Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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 other 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)

Yes, "allegations" about King's adultery are included in the article, but my question was about something more: "ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life".

The answers to my questions have lacked substance and hardly give more information than that you don't think moral character is relevant. Three editors have pointed out that my arguments have not been met with any real counter-arguments. My repeated attempts to get real answers should have given you a memento about the need for engaging my arguments seriously. That you ignored my patient attempts to have an honest discussion about the points i believe are crucial, and now play innocent, speaks volumes about your ability, or willingness, to contribute constructively.

Assertions like "you didn't answer!" and "yes, we've said all that needs to be said!" are not conducive to the discussion. I expect administrators to lay it down that ignoring arguments is not acceptable and only places you out of the consensus-seeking community. The editors also still have a chance to answer my questions clearly and thoroughly. --Jonund (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware you asked about citing a source that discusses King's moral character. You have a source for this then: "ribaldry and immorality was a typical trait of King’s life"? If an author has said this, then it should be included in accordance with the weight due - and stated as what it is - that so-and-so gives evidence that "ribaldry and immorality was a typical trait of King’s life" (as a quote, referencing whoever). My apologies, I thought you were still arguing that this statement should be inserted on the basis of WP:OR - that theologians/philosophers say that people who do X are Y, King did X, therefore King was Y - because based on the source provided in the RfC that would be synthesis. Mish (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Jonund, why are you repeating your same tired arguments here? It seems clear you're more interested in writing a Sunday morning sermon than an encyclopedia article. You seem like a petulant child whose got his fingers in his ears, repeating "I don't hear you." You have no right to demand answers to your silly questions, and then reject them if they don't suit your purpose. Grow up already. And to everybody else, please stop feeding this troll. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 00:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have been through the history of RfCs at biographies for the time concerned, where one might expect an RfC for a biography to be placed, and there is no RfC for King in May or June. The first of the two alleged RfCs was placed at society - but there is no record of a second RfC having been placed there - so unless the second RfC was placed elsewhere, it does not appear any mention of a second RfC appears anywhere other than the article page, which would mean it would be unlikely tod raw comment apart from those editing or still hanging around after the first RfC was closed.

5th May shows no RfC under biographies for King:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&diff=prev&oldid=288360408

8th June shows nothing related to the second RfC, and the first entry after June 7th is June 12th, under which it is not listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&diff=296042557&oldid=294902870

The discussion of the second 'RfC' went on for more than 30 days, and there seems to be no record of it closing with any consensus or not.

the orginal RfC was listed here in Society on 5th May:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_law,_and_sex&diff=next&oldid=288067500

there are no entries there from the 7th until 10th June, so there was no second RfC for King listed there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_law,_and_sex&diff=next&oldid=295029127

I did comment on this during the discussion around that time - and there was still no second RfC there on 1st July - and the whole way this discussion was being carried out seemed to be a waste of time, as it was being done under the auspices of an RfC that did not exist (unless it was listed somewhere other than biography or society - as there is no record of it having been in either place).

This means that the first RfC was engaged with, fully, and that was the only RfC touching this matter, and given this is a biography, to get comments about such disputed material the first RfC and the second so-called-'RfC' should have been posted to the RfC noticeboard under biographies. Mish (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Background Since this seems to be at least somewhat important to the above discussion as editors (Mish) propose that people want to insert this quote because of a POV, I wish to clarify my own feelings/attitudes towards MLK. From a personal standpoint, I think MLK did a great thing for this country and the world in general. I really don't harbor any bias or racism against him. In fact, I am actually in an interracial marriage (my beautiful wife is from Mexico)and so I am grateful for the civil rights movement in general, which made my marriage possible.

From an academic standpoint, I have no interest in MLK beyond that generated by this article. I originally became involved in the discussion surrounding the inclusion of this quote because of my judgment of the merits associated with the quote itself, not because of any notions that I have of what facts should be presented in a biography about his life.

However, having said that, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 1) Whether I THINK the quote should go into the article 2) Whether the quote should go into the article. Those arguments should be based on the encyclopedia merits of the quote alone, not on any bias I have (or anyone else has) for/against the quote.

During the time that I've been active on the page, there has been some refusal to engage Jorund's arguments for the inclusion of the quote. I have no opinion on whether administrative action is appropriate in this situation, but I do opinion that more effort should be made by the side who opposes the insertion of the quote to suggest SPECIFIC REASONS why they think the quote fails Wiki's criteria for inclusion. I finally managed to move the discussion along on the question of verifiability, and I think that it has been more or less settled by discovering that the author from whom the citation was taken won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on MLK. I think that Jorund has presented some good arguments about why the quote would be relevant (by Wikipedia standards) which have yet to be answered in specific terms. To make things a bit clearer, somebody needs to go through and do the following.

Jorund's Point

Counter Point

Jorund's Point

Counter Point

Etc.

If we could have this kind of conversation, the issue would be resolved in (max) probably 2-3 weeks time -- one way or the other. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertions made above (Mish) that the discussion is closed. Respectfully, Mish, if it were closed, then I wouldn't be typing this. It is still open and very active, which is great for Wikipedia. Discussion rocks! However, in order for discussion to work, there has to be a two way dialogue. Jorund has proposed very specific, logical (to me), and seemingly well thought out reasons why this quote should be included. Can anyone present some very specific counterarguments to Jorund's reasoning? I think if we could have just one editor from the side who opposes insertion go through Jorund's arguments and answer them in a very specific, direct, and point-by-point manner, this argument would be resolved one way or the other within a couple of weeks time. Failure to do so is what is prolonging this argument. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion is not closed - but the only RfC there has been was closed without consensus at the beginning of June, and the citation that RfC was based around didn't even include a quote - just a link to a magazine article that made no mention of that part of the RfC. I am only concerned with this discussion because it is asserted that when an RfC closes without consensus, people who respond to that RfC are disruptive if they do not engage subsequent arguments (and apparently disruptive when we did, because that was regarded as spam). My suggestion would be for Jonund to spend some time formulating his request properly, with the right source, and post his RfC to a more relevant noticeboard - biographies - and notify people on society as well, so there is an opportunity for people who take an active interest in biographies (and know the policies and guidelines better than others, no doubt) so that they can advise on this. Mish (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I am a bit pissed about this misrepresentation. Somebody sets up an RfC about inserting some material, with links to an online CNN article that makes no mention of the material to be inserted, engages a lot of discussion, the RfC closes without consensus to insert. Then he re-drafts the question with links to sources that do mention the material, one of which is a link via Google Books Germany (but the text there doesn't contain the alleged quote), and further on in the discussion gives a link to support King's adultery, which makes no mention of adultery, but 'ribald' parties that his associates held that he was associated with - and proceeds on getting all this discussed as an RfC, without checking to see that it is not actually described as an RfC anywhere other than on the talk page it is being discussed on. A second month of wasting people's time because he has failed to check he has done this correctly. Then, he brings a complaint about people who did engage in discussion here because he didn't get the outcome he wanted (which he wouldn't regardless of the outcome when one RfC closed without consensus, and another was not actually an RfC). I made clear in the discussion that followed the closure of first RfC that I was not wasting more time on this. Yet, here I am, wasting my time. I agree with the earlier poster - Jonund is troll (i.e. a time-wasting attention-seeker), now using this ANI to further his trolling and extend a discussion the RfC for which ended at the beginning of June. Mish (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links, via Google Books (English):

Rieder, Jonathan: The Word of the Lord is upon me (p.62)

http://books.google.com/books?id=2Bz15QXS-qMC&pg=PA62&dq=%22The+Word+of+the+Lord+is+upon+me%22+Jonathon+Reider+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=VdRkSoKlGZHWlAS3prTGDg

At one point on the FBI tapes of the Willard Hotel tryst, King is heard to cry out at the peak of sexual passion, "I'm fucking for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight."(p.62)

(cites Branch 'Pillar of Fire', p.207 as source)

Kotz, Nick: Judgment Days (p.84-85)

http://books.google.com/books?id=FgvF5_nPPH8C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=Kotz+%22Judgment+days%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&source=bl&ots=CFPiZmucnh&sig=eByZFBOEujLZpU38o-6Jdrx3MIo&hl=en&ei=rNJkSozTJMKZjAeAn9nyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Three technicians later told King's biographer Taylor Branch that they had "heard King's distinctive voice ring out above others, with pulsating abandon, saying 'I'm fucking for God!' and 'I'm not a Nefro tonight!' Aides to King who later heard what they believed to be portions of the Willard Hotel tapes disputed the FBY's accounts, claiming that the scratchy sounds were indistinct and difficult to comprehend."

(cites Branch 'Pillar of Fire')

Dyson, Michael: "I may not get there with you"

http://books.google.com/books?id=7Ld2AAAAMAAJ&q=dyson+%22I+May+Not+Get+There+With+You%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&dq=dyson+%22I+May+Not+Get+There+With+You%22+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=ydNkSuW0LpLilATR4NHHDg

(Cannot access text, Google description of link:)

King is said to have uttered during one of his sexual romps that "I'm fucking for God," (p.162)

Branch, Taylor: Pillar of Fire

http://books.google.com/books?id=-_RY6K-Qo0wC&q=%22Pillar+of+Fire%22+Taylor+Branch+%22fucking+for+God%22&dq=%22Pillar+of+Fire%22+Taylor+Branch+%22fucking+for+God%22&ei=ANZkSv-FG4LglATZ-72wDg&client=mozilla

(Cannot access text, Google description of link:)

refs p.207 "I'm fucking for God!": Author's interviews with FBI officials. (p. 648)

All three seem to be derived from Branch's book, which is based on material from the FBI campaign to discredit King, and which is disputed by King's aides. The author appears not to have heard the tape, but states that this is what FBI officials say they heard. It is therefore still an allegation, and should be dealt with as an allegation from people who were engaged in a campaign to discredit King, and refuted by his aides. To ascertain how to treat such material, you need to refer to policy and guidelines on biographies - and particularly note that this represents one sentence in a book spanning nearly 650 pages, so it can be argued that this would represent undue weight in an encyclopedia article (which is then repeated just as briefly in other books). Looking at the text surrounding this, and text that Jonund has cited eslewhere relating to 'adultery' 'ribaldry' etc., this makes up at best one or two pages in the book(s). So, the balance for the article, as it stands, seems about right. The detail about the FBI in the book is more extensive, as this is the context within which this text appears, and covers more far-ranging attempts to discredit King - so again, the context this appears in would be expected to take more prominence than one of the allegations emerging from within that campaign. Dealing with this material outside the campaign would be synthetic. At best, it could be mentioned as one of the allegations, but not as something that is verifiable about the character of King. This is my concern about the arguments for insertion - a comment in relation to the context of the allegation does not appear satisfactory, and what is being demanded goes beyond the source to develop WP:OR about what this material suggests about Kings character. That cannot be derived from the source in relation to this allegation. Mish (talk) 21:08, 20 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)

I was blissfully unaware of Scibaby until I noticed that Raul654 had reverted, with no explanation, an edit to User talk:GoRight. Since Raul654 is a dedicated opponent of GoRight, I wondered what he was doing reverting an apparently harmless edit to GoRight's Talk. Having, myself, reverted vandalism to user talk pages, and having been reverted on the claim that the user could handle it themselves, I reverted. I was reverted, and Raul654 warned me about "meat puppeting", and we debated it with no resolution. Notice above how the single incident, where I had no information at all about socks, has been conflated into a pattern by Raul654, who, in spite of now being directly involved in a dispute with me, was and is threatening to block me. I have no intention of defying him to make a point, but if I see an example where the benefit to the project would outweigh the possible disruption, I'd have no hesitation in going ahead.

So I looked into the situation. Scibaby, an editor interested in Global warming, was originally indef blocked in September, 2007, by William M. Connolley, on a charge of sock puppetry; it looks like WMC had been reverting this user. However, at that point, as far as I've been able to find, there was one old account, Obedium which may have been a role account, it was odd for sock puppetry because it was actually old, as old as Scibaby. But identical interests. No checkuser was run, to my knowledge, to connect Scibaby and Obedium. Neither editor was warned about the SSP report. There was no warning before Scibaby was blocked. Obedium was not indef blocked at that point, but was short-blocked for edit warring. However, Obedium was meeting what all editors skeptical about global warming have met, and continue to meet, at global warming: hostility and tag-team reversion. Few survive this. (By the way, I am not of this POV, I believe global warming is real and very dangerous.) In December, 2007, Obdeium apparently created a series of socks. It looks to me like, by failing make sure we welcome editors with dissident views, and that we integrate them into the community and the consensus, as was the original vision, and instead relying on blocks and bans, we have created a situation where some people resent that and refuse to be shut up, they don't just go away. Scibaby has now created as many as 300 or more new accounts; and this is one reason why I consider administrative recusal to be such a crucial issue that I've been willing to risk my account confronting it. Raul654 is complaining about lack of help. He helped create the situation that requires this continual defense. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 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)

Raul, I can understand your frustration but when the rangeblocks you implement end up doing more harm than good it is time to try something else. There are many other active sockpuppeteers whom operate from such active ranges that Checkusers have declined to block them, and as a result multiple SPI cases are opened every week and accounts manually blocked by hand. We should not be treating this person any differently. Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 20 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)

...except that the block only affected logged-out users. So as you have already noted on my talk page, the block didn't affect you, except when you wanted to edit while logged out. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that many people who advocated most strongly for removing the rangeblocks seem to have conveniently disappeared from this thread, just as it is becoming apparent how much work that decision is going to create. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That comment was made in bad faith, Raul. I for one, am willing to help. I just need to be told how I can. Would you like me to watchlist some pages for you? Should I be looking for certain usernames in the user creation logs? Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is needed to deal with Scibaby are:

• Technical measures that obstruct his ability to register new accounts and edit (This was done with the rangeblocks)
• Technical measures that highlight his editing when it occurs (this is being done - crudely - with the one Scibaby abuse filter that is currently enabled)
• Users who watch the articles he edits and are adept at spotting his editing. (We have a fair group of editors who are now doing that - WMC, Boris, Stephen, MastCell, etc)
• Users with checkuser access who are willing to do work identifying and blocking his accounts.
• Developers who are willing to implement the dozen-or-so Scibaby-inspired feature requests I've put in

To be perfectly frank, people without checkuser access aren't really able to do a whole lot to deal with Scibaby (only #3 and #5 above). What is especially needed is 3 or 4 (or more) people with checkuser access who will watchlist the 25 or 30 articles he pops up on most frequently, and checkuser him without being asked to do so (blocking the confirmed sockpuppets), and keep doing it until he goes away. Right now, that's just not happening. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

When a mess is made, it can take work to clean it up. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one should create a copy of Wikipedia on some servers and redirect the IP ranges used by Scibaby socks to such servers. They can then edit the global warming related pages all they like on the fake Wikpedia. Only edits on other pages will update the real Wikipedia. To fool Scibaby for as long as possible, you need to revert the Global Warming page on that fake Wikipedia to let it look like the real Wikipedia. It must also be synchronized with the real Wikipedia from time to time. Only a careful examination of the history will reveal that something is wrong, so Scibaby may not find out that he is editing a fake Wikipedia for quite some time. Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that idea is quite impossible to implement. —Dark ^talk 07:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Iblis's suggestion is creative, but as DarkFalls said, it's a technical non-starter. Anyone have any other ideas? Raul654 (talk) 16:48, 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)

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)? [1] 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)

And this certainly isn't an appropriate attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned many times for that behavior now, blocked several, and still has yet to change it. So it's a typical conversation for him, and I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a little further reading into his comments and again, this page contains quite a bit of dialogue that's just plain rude, not to mention that he's talking with an administrator like that. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Happens yet again here. And this time in a worsening manner. Apparently we have a bit of a WP:OWN issue here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel my pain: Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. I tried—really I did. Then I gave up trying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reopening CFD

User:Badagnani is persistently re-opening a closed CFD. I presume this is against Wikipedia policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notified Vegaswikian about this edit. Frankly, he better have a good reason for reverting an admin's closure or I'm giving him a week. He's been on a terrible roll so far. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ever since his 48 hour block I've mostly seen disruptive editing from him instead of anything constructive. And he's been given too many 'second' chances to count. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he missed the original close decision. It took me a few minutes of headscratching to work out what Vegaswikian was on about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean you get to ignore an admin. Ask them. Besides, his response just keeps on adding fuel to the fire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further problems with User:Badagnani

Following a WQA post, Badagnani was blocked by WMC for continually reverting warnings and notices on his userpage as threats. (and yes, the block summary was apparently poor, but that's been dealt with, so perhaps we can not go there again).

Despite several requests (here's three: [2][3][4]) to stop referring to notices and warnings as threats, he is continuing to do so. This behaviour really needs to stop, as by this point it really is outright disruption. In no way is it acceptable to continually refer to warnings from other editors as threats; it is dishonest, assumes bad faith, and is generally chilling to any attempt to have a discussion with the user. I believe at this point a longer block is in order to get the point through to him, and/or a strict ban on using such language in his edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear attempts to talk to the user are not effective. He seems to allow us to talk past him rather than to him. If he continues to refuse to drop this (which I suggest he do, even if for no other reason than that continuing to bring it up is not changing anything and likely will not change anything), I agree with Roux that a block might be necessary to prevent continued disruption. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has explained himself: "Thank you for your opinions. I am a long-time editor who edits always with a mind to enhancing our encyclopedia for our users. Some editors don't seem to share this view but edit more with a mind toward being "enforcers," and, as such edit in a highly aggressive manner. When they show up at a talk page right off the bat stating that they will block, they will ban, they will retaliate, they will attack, etc., such messages are indeed threatening in nature and not exhibiting the proper decorum necessary to preserve a collegial, collaborative environment to which we should aspire. As such I am entitled to remove such comments as I see fit. " and "If editors post at my discussion page in a collegial manner, I will of course respond to them in the same manner. I reserve the right, as do all WP editors, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory and highly provocative posts, which are against our project's fundamentally collaborative ethos."

Makes sense to me. As Lifebaka is seeking to resolve an editing dispute with a block, I understand why Badagnani feels threatened. I suggest a collegial and collaborative approach with a longer term good faith editor. If that doesn't work there's a dispute resolution process. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All discussions tend to fall into "I am doing what's right for the encyclopedia and nobody else's opinion matters because they aren't." Period. It's completely unproductive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an attack. I've seen Badagnani respect consensus even when he disagrees with it, but he's certainly passionate about doing what's best of the encyclopedia's readers. He's explained why he finds certain messages threatening. If editors choose to pursue those type of communication, they will be received per that understanding. We generally respect editor's managing their own user pages as they see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not, however, respect users continually accusing others of threats, particularly when they are being told that no threats are being made. → ROUX ₪ 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find edits like reverting an admin's close inappropriate (and "my opinion of what's appropriate supersedes everyone else's" isn't an appropriate response). If it's now an "attack" to question the judgment of users doing so and to request they stop, then nothing around here will get done. Everyone doesn't have to walk on eggshells because one editor has now decided they don't want people questioning their activities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(@ ChildofMidnight, above) Two things. Firstly, I didn't make myself clear in what exactly I was referring to. I was referring to his continued assertions that Good Olfactory's close of the surnames CfD was inappropriate and that Good Olfactory should burden himself with all of the work necessary in implementing a new categorization system for surnames, an opinion he appears to be shopping around for someone to listen to, and which he appears to be unable to drop. Second, I'd very much prefer not to resolve this with a block (hence why I "fear" it), but talking to the user doesn't seem to be effective, as I already said. If you'd like to try you hand at talking, feel free, I hope you'll have more success than I had. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The messages like "I (uninvolved or involved admin) will block you if you do the same thing one more time", "You're vandalising, so you would be blocked after your 48 hours-block", "I will report you to AN/I/WQA/AN3" indeed sound threatening. Because those who have have reported him to AN/ANI/AN3, he feels threatened. He did not say they gave him threats, but threatening messages. He does not play well in dealing with such messages though. If Badagnani wants to record that repeated unwelcome visits from unwelcome people in edit summary, then I would suggest him to change "threatening message" with "unhelpful messages from people whom I pleaded not to visit here" or "disruptive message".--Caspian blue 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Both alternative messages sound equally offensive and the latter more so. My suggestion would be for him to just drop the edit summary altogether and stop removing every message that he finds remotely unpleasant. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. He objects to behavior he finds threatening and contrary to collaboration and respect for a long term good faith contributor. And you object to him objecting to these behaviors. A fundamental part of civility and collaboration is respect for various editors who represent a variety of cultures and approaches. If you're going to aggressively enforce policies in a way that he finds threatening he's going to react accordingly. There's room for improvement and increased sensitivity on both sides of the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, surely these edits show good faith. After all it's fully appropriate to refer to people as "Korean nationalists", is it not? GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would slightly question your assertion that Badagnani is a "long term good faith editor". This is the user who, on several occasions suggested that I be banned for nominating article for deletion (many of which were subsequently deleted by consensus). See here. But I agree with the comments about the need for sensitivity on both sides. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The user has not been adopting reasonable or proportional reactions to comments from others. He automatically removes any comment I make on his talk page as "threatening", regardless of what I have stated—even if there is zero discussion of possible blocks or other sanctions. If I try to discuss a content issue with him, it is removed as "threatening" and "unwelcome". I was recently accused by the user of making a "death threat" against him: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and he continued to maintain it was a death threat after I had apologized for any misunderstanding and it had been explained to him by multiple other admins that it was not a death threat. He has essentially accused me of racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular: [10]. Any attempt by me to discuss these issues with him on his talk page are removed as "threats". He treats some other users and admins similarly, and apparently because of background content disputes. Something must be done. I'd be very happy if the user would simply change his attitude and approach. But barring that, I also fear a longer block may well be appropriate. The user has a history of blocks and it concerns me that the most recent block only seemed to embolden his misbehavior. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 20 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)

Actually, I have merely uploaded more than 20 pictures of Mumbai slums to Wiki Commons, but why does that make me biased? If I upload 20 pictures of Saudi Arabia, does that make me anti-muslim or anti-Saudi? You could accuse me of comitting vandalism if I had added all 20 slum pictures to an India-related wiki article, but I have not and will not. I think your disliking of the slum pictures says more about your value system than mine. Poverty is not a crime and certainly not shameful. Are the slum residents inferior, less than human than a Manhattenite? Of course NOT. So what is so controversial about two dozen pics of Mumbai slums being uploaded to Wiki Commons? By your logic, Danny Boyle (the British director of Slumdog Millionaire) would be the number one enemy of India. Of course, Danny Boyle is not anti-India, and then why should I be accused of being anti-India? By78 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source". Vedant, could you please provide concrete examples of the "non-neural sites" and "outdated sources" that I have used in my edits? Let's hear them. By78 (talk) 00:21, 20 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 [11], 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)

Why can't India be compared with China? I mean the comparison is practically an academic pastime, with India and China part of the BRIC designaion and both being large developing countries. The comparison, I believe, is both relevant and informative, as both countries have fast growing economies, are of similar population size, etc. I certainly wouldn't compare India with Brazil or Indonesia. If I remember correctly, at least two comparisons are made with China in the Economy of India wiki article. Furthermore, there are plenty of wiki articles that are titled "List of Countries by...". You get the point.By78 (talk) 07:44, 20 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. Oh, one last thing, I do NOT have an account on Youtube. By78 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an account on YouTube? So the page /user/by78 with an impressive list of Indophobic and Sinophilic favorites which closely mirror your Wikipedia edits, and which spouts frequent hate speech against India and Indians, is not you? Give me a break. Even on a site like Wikipedia where you are expected behave professionally and maturely that Indophobic attitude of yours pokes out, as evidenced by the two warnings you have. GSMR (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No I certainly do NOT have an account on Youtube. Although I might get one, seems like a good idea. One has to wonder, of all the hundreds of millions, no, billions of people who have Internet access, what are the chances of two or more people picking "by78" as their account names. Hmmmm... I did a cursory search on "by78" in google, and lo and behold, I found no less than a dozen accounts, spread across a wide variety of websites, by this name. So why pick my account on Wikipedia and this other person's on Youtube and try to make sense out of the supposed similarities? Funny, it's not hard to see that if we are to take into consideration of all these other "by78s" out there, then, gasp, there is really not much there in behavior similarities, except of course, that they all have Internet access. It seems to me that those who objected to my edits are those who are a bit lacking in skeptical attitude and all too eager to accept "facts" at face value, OR, has a bone to pick with me because I've edited some India-related articles with factual sources, which strangely offended some editors out of India. Who is at fault here, I do wonder sometimes. I also ponder as to when these editors would stop using ad hominem attacks on me and instead, as they should per wiki policies, focus on the merit, content, and factual accuracy of my edits. Thus far, it seems, that few had been able to raise objections to my edits on factual grounds, which is no surprise, as my sources have been chosen rather, I might boast a bit, judiciously. Lest you want to write off AFP, Reuters, Indian Express, Globalsecurity, CIA World Fact Book, Ernst&Young, Der Spiegel, UNICEF, World Bank, and IMF as a bunch of propagandists bent on sullying India's good image. By78 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Really?

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7706/youtubem.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8582/wikipedia.jpg

That sure seems like an amazing coincidence.

And no, the only reason I have a bone to pick with you is because I have witnessed this behavior on YouTube and then again on Wikipedia - while I have no problem with your constructive edits based on factual sources, you may remember the brief edit war we had regarding the etymology of cash where your reason for believing that Englishmen did not use the word "cash" for the currency in Canton was that the Aryan Invasion Theory (which is, FYI, an Indophobic theory which credits Vedic culture to White Europeans rather than Indians) was false. Aside from the fact that this theory does not and never did entail Indian conquest of China or anywhere else, your comment that "aryan" is synonymous with "German" angered me - the fact is that the word "aryan" was never in the European lexicon until Max Muller borrowed it from the Vedas, and that in its original Sanskrit context 'Aryan' did not refer to a race at all. (and yes, the Aryan Invasion Theory _is_ false, the only people who believe that Nords had anything to do with Indian achievements are White Nationalists on Stormfront).

GSMR (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I do appreciate the "evidence" you presented. But, anyone can make a screen grab, errr, I meant use photoshop, provided there is enough motivation. Furthermore, anyone can copy what I said on wikipedia, and then create a youtube account to make the same comments, so as to "prove" that I am the same person in both places. Good job. Good job indeed. If you so want to accuse me of being anti-India based on my Wiki edits, then so be it, but do make the same accusation against the good folks working at AFP, Indian Express, The Indian Business Standard, BBC, CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Janes Defense Weekly, Federation of American Scientists, the Indian Parliament, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Why? Because the whole world is out to get India, sully her good name, and bring her down. Even better, why not accuse Danny Boyle of anti-Indian sentiments as well in his wiki article. Oh, even better, might I suggest that you finally get around to provide some REAL evidence of my so-called BIASED editorship. Anyone care to give it a try? I thought not. Why? Ad Hominem attacks are just so much more exciting. By78 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

These comments are five months old!

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=oYxO3LOZQ6Q&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DoYxO3LOZQ6Q (deleting them won't help; it will still say "comment removed by author").

Yes, for the past five months, I have been operating a YouTube account with your username from Wikipedia with the sole intention of associating it with you. Come on, Bo Yu, just searching for "Eendiah" on Google shows me everywhere you have an account.

Also, if you care to read what I said above, I do not condemn any of your VERIFIABLE edits.

GSMR (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So what if the youtube comment is five months old? Does that prove anything? My so-called anti-India edits have been going on, let's see here, for almost two years. I wouldn't put it past someone to fake an account on youtube just to engage in ad hominem attacks (silly, but somewhat sophisticated). However, whoever is doing this, for whatever reason, has not read wikipedia policies carefully, namely that it is the content and merit of the edits that should be under discussion, not the editor, unless of course, the editor is engaging in questionable behavior. Now, maybe I am biased, but I just don't see my edits as anti-India, unless of course, you really want to go with the conspiracy theory of the world is against India, which I suppose could be plausible, but I need proof. Now, could someone list the anti-India edits I have made so that we can have an open, honest debate about them? Vedant has brought up two examples, but obviously they have NOT been accepted as demonstrating my so-called anti-India bias, but rather as examples of old-fashioned paraphrasing of news reports and specialist information (with proper citations, of course). What else have you got? Let's hear it. By78 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Youtube: by78. Joined: August 26, 2006. Last Sign In: 3 hours ago

Wikipedia: your first contribution was on July 26, 2006, and you did not start editing India-related articles until October 2008. In fact, the "Eendiah" phrase on YouTube predates your use of it on Wikipedia. (March 25 2009 is four months ago).

Not that it matters; your standing on Wikipedia is not affected by accounts elsewhere on the Internet. Hell, I'm a member of a hate forum against a certain minority, does that mean I can't edit Wikipedia as long as I abide by the rules and etiquette policy? No, what you do off-site is strictly your business - but you don't need to deny it.

Anyhow, Bo, I believe that you are prejudiced against Indians and despite the fact that India rakes in more money per year her former crown, beats your beloved PRC on the failed state index, and created the number system without which your username would be ByLXXVIII, you are still determined to degrade the image of India on Wikipedia.

Verifiable and sourced contributions aside, let's not forget those 20-some pictures of Mumbai you uploaded showing nothing but the slums of the city, your flame-war with ChanakayatheGreat where you compared the country with the fourth largest economy in the world and her flag on the moon with Sub Saharan Africa, your mockery of an Indian accent, your disbelief at the verifiable etymology of the word "cash" (sense 2 on Encarta Dictionary), and your own bigotry by using the Sanskrit word Aryan to describe blond-haired, blue-eyed Nords on my talk page, though in truth, the word "Aryan" was never used outside the Vedas until Max Muller borrowed the term from them, and came up with the ridiculous theory that Aryans were a race of White Europeans who civilized India (which, to repeat something you said yourself, is false. In fact, using the original Sanskrit definition of the term, only Indians are Aryans. The Aryan Invasion never happened, despite what some White nationalists who want to claim India's history for themselves would like you to think).

Fortunately, the Tamil etymology of Chinese Cash remains clear on the Wikipedia article about it (and on the MSN Encarta Dictionary).

Yes, I think it is quite clear that your main purpose on Wikipedia is to ridicule India.

GSMR (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GSMR,

Please don't engage in personal attacks against other Wiki editors, especially on the administrator page. If you have problems with their edits, engage the content of those edits. I can't tell what the bias of by78 is anymore than you or anyone else can. Also, I don't think that it matters at all. Even if he was personally biased against India, does that make the sources that he cited less accurate? Jjc16 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, however, I have already engaged with the content of the edits that I had problems with (see my and by78's talk page regarding the etymology of the word cash). I also did not like his POV-pushing with the 20+ pictures of slums in Mumbai, nor his mockery of an Indian accent on the Great Power talk page, nor his denial of the Sanskrit origin of the word Aryan - and he asked me to point out what edits of his I had problems with or found biased (and I have given examples above). GSMR (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Abecedare user:Shreevatsa user:Priyanath at Aryabhata

Resolved

 – Stopthenonsense blocked for edit warring--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

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: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]). 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 [26]. 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) Glad to see some discussion finally. Just in case it isn't clear from the discussion above, the issue is that User:Stopthenonsense (along with some IPs who might also be the same person) wants to stick into the first sentence of the lead a place of birth and a language, which are in contradiction to what historians actually think (and what the article summarises), and do this with just edit warring and no discussion. Reverting these undue edits and insisting on discussion apparently makes us violate NPOV, in Stopthenonsense's view. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Personally, in the long run I don't care what historians think, I care about what historians wrote down and published in a recognized book :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Uh, that's what I meant, modulo including journal papers as well. (How else can we verifiably know what historians think?) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy is Kalarimaster (talk · contribs) who has a long block log YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unusual hobbies and civility

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One thing that amazes me about Wikipedia's admins approach to civility is that when confronted with true abuse and incivility from those who one must assume have limited vocabulary[27] the civility police are strangly silent and reticent - or is it that when they are singing on behalf of Slim Virgin they are allowed to use the language of the gutter? Obviously those Admins so beloved of civility have varying standards when blocking will give them less kudos and publicity than blocking certaon others. Giano (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Your own comments weren't too nice, you know. Such words as "mob" and "maliciously" really do not improve the civility of Wikipedia. And when you got bitten you ran over to AN/I. Really, that's trollish behavior. Cut it out, please, it isn't resolving anything or helping anything. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Not at all, were I to use such language, I would rightfully be blocked. Such a word is not in my vocabulary or that of many other educated people. were I to use it Sandstein, Connolly and God knows who else would be racing and falling over each other to block. A comment such as yours displays a monumantal ignorance of what is actually going on here, with one law for one and another for another. Get real! I see you an Admin too, Wehwalt - what a poor one you must be.Giano (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I appreciate the feedback! I guess you saw the mop on my user page next to the dozen or so FA stars and GA crosses. However, I don't let myself be drawn in that manner. I will leave a comment in the thread asking both you and the other editor against provocative and strong language. Administrators are not here to mete out justice, but to keep the peace so we all can build an encyclopedia. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC) "Fuck off Cocksucker! "That is obviously completely OK to say - is it, so I shall not hesitate to say it when confronted with things I do not care for. If you read my post there, you will see it is succinct and accurate, if you post anything to the effect that is it is inflamattory you will have such a fight on your hands here you won't know what has hit you. Giano (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I appreciate on the latter count. As I don't qualify on the first count, I will assume it is for dramatic effect and measure your maturity level accordingly. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC) and that is whay I think of your post [28] Now I am quite happy to be blocked for objecting to being called a "cock sucker" and highlight the doubkle standards you Admins employ here. Giano (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not blocking either of you, but I don't distinguish between the "seven dirty words" and language otherwise phrased to get the same reaction. You've both been given friendly advice to cut it out and the thread over there has died. I suggest we mark this resolved and move on to building an encyclopedia, which is supposedly what we're here for!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC) And ... stop. IMHO Giano is actually right here - whilst his posting on the thread was perhaps a little intemperate it wasn't aimed at any user in particular. Doc Tropic's posting, however, was - and was out of line. It ias absolutely correct that there are admins who would've blocked Giano in a heartbeat for posting something similar, and that smacks of double standards to me. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably issued a short block for Doc (or anyone else for that matter), but I'm not going to do it 8 hours after the event - instead I'm going to drop a stern warning on his talkpage. But Giano - this doesn't help either. Black Kite 10:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I am not stoppng until he is blocked! Admins stared and ignored that post for hours - do you see me saying cockfucker! Just imaging Sandsttein, Herbert and their friends if I did - you would be racing to block and a thread half a mile long of others wanting the block extended. Giano (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Why is that, Giano?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC) your reply above is exactly what I have come to expect from Admins on this page. Giano (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Because Giano has a point that any incivility from him is usually met with a block, whereas this one wasn't. So this looks like double standards from his point of view, though I suggest it was more likely that no-one actually noticed it at the time, and probably wouldn't unless someone had reposted it here. I have locked the ADCP thread for a short while however in an attempt to stop G getting himself blocked as a WP:POINT exercise. Black Kite 10:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I would rather be blocked that sit and look at the gross hypocrisy displayed by Wikipedia's admins on this page! at least, my actions would be honest! Giano (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) There's honest, and then there's futile, however. You can call me - or anyone else - hypocritical but there's no way I'd block Doc, you, or anyone else for a comment made 9 hours ago unless it was part of a repeating pattern. Black Kite 10:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC) And to call me hypocritical and make it stick would require you to show that I had treated you or other involved editors differently on another occasion. Good luck on that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I see you have reverted me and replace Wehwalt's ill conceived warning - well if you read my paost you will see it requires no warning. In fact I suspect we have a little partisan here. You will either gave to block me over this hypocrisy or keep that page protected for a very long time. As for you Wehwalt, we only have to look at your initial response here. Giano (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Nothing further to do here. Again suggest we mark this resolved. Thanks for your help, BK.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Nope it is far from resolved - if you think cock sucker is an acceptable term to be permitted, then you are quite wrong. Giano (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed Doc Tropic's personal attack and the sub-thread that led from it. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. Now I'm going to do something more productive and go down the pub go to take some more photos to help get Brandon Marsh to GA. Black Kite 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you, it is pity I have to battle so hard to acheive what is quite reasonable. Now all that remains is to know the real reason why no admin was prepared to block an editor who refers to another editor as a cock sucker [29]. Perhaps Sandstein, Connoly or Herbert or one of the numerous others would like to start the ball rolling. Giano (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC) As I see from the diff, he said as soon as he learned how to spell "cosk sucker", he was going to give you a piece of his mind. That is rather different from what you said. Frankly, I'd consider referring to others' motives as malicious to be as bad or worse. I know which would result in a bigger payday in a libel suit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Glad you have finally read it. I think that you have displayed your ignorance quite enough for one day. Giano (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Right, seeing as you obvioulsy want to continue this, what is unacceptable as you say here [30]. Think before you answer this timeplease, you may find I have right on my side. Giano (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Calling other editor's actions or attitudes "malicious" is horribly destructive of WP:AGF and inconsistent with the collegial atmosphere that we hope WP should have. And really, that is all I have to say about it. Please feel free to respond at your leisure, I don't think there's more to be done here unless you hope that the admins you named will weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Given that this is a site that deals with facts it must therefore be incumbent on us to ascertain that you don't actually suck cocks before the statement can be construed as an insult. Should it be the case that you do indeed suck cocks then it is merely a statement of fact. --WebHamster 11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I confirm have never sucked anything more than a a peppermint. My own personal civility policy only has three fairly easy to keep and simple rules [31] that post breaks three of them. In my book it was very uncivil and the usuak admins ignoring it was suspicious in the extreme. Giano (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC) We're going to need diffs on that peppermint!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) And Peppermint's surname is? Just for the files of course ;) --WebHamster 12:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I can't say that I'm a fan of retroactive blocks, but obviously this comment should have caught attention sooner. Seems like it's been blanked, by now, and rightfully so. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Block resulting from the above I have given Doc Tropics (talk · contribs) a 24 hour deterrence block, retroactive to the time the comment was made. There is no excuse for making derogatory and sexual remarks at another user. Jehochman Talk 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you Jehochman, obviously the usual members of the civility police are taking a day off. Giano (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) A good block, in my view. Endorse. Note, however, that I've unblocked Doc [32] ... I think he gets the point and is not likely to repeat the error or cause further disruption. He has a block on his block log forever more to remind him not to, as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC) The editor-in-question (Doc Tropic) has certainly breached CIVIL & therefore should have served out his block. Indeed, Giano has been blocked (and had them reverted) numerious times for 'colorful language'. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not bothered about him being unblocked, so long after the event because today, we have seen the end of any pretence that Wikipedia's admins may have of being genuinely concerned about civility. The civility block is just a weapon to be used at random and for personal gain and whim. I'm glad Jehochman and Lar arrived belatedly on the scene, but as for the usuals! well contempt is to put it mildly, but at least we now know their true colours. If it had been me they would have been conflicting each other in their obscene salivatory need to have the block extended - what jokes they are, and we all know who they are - don't we? Giano (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'm only surprised that you seem to be surprised. The double standards that you're drawing attention to have surely been evident for some time? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'll tell you how surprised I am, I even checked to see who of the well known ones were editing during all of this, and 66% of them were. Obviously "Doc" was singing the right song - "cocksucker" indeed, I can think of few words more offensive to anyone. Giano (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) @GoodDay: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I endorse the block, even coming late. But I also note that Doc spent some time thinking about why his approach was not a good one, and when pressed on the matter, gave an entirely satisfactory indication that there won't be a recurrence. I could be wrong, it was a judgement call, but the disruption that the block would be preventing is not, in my view, likely to recur now that Doc has had a chance to contemplate, reflect, and make assurances, giving his word. The word of another user should always be taken unless they have given us cause in the past to doubt it. I hope that addresses your concern about the unblock. 'Tis the reason I could never be an Administrator. IMO, blocks should be (at least) equally punitive/preventative. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC) @Giano: I derived no personal gain one way or the other from either the block or unblock, to the best of my knowledge. But the wiki took a loss. Fortunately you are not such a delicate flower that the original comment had a chilling effect on your inclination to share your views, but this is just another (relatively minor) corrosive episode in a long series. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) You are correct, Giano. That diff should have resulted in a short block immediately—implying that someone is an "arrogant cocksucker" is not acceptable here. You are also correct that if it had been you, you probably would have been blocked. If I were a sysop, I would have issued a block when I saw it. Even though the block was issued late, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Hopefully the user in question won't do it again. Cheers, Firestorm Talk 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Late to the party again, but I endorse Jehochman's block, which should indeed have happened much sooner. Administrators should also not be so quick to unblock users sanctions for uncivility.  Sandstein  06:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC) No sandstein, you were not late to the party, you failed to attend. Giano (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Alas, Wikimedia does not pay me well enough to weigh in on every ANI thread minutes after its inception. Should you really value my assessment of specific situations, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page the next time.  Sandstein  07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Just don't worry about it Sandstein - blocks etc concerning you are so much clearer now. It was a revealing 24 hours - very revealng.Don't let me keep you, you can resume your daily blocking now. Giano (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Recommended reading I recommend Choosing Civility by P.M. Forni of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm... I was going to recommend Mutz D, Effects of "In-Your-Face" Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition, American Political Science Review (2007) 101(4):621-35. "Violating social norms... increased the intensity of affect among the opposition, but remaining civil did not intensify the positive feelings viewers held toward their own side. Civility appears to be the default expectation, and it is arousing and influential only when people deviate from it... When those holding differing views violate social norms by being uncivil and disagreeable right in viewers’ faces, it is all that much easier to demonize them along multiple dimensions." MastCell Talk 03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I recommend my own 4 rules regarding civility. Giano (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I thought it was three, per your above comment. And while we are on the subject, Giano, I'd recommend you consider adding some more, since you are in expansion mode. For example, "Don't goad other editors by provocative language." And "Take seriously the admonition on AN/I to try to work things out on their talk page before running here." And "If you are offended by a 'dirty' word, there is no particular need to spray it all over AN/I." And , "If you are considering whose rules for civility to adopt, examine the author's block log before deciding." And lastly WP:AGF and all that it entails. So far as I can see, you have questioned the good faith of almost everyone in these threads, other than those who did or supported what you wanted. If there's nothing more to be done here, let's get back to building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Your opinions here are now considered worthless. Some may even feel you are unfit to be an Admin. I suggest you slink away quietly and hope others forget your part in this disgraceful episode. Now let's just see which of the clockwork mice scurry here to offer an opinion on me now - having been so silent yesterday. Giano (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dopplegangerr at Serial killer

Unresolved

 – No admin intervention required (especially as subject has not edited since final warning), suggest WP:WQA or WP:DR. Black Kite 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dopplegangerr (talk · contribs) has made repeated racially motivated POV edits to Serial killer, ignoring notifications on their user page and the article talk page. momoricks 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WADR to Black Kite, I have reviewed Dopplegangerr's edits and he does seem to be a disruptive SPA. His name implies that he is a sock. WP:SOCK explicitly forbids "Good hand, bad hand" accounts and says it "is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior". --B (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's disruptive edits have continued after the final warning and now include Carl Eugene Watts. momoricks 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Does seem to have an unfortunate preoccupation with race... seems most every edit deals with it in some way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have changed the resolved template to unresolved. --B (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose editor with dynamic IP causing disruption

The IP 86.136.34.91 is repeatedly rearranging band members without explanation at 21st Century Breakdown and The Network and has received a final warning. See [33], [34], [35], [36] for their edits. Also personal attack here. Has made these edits after being warned as another IP, under which he made the exact same edits to the same articles. Even before that, he had been doing the same edits under numerous other IPs for weeks. The only edits this person has made under his multiple IPs are to rearrange the band members on Green Day articles regardless of edit notes and attempts to discuss the matter with him. Timmeh 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

An area-block seems needed. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP is a BT Broadband dynamic and as such is far too large a range to block; if they start again, I suggest nominating the articles for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Black Kite 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Timmeh 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sturm College of Law

I have edited Sturm College of Law to look like a wiki page. Another user on here keeps reverting and placing a picture in a blatant attempt to vandalize the page. Please look into. keystoneridin! (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no way that the other user was trying to "vandalize" this page. Please review the Wikipedia definition of vandalism before making any accusations of the same nature. I have protected the article for a week due to the edit warring. Tan | 39 20:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• As per convention and common courtesy I have informed User:Wikics14 of this discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Gah, that whole article reads like an ad. It's going to have to be depeacockitized after the protection expires. Looie496 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keystoneridin, your edit summaries are misleading and your approach to content disputes needs improving. This edit is not "wikified page". It's an outright removal of an image. And the first response to a novice editor who tries to revert your change, to restore the article back to its prior state after you removed the image, should not be to issue bureaucratic warnings. Further responses should not continue in that vein, moreover. Your bold change was (imperfectly) reverted and so, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your next step should have been discussion, not handing out boilerplate warnings. Read your own boilerplate and take your own advice: Treat your fellow editors like human beings, and they won't regard you poorly. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Darwinek (admin edit warring)

Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Following this report at the WP:AN3 board, this is a clear example of edit warring by both sides (history of article), but I note that User:Darwinek, an admin, has blocked his "opponent" in the edit war.

Given that this block is clearly invalid, have unblocked and then reblocked the IP for the equivalent time for the 3RR violation, and have blocked User:Darwinek for 24 hours as well.

Obviously the more pressing issue is the use of admin tools; comments are welcome about the blocking of an opponent in a content dispute. Black Kite 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The first step is that Darwinek should get a block for edit-warring. Although the warnings given by the opposing editor were botched and the opposing editor is pretty clearly in the wrong content-wise, as well as being incorrect in referring to Darwinek's edits as vandalism, an admin needs to know better than to engage in a revert war. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have already done that. Black Kite 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, sloppy reading on my part. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Darwinek's administrative privileges had been revoked in April 2007 as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. He was resysopped in October 2007 per decision on ArbCom mailing list [37]. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They should be revoked again, permanently; this is blatant abuse of sysop tools. Would that take a whole new RFAR, or a motion or what? And I'll take the opportunity to plug my proposal for a community-driven desysopping process. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Roux - given the history and egregiously abusing admin privileges in a content dispute, they should be immediately desysopped. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for discussion. We all agree and know that you mustn't use your admin tools against someone you are in a content dispute with, don't we? Darwinek has abused them and he has been correctly blocked, good decision Black Kite. A quick look over their contributions does not show the similar amount of behavior in recent times that lead to the 2007 desysop but if you found more, please do tell us about it. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The block was for edit warring, not abuse of admin powers. They are completely separate and should be treated as such. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the particular circumstances, but admins should never use the block or protection buttons in a content dispute. The only exceptions would be clear vandalism (where any reasonable person would agree that's what it was), or an unambiguous BLP violation where there's no one else around to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I also found a year's block of this dynamic IP for this single edit in a dispute with Darwinek, and a long slow edit war between Darwinek and other editors on this article, during which he blocked one of the IPs but this is going back to 2008 - he doesn't use the block button often. Black Kite 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, a content dispute with User:Adam.J.W.C. about the use of Template:Tourism in June 2008 [38] seems to have led to a 24h block [39] two weeks later. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If Darwinek apologizes and promises to be more careful, I think we should let it be, perhaps with a short block in a block record as a reminder. Sure, admins should not abuse admin tools, but a singular exception in the background of years of good work should not be enough to strip one of their adminship. If you disagree, I'd suggest taking this to ArbCom, but this would really be blowing this out of proportions. PS. Please note that I saying that I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize he already did apologize and promised to be more careful in the future. Tan | 39 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In March 2007. Or was that what you meant?Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary noted the year. To me, this makes no difference - an apology and promise made in an ArbCom case shouldn't have an expiration date. Tan | 39 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So is what you're saying that he apologised, promised not to do it again, and then did it again? Or that because he promised not to do it, he didn't do it. (sorry, I'm being a bit thick. I'm supposed to be in bed - I have the flu)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend reading the above thread, particularly the opening post, prior to getting involved. It's pretty clear. Tan | 39 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just take some more Anadin and go to bed. It seems the safer bet. I'll leave you guys to it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@Tanthalas39: It is not completely clear what point you're making, sorry. One interpretation is that Darwinek has apologised (back in 2007) and all is well, and another is that Darwinek has violated his promise not to do it again. Could you clarify please? Often, if someone evinces confusion, it's because they are confused and need help understanding. I've read the entire thread. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwinek recently blocked someone for edit warring with him (an abuse of admin tools). Piotrus said, "...I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promi[s]es to be more careful in the future." In response, I pointed out to Piotrus where Darwinek had already done exactly this, prior to the most recent breach of policy. I thought (and think) I was being pretty clear, but my point was that he already did promise - and broke that promise. Tan | 39 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nod. (that's what I got when I read it but I can see the other interpretation) I think you and Elen are actually agreeing with each other, but at least one of you doesn't realise it, and I think Elen will once they read that restatement. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that a new apology is needed. The 2007 one is not enough, since he made a new mistake. One mistake per two year can be understandable (we are all human, and we err), but he has to acknowledge it. If he doesn't, than he is not fit to be an admin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have looked at some details earlier. He was dealing with a disruptive anon - that's should be taken into consideration. I don't think that there are grounds for desysoping anymore, but I'd still like to see his apology here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are the disruptive one, together with your POV pushing friend. 158.143.166.124 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty clear this user should not be a sysop. How about somebody explains the circumstances politely and asks them to resign, to avoid all the unnecessary fuss and drama. If ArbCom is asked to look at this, they almost certainly will remove sysop access. Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to stop by here to mention my (very positive) impressions of Darwinek before he gets crucified by the mob. Darwinek is a longstanding sysop here (who has done yeoman's work with images and has generated a fantastic amount of content). My interactions with the fellow have been nothing but positive and he is very reasonable when approached on his talk page imo. I am uncertain of the details here but I would engage Darwinek as to the rationale for his block (as Piotrus suggests above) before making any summary decisions to de-sysop him -- Samir 05:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I’m asking myself, are you guys real? Can’t you see the forest for the trees? What Darwinek did was in fact very reasonable under the circumstances. The offending IP reverted his edits five times in several hours with numbingly repetitious insults in his edit summaries. The anon did it in total impunity which only a no name dynamic IP number can give. Here are the examples of his language: 17:47, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism), 19:25, 19 July 2009 (rv Polish nationalist POV vandalism), 19:40, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism/POV pushing). And than, as User: U158 his insults continued: (rm nationalist POV and foreign language spam). Administrators are there to help others, so they should also be able to defend themselves against attacks when they are being victimized. The anon should have been blocked after his fourth revert at 19:25, 19 July 2009. And, he was, exactly as expected. There are no other rules to deal with here, and so, please stop creating an impression, that there IS a rule Darwinek might have broken by administering a (midly) punitive action against that IP number (24 hour block, not much). I repeat, he did it not against a user and not for a prolonged period of time, but against a nameless number, which Darwinek blocked temporarily for 3RR at 19:45, 19 July 2009, half an hour after the fourth revert. I strongly oppose the idea of an official apology. Darwinek did nothing wrong. --Poeticbent talk 05:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, calm down, everybody understood your argument.

To the issue: I would like to mention that Darwinek likes to engage people, something that stimulates productive, quality editing, but it is also something that can get you into trouble with people which are disruptive, because it creates the impression that you are involved in a content dispute. Darwinek has committed a key mistake: instead of being formal with disruptive editors, he has engaged them. As a result he applied blocks (correctly!) while he was formally already part of the edit process. Given that the disruption was clearly not Darwinek's in any of the cases, and that he/she is an excellent contributor and uses well the mop, I suggest Darwinek to voluntarily renounce to using block button for 1 month, while retaining all other sysop powers. Do not forget that block button is not the main admin tool, but one of many, and while some primarily use this one, Darwinek clearly does not. Dc76\^talk 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw this on Darwinek's user talk page, since he is blocked and unable to edit this page Livewireo (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC):

Firstly I would like to say that a block for me is fully justified in a response to 3RR. As for my blocking of that IP it was premature and wrong. For that reason I apologize for that. I should've inform other admins of that disruptive editor and seek their opinion on that specific case. I shouldn't have block him as a person involved. On the other hand IP's edits to that certain article were disruptive, as all his behaviour around. It doesn't constitute "I love Cindy"-type vandalism but is a clear case of disruptive editing. As for the fear and fuss about my admin tools and blocking abilities. I am not a kind of "blocking spree" admin, who blocks various IPs every day. I am fighting with classic IP vandalism every day (several recent examples [40], [41], [42]) but I don't use blocking tool very often. The reason is that in my experience vandalizing IP stops vandalizing after being reverted and/or warned. I am "janitorial" type of admin doing mostly silent and dirty work and admin opened to help other editors. Since my ArbCom case I really changed my wiki behaviour and more than two years of serenity and silence can prove that. My behaviour leading to ArbCom ruling was utterly inappropriate, punishment was strict and just. My behaviour since that time improved significantly ... this regrettable isolated incident is an exception. Me and my admin tools don't pose any threat to WP community. - Darwinek (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone even look at the edits of the IP? I do not see anything disruptive in this and this initial edit. In fact, in my opinion these improved the article; for example Cieszyn is not identical with Teschen, as Teschen was divided between the Czech republic and Poland after WWII. Same with the category Cieszyn Silesia, which is the wrong category given that parts of the Landkreis Teschen were not in what is today Cieszyn Silesia. But the fact that this edit had its merits and was definitely not vandalism did not stop Darwinek to add this warning to the IP's talk page [43]. And then the editing derailed, with reverts and accussations. Guess this is another example of how IP editors are less editors than those that hide behind an anonymous user name. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My response, moved from my talk page:

User:Darwinek is a disruptive editor, who behaved in a highly disruptive way, repeatedly (by revert-warring and abusive use of rollback tool) reinstating spelling errors in articles (Jerzy Buzek: [44][45], Austria-Hungary cannot be referred to as "the Austria-Hungary" in English, "after the 1939 it was..." does not make sense in English - but maybe in Polish?) and inconsistency, despite being told he was in error. He refuses to discuss his edits (Talk:Jerzy Buzek). Furthermore, he is a Polish nationalist POV pusher. This is a fact, and it does not surprise me that other long-time members of the Polish lobby are rushing to his defense now. It's very unfortunate that a lot of Central European topics at this project are largely controlled by disruptive Polish nationalist POV pushers, just have a look at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, Wikipedia would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland. And I was not being more uncivil to him than he was to me - he accused me of "vandalism" despite the fact that he is the vandal, who was messing up grammar and consistency, revert-warring, refusing to discuss, and pushing POV. But I did not block him, that's the whole difference. I don't trust his "apologies" at all, clearly he's only interested in retaining his admin rights in order to continue to abuse other editors and enforce his Polish POV (and odd grammar), as he's done before, and he's broken all his promises before as well. This time, he needs to be permanently desysopped. This project does not need people like him as administrators. I'm fed up by Eastern European nationalist POV pushers (with a poor command of English), and so are a lot of other non-Eastern European users. 158.143.212.147 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.166.124 (talk)

Mischa Barton / User:MJBurrage/BLP violations

There are a lot of tabloid reports about a recent incident involving this actress. However, most of the reports, and virtually all the reliable-source reports, are hedged and report matters in speculative terms. (The less reliable sources are, unsurprisingly, becoming increasingly sensational.) WP:BLP requires that biographical articles be "written conservatively" and "be sourced very carefully." MJBurrage has repeatedly added a short section to the article stating as fact that the actress suffered a "breakdown" -- sourced only to a newspaper report presenting the claim as "reported," not as established fact -- and stating as fact that the actress was involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric observation/treatment under a specific provision of California law -- sourced only to a caption/introduction in an online photo gallery hosted by the LA Times, which states the claim as factual even though the Times's actual news articles don't even present the claim in a speculative form (and was written by a columnist who, per the LA Times, "dishes celebrity gossip and fashion" rather than by a news reporter). The news cycle has reached the point where less careful news organizations are repeating each others' claim with fewer and fewer of the appropriate qualifications, and the presence of such unverifiable (to date) claims on Wikipedia only contributes to the problem. I don't think there's any question about what BLP requires here -- that we "get the article right." The only substantiation for the claims involved turns out to be an anonymously-made statement to Access Hollywood (self-identified as a gossip source) by an undescribed and unidentified "source close to the situation." No matter how often that gets repeated, carefully or carelessly, it's not appropriate support for a Wikipedia BLP. I'm sure the other editor is acting in good faith, but isn't following BLP carefully enough -- and some reminders could be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There seem several problems with this summary: First, even as Access Hollywood may call itself a gossip site, it is affiliated with MSNBC.com, which carries articles in its Entertainment section under the AH byline (see, e.g., here), and, as such, is a reliable source. Second, some of the articles offered on the talk page are not as oblique as you suggest; that of BBC.com, for instance, sources directly to the Los Angeles Police Department and a statement issued by the biographical subject's publicist. Third, there is no consensus for the exclusion under BLP of material published in prominent reliable sources but given as the fruit of unidentified sources. We need not reach the broader issues here, though, I think, because of the BBC and AP stories, which, again, quote the Barton's own publicist as confirming her admission and make the unqualified assertion that her admission followed from the LAPD's "escorting her from her home"; those, I think, permit us to add most of the disputed text (there is no debate, AFAICT, over whether the incident is sufficiently notable as to merit mention in the article), after which we might debate whether to state explicitly the section 5150 commitment reported by AH/MSNBC.com. 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No. This simply does not address the BLP issues, and is inaccurate on crucial points. Newspapers that are otherwise reliable sources often enough run gossip columns that aren't reliable, and in any event the Access Hollywood piece is quite careful not to report the key claims as established facts, but only as claims made by its unidentified source. The BBC article does not mention the claims at issue here. BLP certainly does not allow editors to present as established facts matters reported by sources, reliable or otherwise, as unverified claims. The only relevant established fact out of this morass of public speculation is that Barton's treatment for an unidentified medical condition prevented her from attending the premiere of her most recent film -- a point already included in the article, properly framed in the context of her career. BLP requires that articles be written "conversatively," not in a "sensationalist" manner, and should not "spread ... titillating claims about people's lives." Nobody gets hurt if we wait for a genuinely reliable account of the situation, and James Forrestal she's not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Where in the BLP guidelines does it say we can't use reliable sources, based on how someone perceives the merit or flaws of an article published by said source. Multiple reliable sources have stated she is/was on an 5150 hold; the fact that you don't like their reporting in this case does not change there validity as sources.—MJBurrage^(T•C) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they haven't. We have, at best, a single unverified claim passed along in various forms by sources of various levels of reliability, some quite bad. An online photo caption written by a gossip columnist is not given the same weight as a fact-checked news article, and an otherwise reliable newspaper's horoscope column is not a reliable source at all. Absent a clearly reported source, we can't even be sure that the claim isn't being repeated from a version of the Wikipedia Barton article that included it. And piecing together a set of questionable claims, not presented as factual in the underlying sources, and glossing them into worst-case supposedly acknowledged facts, certainly isn't the "conservative" editing WP:BLP calls for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested criteria would make almost all sources unusable. If a reputable source says something that is enough. It is not required by either citation, nor BLP guidelines to second guess reputable sources just because said source does not make their own research or sources explicit. Reputable sources have reported that she was/is on a 5150 hold, that is all that is required.—MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock list

Posted on OfficerJackBoot's talk page(an idef banned user. Could an admin look in to it? Possible sockfarm.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: several of these are socks of User:ClaimJumperPete.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Would a checkuser or IP block do any good? This guy is getting annoying.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you need to file a sockpuppet report? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it as I speak.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lineup

Checkusered all. Those not stale are all  Confirmed, for what it's worth. I'll refrain from mentioning more on the wiki at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please keep an eye on an IP please?

I have other things I need to do, and 68.185.89.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making tendentious edits like this which is a highly inappropriate link. They are also rambling on about "liberals" amongst other things, and their previous edits are also highly dubious. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think O fenian needs some watching too. We don't remove people's attempts to discuss content disputes from talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, do you have a clue? It isn't a content dispute, look at where the link goes and the sentence it was put in. Then look at what was written on the talk page, it was bigoted soapboxing which you have added back. If the "watchers" are all like you, we're doomed. In case you cannot work it out, that link is similar to pipe linking to Criticism of Christianity with a visible link to Jesus. It was vandalism, it even says as much in the vandalism policy under "Link vandalism". The IPs edit summaries make their intentions clear, that was not a good faith attempt at discussion, it was bigoted soapboxing and should have been removed. And it was removed, until you came along.. O Fenian (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian does have a point. The link, [[Religious arguments about same-sex marriage#Religious opposition|same]] links to an opposition page not to a support page. This should be removed immediately and the anon user warned. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree with the IP either. However, we don't remove people's attempts to discuss their edits from article talk pages unless they're offensive. My point is that both editors appear to be wrong in this conflict. Toddst1 (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What the IP wrote was offensive, do you not understand that? O Fenian (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So, it is OK for the IP to add an intentionally misleading wikilink on the page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You guys are missing the points. There are two issues here: There was nothing offensive in this comment. It removing the comment from the talk page is highly inappropriate. I agree that the link in the article was misleading. However, discussing things on talk pages is how we solve issues here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying anything about the comment, just the link that was placed by the anon. That is the only think that should be removed. Comment should stay, link should go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I said something about the comment. And I discussed it on O Fenian's talk page as well. Toddst1 (talk)

Then my main concern is the link, which with your revert, still remains and should be removed. Correction: the link has been removed (by O Fenian) and that is my main concern, that the link stays gone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point. My initial revert of the inappropriate link was reverted with an edit summary of "Reverted bad-faith extreme POV reversion". That instantly tells me, and 99% of other people, that the IP isn't acting in good faith. Then for the IP to claim it is "extremely biased of Wikipedia to even mention Uruguay's recognition of Homosexual relations as legitimate", based on the previous edits I, and 99% of other people, would correctly identify that as bigoted soapboxing against even the inclusion of a mention of same-sex unions. If that the first comment from an editor it could be interpreted differently, but from that editor with that history it is not a good faith attempt at discussion, and nothing meaningful could possibly come from that discussion. And Toddst1, you didn't discuss anything on my talk page. You came along with a pointless templated warning, and still don't understand that the discussion is pointless, offensive, and should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I sort of see what Toddst1 is getting at here, I think that it's a little akin to raising a stink because we didn't serve a condemned man's last meal at the proper temperature. The IP editor lost his "discussion" privileges. These IP edits are clearly not appropriate, and I see no need for them to be discussed on the article talk page, as there's no way in hell those edits are ever going to be included on the page. Tan | 39 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern was the link. If it isn't there, I am happy. It appears it has, in fact, been removed, so my involvement in this issue is over. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the link was never and isn't in question. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not serving a condemned man's last meal at the proper temperature is a horrible thing to do! Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:CWii

Resolved

 – blocked indef Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:CWii has placed "Leave me the fuck alone" on his user page. Should this be removed? It's very discouraging and offensive at that matter. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, he seems to be acting uncivil. WP:CIVL. Look here to see what I mean: User talk: CWii. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that user page won't do at all, and the reason has nothing to do with censorship. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I bring this edit to everyone's attention. He/she has placed a "Touch this and it's a guaranteed shitstorm " - Can somebody please remove the content from the page? I am unsure of whether it should be removed, or left alone, so if anyone else wants to, please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cwii's edit summary here ("attn wikifags") is repellently homophobic and completely unacceptable. → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) On the subject of putatively problematic userpages, I observe that that of Marshall notes that "[he] ha[s] been with the Wikimedia Foundation since July 29th, 2008". Everyone who partakes of any Foundation project can, of course, be said to be "with" the Foundation, but the wording strikes me as misleading to the average reader (unless, that is, MW is other than a volunteer; if I have mistaken his role, I apologize and, of course, withdraw my remarks), and I wonder whether it ought to be changed. (It is inappropriate, I guess, for me to raise the issue here without first addressing the user on his talk page, but I see that the complainant no effort was made to raise the issue with CWii before bringing it here; I recognize that CWii's user page might discourage communication, but MW nevertheless managed to apprise CWii of this listing, and so I fail to understand why this had to come to AN/I straightaway.) 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with this discussion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The usual spotlight brought to bear on someone who complains at AN/I. I'd also note that "ATTENTION ALL VANDALS: IF YOU CHOOSE TO VANDALIZE, THEN YOU WILL RECEIVE PAIN FROM ME." is completely inappropriate (from MW's userpage). → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CWii userpage blanked, someone else can deal with MW - since he is an active user, I would suggest a note on the talk page requesting removal of the offending part. Viridae^Talk 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) While Roux is probably right about MW here, I did block CWii for a month - and thought about doing it indefinitely. A stroll through his/her talk page, contributions, and edit summaries ("attn wikifags") shows that they are incompetent to participate in the collegial, collaborative atmosphere here. Tan | 39 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is your block for reasons other than the uncivil message on the userpage? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, in fact, I wouldn't have blocked solely for the userpage issue. See the block template on his page, and my above statement. Tan | 39 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me a few diff examples? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Tan's block completely given the amt of vitriol I'm seeing. If you can't behave on Wikipedia in a collaborative and congenial manner, then go away. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to this edit (repeated twice) I have locked the talk page so he cannot edit it while blocked. Viridae^Talk 03:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

can somebody please indefinitely block him. This type of pitiful behavior is completely unsettling. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead of you :-) Marking resolved. Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, got the talk page before I could save :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. I wasn't entirely sure about the original block -- was still thinking it over while looking at other things, trying to see if I might have a useful comment to add -- but those talk page edits are just beyond the pale. Obviously we can't allow that sort of thing. Might be worth unlocking the talk page in a while, see if they may have calmed down by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the user should be banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to express a different point of view. When high school students melt down, they tend to melt down totally, but it doesn't mean they won't become good editors in the future, especially if they've been good editors in the past. A long block and full protect of the talk page are clearly necessary here, but I don't think there is a compelling need for them to go longer than a month. If the pattern repeats after a month, the next step is a year. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The user should be banned simply for this conduct. The user has proven not to be able to be nice to the editors. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And another one at CWii2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), abusive unblock request. I've blocked the account. Also blocking John Bot II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and John Bot III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a preventive measure. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John Bot V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot IX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and John Bot X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be blocked (all created by CWii). Algebraist 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Luna above, I have given back the privilege of being able to edit his talk page while blocked, but protected the page with an expiry time of 1 month. After that he can edit his talk page to request an unblock. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Hope I don't look silly in a month. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Subpages

Since the user will not longer be with us, can someone nuke this gigantic subpage list?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the user is indefinitely blocked, the pages are moot, but I can't delete the pages, because I'm not an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculously premature. Either way, MfD is over there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SPI report filed

Because of this edit, please be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CWii that I've filed. Since I can't edit CWii's talk page, can an admin notify him/her? I've notified the IP. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMON comes into play here. It might just be quicker to block for 24-72 hours. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Uh, I think this is completely unnecessary. Tan | 39 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a need for it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever; knock yourself out if you want to waste even more time on this guy. The IP account you reported was blocked long before this. Tan | 39 03:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just be waiting for the checkuser results. I won't be surprised if the conclusion is "confirmed", at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize that when the CU results come back positive, as is totally obvious, that nothing else will be done? This is a waste of time for everyone involved, including the CU. Tan | 39 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Clerk declined Given the situation, I'm fairly certain that the IP is a sock, so a check is not necessary. We would only find out what we already know. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please un-decline. A check is necessary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but I did check this one about the same time I reverted that edit, and it looks  Unrelated, with the potentially important caveat I haven't checked if it's a proxy yet. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread in general, will let you know if I find anything interesting. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're scrutinizing the details? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CWii has just declared that IP to be themself on IRC, for what that's worth. Algebraist 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised - Tan made the proper call, the filing was unnecessary and the checkuser request was unnecessary. We can all move on now methinks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I expected it to be CWii, but I'll be waiting for any potential checkuser evidence. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do with any CU evidence? Ask that CWii be blocked longer than... indefinitely? Block the IP... again? Tan | 39 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A need that it be a way to expose the disruption. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Imposter

Resolved

 – Impostor account blocked. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwens Gale (talk · contribs) is a new user vandalizing various articles...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Was a new user; I blocked it about an hour ago [46]. Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome, perhaps misunderstood user: Aliveatoms

Resolved

 – User blockcked for 72 hours by User:Tanthalas39 after reverting a closed AfD Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Aliveatoms (talk · contribs)

This user is upset because User:RadioFan, who is doing new page patrol, speedied and nominated Jim Braden for deletion. The AfD is progressing normally, but Aliveatoms is disrupting wikipedia to make a point, by disrupting AfDs (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4), and was warned for this by RadioFan and also by C.Fred. The user also ranted on RadioFan's page, and was warning for it- perhaps a little too strongly, but still warned.

The user 'responds' to any message on their user talk page by removing them without comment, except the replacement text ("I am Alive Atoms. I welcome your comments"). This is well within their rights, but (if nothing else) serves to prove they have seen the warnings and queries for information.

About 90 minutes after the disruptive AfD warnings, the user made a series of possibly legitimate comments on AfDs (examples: 1, 2, 3), but then started keeping an "editors I hate" list on their user page, titled "I Dislike Overzealous Deletionists, Including, but Not Limited To". That certainly seems to cross the boundary into a personal attack. Next the user went to KZEY, a radio station, and nominated it for deletion, claiming "I'm not finding significant coverage of this radio station in 3rd party sources". This appears to be a blatant bad-faith nomination with unknown motive, except to be disruptive, considering there are high-quality sources given (Arbitron, FCC, and so on).

I'm of two minds on this. First, blocking the user would be easy and justified. Second, if someone uninvolved can reach out (again) to the editor and encourage productive edits, they might become a valuable asset to Wikipedia.

That's why I'm posting it here, rather than on WP:WQA; at a minimum, it's likely to need an uninvolved editor to monitor the situation closely.

Sorry for the verbose post; it seemed like there was a lot of necessary context to the situation, especially to present it somewhat neutrally. tedder (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I warned the editor on his blantant bad faith AfD. If an admin would kindly speedy keep the AfD in question, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"All radio stations are notable". Is this Wikipedia policy/guideline? Seems to me radio stations are companies, subject to WP:ORG. I'm jusssayin', I really didn't look into the situation that hard. Tan | 39 04:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The standard notability, which has been upheld in many AfDs, is that if the station (be it AM, FM or Low Power) has a license or had a license (for defunct stations), then it is notable. If the station is CC (Closed Curcuit) or a Pirate station, then it is not notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

An odd way to measure notability, as a license is a matter of money - any license may be bought and sold from party to party. Tan | 39 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an old essay out there that kinda says the same thing for both radio and television stations. It needs some serious updating, so for now we just go with the standard precedent standing notability with the license. Also, and it doesn't happen often, but a license can be sold for as little as $1.00 US. It doesn't matter the price. I bet some have been swapped around for nothing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if the article in question had significant and reliable sourcing, we might know how much they paid for their license and Arbitron listing. As it stands, this article is not noteworthy. Sorry. Aliveatoms (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

...and if you knew anything about radio stations you would know that that information is not listed on any application. But you don't, cause this is POINTed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec, r to Tanthalus39) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Media: "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios". Not policy, but precedent. tedder (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(go left) Now the editor is striking Neutralhomer's 'speedy keep' vote. Good times! tedder

I liked that one myself. :) I responded back to Aliveatoms on that one.

Anywho, Tan39, I dug up the two inactive and kinda out of date essays that have the notability concerns spelled out. Please see here and here for both of them. They need to be updated and brought into mainspace (perferably), as I think the members of WP:WPRS and WP:TVS do a very good job (Dravecky and Mlaffs especially) weeding out the pirates and CCs and adding references and the like for all the radio and television station pages out there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw those guidelines. Actually reading WP:BCAST kinda makes me think this "every radio station is notable" shouldn't be the prevailing precedent. We are not a directory of all radio stations. Note that this is not an endorsement of Aliveatoms, who I warned in multiple venues for making pointed and bad faith edits (and who needs to stop). Tan | 39 05:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We only list AM, FM and LP (low power) stations. Those translators that serve a tiny little area, those are not included, they don't get a page. They are listed on the parent stations page, but don't get a page of their own. We are very careful who gets a page, what is added and where the pages are linked to. Trust me, this is a careful project. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry this user feels my efforts to save intersting pages from deletion is somehow disruptive. Aliveatoms (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh drop the empty apologizes and the "I am just here to help" attitude. You are doing nothing but making pointed AfDs and personal attacks. Stop or be blocked, it is up to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of igniting a flame war, I really don't appreciate the multiple opinions that I am DISRUPTIVE and making BAD FAITH efforts. I'm sorry, my opinion is that an unremarkable radio station in a small town that has garnered no press coverage just does not seem notable and meritous of inclusion. That is my opinion. Aliveatoms (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The risk isn't a flame war; the risk is you being blocked or not. User has been warned to stop disruptive, point-y behavior. Marking as resolved. Tan | 39 05:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this user has gone beyond troublesome. So we've got nonconstructive !votes in multiple AFDs, copyright violations, multiple removals of speedy deletion tags, removing other editors comments in an AFD, vandalizing a user page, consistently removing warnings from their talk page from any and all editors and administrators, and a bad faith AFD nomination. I think this editor has moved beyond the good faith consideration offered new editors. Its pretty clear that their intentions are not constructive here and have no interest in constructive criticism of others. WP:AIV refused to do anything here, will some other editor help out? I do not consider this issue resolved. This editor has been warned numerous times. I fail to understand how an additional warning will resolve this.--RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Temporary blocks are meant to prevent disruption and (hopefully) get through to a user that what they are doing cannot continue. I think the time for a short block is at hand and even if it doesn't modify aliveatoms behavior, it will stop the disruption. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Crosswiki vandalism by Disney Vandal?

Hi All

Here we just see a whole lot of sockpuppets at work (all the red ones) over at dewiki. According to this, it's presumably the disney vandal. I've heard about this guy before, but didn't know about him spamming other projects than enwiki (fortunatelly). Looks as if this has changed, if it really is so. Can someone give us a hint on the kinds of edits this user does and what the problem with him/her is? That would simplify identifying such vandalism accounts on other projects. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have you read Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bambifan101? Stifle (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I did now. Interesting, two pages of text for a single vandal :-( But I'm still not sure how to identify him. But it does look like the following accounts are him: http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Gopigates and http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=TheBigTubeAnim and http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=FroggoFan64

Any opposition agains a global block request? --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 13:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, none here Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested global block over there. I hope that was the right page for this... (seems not to have big traffic there *blink*) --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 18:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Loyzaga Article

I would like to report, this Anonymous IP user User:122.104.194.58 keeps editing and removing the proper terms of an Individual Award in the article Carlos Loyzaga. My argument is that the individual award he received in the 1954 FIBA World Championship was called "1954 FIBA World Championship Mythical Team", means the five best players of the tournament. But the said user, keep re-editing the article and change to "1954 FIBA World Championship All-Star" and its gives people the wrong idea that the World Championship has an "All-Star" game. I even provided a source but he deleted that source as well. --peads (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The guy also uses this IP address User:122.104.185.193.. So I'm guessing he is using an Internet Cafe--peads (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incident report against editor 162.6.97.3

An editor under the IP address 162.6.97.3 wrongfully reported me for edit warring today after only one single revert on CNBC’s TV personality Rebecca Quick under the edit warring (3RR) noticeboard. This is the complaint [[47]] in question . While I don’t anticipate the complaint going anywhere, I am really disappointed at the unprofessional approach this editor took. I did not revert his edit without reason. I explained my reason in the edit summary. He did not take my revert into consideration, and automatically wrote me off as a hostile editor with this complaint which doesn’t have any sufficient evident to support it. This is an act of incivility by this editor on me. I would appreciate an administrator step in, look at this matter, and perhaps issue a warning. I do not come on Wikipedia to be pushed around by editors who do not have things go to their way when it involves me in some form or fashion. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editor issued warning. KMF, you might not want to take such offense to things like this - if you edit Wikipedia, you're going to come across editors who react this way. Tan | 39 15:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is KMF's warning, based on KMF's edit-warring behavior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while in the instance noted in the initial report I agree with KMF, I have to acknowledge that KMF's behavior can be at times rude and one-sided. Will put a reminder on KMF's talk page to maintain civility and follow the WP:BRD format for content disputes. Tan | 39 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I edit on Wikipedia, never would I add edits that would violate wikipedia guidelines, like unsource or inflammatory information to name two of the most common issues. In the past when I encounter instances like this one, and another from a couple days ago, I would have taken matters in my own hands. Like I said, that was in the past. Now, I do what I am instructed to do by administrators if I’m ever in these types of situations, take it up on the noticeboards, the most appropriate way. You are right, Tan. I shouldn’t take offense to these things, and I don’t. But at the same time, I am not going to let an editor such as my accuser be allowed to have his or her way on wikipedia if I know that what they are doing is against rules and regulations. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears to a casual observer you took quite a bit into your hands the past few days. Based on your message trail, you sought refuge in rules & regulations only after failing to advance some odd bias against basic marital information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk • contribs)

You are reminded to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Also, how about signing your posts and giving poor sinebot a rest? Syrthiss (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I look at it this way: if the IP does it once, make sure they have a Welcome with links to policy. After all, the folks at edit-warring are going to ignore it. They do it again, it's a civility issue more than anything else, so off to WP:WQA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Would 162.6.97.3's recent edits to another IP talk page at User talk:76.114.133.44 be evidence that they are evading a current block? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a strong possibility. Sonething to definately take a look at. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I had already made that assumption, but was willing to go with it since I had protected the Rebecca Quick page. Looks like they've been blocked now as well. Syrthiss (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor obsessed with making Morganton, North Carolina seem like a KKK center

In the article for Morganton, North Carolina, there are a series of repeating edits that make the city seem like a racist, backwards town with a huge KKK presence. These edits contain misleading and disturbing edit summaries (ex. "Minor Grammatical Revisions"), and "Deal with it"). Not surprisingly, there have been no sources to backup these claims, except a link to a message board post about a KKK rally 6 years ago, and an image (both unreliable). The user who apparently is making all these edits now has a user name Gene Ray Wisest Human (talk · contribs). The last edit by the user was posting a photo that I think is a copyvio [48] (not sure about the fair use claims) and inserting in the article (edit summary: "I win")

Links: [49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54], [55]

Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the Morganton article on my watchlist due to some previous vandalism and saw the "I win" edit as well. I left a note on the user's talk page pointing him to WP:WIN (prior to seeing this posting). ponyo (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor reinserted content, posted on talk page saying Morganton is a "Klan hotbed" [56] --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't WP:3RR been reached? Mathsci (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With Gene's latest edit, yes. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway an admin Tan has intervened, so all is well. Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Geez, save everyone some time: Time Cube + Stormfront = indefblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He's now posting to the article's talk page and Tan's and Omarcheeseboro, he doesn't seem to appreciate Tan's warning. :-) He thinks that the article needs to show " several of the most notable aspects of Morganton (i.e. Klan rallies, book bannings, and child molesters)". Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There's more than one admin on the scene now; no need to keep alerting people of the most recent events here. Tan | 39 16:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time for WP:RBI, though I don't agree with his rationale for having the npov tag up. The only part that could possibly justify the tag is the "pr-friendly" argument, but in looking at the page, it doesn't seem to have an unusual amount of promotion. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're about to reach the limit of WP:AGF over there if we haven't already. — Satori Son 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was probably too cryptic earlier.

• Either this is "the" Gene Ray, or not.

• If not, then indefblock as a impersonation account.
• If so, then I think it's been previously established this is Time Cube Guy (see Talk:Time Cube), who's on an extremely short leash re: Time Cube. His edits to Time Cube earlier today were self-promotional.

• If it is Gene Ray, it's fairly well established (see article, and if you have the time and the stomach, the website) that this is an anti-semitic crank. Edits by anti-semitic cranks using the Stormfront website as a reference should be a gigantic red flag.
• I know we don't want to appear unwelcoming to non-standard editors, but good Lord; does anyone here think there is more than a 0.00001% chance this guy is going to make productive edits? Does anyone here think there is less than a 99.9999% chance of more disruption?

WP:RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Gene Ray Wisest Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There's no indication of him being here to contribute productively.  Sandstein  21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN

SOPHIAN (talk · contribs) Recreated the deleted article Sub-Saharan African DNA admixture in Europe, diff, after it was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (2nd nomination). A speedy deletion tag was place on the article which SOPHIAN proceeded to remove diff. Okay stuff happens, ordinarily not too much of a big deal. The problem is this is part of a long pattern of eccentric and counter productive behavior that include

• Inappropriate accusations of Sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pdeitiker/Archive
• Request for adminship after only 37 edits Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SOPHIAN and solicitation
• Edit warring without discussion on talk pages that has resulted in three blocks within a month. [57]

Unfortunately the pattern of behavior is not getting better. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page, blocked S William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by U-Mos

While its on my watchlist, I've been tracking the edit-warring between U-Mos and...well, just about everyone else. I decided to stay out of it until I saw this edit summary by U-Mos:

"Don't undo good edits even if you disagree with other parts of it. Don't continue to be counter-productive and introduce contradictions into wikipedia. And don't be so fucking patronising."

I cannot speak for anyone else, but that doesn't seem like an edit summary conducive to polite discussion to me. While discussion is ongoing, U-Mos appears to be addressing the editors more than the edits. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that U-Mos has had this issue, especially with Doctor Who-related articles. He was warned about 3RR, and - without having closely inspected the actual edits (there are puh-lenty of them), I think the user might have made over 3 reverts. That, coupled with the unacceptable language in the edit summary suggests that there are some problems that need addressing. I cannot step in, as I don't consider myself neutral where U-Mos is concerned. I thought someone else might be able to step in, calm folk down, dispute protect the article for a bit (though that's been tried before), or issue a block to protect the stability of the article. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Three most recent parties notified of this incident report (1, 2, 3) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a big boy and am more than capable of taking the comments U-Mos has directed at me, and have no particular desire to see him sanctioned for it. On the other hand, I would appreciate someone uninvolved undoing U-Mos's removal of sourced information from the article in question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Phil - this complaint wasn't a reflection of your ability to bear the brunt of personal attacks, but rather that no one should have to. I wasn't even involved, and I thought it was unacceptable. Statements like that create a toxic editing environment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see Arcayne did not link the article in question. It is Companion (Doctor Who). Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

oops. Sorry bout dat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If it would help, I would like to apologise if my language at any point was "unnacceptable". Facing editors who consistently and persistently ignore my points and instead decide to patronise and accuse (in short, who assume bad faith), it can sometimes be hard to remain totally civil. I merely reverted a major (although addmitedly old) edit that had been made without obvious consensus, and subsequently have been trying to make my reasons for doing that known, and seem to have got nowhere. U-Mos (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if I may, if I have written what are deemed to be personal attacks (and if so, they were unintentional and I can only apologise for them), I must also have been subject to them myself. I don't appreciate such portrayal as the "villain", for want of a better term springing to mind, as suggested in this section's title. U-Mos (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And, of course there's the matter of U-Mos' 3RR violation... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

U-Mos is guilty of constantly removing fully and reliably sourced material from a wikipedia page. I have backed out of this discussion, and from making edits after making my opinions clear. I asked for requests for comment in hope that a discussion could be entered into in an effort to avoid a protracted edit war, unfortunatly other editors decided to continue warring. U-Mos is particulatly out of order for reverting after a 3RR warning was issued, and further let him/herself down by using foul language in an edit summary. I would like to point out that although I have made more than 3 edits on this page today, only 3 are in relation to this particular incident, so I do not believe that I have breached the 3RR...if I have then I apologise and would repeat that I have disengaged from editing until a consensus can reached amicably. magnius (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were an admin (and I am) who was going to step into the middle of this (and I'm not), I would be sure to note Phil Sandifer's comments such as "kthxbye" in an edit summary, and "When your argument consists of shouting in all caps that you do not need consensus and that it's OK to ignore reliable sources, it's probably time to go have a nice little nap and come back later" in the talk page in question. While U-Mos might have made some personal attacks, he was goaded into them a bit. This doesn't mean he needs to stop with the edit warring and such, but there's two editors tangoing here, not one. Tan | 39 20:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to clarify once again that if any of my comments were or can be interpreted as personal, they were not meant to be that way. Any rules I have broken were done so either through carelessness, ignorance, or simply being too quick to rise to bait, and I really do not like the implication of more sinister motives existing in either this or my "misleading edit summaries" (I know my edit summaries can be lazy or unclear at times, but this is by no means to hide what I am doing in the edits). U-Mos (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reply to Tan I agree with you, Tan; all three demonstrated a bit less WikiLove than they needed to, turning the interaction into a pissing contest, but I'd point out that only U-Mos violated 3RR and started dropping f-bombs into the edit summaries, which cannot be redacted or stricken through. Edit summaries are just that - summaries. They aren't argument as to why the other folk should simply shut up and accept their edits. That never seems to work, and only crowds and clouds the issue.

Additionally, you assessed that U-Mos was "goaded" into his inappropriate remarks and behavior. Respectfully, I think it's over-simplifying to infantilize U-Mos' ability to control his own behavior. If someone cannot control themselves, Wikipedia is probably not a good fit for their low self-control. Cooler heads should have prevailed. That U-Mos and the others were edit-warring clearly implies that no one was retaining a clear head during the fray. That U-Mos broke 3RR rather flagrantly means that - over the course of five hours, U-Mos did not step away, did not take a little nap and was not thinking about the good of the article.

Not sure if block is called for, but I am pretty sure that suggesting that all parties retreat to separate corners to spank their Inner Child isn't going to be the more effective course here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, no block really needed, we just need to step back and talk like grown ups...and not edit war! U-Mos's arguement does seem flimsy at best though, it seems to rely on calling into question the BBC's status as a reliable source. Surely it's an open and shut case if the network, who have been making the show for the best part of 45 years, list the character in question as a companion? All wiki articles that relate to the Brigadier should respect that and list him as a companion where appropriate. magnius (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that steps into the domain of content issues, which aren't really the milieu of this noticeboard. It specifically addresses behavioral abnormalities and other hiccups throughout the wiki. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

U-Mos has admitted the error of his ways and undertaken not to repeat said error. I suggest we take him at his word and let him go with a stiff warning. To block him now would be punitive. Of course, if he repeats it, then we assume that he is not gonna be keeping his word, and the block then would be to avoid potential damage to the editing environment.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think he deserves another chance to keep his cool. He was blocked for the 3RR, though, but just for 48 days. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

48 days'???? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar

Resolved

 – Page redirected and protected. We don't need it being used like that. Black Kite 21:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned user NYScholar (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been using his/her talk page to wikilawyer regarding the incidents surrounding the ban and to repeatedly contest the ban/block (contests that have been repeatedly denied by independent reviewing sysops). I would suggest removing the user's access to his/her talk page due to exhaustion of the community's patience, in line with the community ban and repeated affirmation of its validity. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the reviewing admins, I concur.  Sandstein  21:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Why was this fellow's talk page not fully protected once the community ban went into effect? I would suggest that we not reward this tirade by preserving it, and instead revert back to the last post before the ban went into effect and purge the editing history. The former user doesn't get to rewrite history and have it preserved. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest turning the talk page into a redirect to the user page, where the {{Banned user}} template is displayed. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever mechanism is employed is fine with me. I just take exception to NYSc using the wiki to soapbox and rewrite history in an attempt to martyr him/herself. I think the posts from the ban forward should be purged. When we come to the rather exceptional point of view that we collectively not only want to block the person but ban them throughout the community, the subject of our agreement doesn;t get any say in the matter afterwards. They do not get to contribute in any way; that's part of the price. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, I just read that load - can anyone, anywhere give me that 10 minutes of my life back? As someone uninvolved with the issue, I am already convinced to support the ban based on the talkpage alone. I do hope that everyone realizes that the talkpage protection is just going to increase his paranoia and belief that he's being improperly silenced by the mob (not that I disagree with the protection)? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuh-uh! There is no cabal. FNORD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I was completely uninvolved, happened to stumble onto the the talk page and have been watching as the tirade continued and increased in volume. I thought it was about time to bring the nonsense to a close.

As for feeling improperly silenced by the mob... eh, what can you do? Get a domain name, some server space and MediaWiki, and you can wiki as you please to your heart's content. Free speech is not a right on a private website like this. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What an idea, a site made by disgruntled ex-Wiki editors. Now, why hasn't someone already come up with that? ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

?:-D Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

2 words: "smart" + "arse"  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

: heh heh. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

IP disruption on Vlore

The IP 91.187.117.132 has been disrupting on Vlore. This IP is only active when there is a dispute involving User:I Pakapshem or User:Sarandioti [58] (June 8, July 15, July 20), who may also be the same individual. --Athenean (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Athenean stop accusing me, I havent even edited in the article. There is an open report on this user, he has been edit-warring [59]. The admin told him to stop it or he would get blocked. See talkpage of Vlore, to see the validity of his source, which is based on a "perhaps". --Sarandioti (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)