per your self statement

So your reply reminds me of your proudly Huge content removal from Pauly Shore which I checked earlier

You proudly removed [14] his critical Raspberry Awards from Pauly Shore claiming defamation as "removing a ton of garbage and defamation"

You Removed "He was raised in a Jewish family and has two brothers, Scott and Peter." claiming "bad source, does not even reflect what is stated here" while he has a jewish family for sure You may read article

You removed criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pauly_Shore&diff=next&oldid=270336536

You removing Jew categories http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pauly_Shore&diff=next&oldid=270389413

Since you are proud of your best contribution as anti defamatory, we can't agree in any way.

Stating anyone's origin is not defamatory, nothing to be proud of or ashamed in any way. Telling someone is Jew or Arab or Black is not labeling them. Kasaalan (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please endeavour to use English. I saw a link to Pauly Shore. What I did there was remove a lot of uncited and often negative material. If you don't like that, perhaps bring it up on the relevant talk page. Not sure what Pauly Shore has to do with the underlying problem here. Please stop labeling. Enigma^msg 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You removed ""He was raised in a Jewish family" which is sourced, you deleted Jewish-American and other Jew related categories [15] from his (a jewish comedian) article, removed critical awards-criticism [16] and claimed it is anti-defamatory. Links are above. You try to bring up my additions jewish peace activist article, not sure why. And I bring up Pauly Shore article, since it proves you claim mentioning someone's origin as labeling and anti-defamatory which is an utter nonsense and clearly false. You accused me as "labeling Jews", while you try to remove huge content per your own standards. Kasaalan (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:34, 20 April 2009 by Wikifan12345 readded "Shore was raised Jewish" asking "generally understood. category/inclusion was removed 1 year ago. don't know why." You try to remove "Jewish origin" from articles, according the your own personal standards while labeling others as defamatory. If we will stick to the subject try not to bring other issues here and stay in whithin discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please use English. I still don't know how Pauly Shore has anything to do with this AN/I thread. Enigma^msg 00:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the title to "Criticism by Jewish community" as a general title with {{dubious}} tag until a consensus reached.

I don't even know what you mean by that terms. If you have any suggestion for the title, join discussion page so we can find a solution. Kasaalan (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan continues to begin everything that is remotely Jewish/Israel with Pro-Israel, Pro-Jewish, Pro-Jewistan, Pro-Jewniverse, pro-Jew World Order...etc..etc..etc. Then he even created a criticism section that said, "Criticisms by Pro-Jewish and pro-Israel organizations." I provided more thorough responses in talk which obviously didn't phase the user. I don't really care about punishment I just want some moderation or an uninvolved party to tell me what to do before this becomes a hate crime. Hahaha. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly you didn't know what canvas is as an inexperienced editor, so possibly there is not much reason for you to be worried about getting punished. You called me some names, yet I don't care about that either personally. Main purpose is finding a solution for the case. Yet more editor comments are required for finding a proper solution.

I tagged the "Criticism by Jewish community" as a general title with {{dubious}} tag until a consensus reached.

The case is all the critical parties in the article belongs to Jewish community and has conflict of interest to the case, some of the are completely unreliable source, morever they harshly accuses the party as anti-Semitic anti-Israel acting like Nazi etc. So one way or another I am in favor of keeping criticism, yet with proper notes about political stances of the sources. As I do in other articles.

What is remotely Jewish Israel I referred as pro Israel. Anti Defamation League is pro Israel per foundation statements. Honest Reporting and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America are pro-Israel media watchdogs. If you have any objections try requesting a RFC, 3rd review or Arbitrary Process, I created titles under project Israel, Palestine and Israel-Palestine contribution pages. If more people comments we may find a solution. Without more editors involved hard to find a proper solution. Kasaalan (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be removing those "criticisms by Jews" subheaders. They're just not appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the issues raised here, but it may be germane to note that Kasaalan has been enaged in tendentious editing at Talk:David_Duke#Removal_of_unsubstantiated_character_defamation..   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Why you come here and accusing me for tendentious editing over applying BLP accurately and not presenting claims as facts. My edit for David Duke is completely accurate.
    • You only applied WP:WTA per claim word and replaced with say, over my edits which I supported. "Say is also fine. Wikipedia:WTA#Claim. Kasaalan (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)"
  • I have no involvement with David Duke or any racist parties in any way, let alone supporting him, his ideas or share any common one. If I have any bias over racism, it is that I am anti-racist by any means.
  • I only involved due to a previous research about Gaza War link research, I first considered his comments might be "important to mention" as he is a previous USA Louisiana State Representative, yet after I self noted he is racist and read wiki article therefore I realized his ideas are strictly should be avoided, after that I edited his article time to time
  • Just today I just formed criticism section myself. revision as of 21:46, 16 July 2009
  • and I created plastic surgery criticism [17] per critical external link I found and added Revision as of 21:23, 14 July 2009 to the article.
  • Talk:David_Duke#Vaginal_exercises.2C_fellatio_and_anal_sex I suggested implementing (claimed by ...) and I personally added serious accusations about David Duke in discussion page weeks before, while other editors (including you) preferring to ignore it and chose to focus on discussing magazinal claims like finder keepers' and its sexual advices'.
    • I personally added and strictly pointed in bold actual accusations about him "This compelling work tells the story of Anne Skorecki Levy, a Holocaust survivor who transformed the horrors of her childhood into a passionate mission to defeat the political menace of reputed neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke" part per Troubled Memory: Anne Levy, the Holocaust and David Duke's Louisiana for a real criticism over David Duke instead discussing broadly over plagiarized anal sex advises of David Duke you could add such info yourself which you clearly didn't waste any time on.

• • I said "Keep the allegations, neutralize the tone, try not engaging in an edit war" weeks before to both porties, while both parties (fans and haters) did nothing to improve criticism per sexual advice book (none added details or neutralized the tone until I do even suggested to the both parties) let alone real criticism per his KKK days I provided
  • If you will act as a prejudiced party over your frustration over my clear improvement to article and its criticism section, try not to act at all. Kasaalan (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are manically obsessed with Jews. You habitually labeled everything that was remotely Jewish as "PRO-JEWISH" (what the hell does that mean?) and "PRO-ISRAEL." For the Jewish professor, you put a long title like such as X, who is a professor on holocaust studies and Jewish stuff, criticizes etc..etc...This ANI isn't about an admin or Pauly Shore, it's about your obsessive and hateful editing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You began personally attacking over my psychological condition, which is not within your area of expertise (not sure if you have any)

Who did I refer as pro-jewish (I may be wrong but I am not sure if ever I used the term), I used the term pro-Israel referring to pro-Israel lobby in US.

According to Dr. Rafael Medoff, founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and member of American Jewish Historical Society is an accurate addition, which sticks to the facts. Political stances of the critical and conflicting parties should be added for a heavy criticism section which contists by self involved and COI parties.

Also note the criticism section consumes a large space, while containing strictly unreliable sources such as CAMERA.

If previously conflicted admin accuses me, I should note to his own standards on the issue.

What you call repeatedly manically obsessive "obsessively" is actually, area of expertise and interest. I generallly do edits over Middle Eastern issues in Palestine-Israel and other related parties, simply because it is within my interest and knowledge. I recently began editing over some sources which links each other and needs serious improvements. Without third party involvement, even highly dubious POV sources as Middle East Quarterly journal is mispresented as peer reviewed in Wikipedia. Criticism and doubt is essential.

Hater nice insult Hours of hard work for implementing sortable table for 50 entries into Israeli folk singer Chava Alberstein article along with details.[18] (note I only listened 1 song by her)

For Jewish Virtual Library article My recent edits as 16 July 2009 before I edited after I edited I improve the articles unlike other talkers, complainers and POV parties. I never subtract any info, unlike others, I only add information for balance if I feel any need.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States My vote is in favor of keeping info if the sources are reliable as an inclusionist. Since I am not a POV party, my vote doesn't change according to biased thoughts or context of the article.

Because of your own POV conflicts of interest in the articles, try not to accuse me to cover your own actions. Kasaalan (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you just say you don't say pro-Jewish? You throw around all kinds of words to insult users all the time. In the past, you've called me a troll, a pro-Jewish pro-Israel POV pusher, a heavily biased <something>, etc. This despite the fact that I rarely edit things related to Judaism or Israel, as can be confirmed by reviewing my contributions. I was never before accused of any such thing. Then you came along. You also dumped reams of meaningless text on my RfA for no apparent reason. Enigma^msg 00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Which wiki article I used pro-jewish term I asked. I commented over your edits as such with evidence and upon your actions. You rarely edit judaism topics, however when you do you try to substract information like removing "Jew" from a Jew person as "anti-defamatory" action. I had discussed your edits vastly in Adminship review with evidence. If you like we may create another topic about your edits. Don't make me repeat myself here. Kasaalan (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User Kasaalan is a clear-cut pov warrior with few productive edits. Even now he is managing to take up energy that would be better used elsewhere.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know who you are, don't know your edits, we haven't talked before.

Nice accusations. Try finding any substractory edit of mine, which deletes any (accurate) info from any article.

All of my edits are in favor of additional info and details, therefore progressive. All the articles I edited are improved by various aspects.

I have edited over 575 articles, and have over 4200 edits while all of my edits are progressively additional. Who do you try to kid with "a few". Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Enigma^msg 00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan - you are editing in a disruptive manner. You need to stop that and stop throwing threats and acusations at other users. This is not an appropriate or acceptable way to participate here at Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am personally attacked as even "manically obsessive" blatantly, accused for my clear progressive edits by certain editors, then I am being disruptive. Kasaalan (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• Topic ban proposal On reading this thread and the attempts by various editors including GWH here and elsewhere to have Kasaalan refrain from his disruptive style of editing I am left with the overwhelming impression that Kasaalan is unwilling or unable to stop at this time. I propose that a topic ban for 3 months be placed on Kasaalan which would require that he not edit with regards any article, talk page, topic or thread that is related to Jews and Judaism. This will allow him time to adjust his style and perhaps gain a wider set of interests - whilst at the same time reducing the disruption he is currently causing. Would other administrators please comment, support or object below. If I see a clear consensus over the next 24 hours I will be happy to instigate or alternatively another administrator might want to take such action in my stead.--VS ^talk 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin but just a quick comment As the principal party involved, I would like to say a few things. First, I really don't want to be a part of any topic-ban or a wikipedia trial. I've found them to be extremely depressing and often times users will seek retribution when their time runs out. Second, I can honestly say Kasaalan has potential to be a productive editor as far as Israel/Palestine is concerned, but obviously there are so major issues that is holding him back. I believe that topic bans rarely help editors overcome their behaviors but instead teach them to be more subtle with POV-pushing/attacks/whatever. I see Kasaalan has no block history so I'm not sure if a topic-ban without priors is kosher. Don't consider my POV too much, I have a much more "recognized" history than Kasaalan. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - the alternate then (in terms of prevention which is the primary reason for any action of this type) is to provide a short block to cease his disruptive editing.--VS ^talk 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PS As far as I am aware a topic ban is possible for a previously unblocked editor and in fact allows that editor to retain a block free record.--VS ^talk 02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban, if only to see what Kasalaan would do if unable to edit I-P articles for a period of time. I saw him from his start at Rachel Corrie, which grew so tendentious that I disengaged from the article entirely. I'd suggest one month, though. Really, a look through these diffs shows that Kasalaan hasn't learned anything from experience, except he knows policies a bit better than he did, for use only when arguing on talk pages. Pity he doesn't apply them to his editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt you are and editor who even objects addition of Human Rights Watch report when it is against Israel and IDF's case. You wasted weeks of editing time arguing HRW is not RS so shouldn't be added into the article. If I am being accused like this, how can I not reply. Rachel Corrie is my leading contributed article Before I first edited in 2008 After my last edit in 2009 improvement is obvious. Kasaalan (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will note that, all the criticism above came per Israel-Jewish related editors. I had serious previous conflict with Enigmaman and his adminship voter VS. I strongly object any judgmental process by 2 admins, who didn't even mention we had previous conflict. Any uninvolved admin like George may do fine job. However accuser parties own actions also should be checked if the case gets that serious, which I can easily provide. For any issue about any article edit of mine, post here and we can discuss. Kasaalan (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Key words there, I think are "Israel-Jewish related editors."--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guilty. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it is hard to describe without using a term. Some of the users are citizen of Israel, some are racially Jewish some others religiously. However the term depends the context. Depending the context pro-Jewish may mean pro-Jewish (conservatist) or pro-Israel (right wing). I try to find an objective term as Israel-Jewish related editors, which refers conflict of interest to the case. For example I strictly stay away the topics which I feel I may have conflict of interest per (racially or per country based) and strictly not making edits in such topics. (I also don't do such edits without academical or reliable knowledge about that conflicts anyway) Yet some editors (tough they have clearly conflict of interest per racially or religiously) do not stay away from such titles, they do not state their origin or possible bias, yet accuse others as anti-... When being accused as anti then I have to define a pro-.... which is what happens in reality. I asked a question about possible conflict of origins about the issue. If every accusing editor can state their stance, it will be easier to understand what I mean.

Also it is same for Sarah Palin or Scientology, religious or political conflict of interest is not much helpful if not previously stated for titles as such. Kasaalan (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[OD] Kasaalan - I have no editing conflict with you and have never edited any of the pages that are referred in this thread. That said I am seeking comments for a topic ban or a block relating to you from other editors and particularly other administrators. It will not help if you now begin to disrupt this part of the discussion. I ask that you await the outcome of such comments and only if a clear consensus to block or topic ban arises will I act - or as the case may be ask another administrator to act that way.--VS ^talk 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have personal conflict with enigmaman, while you are active nominator and supporter of emigmaman for adminship. Also you showed plently of effort about my objections against his adminship at ANI, adminship nomination, nomination talk and my personal talk pages we disputed a lot. VS you aren't uninvolved by any means. You request topic ban per opinion pieces of involved parties. Kasaalan (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to admit that you have a personal conflict with Enigmaman that is up to you Kasaalan. I repeat again I have no personal conflict with you and I have never edited any article that you have been involved in. More importantly this thread is related to something else and not your personal conflict with Enigmaman. Again you are being disruptive with your edits.--VS ^talk 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any such conflict. Enigma^msg 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will note VS is 2 times nominator of enigmaman to adminship, while all the time "Really Strong Support" voter every time at every adminship nomination.

Claiming only I have conflict with enigmaman is inaccurate per any means.

I will just note, you still didn't yet reply any of my ANI questions or claims yet. Kasaalan (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What questions or claims? Everything I could decipher, I replied to. And no, I don't have a conflict. It's your conflict through and through. Enigma^msg 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You still didn't explain your trim and deletion efforts in Yeshiva Torah Temimah pedophilia scandal in wikipedia. Or you didn't answer if you ever tracked my edits or not. [It is clear by evidence anyway] Can you publicly state do you have any racial, religious, citizenship based or any other way conflict of interest with Palestine-Israel issue or Judaism. Kasaalan (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

i, too, know kasaalan from rachel corrie. i actually agree with wikifan (gasp!) that he shouldn't be topic banned, and for some of the same reasons. i think if he were given a mentor to work with, explaining the problems caused by his hyper-bolding and trouble with the subtleties of the english language, he could be an excellent contributor. untwirl(talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, editors, and not just those in conflict with Kasalaan, have taken time to explain the difficulties his edits cause. I'm not sure a mentor would have better luck. First disagreement, and Kasalaan will perceive him as having a conflict with him. He'd have to have the patience of Job.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Replies

• The issue is I add text per research and long readings. Some other editors object articles per personal opinions and even without bothering to the references fully. In no other article there are week long discussions over addition of a critical Human Rights Watch report except Rachel Corrie or I-P related articles. There is certain bias exist against addition of criticism and per removal of certain criticism and it is not caused by me. You referred Rachel Corrie please show any disruptive or inaccurate parts in the article. Show any case people tried to add criticism to balance and I objected (I only object content removal most of the time) I personally found and add various reliable sources missing to improve the article which is near a featured article quality. Kasaalan (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification of the terms
  • Time to time I use pro-Israel and pro-Jewish term which refers to pro-Israel(right wing conservatives) and pro-Jewish(religiously or racially conservatives)
    • The editors I used the term practices editing in favor of their religious or political stance to the Palestine-Israel conflict and Judaism practice (as a conservative) which includes objecting addition of clear Reliable Sources with no good reason or trying to substract info that they don't like from wikipedia.
    • I can easily proof what the Israel and IDF supporting editors has unease about
    • Addition of details over Westernern casualties and killings in the Israel-Palestine areas (which heavily committed by Israel army)
    • And Recently
    • Addition of criticism to the POV sources like Middle East Quarterly which advertised as peer reviewed before I made some effort to add criticism
    • And addition of detail for conflict of interested (some heavily unreliable) critical parties for WRMEA

• • In the same manner I might be called pro-Jewish by means of pro-Israel (per peace camp) pro-Jewish (left or culturally mostly music which is an interest area of mine) or pro-Palestine (cultural as in manners of human rights) or even anti-Israel(per army human rights violations against Jews and Palestine population)
    • So the hate some editors refer do not refer to the Jews itself, however telling some POV source is POV is not POV in the first place

• Before making any more false accusations
  • I have no racial, religious personal COI to the Palestine-Israel conflict personally
    • (if you count as possible bias I have Jewish relatives (not blood related), friends of my family like I do Arab friends of my family - though except music I do not have much knowledge about Judaism religious practice or culture, I have a bit much about Muslim religious practice, culture and history yet that is again not vast)
    • I am not a supporter of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or current Palestine government, like I am no supporter of current Israel government or Israel army (actually I am not supporter of government in my home country anyway like most other countries in the world)
    • However if you ask my opinion about the Palestine-Israel issue I can clearly criticize
      • Both Israel army and most of Palestine armed wing groups commits serious Human Rights violations in the area against civillians
        • While Israel army kills and wounds multiple times more people since it has more army resources, finance support and followers (numbers doesn't lie)

• • Can all the accuser parties first clearly state, if they have any religiously, racially or any other Conflict of Interests for Judaism, Israel or Israel Defense Forces publicly.

• • Also can anyone put examples of my recent edits, which substracts any (accurate) information (I rarely remove any info even it isn't properly sourced I most tag it) to make a POV standpoint.

• • Morever people can easily check 3 related projects where I called for a review by 3 related parties
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States my vote and stance for anti-Israel lobby
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#ADL_is_pro-Israel_lobby_or_not Project Israel
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#ADL_is_pro-Israel_lobby_or_not Project Palestine
  • And during the discussion progress in discussion page, the user asked another help from the other user who filed the ANI

Wikifan for example your edits clearly show you only interested and editing in Palestine-Israel-Arab-Muslim related topics yourself. I do not call that as "manical obsessiveness" like you accuse me I call it area of interest (or conflict if you have any relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#How_ADL_is_not_pro_Israel I took major time proofing to you ADL is pro-Israel lobby per strict proof which you chose to ignore by side claims. I even showed more effort on finding consensus over the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States my vote and stance for anti-Israel lobby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#ADL_is_pro-Israel_lobby_or_not Project Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#ADL_is_pro-Israel_lobby_or_not Project Palestine

Also since I am no POV party and an inclusionist, I did not delete the criticism, which I can clearly and easily do per WP:RS and WP:POV per harsh criticism and accusations by unreliable parties like

Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia

Pro-Israel media watchdog Honest Reporting

I can't edit concerning what Hamas say, what IDF fans or what any other POV party say about me

I vote and edit per inclusionism and addition of details and criticism to the articles, it is about policy

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States "don't delete the content if the entries are accurate and merge, don't waste editing time" "Claims by POV parties in the article stated as facts" "It should be applied as argued by ... for claims." "Instead vastly discussing and wasting time, if all parties work together we may improve the article to correct the NPOV issues and claims. My solution is per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Quarterly#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#Criticism keeping the criticism however adressing the critical parties political stance"

I can't change my policies against accusations and complaints per POV and COI parties.

Related article which ANI is issued

Your edits

• [19] *[20] *[21] *[22]
• [23]

My edits

• [24] *[25] *[26]
• [27]
• [28] *[29] *[30] *[31]

Issues with POV sources also raised in discussion page by other parties. You skipped the discussion page and asked YnHockey's talk page help which is resulted in a swift and improper ANI. Kasaalan (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This discussion should be brought to a close. The immediate ANI issue has been resolved by removing the sub header in the criticism section of WRMEA. It is surely a waste of everyone's time to drag up previous disputes. If a WP:RFC/U is warranted for Kasaalan, then do that, and allow appropriate remedies/sanctions to come out of that. A topic ban proposal suddenly popping up here, on such a political topic (with such polarised views), is quite worrying, especially when this ANI section starts with a dispute about a single subheader that had a perfectly legitimate intent (identifying the political views of some organisations critical of WRMEA). A topic ban is a sledgehammer, and it should not be wielded lightly. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think you make a valid point rd232 - however the dispute escalates it seems as a result of Kasaalan performing what many here and others at his talk page describe as disruptive edits. Clearly a topic ban is within the realms of possible discussion at AN/I even in the middle of another dispute, and if that is what is required to stop this type of behaviour then there is nothing wrong with suggesting it - but that said I am not adverse to accepting your submission that this thread is not quite enough to pursue that outcome at this time. I am more than happy to have the discussion closed (assuming others agree) however Kasaalan should understand that he is on notice by many editors in terms of the type of disruptive editing that he performs and is constantly being alerted to. If that means that a new discussion is better aimed for the future (if necessary) either here or at RFC/U then that is an outcome that is quite within my realms of acceptance.--VS ^talk 09:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that he at least renounces recognized behavioral issues or else he'll just continue on. He just continues to rationalize his edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes another fair point Wikifan2345 - I would be interested in seeing Kasaalan's response to your request that he recognises that his editing style is disruptive - without further rationalisation as to it being everyone else's fault. I think you will agree with me that a straight yes or no (that is without another verbose essay style comment) will be best and certainly adequate for us to consider placing some additional assumption of good faith at his doorstep. Kasaalan?--VS ^talk 10:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He called me "manically obsessive" many times for my edits, called another fellow editor's help previous to ANI. It is nice that he acts calm.

My reply is providing both parties edit's instead opinion pieces.

The links clearly show My edits are definitely improving, progressive and per RS.

It is clear, after I edited the article it is improved.

I took various steps for proving proof in discussion page, calling other related editor's review within Project Israel, Project Palestine, and Project Israel-Palestine Collaboration per I replied above.

Also I am still waiting an answer about accusing parties' possible religious, racial or citizenship based conflict of interests about the Palestine-Israel issues, which none bothered to answer yet. Kasaalan (talk)

I asked User:Ynhockey if the Anti-Defamation League should be written with "Pro-Jew" before every inclusion. He posted the ANI out of his own free will, I just wanted a question to be answered because you did not agree. Oh wait, Ynhockey is pro-Israel. Zomg!!111 Zionist propaganda!! XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, too monotonous. I'm sure Kasalaan would be OK with you varying it with an occasional "anti-Muslim".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Rd232. Those who have a problem with Kasalaan's editing should open an WP:RfC/U. Light banter implying he's an anti-Semite on ANI is inappropriate and the insults from his detractors impugning his psychology are personal attacks. Grow up everybody. Tiamut^talk 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasalaan has not stopped and now has the dubious support of other editors. All criticisms come from zealously pro-Jew/Israel sources. Just as I predicted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Norcalal and Highspeed again

I've received messages on my talk page (section Request for wikimentoring) from an IP claiming to be User:Highspeed, who was blocked by Carlossuarez46 in connexion with the issues mentioned at the thread that appears above. At the same time, Norcalal has left comments, and Carlos has left me some messages in response to my requests for information. In short: the IP is asking for Highspeed's user talk page to be unprotected, so that Highspeed can post an unblock request; Carlos has explained the protection as a drama-reduction attempt, because socks of User:Biaswarrior (which Carlos sees Highspeed to be) apparently misuse their talk pages after they're blocked. I have some doubts about Highspeed's integrity (see his comments at Template talk:Monterey County, California), partially due to this edit, although the IP explains this as a technical glitch. Although Carlos has told me that "I'll leave the decision to you" on this situation, I'm uncomfortable making these decisions myself. In short: I'm leaning toward say "no you don't get unblocked", but I'd rather let the community decide this matter. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just read through the stuff on your talk page, and I don't see that resetting the block on Highspeed to allow him to request unblock is a bad thing. Worst case scenario we just have to re-enable it. I'll go do this presently, and if it turns out I've erred anyone can feel free to put it back. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Like the Keystone cops or something around here. Are admins hellbent on getting me and then keeping me connected to this Highspeed? Why has no one looked at the entire interaction?...From the very beginning? You guys are way off base. I do not know this guy and if you can trump this up to connect me to him then just get it over with. I am sick of this drama. My issue with Carlos is two part and totally unrelated to Highspeed. What harm did my comments do at Highspeeds talk page? They are direct and state what I was experiencing related to the GNIS place name debate? Then the IP related to Highspeed came to my page to leave a statement-totally unsolicited by me. I then asked Nytend to clarify what was going on. Is there a witch hunt brewing? Prove that I have done something worthy of all the drama or let it go. This is unbelievable. 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• FROM MY POST at NYTENDS TALK PAGE: Carlos states: "Here" the two seem to be working together? Give me a break. This smells like witch hunt and is truly ridiculous, if it is. I am not going explain why I was interested in speedy deletion tags again and again. And that note from me on Highspeed's discussion page related to the GNIS is a valid point and nothing in that post is divorced from the truth of Carlos' behavior or the concern in the community (beyond my own related to the GNIC stub article proliferation). NOTHING I have done can be connected to culpability no matter how hard any editor/admin may wish to try to connect it. Other editors or admins can decipher this mess all they want. But I am mindful of Goebbels (who worked for Hitler)--tell a lie (or misperception?) enough and the people (other editors and administrators) in this case may come around to believing it. What if this Highspeed guy did make a mistake with an editing tool? Just look at the mess he made in Carlos page. It makes no sense that he would do that blatantly unless he is nuts. POSSIBLY RELATED EXAMPLE: I had a problem with an article up in the northern forest a long while back (probably Yreka or therabouts in Northern California) and it looked to me like the editor was willfully vandalizing over and over. But guess what? He was suffering with a messed up keyboard and trying to work around it as best as he could. It wasn't satisfactory to me, but I could find no other reasonable explanation other than he was crazy. AND he apologized and it NEVER happened again. This is out of hand, if not out of control. Norcalal (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No one here is saying anything about that, or you, except to explain the situation. Please calm down. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've requested some further explanation from the blocking admin; I'd prefer to see some more solid justification of socking or other misconduct accusations before we allow a single administrator, who seemed to be involved in a dispute with the user, to summarily and indefinitely ban -- talk page lock included -- an account that has been active since 2006. If there's more to be heard, here, so be it, but I'd like to hear it first. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Several misconceptions, Luna: (1) I didn't ban Highspeed, I blocked him; (2) as for whether there is a dispute with him, I had never had contact with him if (as he claims) he is not Biaswarrior until he rampaged on my talk page. As I explained on your talk: if this guy is Biaswarrior, it's a sock, gets a block no warnings are needed and given BW's prior drama on talk pages, enough is enough; given that you consider that there was some prior interaction between us, then you seem to accept that Highspeed is Biaswarrior (although you seem to have missed that Biasprotector was Biaswarrior earlier as reflected on your talk, but anyway - you seem to be as "involved" with Biaswarrior as I am) but having had prior interaction with socks doesn't disable an admin from blocking them - otherwise, socking would be more prolific than it is. Now, on the chance that Highspeed isn't Biaswarrior, the only interaction I had with this guy was the edits he made to my talk page including what seemed to be obvious vandalism which Highspeed denied on Nyttend's talk page even after confronted with the diff. Now, he claims it was a browser malfuction - I'm not technical so although it seems odd and unlikely I cannot disprove it. We've seemed to have reached the Godwin's Law level in Norcalal's latest post above. Note: there hasn't been a single apology for what Highspeed did (he claims unintentionally). If you all think that Highspeed will not do what he's done before, of course you can unblock him, asking for mentorship seems to be a positive step. So would an apology. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • An apology? You mean like this one? Or these two? Even if that one unfortunate edit had been made with the most malicious of intent, the appropriate response would have been a warning. Given your lock on Highspeed's talk page, attempting to prevent the user from appealing your hasty block, I think describing it as an attempted ban is more appropriate. You've repeatedly claimed that Highspeed is a sockpuppet of Biaswarrior, but so far the only supporting evidence I've found from you is a vague mention of WP:DUCK -- please explain why you feel it's appropriate to immediately and indefinitely ban a longtime user with such a flimsy justification. If you're unable or unwilling to provide supporting evidence, it seems to me that you owe Highspeed an apology, and an unblock. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Judging from the available evidence here, on User talk:Highspeed and at User talk:Carlossuarez46#Highspeed, I also tend to believe that this was a very ill-considered block, both on the merits and because it was made by an administrator who appears to have been in a conflict with the blocked user ([32]). I suggest that Highspeed be unblocked and I strongly advise Carlossuarez46 not to misuse his administrative powers again in this manner.  Sandstein  12:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with unblocking Highspeed, which I believe I'll go do presently, since Luna appears to agree as well. I would rather chalk the block up to a misconception rather than any sort of malice on Charlossuarez46's part, and not worry about it so long as it doesn't happen again. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. You need to be real careful about such things, Carlos. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama article probation violated

Barack Obama is under article probation according to you. Please ban Good Damon for removing valid comments from the article talk page. This kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=302543600&oldid=302542344 Calmano (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I usually just read but sawthis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calmano (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you in future to portray a situation you bring here in a neutral fashion. Giving the impression that you were a simple, casual reader who was strolling along and OMG OBAMA PROBATION VIOLATION LOOK I CAN SEE HIM REVERT SOMEONES EDIT is not an honest thing to do when it was your edit. Ironholds (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion I re-closed was one of the many instances of trolling and quackery that shows up on that talk page. Frankly, I'm surprised that a brand-new account's first few edits show such a startling familiarity with the admins, processes, and template syntax used on Wikipedia. In any event, while I do not believe re-closing the discussion in question was an error at all, Calmano apparently believes it was such a grievous one that the user's 5th edit was to instruct User:Mailer diablo to ban me. I kinda think that one speaks for itself. --GoodDamon 07:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I collapsed it because it was obviously a returning editor, with a note showing great familiarity with the likely results of such trolling. The comment, and calmano's later, are of the 'I heard/read it somewhere, so it has to go in like I think I remember it or else that's proof there's a conspiracy' sort. That's not sufficient for changing the article ,and it's often, as in this case, already covered in the article in sufficient, or summary, style. The Obama article daily sees POV pushing from far right wing or racist editors upset that Obama's been elected, (illegally, they like to allege), or that he's black, or that a black man got illegally elected (this is usually the case). As such, collapsing these is the best solution, because it doesnt' blank the troll, but shows it's been read and moved past. Send such editors to Conservapedia. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also note the other Obama section below. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a connection. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern about excessive rangeblocks

A few weeks ago I guestblogged a series of posts on The Volokh Conspiracy. Since then I have received e-mails from several readers of that blog on various issues. One of the most frustrating was from an eminent retired law professor, who indicated that he has attempted to contribute to Wikipedia articles several times, but has been blocked from doing so. He summarized the message that he receives when he tries to log in, and it turns out to be a Scibaby rangeblock. I have written back and explained how I can go ahead and create an account for this editor, but he seems to have moved on and I fear that we have lost the possibility of his contributing permanently.

In the wake of the publicity surrounding the ArbCom decision in the Scientology case, I was asked to appear on a radio show. There was a short call-in segment in which three people called in, and one of them also complained that he too has been caught up in longterm rangeblocks. Again, I offered to explain to him how to get an account opened if he would e-mail me, but I never heard from him, so he may have given up as well.

It is understood that rangeblocks, particularly ones placed by checkusers, are intended to address long-term abuse situations and are sometimes necessary. However, if they are overused, we risk cutting off our nose to spite our face, and there are also times when semiprotection or just dealing with petty nonsense is a better answer than blocking tens of thousands of IPs. I think we should all please make a point to use rangeblocks as narrowly as is reasonably possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make instructions on how to have an account created more prominent/easier to understand for folks who encounter a rangeblock. Some collateral on rangeblocks is inevitable, but possibly it can be addressed and explained more constructively. Nathan ^T 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are instances where as many as a dozen range blocks have been imposed in attempts to control only one vandal. In one case, the blocks of User:Scibaby, at least one person mails unblock-en-l every day asking for help. Who knows how many give up when they encounter the block. Fred Talk 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. These SciBaby rangeblocks have been up for years. I would say that several times per week someone asks for help in navigating these at CAT:UNB and they are almost always legitimate users. Most vandals get bored and move on; I think it may be worthwhile to test the waters and remove these on a trial basis. If SciBaby becomes a problem again, we can always reinstate them, but for the time being, I think they are currently doing FAR more harm than good. Additionally, the rangeblocks were placed long before the Edit Filter came on line; SciBaby's abuse can now be controlled using appropriate edit filters much more easily, and it would be preferable for the project if those methods were attempted now that we have them availible. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support lifting them. These rangeblocks definitely turn off new contributors. –xeno^talk 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are here to protect the project from harm, and to cause less stress for those involved in doing so. But when they result in at least one on-wiki unblock request a week, and a email to the unblock mailing list almost every day, the rangeblock is accomplishing the opposite. I say that we lift the rangeblocks, and take a look at setting up an abuse filter instead. Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If the range blocks are targetted at one person, they should be replaced with an abuse filter. An abuse filter could protect just certain articles from certain ranges or stop a particular type of vandalism from certain ranges, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

These Scibaby rangeblocks have been going on for months if not longer. We get unblock requests on a regular basis as well. I've been against these excessive blocks for a while and I've heard that there has been extended discussion amongst checkusers and other functionaries. Given that admins are (rightfully) hesitant to remove rangeblocks and Raul is generally against removing them I think that ArbCom needs to address the issue. Generally speaking, I don't think we have a problem with "regular" admins excessively blocking ranges. So please, checkusers/functionaries/arbcom - this is something that you all need to work out (in my opinion). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support lifting the Scibaby rangeblocks. It's been suggested several times, but Raul always resists. Enigma^msg 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in all reality it is not really up to him. Should the community, or the functionaries feel that the ranges need to be unblocked to better serve the community then that is what needs to happen. The decision, is really the communities (as it is with any other block). Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've often geolocated the IPs in the sockpuppet category for this user and have mapped them to every corner of the USA, from California, to Texas, to the east coast, and up to Montana. If this is one user, he appears to have the ability to change IPs at will (maybe through zombie proxies) and it appears this would make rangeblocks entirely ineffective against him. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been privately complaining about these rangeblocks for some time (citation needed, I know), and I'm glad to see it under discussion. The disruption these rangeblocks is undoubtedly causing is not worth the effort to block a single vandal who can easily be identified otherwise, is easy to revert, and persistently evades the bans. The rangeblocks should be removed. --Bastique ^demandez 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have lifted about 15 of the blocks at this time, and note that an abuse filter has been set up. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a few hours programming up a couple of abuse filters, #205 and #206. (Note: do not discuss the rule-sets publicly. Scibaby is very good at changing behavior once it is revealed how we track him) Thanks, Wknight94, for the tip. I somehow hadn't heard about the abuse filter feature until you mentioned it.

There are two problems with the situation as it now stands. (1) The abuse filters do not have access to private checkuser data and the developers are not going to implement that feature until there is consensus on-wiki to do so. (See Bug 18429) As such, the rule sets cannot take advantage of the knowledge we have accumulated about the IPs he uses. All IP checks still have to be done manually by someone with checkuser access. (2) The abuse filters apply only at edit time. So there is no way to prevent Scibaby is maturing sockpuppet accounts.

Taken together, what this means is dramatically more work for the admins and checkusers who deal with him -- primarily me. I'm open to suggestions for fixing this, because I consider this an intolerable situation. Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And on a related note, see bug 19796, a feature request for a checkuser watchlist. Raul654 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, I encourage you to discuss the issue on the Functionaries-l. We've been discussing the topic for the past week. My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. - that is true.

As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. - that is partly true. (A) In general, you actually have to know a little something about the topic (global warming) before you can recognize his edits. Otherwise, it's all meaningless jibberish. (B) Occasoinally a legit user is confused for a Scibaby sockpuppet. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while. (C) There is a cadre of users (GoRight and Abd among them) who have a history of meatpuppeting on his behalf (That is to say, restoring edits by Scibaby after a sockpuppet of his has been identified, tagged, and blocked). In the latter case, earlier this week I issued both GoRight and Abd final warnings that further such edits will result in a block. However, dealing with such meatpuppetry by disruptive users is both time consuming and, in the long run, exhausting.

So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. - I have *repeatedly* asked for other checkusers to pitch in and help, so that I wasn't the only one paying attention to these articles. Little to no help has been forthcoming. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a cost-benefit analysis? I understand not wanting to make things needlessly difficult for new users, but before lifting the rangeblocks altogether I would ask that at least some consideration be given to those of us who edit the articles that Scibaby targets. This is just one more thing we have to deal with in addition to the other stuff that happens on those pages. Raul, what's your impression of how effective the rangeblocks are? (BTW semiprotection won't work, because he ages his accounts.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)\

A year or two ago, it was commonplace for me to find 10, 15, or 20 scibaby socks at a time. Now he registers them in ones and twos, and spends a couple of days maturing them. Clearly the range blocks have been effective in reducing the number of accounts he registers. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The checkusers report that rangeblocks have been effecting a large number of new users. There have been concerns raised about these blocks over time. This is not something sudden. And most significant, it does not seem to be very effective since he finds new ips to use. We need to consider other ways of dealing with the edits. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm always up for a new approach. Got any ideas? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time I tried something new (protecting the affected pages), Cool Hand Luke unilaterally decided to unprotect them all. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess who just showed up twice on one of the ranges Tiptoey unblocked? (Namely, from 24.205.68.78) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and a third time... Raul654 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and a fourth time (all four from ranges Tiptoey just unblocked - the latest from 71.94.156.13). Is anyone else noticing a pattern? Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

...and #5. And with that, I've restored the 24.205.0.0/16 range block for a week, because I'm getting tired of these games. Raul654 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If this person's MO is to push POV in a few articles, why don't we just protect these articles and/or disallow his edits with the abuse filter instead of blocking ranges? That should be just as effective and produce less collateral damage.  Sandstein  12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with protecting the affected articles. Note, though, that that's probably about 100 articles in total (possibly more).

As for the abuse filter, it's *not* a magic bullet. All of the accounts it detects still have to be manually checked and blocked. And I have yet to see anyone volunteer to help do this. The abuse filters also have a workload issue -- that there's a finite limit on how many filters can run, and apparently the two Scibaby filters (one of which is currently disabled) are complex ones that add to the workload. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the conversation, but I will add that I am currently under a Scibaby block. Riffraffselbow (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

On the general issue of range blocks

Not to sidetrack any discussion above, but I've asked for a database report to be created listing all range blocks. It will be updated every week. You can view the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Rangeblocks. This should help increase transparency with regards to range blocks and allow administrators to monitor for blocks that may be excessive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this could be helpful for admins monitoring the blocks, but making the report viewable by anyone and everyone might not be the best idea. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone can see it now here. BJ^Talk 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can already see rangeblocks by going to special:IPBlocklist and hiding registered users and single IPs. Thatcher 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Improper block by Georgewilliamherbert

I received a 24 hour block for "edit warring" at Views of Lyndon LaRouche by User:Georgewilliamherbert. The article in question had seen 11 reverts spread evenly over a 17 day period, 5 by Will Beback, 4 by myself, and 2 by another editor. The 3RR threshold was never approached by anyone. As edit wars go, this didn't even rank as a skirmish. The negotiations on the talk page are presently succeeding. In my opinion, no admin intervention was necessary, but if such an intervention were necessary, Will should have been blocked as well, since it takes two (or three) to tango. Therefore, I believe that GWH's block was improper, and I would like to have it expunged and my clean record restored.

In this dispute, I simply maintained that a large-scale and contentious re-write of a stable section, involving several possible violations of BLP, should not proceed until all issues were resolved on the talk page. The LaRouche articles have gone through a period of relative peace and quiet, and I think that all editors would do well to be circumspect about initiating any fresh round of POV warfare.

Now to a more serious matter. I received a warning on my talk page[33] from GWH, advising me that I was in violation of the various LaRouche-related arbcom decisions. With all due respect, this is utter hogwash. I began editing Wikipedia two years ago. After a while I began to observe the POV battles at the LaRouche articles without participating, other than to leave an occasional comment on a talk page. I never touched a LaRouche article until October of last year, and my occasional edits since then have never involved adding material, either positive or negative, about LaRouche or his group. I have edited only when I observed violations of policy, and my edits have been limited to reverts or to posting policy tags. GeorgeWilliamHerbert's threat to me is incorrect, inappropriate and should be withdrawn. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring blocks aren't restricted to violation of 3RR. Why didn't you appeal the block? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All LaRouche articles are under a long list of mediation and arbitration restrictions as long as my arm. These are clearly visible on every talk page related to LaRouche. Editors must take caution. Also, 3RR is not a liscence to revert three times per day. You may be blocked for edit warring on any article at any time if your editing shows a willingness to use reverting as a method of forcing others to accept your personal view of how the article should read, regardless of how often you do it. The compelling reason for an edit war block is the appearance of using the revert function to stifle others contributions. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking had been actively participating in discussions with Will on the talk page, but had also taken to simply reverting saying "No consensus for that". It appeared that he'd crossed the line into sterile reverting rather than good faith discussions at the time I blocked him.

We have the long, long problem history with this topic; that very article was full protected for much of the last two years.

Leatherstocking's edits appeared to be pro-LaRouche; he appeared to have escalated to sterile reverting; the articles still have special attention due to ongoing efforts to insert POV.

Will Beback has been attempting to work with everyone to build the best, NPOV and not whitewashed article we can there. I've tried to stay well back out of the content issues so that he can be the admin working content and I can be the admin working enforcement when socks show up and try to abuse things, to avoid either of us having a COI over content / enforcement issues.

Leatherstocking - If you really have no pro-LaRouche agenda, everything you gained by those reverts would be gained equally well by long term talk page discussions. Will is extremely ethical and determined to do the right thing there. Please take the step back and talk to him more determinedly. He knows all about BLP and NPOV. He's one of our admins - with many many years experience. Work with him more collaboratively and there's no problem going forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

George, I think that you might want to take a closer look at the talk page (particularly before you block someone.) I have been fully engaged in the talk page negotiations. As I mention at the beginning of this post, I simply maintained that a large-scale and contentious re-write of a stable section, involving several possible violations of BLP, should not be posted to the article until all issues were resolved on the talk page. Will was repeatedly and aggressively pushing to post his new version of the section (he also wrote the old version of the section) while three other editors still had serious, unresolved objections. I had not "escalated to sterile reverting," nor was I trying to "insert POV" -- I was negotiating to restrain the insertion of POV. The block of me was premature and incorrect, and I am asking here to have it reversed and my clean record restored.

Now, in response to Jayron32, the arbitration committee rulings are really quite simple. Aside from user-specific remedies, it boils down to this:

1. Don't use LaRouche publications as source material other than in LaRouche articles (LaRouche 1)

2. Don't use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche (LaRouche 1)

3. BLP applies to LaRouche (LaRouche 2, post-decision)

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, my occasional edits have never involved adding material, either positive or negative, about LaRouche or his group. I have edited only when I observed violations of policy, and my edits have been limited to reverts or to posting policy tags. With this approach, I am in no danger at all of running afoul of the arbcom decisions. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama article needs administrator supervision

I made a valid suggestion to the Barack Obama article. His Illinois senate history is very sparse. All other articles have a campaign section. Obama's senate campaign was very controversial since he had all his opponents removed from the ballot. This should be described in a brief and neutral way. To refuse to have it is like refusing to have a section on his presidential campaign or refusing to mention the George W. Bush 2000 election controversy, an act of omission.

The point isn't debating inclusion in this board. The point is that enforcement of the probation is necessary.

ThuranX has collapsed all discussion into a box. GoodDamon removed someones comments (Calman), which is very unethical and acts to silence discussion.

Iniclusion of the edit is not the point of this board. The point is that removal of valid comments is worse than vandalism and vandalism results in block. So ThuranX and GoodDamon should both be blocked for at least 48 hours and prohibited from making more trouble at the Obama board. I am annoyed more at the process (or lack of process) rather than whether to add the proposed edit or not. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ on the article talk page. And could all the new accounts popping up to complain about the lack of information on how many babies Obama eats daily please keep it all in one incident report? --GoodDamon 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. As with Maxframe, this guy had literally a handful of edits a year or two ago and then suddenly turned up on this subject yesterday. Wow, man, it's like deja vu. Wow, man, it's like deja vu. The very same thing happened in early March when the WND siege occurred - a number of sleeper accounts suddenly got active again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me my esteemed colleagues, there is an extremely accurate article on President Barack Hussein Obama at our conservative comrades' website, Conservapedia. I suggest to all users who are dissatisfied with the blatent, disgusting, and smelly liberal bias that Wikipedia obviously has towards our so called "president" of the so called "United" States of America, go to this article and submit the brilliant journalism of dentists there. [mad pierrot][t c] 19:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which is worse - you're calling a conservative wiki's article on a liberal-leaning President extremely accurate, or you're saying it with a straight face. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to lighten the mood :-P. And that article made me want to vomit. So does that entire website really... [mad pierrot][t c] 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And it id - the conservapedia article is the funniest thing I have seen there XD Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ever try looking through the "references" at the bottom of the Obama page there? Some of them are just standard conservative newspapers, but there are a lot of references to things like Free Republic forums, LittleGreenFootballs, and Michelle Malkin. Surprisingly, there's even a DailyKos blog post in there. --GoodDamon 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and check out this reliable source! Obama apparently doesn't stand a chance in the Presidential election as long as he goes up against '"Sarah Barracuda," captain of the Wasilla High state basketball champs.' --GoodDamon 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem remains. There is no civil discussion. Those who did wrong are accusing me of popping up after a year. (FYI, someone called me a sock last year, that other "Chase me ladies" user. That soured my taste of Wikipedia so I kept reading but did not edit). That shows that WP doesn't solve the problem but attacks the editor making the comment. So incivility again.

The solution is that ALL editors editing Obama should know that the article is on probation so ALL must show their best behavior. Collapsing comments and deleting comments and calling others socks worsens the problem. That's why the article is bad. Thugs chase away others.

So again, an administrator should uphold the article probation and stop all editors who are not at their best behaviour. In this case, it ThuranX and GoodDamon have acted less than honourably...in fact, horribly. Only when everyone is a diplomat, is ethical, and discusses will Obama article probation stand a chance.

In fact, I am so fed up with this bullying that I am quitting WP for the time being. Troublemakers, you have won. I am quitting for now but reserve the right to edit. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article has seen frequent disruptive behavior, enough so that part of the probation -- of which I'm fully aware, thank you -- is the swift removal of trolling discussions. There is no requirement that editors have to discuss Obama's mafia-like influence over politics in Chicago, his foreign birth, his atheistic Muslim religion, his refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance, his distaste for Mom and apple pie, his love of terrorists, his hatred of America, or the souls he obliterates with his laser eyes. In all seriousness, his time in the Senate is covered in detail in a sub-article, and the campaign itself is covered in another one. There's no point in duplicating existing articles in what's already a summary style family of articles that is absolutely enormous. I stand by my decision to close that pointless argument. --GoodDamon 23:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chase me dinosaurs, as an uninvolved observer in this, ah, conflict, I must point out that dramatically flouncing off ("That's it! I'm quitting! You win! My hand's on the doorknob! Don't try to stop me, my mind's made up, I'm going!", etc.) seldom ever accomplishes anything productive. It might also be worth your while to consider that if it seems everyone's against you, it might be because your view does not accord with the consensus view. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please block me

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

---

Resolved

 – marked as resolved, and closed per request Ched

Dear admins, May I please ask you to block me indefinitely, with revoking the privilege of editing my user pages and disabling my email. Please loose no time to understand my request. I cannot understand it myself. Please just do as I ask. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Theresa Knott | token threats 19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a pointless time-waste to do such things. If you don't want to use Wikipedia for the moment, there is a "log out" button in the upper right corner of the screen. This has the added advantages of 1) nobody else has to do work to make this happen, and 2) you can log back in whenever you want. Friday (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do that, it never ends well. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer instead--Jac16888^Talk 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked per request. Either the request is valid, or the account has been compromised - either way warrants an indefinite block. However, I declined to protect the talk page or disable email. Tan | 39 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No it does not! What were you thinking? Theresa Knott | token threats 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I have no idea how to answer your question. Tan | 39 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call. There's no reason blocks shouldn't be doled out on request. Once, anyway. If the user was EUI, s/he may request an unblock via the normal process. It's also worth noting a current thread with the same comment on the Commons version of AN. → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware that Wikipedia administrators will only block users if:

• A) The editor is disrupting Wikipedia
• D) The editor is violating policies and guidelines.
• C) The editor has been banned by the community, Jimbo Wales, or the Arbitration Committee.
• D) The editor has violated an editing restriction by the community or the Arbitration Committee.
• And more can be found at the blocking policy

Hopefully that helps! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Don't block him. He could be drunk or EUI (no, I'm not an admin, but nobody thought of this yet. Sorry). Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I. I'm just a regular editor (and rollbacker) who just happened to show up here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw no reason not to conform with this request, and especially if the account is compromised, as is a very real possibility, given the "block me and lock everything down" nature of the request. Talk page remains enabled; when he iether changes his mind or regains control of the account, the situation can be reinvestigated. Tan | 39 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Except it's always been protocol to not block people on their whim. If they just needed a wikibreak, now they have a tarnished block log. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the proscription of self-requested blocks was removed from the policy almost nine months ago. ÷seresin 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And see the relevant discussion here. — Satori Son 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also what if the autoblocker kicks in and blocks someone else who edits using the same IP? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I can agree with that concern. I have removed the autoblock. Tan | 39 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

→Non-admins can comment here? The page name is a bit misleading. I actually agree with Tanthalas now. Especially since the user said "please loose [sic] no time". BUT this could also mean the compromiser of the account wrote that, to get the real account owner blocked. It's probably safer just to block for now. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

never mind, this was after 3 edit conflicts. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, non-admins can comment here. The page name is because it's for bringing incidents to admin eyes. But that doesn't mean only admins get to give their input. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing as Spongefrog - that the user might have done this as a way to get someone else blocked. Another possibility is that the account is compromised and that someone else asked for it to be blocked - but if it's compromised, it should be blocked anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) True, and mainly because of that I disagree that this user should be blocked. They claim that it's because they are addicted to editing, and need to get away from Wikipedia. That's what the wikibreakEnforcer is for, not what admin's blocking abilities are for.
If it is a compromised account, then they still have e-mail/talkpage if they manage to regain control of their account, otherwise they'll have to create a new user, which they would have had to do anyway - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm with the block having been done, although I think I would have told the user he needed to answer Theresa's "Why?" first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's totally against every precedent I've seen for blocks. I guess we're setting a new precedent, then, and admins are going to be now tasked with ensuring that people get away from the keyboard / do their homework / get a life, now? Bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as long as this isn't done again... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Like what? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a similar request in the past. One time I asked administrator Dank (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to block me for a half-hour as a test, but the conclusion of the discussion was that the test not be made. (see here). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I agree with Tan - it could have been compromised. However, the talkpage specifically says he's semi-retired from sometime ago. At that point, we simply show him how to scramble his password, and leave him alone until he requests a password fix. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good nota bene for future such requests. I don't see any harm with this one. Scrambling the password has essentially the same practical effect as an indef-block combined with not being able to edit his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment, but I doubt the account is compromised. Looking at the slightly broken English (no disrespect intended to Mbz1) from historical diffs and comparing the languge style to the above request and current talk page comments I am sure this editor is in control of their account. As to the block, well whilst there are other ways to stop editing, maybe we need to accept that sometimes editors will only "accept" a block as a route if they really do need to get away from WP (which is indicated here). I'm no psychologist but even I can see that's pretty likely. I don't see any need to start having a go at Tan over his actions here which he has explained clearly. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is "having a go" at Tan here. I have the utmost respect for Tan as an admin but disagree that blocking the account was the best course of action.That's not having a go. Theresa Knott | token threats

Please, Theresa, keep your bile at arms length and assume good faith - at what point did I say YOU were "having a go"? No doubt you will stump up the diff or retract your comment... Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WTF? What bile? Theresa Knott | token threats 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WTF? No diff? Let's take it to our talk pages Theresa. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see no harm in giving them what they ask for, now that Tan has changed the autoblock setting. I'd always wondered about the rationale behind the "no self-requested blocks" policy; if anything, blocking on request prevents the logical next step, which is continuous vandalism until blocked. Glad to see it was changed, I hadn't noticed that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? Things like this don't always fit a nice and tidy rule. That's the way it works in dealing with humans. Sometimes compliance with these requests is warranted; sometimes it's not. What harm was done by complying? If I had the tools, I'd have done the same thing as Tan, for the same reason. --Elliskev 22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this should be marked as "resolved"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. With the reasoning, "Typical ANI endless discussion" --Elliskev 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment addition - It should be resolved by an admin, however. --Elliskev 23:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note - For context, see [34] and [35]. The account's definitely not compromised. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I had read those before commenting. I concluded that they were irrelevant out of respect to the requesting editor. The requesting editor asked that the reasons not be considered. Hurt feelings aren't healed by having them aired to the world. --Elliskev 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested blocks should not be done. Prodego ^talk 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Not to be abrasive, but seriously - what's the issue with them? Granted, however, that we probably need to take this to WT:BLOCK for a decent discussion and not here. Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion might make sense at WT:BLOCK, but it's irrelevant here. --Elliskev 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OH. Yeah. I concur with User:Pedro. --Elliskev 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I agree with Pedro's sentiments to the letter. So much so I almost posted a similar message, but it's late and I couldn;t be bothered to type it out. We don't, but is there an actual reason why not? Ale_Jrb^talk 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLOCK? Where in that does it say that blocks are to be applied on request? Or you proposing that administrators should just make up the rules as they see fit? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed closure

I am proposing that this be marked as resolved.

I would like to continue on for the fun of it, but I do think we should not be focusing so much on this when we've already discussed it for too long. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that everything that can be said probably has been. The fact that the discussion now has got to the point where personal attacks are being added (which I removed) shows that it should probably be closed. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. --Elliskev 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Above was a response to the removed attack. Not to Theresa Knott. For the record... --Elliskev 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your response before I removed the attack. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Notice: I have started a discussion at WT:BLOCK regarding this. I think it's worth some input. --Elliskev 00:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive canvassing by User:Sarandioti

I have recently proposed that the article on Chameria be merged into that of Cham Albanians. User:Sarandioti has taken it upon himself to notify his fellow Albanian editors [36] [37] [38]. Since all three of these editors are national-advocacy SPAs with a checkered past, I believe this constitutes disruptive canvassing. This user has a history of nationalist edit-warring, tendentious editing, an extremely confrontational, battleground mentality, and is in general highly disruptive, as evidenced [here] (and i can supply many more examples if necessary). Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I worry that he might try to turn that accusation back on you now, though I see exactly where you're coming from. ninety:one 22:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not invite or do anything like that. As most of them had participated in a previous discussion for an article merge related to this one, I simply notified them for our new discussion on this new issue, which is related to our previous discussion in which most of them participated. The same thing you Athenean did here [39], [40]. I don't know what gave you this wrong impression. And JDelanoy clarified to me that I should discuss issues, which I do as you can see. I would appreciate it if you apologized. --Sarandioti (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

STOP . Good. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad that this misunderstanding was solved.--Sarandioti (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Infonerd2216's personal attacks and incivility

[[::User:Infonerd2216|Infonerd2216]] (talk · contribs) was unblocked last month after an indefinite ban on the condition that they adhere to WP:SOCK and WP:CIVIL (see block log or [41]), but the latter has been breached.[42] —LOL ^T/_C 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Obvious incivility, although I don't see what deafness has to do with reading text. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 01:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed re-block

I am proposing a re-block for violating an agreement to a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL. Comments like "Did I ever say that I own any pages?!! Let me tell you something; I edit pages, not own them, moron! Try listening to what I am saying and maybe you won't have to be so deaf!" are a clear breach of that policy, in fact a breach of WP:NPA. The duration I propose is indefinite until he/she has learned their lesson. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick review of the talkpage does not indicate whether any violation of the agreed civility parole will result in a return to the indef block, so I would suggest that an initial sanction of 1 week will suffice in emphasising that the community is not prepared to tolerate further violations. It could also be made clear that any further backsliding will result in considerably longer blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing and incivility by User:Sanitycult

Following an uncivil post by Sanitycult (talk · contribs), I looked at the user page and found a pretty offensive bit of soapboxing. A request to remove it resulted in this unproductive exchange. I don't think there is anything more I can do here. I will notify the editor about this report. Looie496 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about any decicion made here, but thanks for informing me, I guess. Now if you excuse me, I'll be changing my IP and becomeing a different person in about twenty seconds, cheerio!Sanitycult (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading this userpage (which describes the LDS as "horribly dangerous free will hating bigots"), it seems to be an obvious candidate for deletion, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox or place for attacks. Would anyone like to nominate at at MFD (or simply delete it)? TNXMan 03:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Userpage deleted, block under consideration. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And done, for 72 hours. Others feel free to unblock, but only if you feel this user is not going to continue his anti-Mormon campaigns here on Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the block, but I wonder what the editor meant by "becomeing [sic] another person". Are they confused on what using a different IP address means or are they intending to create one or more sock accounts? TNXMan 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that they meant the latter -- Deville (Talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Usernames

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

---

Resolved

 – As I said, we are done here. Prodego ^talk 04:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How are the usernames User:CigarAmbassador, User:Dead-dog-135, and User:Putputpoo not violations of the username policy? Iowateen (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How are they violations of the username policy? Algebraist 03:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Offensive usernames: Dead dog. Offensive usernames: Cigar. Disruptive usernames: poo. The users that checked these said that they aren't violations. Iowateen (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How can 'poo' cause disruption? And who is offended by 'dead dog' or by 'cigar'? Algebraist 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Usernames with stuff like poo are usually used for vandalism (the account has only two vandalism edits also). Dog lovers would be offended by dead dog. Cigars are drugs. Iowateen (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You are also not an admin. Iowateen (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither are you. Do you have a point with this observation? Algebraist 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm requesting a reply from an admin hence the title of the page. Iowateen (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Poo" seems entirely inoffensive in this case. One of my dogs is right next to me and neither she nor I are offended by the name. And cigars aren't drugs. Anybody can comment here - you're not an admin either. Maybe you should stay away from the user creation queue? Acroterion _(talk) 03:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth, one of the most respected neuroscientists in this country is named Mu-Ming Poo. One should be careful about these things. (And I'm not an admin either.) Looie496 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So I can't ask a question without people treating me like crap. Iowateen (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your posts at UAA were handled appropriately by the reviewing administrators. Please do not forum-shop, and please do not assume bad faith of new users or treat non-administrators as second-class citizens. Acroterion _(talk) 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop assuming bad faith. Iowateen (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

People didn't start getting huffy until you got huffy about not getting a response from an admin. Until then we simply disagreed with you respectfully. (Admins are often hard to come by on Friday night, by the way -- they're busy handling the drunken vandals.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that it's possible for anyone to make mistakes, I don't know what forum shopping is, I thought the usernames were against the guidelines, and I thought that only admins could reply to questions in ANI. People that get blocked for inappropiate usernames are able to change them. Iowateen (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The names aren't offensive. Use WP:UAA in the future. This matter is closed... Prodego ^talk 04:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I did use that and I thought that the admins possibily made a mistake so I brought it here which is what was already said. Iowateen (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence my comment on forum-shopping. We're done here. Acroterion _(talk) 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence I don't know what forum shopping is. Iowateen (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting an answer you don't like in one place and trying for a different one somewhere else. Acroterion _(talk) 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Badagnani category blanking again

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

Just returned from his block – still visible at WP:AN/EW#User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h) – he began page blanking categories again, as his 8th edit. (The 1st three edits were also reverts of my very recent edits, within minutes, perhaps WP:STALKING.) This is the same as the previous behavior.

removed category header

Page blanking is generally considered vandalism, category blanking should be similarly treated.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material is not automatically vandalism, so no. This removal is apparently done in good faith because he disagrees with the material, for whatever reason. Content dispute. Incidentally, I find the boilerplate text of that template he removes utterly confusing and useless. Shouldn't such a category header explain what should be in the category, rather than what should not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been deleting the headers from multiple categories. That doesn't seem like a "content dispute", that's just a continuation of his dispute (and multiple DRV) about how to handle surname categorization.

This language is the product of multiple editors, discussed at length, and incorporated in a template for uniformity across all the related categories. The template says what should be in the category as its first sentence: Surnames of [Bazian language] origin.

Unfortunately, some persons (the ones that opposed the new system) began gaming the system, moving Gaelic names into the English-language category, as they'd been "anglicized". Or Russian-language became English-language because they were "transliterated". These are about language origins, not the current modern spelling. So, each and every category has had exclusions added for clarity. (Most are still very simple.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and, W.A.S., why are you revert warring against him on another issue in parallel, removing his additions of Category:Native American surnames (in cases where on the face of it that category makes perfect sense)? [43] At the very least, it appears you are both engaging in sterile revert warring here, and I don't see you discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Native American is not applicable. Creek and Navaho are not the same language group. These are categories concerned with language origin, not some abstract "racial" or "cultural" grouping – as noted in the 1st edit summary – I don't waste my time repeating myself in later edit summaries, I just click the Undo button again. French-language origin surnames do not magically become Creek-language origin or Native American language origin, either; not even under the notably rare circumstance that a French explorer marries into the tribe.

Likewise, Ukrainian names of folks that were born during the Soviet Union do not become "Russian-language origin" names (another area of previous dispute with a different editor).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"I just click the Undo button again"? Well, with that attitude you are hardly in a position to complain of others revert-warring, are you? Anyway, I personally find Badagnani has a point on both issues, and I invite you to a discussion at the relevant category talk pages; this noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content. I'll just say that I don't find your explanation of the native American case compelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion already took place at the relevant category talk page (Category talk:Surnames) and previously at WP:CFD, and has concluded. I was just re-explaining to you, because you asked. Sorry for wasting our time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson's complaint

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

• I find this compliant disturbing because William Allen Simpson too engaged in "edit warring". The CFD closure without notification to all pertinent projects is skewed in my opinon. If the discussion for the massive deletion had been notified to the projects (quite a lot 30 ~ 50 projects?), then the result would be not the same as the current one. I did not notice it until Good Olfactory complaint about another admin's alleged wheel war. Therefore, I can sympathize Badagnani's wrath a bit since he is known for "inclusionist" and "status quo keeper". However, Badagnani did not violate 3RR on your report, but equally edit war with you, William Allen Simpson. The only reason that you're not blocked for that edit warring is that somebody complaint about Badagnani's manner to WP:WQA, and you used it to block Badagnani. Indeed, he was blocked for the reason, not for non-existent 3RR violation. And since you too have been engaging in the same subject, the false accusation of "stalking" looks like an attempt to make Badagnani bad. This is a "content matter" that you need to find a solution via WP:DR, not to land here. Besides, you too keep reverting on multiple articles multiple times at the same time for your POV, so please be wary of WP:Edit warring.--Caspian blue 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the complaint, I find this to be completely inappropriate and a blatant form of forum shopping. This isn't the first time he's done this either. Several past AfDs were canvassed/votestacked literally all over Wikipedia to talk pages with obviously biased participants. In fact I call this spam, not ordinary canvassing. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaCarax

Time for a nice big long block. AndreaCarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked three times for edit-warring on In a Perfect World... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and today she did it again. Previous similar edits were here,here, here, here, here, here, here, ... hell, you get the drift.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaCarax opened as well.—Kww(talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For now, a reminder of WP:3RR should do. I'll try to keep an eye on it, in case waring starts up again, rather than a single edit and revert. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Note:obvious socking].—Kww(talk) 15:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as to how repeating an edit after being blocked three times for making it would possibly justify a warning. Three blocks aren't warning enough?—Kww(talk) 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brains, I need them. The obvious socking shoulda' clicked, sorry. Blocked for a week, due to the second revert. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

Resolved

 – It seems this backlog had been taken care of. Chillum 14:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a backlog forming at WP:UAA could some kind admin do the honours? Ta muchly. --WebHamster 13:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

need help move

Resolved

 – Page moved, user blocked for disruption/vandalism - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

i need help moving my article Tom chesterfield to Tom Chesterfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindergarten Tom (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, nothing like drawing admin attention to an article that qualifies for CSD :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm... regarding your comment on the talk page of the article, the user has actually only been around since a couple of hours ago. But I'm thinking it's strange that the user knew about AN/I and {{hangon}} without having to be told. Which leaves me wondering if they are a sockpuppet. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to strike the comment - however, the user doesn't get signing, and cannot complete an AFD nomination. I think he's getting close to really bad WP:POINTiness disruption. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE The user AfD'd an article in order to make a WP:POINT, based on this talkpage of Tom Chesterfield. I have NAC'd the AfD as a Speedy keep. If anyone disagrees with this NAC, please let me know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with closure, although you go tangled up with an admin who was attempting to close at the same time. User has now been indeffed. Thread marked as resolved. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Breast article

Check my History and see that all of the edits i did make on this page was quickly removed and now im scared to edit again because of getting blocked for a simple reason, how shall i handle it?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not edited the article Breast since February. When you did edit the article, it appears that you added unsourced original research. I would encourage you to read our info on using reliable sources and verifiability. TNXMan 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I did make an edit now and got it removed by another user without leaving a note or a reason? --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nakon removed your edit, probably for the reasons I stated above. Please do not re-add the material without a reliable source. Wikipedia is based on info that can be verified in independent sources and all of our articles should reflect that. TNXMan 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine I will not change the article but eh? everyone knows that African woman are known for having large breasts and by adding this information should be pretty normal--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. We can't accept material simply because "everyone knows it". It has be cited in an independent source before we can add it to an article here. TNXMan 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, someone was scarred by the covers of National Geographic when growing up. I know a great number of African women who do not have "large breasts". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey! That stuff was rarely on the covers of National Geographic. I had to actually look through the magazine (oh wait, too much information.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, and Jenna Jameson will someday settle down and have kids. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we go through this nonsense back in February or so? Wasn't Wiikiiwriter seriously chastised then? → ROUX ₪ 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was February, the same types of edits, and I believe he was blocked at one point for the same edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's deja vu all over again regarding that stuff about African women. Regarding NG, I recall one black comedian (can't think of his name - might have been Irwin C. Watson) said, "National Geographic was our Playboy!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please block a racist

Please block User:BlackyAnimal, wikipedia has no place for a racist troll. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Bang. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging multiple usernames

I’ve registered a few usernames but wasn’t happy with them until my present username. I’ve made a number edits under each username, is it possible to merge them together? HLE (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. The software does not allow merging. You should iscontinue using those usernames and can link them from your userpage so others can review the edits easily. Regards SoWhy 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Developers have the capacity to do this, and used to (occasionally) using the mechanism at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. But as the site grew, and under a torrent of un-provable and often trivial requests, they gradually quit doing it, and it hasn't been done (to my knowledge) for years. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As the others have said, it's not really done any more. If you're concerned about attribution, you could get all the other usernames changed to some derivative of your preferred name (e.g. HLE 1, HLE 2, etc.). Stifle (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User By78

For some time now, By78 has been making edits to pages related to India without consulting others. Most of edits have alarmingly negative overtones. While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source (i.e. using 2002 data about India's road network and pass it off as current). This has brought him into conflict with many other Indian editors of Wikipedia as his behaviour seems motivated by hate and not by a desire to improve the article. He continues to engage in edit-warring and seems to revert any claim that does not conform to his point of view. In his Mumbai article, he added 20 pictures of Mumbai's slums and then proceeded to make the argument that 60% of the city's population are slum dwellers while not providing any strong evidence to back this up. It is also worth noting that other cities in the developing world also have large slum populations but this isn't reference all throughout the article. There are places where this is appropriate but modifying a featured article in such a way seems to me like a blatant violation of some of Wikipedia's policies. Either By78 should collaborate with other users before making modifications to the article OR he should be prevented from making any modifications. His presumed YouTube profile page (http://www.youtube.com/user/by78) is riddled with anti-India information that spews hatred on the country and Indians in general. A look at his recent contributions will reveal this and substantiate my accusations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/By78). Vedant (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

According to CBC 60% of Mumbai's population do live in slums, so it's not hard to source......although 20 pictures is surely excessive and could probably come under the heading of POV pushing. I can't see any relevance in an article on Mumbai to point out that there are slums in other countries as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his last 300 edits or so, the Indian roads article and the article on the tallest buildings in India seem to be the only two he has edited. Freeways, armaments and tall buildings - guy (yeah, stereotyping I know) seems to be a numbers nut. And is there more current data than 2002 for indian roads? My guess is there isn't much more up to data info in public domain for roads in the UK!!. I think the admins might need a few more diffs.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say but it is my impression that his edits have a fundamentally discriminatory character associated with them. I did not mean to imply that the Mumbai article should state that slums exist in other cities. What I meant is that other cities in the developing world (including Beijing, Shanghai and many other Chinese cities) have their own fair share of issues including poverty and environmental pollution. I don't see other users however using Wikipedia as a political platform on which to launch attacks so they can push their own point of view the way By78 has. Another example I can cite is on the Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles page [44], he explicitly removed the Indian entry on the page citing lack of evidence even though VOLUMES of evidence existed. In addition, regarding his modifications to India's Road Network, I don't see why India's road network has to be compared to the United States or China. If this article is indeed on India's road network, then the opening paragraph does not need to draw comparisons to other countries. It is widely understood that India being a developing country is not going to have the first world infrastructure of the United States. It is also widely understood that the Indian Road Network has its fair share of problems and they are discussed in the article but By78 is attempting to make these problems the core focus of the article and thus pushing his anti-India POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, I think he's probably seen this or something similar, which reports that the sub (the SSBN) won't be commissioned by the Indian Navy for maybe 3 years. He's right - you can't say you've got submarine launched ballistic missile capability if you haven't got the sub to launch the thing fromElen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lest I seem totally unsympathetic, I think if you provide the admins some proper diffs for edit warring, they may take more of a look at this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will keep an eye on him in the future though. I do however want to make one thing absolutely clear; my intention is not to promote "Indian triumphalism" as By78 claims but I do want to prevent vandalism or other inappropriate edits to India related pages. I do think that judging by his likely YouTube profile page and his previous edits on India related pages, he seems to be intent on promoting a negative (and non-neutral) portrayal of these articles.

99.238.167.207 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I smell a sock. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can be as skeptical as you please but I have no relation to Chanakyathegreat. You can check the IPs if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I smell a sock too, Jaerback. Vedant, or Chanakyathegreat, is that you? Back to the substance of the accusation, I think my edits have been well researched, and backed up by well-cited sources (no blogs, no internet rumors), and most of my sources are from newspapers and specialists magazines and websites such as Globalsecurity, CIA World Factbook, BBC, AFP, Reuters, etc. Vedant has accused me of vandalism, which is simply unfair. Vedant has also accused me of POV-pushing and Chinese-Triumphalism. To be honest, I am interested in East Asian culture and do speak a bit of mandarin, but I am not Chinese, and I have no desire to demonstrate one country's superiority over another. If you look at my edit history, you will find that I have also frequently removed questionable claims from China-related articles. I stand accused, however, for being a stickler to facts, numbers, and figures. User "Elen of the Roads" was correct in saying that I am a numbers nut, and I happened to notice many more incidents of questionable, premature, triumphant claims being made in India-related articles, and I did what any good editor would do, I researched into these claims, and I corrected them as I saw fit. I will not make any apology for that. By78 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Abecedare user:Shreevatsa user:Priyanath at Aryabhata

There is a violation on WP:Biography, because of the not so conservative style they want to press into the article. They are not interested in WP:NPOV. Abecedere is the most troublesome edit warrior with no interest in talk page discussion. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick run over the page history and talk page suggest that the two editors are anxious to find sources for "everyone knows he comes from Kerala" type of statements. In fact, I note that the current lede of the article states without source that he definitively comes from Kerala, whereas a whole section lower down provides plenty of evidence that he doesn't. Is this the POV pushing you are refering to?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads is correct in pointing out that 'Stopthenonsense' is doing anything but. By "not so conservative style", Stopthenonsense means that user:Abecedare and user:Shreevatsa favor a very liberal use of reliable sources and hold the radical view that the mainstream academic view should be given prominence in the lede. Priyanath ^talk 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to use ANI as a stick to beat someone because you disagree on sources, seldom comes out well for the complainant.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the latest research suggest, that he was from Kerala. Hence there is nothing wrong about it to tell it in the lead. The study was from 2007, and since then not disputed. However, this is not the main issue here. The problem is, that these people want to make Aryabhata a man, who's identity is Sanskritian. There is no way, he would have spoken Sanskrit, since this language died long before. Since this is a biography, which has to be handled cautiously, the best way to handle this is to keep any language out. The point in this report is not the content wise issue. It's the identity stealing point, which is not supported by WP:Biography.--Stopthenonsense (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

More eyes at the article are welcome. In my view this is a simple case of POV pushing and edit-warring by Stopthenonsense (talk · contribs) and possible IP socks 91.130.188.40 (talk · contribs), 91.130.91.7 (talk · contribs) and 195.64.23.130 (talk · contribs) who are trying to promote the view that the Indian mathematician Aryabhata unambiguously hailed from the Indian state of Kerala and spoke Malayalam.
The editors have been repeatedly asked to discuss on talk page and cite reliable sources to support their views (see latest request), but have edit-warred instead (diffs: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]).
Stopthenonsense was give a 3RR warning just yesterday, but has persisted with edit warring since then. Is it time for blocks yet ? Abecedare (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And the edit-warring by Stopthenonsense (talk · contribs) continues [59]. Admin intervention will be useful at this point. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There was enough discussion, where YOU did not participate. Somebody should block you indefiniteley from editing in wikipedia.--Stopthenonsense (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: just in case anyone has missed it, this chap died in the 6th century AD. I do not think it is Wikipedia's policy on biographies that is the main driver here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly suggest that WP:BLP would not apply... :D -- Deville (Talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

... and even though the original complaint cites WP:BIOGRAPHY, I'd say that notability is not an issue for this historical mathematician and astronomer given that a lunar crater and India's first satellite were named after him. :-) Abecedare (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Update I have filed a SPI report to confirm if Stopthenonsense (talk · contribs) and the Austria based IPs mentioned above are abusive sock accounts. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Could an admin look at Houstonfoochik (talk · contribs) and this edit summary ("I have removed, now for the third time, an article which is defamatory and will litigate if it is reinstated. Pleasse take this seriously") on the Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth article. --WebHamster 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User blocked until they retract the statement. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Individuals with an agenda against subject matter pertaining to or related to the noble Barbaro-family

I have been picked on, today, after I edited the Barbaro family recently, only to find out, by a little research on line, that there has been some long-standing agenda against Barbaro-family information on Wikipedia. False cases of sockpuppetry have been made up against users and tons of legitimate information has also been destroyed in the process. I am asking a professional administrator to keep a look out against the several prolematic editors talked about in this link: [[60]]. I have currently been harrassed by user Deor and Edward 321, who are both talked about in the link as problematic. Thank youPagetools (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Our only agenda is removing hoaxes. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain/Archive, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mctrain, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive95#Hoaxer, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Barbaro_family, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#User:Mctrain. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reynoboy

Over the past couple of weeks, Reynoboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding speculative or blatantly false information to the topic area I primarily work in. This has included creating the (deleted) articles Kamen Rider: 555 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Tokon Sentai Resuringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for which I gave him a stern warning on his talk page. A few days ago, he changed the content of another article to include speculative content. I clarified my warning to him on his talk page. He recently repeated this edit. In the past five months of his registering, I cannot find any useful constructive edits from this user, and he does not seem to heed warnings or any messages left on his talk page. I know he is making these edits in good faith, but he is harming the project more than helping it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)