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

Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light

A bunch of us are (at the least, I am) getting rather annoyed by one editor who makes a series of bizarre claims such as that the speed of light is not defined as 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light ceased to be meaningful after the 1983 definition of the BIPM as being exactly 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light defined by the BIPM is not the "actual" speed of light but rather some "unrelated" conversion factor between lenghts and time, and so on. For scale, the long talk page you'll see is the result of 9 days of these discussion, which are now simply repetitions of old ones (which are now archived, even if they are 2-3 weeks old at best). This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe. Looking for advice (wheter admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes things around here travel at the Speed of Smell. Anyway, WP:Consensus is key - and article content disputes are rarely actionable 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having encountered him on these pages a few days ago, you certainly have my sympathy. Jehochman told him that he was from that Talk page back on 19 August, so if he continued to edit it after that date he should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS -- unless a later discussion on that page reversed Jehochman's ruling. (I stopped following the matter a couple of days ago, so I don't know what the situation is with him currently -- beyond the fact he is contributing under borrowed time.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the complaint concerns Brews ohare (talk · contribs), who seems to be continuing User:David_Tombe's fringe arguments and has made close to a 1000 edits on the talk page over the last 45 days. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare Your assessment of the situation is incorrect. I have pushed absolutely no fringe viewpoints unless you consider NIST BIPM and J Wheeler as radical. In serious discussions like this one, it behooves you to get your facts straight. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after posting the above, I had a look at the actual discussion, in disbelief that David Thombe would so brazenly ignore that ban -- only to find what Abecedare described: David Thombe had not posted to the thread since Jehochman's page ban, & Headbomb had confused Brews ohare with him. (Or else he knows something about the two that none of the rest of us do; if so, I suggest he share it for the rest of us to evaluate -- or admit his mistake.) On the other hand, these accusations below of a "lynch mob" orchestrated by a Wikipedia cabal reminds me of the first corollary to Extreme Unction's first law. -- llywrch (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

llywrch: Veiled implications that a sloppy editor's confusion between D Tombe and myself indicates some subtle connection does not reflect well upon you. As for assessing whether there is in fact a lynch mob at work, or at least a bunch of editors that refuse to follow the rules of normal WP discourse, these matters are not settled by cute aphorisms or Aesop's fables, but by looking at the facts. I do not believe a lynch mob is normally considered to be a conspiracy (a feeding frenzy is more like it), so Extreme Unction's first law is not pertinent here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So how would you explain his confusion while assuming good faith? If it was a mistake, he should have apologized before now. As for my link above, it was simply a gentle way to let you know that just because a large group of people are opposed to your view, it does not mean there is a lynch mob, either metaphorically or physically. But we are growing weary of your repeated insinuations of its existence. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is your behavior, not someone else's. And, call it a lynch mob, or a gang, or a gaggle, or a crowd, there are a bunch of hectoring, haranguing editors that are impolite, make denigrating sneers, and who do not try to address the issues at all. Whether they are in cahoots, or feed off of each other's horrible behavior, the result is the same: no attempt to deal with substantive issues, just more harangue. Brews ohare (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposed lead to speed of light by User:Abtract found here is technically correct and yet conveys all that other editors wish to say. However, under the leadership of Martin Hogbin no attempt is being made to discuss this proposal, but instead Martin Hogbin is calling for a lynch mob to railroad his own incorrect wording into the article. Numerous explanations and reputable sources challenging Martin's wording have been presented and quoted on Talk:Speed of light, and Martin and his colleagues simply refuse to deal with them. Headbomb should have a better understanding than he indicates following a recent (brief) technical exchange with me at Talk:Speed of light concerning a different subsection.

The point for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not this argument over content, but that there is no argument over content. I have repeatedly tried to get some consideration for my opinion that the present wording is contrary to published experts, and provided sources, and no discussion of sources takes place. What happens is hectoring and attempt to impose majority rule (majority of editors, that is). My repeated attempts to get consideration of sourced opinion is being steamrollered by a lynch mob that cannot deal with it. What is needed is enforcement of WP protocol to address published sources, and to avoid repeated hectoring as a method to squelch ideas.

Discussion of the lead proposed by User:Abtract found here should be mandated. The excitement of mob rule should be squelched. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, here we see a malicious allegation in an attempt to get another player sent off the field. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know what Brews was arguing about. So I decided to investigate the matter. The first hint I got that Brews was right and that Martin Hogbin was wrong, came when Brews was eager to explain his position to me, whereas Martin refused to discuss the matter with me. Martin clearly didn't want to reveal his agenda. It took a while for me to work out the subtlety of the argument, but I eventually realized that Brews is absolutely right. The 1983 definition of the metre has had a significant impact on physics, and that needs to be elaborated on in the speed of light article. Brews is not pushing any fringe theories. Rather, those who are trying to prevent Brews from clarifying a very delicate point, are actually engaged in trying to hide the history of the subject. It's time that the editors who bring these malicious allegations to AN/I are themselves subjected to closer scrutiny. David Tombe (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be another attempt to create an imposed consensus by eliminating the dissent. That isnt what a consensus is about. Frankly, I never would have thought to examine the speed of light article except for the fact that the lynch mob seems to think it is in danger of being overthrown. Then after seeing what they are protecting, I understand the need to squelch any dissention. It is a gigantic mess. So, instead of looking for new people to behead, I suggest that you fellows take a close look at yourselves and get busy fixing the article that at present is a morass of confusion.72.64.63.243 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are such experts, let me ask you this: If I were driving my car at the speed of light, and turned on the headlights, would anything happen? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: With the lights on, you might see the error of your ways?? Brews ohare (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so you don't know the answer. I thunk so. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We can only take action against Brews, if we first have a consensus on the talk page that the discussion on the revant issues are closed and that any further discussions would be reverted on the talk page. If Brews were to start a new discussion that is very similar then we could revert that. If he were to revert that change or keep kicking off new discussions that we would ahve to revert again and again, then we could come here and raise this issue.

But the current situation on the talk page is not like that at all. In fact, other editors are still starting discussions on related issues, see e.g. here Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue about content, but behavior. After being admonished a couple weeks ago by an uninvolved admin for "a blatant violation" of WP:OWN, Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility, plus created a content fork of the article outside of consensus or prior discussion. As for myself, who has contributed minimally to the article or discussion page, his opinion is that I am disqualified to contribute to the page. My response to this personal attack is here, as I saw no need to add to the toxic environment at the article talk page. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Shuba's claims that "Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility" is unsupported, and his frivolous attitude is well described in his own words, quoted here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The only people that come running to AN/I to get their opponents blocked from a debate on the talk pages are those who are not confident about their own arguments. It is gross cowardice to try and win an argument by getting the opponents blocked on the basis of empty allegations such as 'incivilities', 'disruption', and of course the all time favourite 'assumption of bad faith'. This thread is yet another case of it. Unfortunately a precedent has already been set that demonstrates that this shameful tactic can be successful. Tim Shuba has now entered the debate, and he has already demonstrated that he knows very little about the topic in question. His major contribution so far has been to delete a paragraph in the history section which deals which the convergence of the directly measured speed of light with the speed of light as determined indirectly from the measured values of the electric and magnetic constants. This was perhaps the most significant fact in the entire article, because it dealt with how James Clerk-Maxwell concluded that light is an electromagnetic wave. That is easily the most important historical landmark in the history of the speed of light, and it has now been deleted by Tim Shuba who is posturing as a poor innocent victim who has only contributed minimally to the article. David Tombe (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have upgraded David Tombe's page ban to a topic ban covering anything related to the speed of light article.[1] If there is any further gaming of the rules, disruption, or advocacy of theories about the 1983 redefinition of the meter, blocks should follow. Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite my lack of sympathy for David Tombe, I'd like to point out that this is misdirected. Except for his posts here & on user talk pages he hasn't been contributing to anything related to the speed of light -- & there only because because he can't defend himself unless he mentions it was for his edits to his topics -- for his last 100 edits. Except for a few edits to luminiferous aether, they've all been to articles on Canadian currency. He has been staying away from the topic. And as for editting user talk pages, unless he's been posting to them after being told not to, I can't see how that's become an issue. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Jehochman should be censured for this unwarranted act of a topic ban on D Tombe which has absolutely no justification whatsoever. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if my opinion on this matters. I pointed out here that an editor was violating an ArbCom ruling, & was brushed off with the same reasoning that would allow David Tombe to make these edits on Talk pages. Maybe my ability to reason is defective, maybe I need more sleep, or maybe Wikipedia policy is enforced more rigorously for some than for others. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Speed of light (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

There are suggestions above that Brews ohare has engaged in tendentious editing at Talk:Speed of light. Can anybody present a selection of diffs to substantiate that claim? Brews ohare, why is your editing any different from David Tombe's? Why would you expect different treatment if you commence editing in the same style? Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, You clearly haven't investigated this issue at all. David Tombe (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Brews ohare is in good faith, that he (like Tombe) believes that what he is saying is correct. However, he keeps repeating the same argument over and over on Talk:Speed of light, and it is getting beyond tiresome to keep dealing with him, although I just made another attempt here. I count 16 talk page edits by Brews on 31 August (UTC) which isn't over yet, 32 on 30 August, and 25 on 29 August. He edited the talk page 578 times in all of August, which puts him in first place by a comfortable margin (Martin Hogbin is in second place with 225).[2] Scanning the Talk page, with all the back and forth, would give you a better idea of the character of his participation than diffs; I added the talk page info as the third item under this section's heading. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned Brews ohare about his behaviour here: responses can be seen in this talk page section. Physchim62 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised you wish to advertise your attachment to me of sentences you have fabricated all by yourself. Very sloppy, at best, actionable at worst. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

His comment about your username was uncalled for. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Fabrication of fake evidence is more acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why I am singled out as "keeps repeating the same argument over and over", instead of those that respond over and over (in effect, not their exact words) "We don't have to agree with sources Wheeler; Jespersen;Sydenham; we don't have to support OUR views; we are RIGHT."? I have written a carefully sourced presentation of my views in the subsection of speed of light - Speed of light by definition - which has not been accused of being "crackpot science" or "fringe viewpoint" (and various other complimentary terms) even though it proposes exactly the same viewpoint contested. This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead, come what may, whatever its merits. I have explained sufficiently to them that their proposed lead is poorly conceived, and very readily understood to contradict the subsection Speed of light by definition. These editors don't care about that.

As far as I am concerned, these editors are free to mangle the introduction as they wish. I will not address this subject on my own initiative any longer. If I am asked about it however, I will state why I don't like it. That is not "pollution of the Talk page" (another complimentary term), it is just being polite. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Brews' is quite welcome to take a voluntary wikibreak from Speed of light whenever he/she likes.

I hardly need to look through thousands of contributions: after all, Brews has made more than 500 contributions to Talk:Speed of light in the last month [3]. It is sufficiant to look at the arguments that he/she makes at each occasion. The proposed lead is not in contradiction with the section on "Speed of light by definition"; Jesperson is in favour of fixing measurement units to fundamental physical phenomena, just after the passage that Brews decides to quote; "This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead" is hardly the case, given the length and depth of the discussions.

Brews' editing statistics alone support the case of contentious editing; anyone who wishes to look further (brave as they would be) need only look at the pages to which this editor has attached his/her attention. Physchim62 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you so much Physchim62 for your apologies regarding fabrication of evidence. Your theory that statistics can demonstrate contentious editing is pure nonsense, and your reading of Jespersen is illiterate. Brews ohare (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, 583 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light during the months of August 2009… 428 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light 15–31 July 2009… It's interesting that I have to go back from 15 July to June 10 to find Brews' previous comment (the last of 37 comments he/she made on the page in just over two days). Anyone else wishing to contribute to these pages must read through tens if not hundreds of kilobytes of Brews' comments (often very repetitive, but you can't know until you've read them) before then can hope to add to the discussion. This manner of editing is obviously not constructive, it is simply spamming, the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster.

I said that I found the gap before 15 July in Brews' comments quite interesting: what happend on 14 July? This complaint was raised at WP:AN/I, concerning a separate article but similar behaviour (I quote: "The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users!") and also concerning Brews ohare. The gain for the editors at Talk:Centrifugal force seems to have been the loss for those interested in Talk:Speed of light!

I think it is time to call time on Brews' disruptive editing. If it can't be done here, I shall take the matter to a forum where it can be done, and I shall not be so indulgent as to limit my request to articles related to the speed of light. Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to present a little more than the number of edits as evidence of my causing trouble? Please don't invent them. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of edits *are* evidence of causing trouble ... not automatically actionable, but the article talk page is clearly being subjected to unusually high activity from a small set of users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So I should not correct grammatical errors, punctuation or add second thoughts to a response because that increases my count? I should limit myself to one edit a day, and respond to all and sundry in a listed sequence within one edit. That would fix things, eh? OK, if that works for you. Brews ohare (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More comments from Headbomb

Ilywrch: First, I did not confuse Brews Ohare and David Tombe, as you claimed. In fact, I specifically mentioned that this was not the same case, see my words: "This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe". Please don't put words in my mouth. If you hadn't, a lot less drama would have ensued. I came here looking for advice, not heads to be chopped.
Brews/David: I am not a "Example text", nor a "Example text" and do mind WP:NPA. I'll leave it at that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Then mention the person you are complaining about, not who that person behaves like. Your sloppy writing caused any Wikidrama here, & if didn't understand what you wrote you need to accept at least part of the responsibility for that. And I only responded after it appeared that no one else would offer advice -- so kindly turn down the attitude when my only motivation was trying to help. -- llywrch (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mentioned Brews because I wanted a neutral look at what was going on. I take no responsibility for people reading something else than what I actually wrote. There's no need for personnal attacks, so please refrain from making them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb - Perhaps you will take responsibility for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and only the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Is that how things are best done? Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The material is simply there to push your POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior than the fixed value definition. Stating that this does not belong in the speed of light, or anywhere for what matter, hardly consists of incivility. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb: I do not have and never have expressed the POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior to the fixed value definition. Please re-read my remarks. What was said was the the pre-1983 definition was an example of a definition that allowed the measurement of the physical speed of light because the metre was based upon wavelength. The 1983 definition allows more accurate length comparisons, but makes the speed of light an exact conversion factor beyond reach of measurement. Your interpretation of my statements is a non sequitor of the first rank; please learn to distinguish between what is said and what you want to believe. You create the impression of deliberate distortion to enable wild accusations.

That out of the way, I propose that you apologize for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and making the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Brews ohare (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, If you wanted a neutral look to your complaint, then why did you drag my name into it when I haven't edited the speed of light article since 12th August? David Tombe (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has degenerated into a full blown edit war over the Speed of light article again. This article and its talk page are an object lesson in how not to Wikipedia. —Finell (Talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war: there is a simple hijacking of the page by an unruly mob that does not use the Talk page, removes sourced material without comment, makes nasty pejorative comments to get the temperature up, and insists upon a narrow stance contrary to sources. Very professional, very understandable, if you are a hit man. I hope this example is useful in getting WP to adopt a process with appointed editors that can eject those that behave this way. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not just referring to you, Brews. The Talk page is very much in use, but not in productive use. The same people who are arguing about everything on the Talk page are reverting each other's article edits and substituting their own singular visions without any semblance of consensus at to many issues. That is what I understand to be an edit war. No one has hijacked the page any more than anyone else; it's a free-for-all. One issue on which there is broad consensus, though, is that your contributions to the article and the Talk page are misinformed and are not supported by the sources that you cite over and over, and that your behavior is tendentious. —Finell (Talk) 04:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, The blame for this mess lies squarely at the feet of administrator Jehochman. Administrator Jehochman likes to voice his opposition to 'gaming the system'. But he has gamed the system himself in this case, by imposing sanctions on only one side in the dispute. That has given encouragement to the other side, and hence we are seeing bold warnings coming from the likes of Physchim62. This biased action from administrator Jehochman, which I understand was carried out arbitrarily against the wikipedia rules, has given the likes of Physchim62 an unwarranted sense of righteousness which makes him assume that everybody is going to believe that his side in the dispute is correct, without any doubt about it whatsoever. An impartial administrator attempting to end this edit war would either have dished out sanctions equally on both sides of the dispute, or else protected the page from editing until things cooled down. David Tombe (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I will look into the edit war. It would help if editors on both sides posted diffs as evidence. David Tombe, you are violating your topic ban when you comment on a dispute about speed of light. Next time you do so, you will be blocked. Attacking the administrator who sanctions you is a common tactic, one we understand how to deal with. Please understand that I'm not a robot. There's an actual person behind the screen name. Imaging that you're sitting at a coffee table with the person when you post and try to speak as you would in that situation. It will help you get along better. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I may not always agree with what has done Jehochman (see above for an example), but I will support him on this point: you never get positive results by attacking an Administrator. Instead, you will end up like a player who argues with the ref: thrown out of the game. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be in fact what happens; but one hopes that justice can be seen to happen, that decisions are balanced, that appeals are possible, and that decisions will be supported by even handed argument and evidence. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I also posted this on the wikiproject physics talk page:

"I think it would be helpful to discuss this with Brews again (he asked me to get involved on my talk page a few days ago, but I was too busy then), but this time with one new rule: Citing from sources is not allowed. So, we have to discuss from first principles and explain everything when challenged from first principles. This removes the freedom to interpret what some source says in some arbitrary way. Because most contributors are experts in physics, this can work. If someone is not an expert and makes mistakes he/she will be disqualified more easily (precisely because you can't hide behind sources)."

So, this means that we can see some very lengthy discussons with Brews again, hopefully more productive this time. Count Iblis (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have placed an argument at User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example). It does have sources, but I believe they can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion, because all that is needed is velocity = distance/time. The key sources are to the original definitions from the BIPM and NIST. If there is a sourced point that requires some first-principles support, that certainly can be looked at. That discussion page can be used to present comments. Brews ohare (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you submit speed of light to WP:FAR and get feedback from uninvolved editors how to improve the article? That might be a good path forward. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, how many times to these two have to wind up causing massive WP:TLDR situations all over physics article talk pages and ANI? I can't believe these two are here again, and no doubt will once again jam up this page with so much blah blah blahing that they will once again succeed in paralyzing the conversation. Please guys, don't reply to me as I won't be checking back here and don't want you all over my talk page again, I just thought that needed saying. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman: Speed of light in no longer an FA, so it is not eligible for WP:FAR. Furthermore, WP:PEER usually doesn't work well with technical science articles. And regardless of what any outside review concludes, Brews would continue his harangue that everyone else is wrong, or doesn't understand the issues, or is following the party line of the cabal of mainstream physics.

So, to all of you, what is the solution for dealing with someone like Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continues to push his WP:FRINGE POV, though he denies that characterization; who filibusters at Talk:Speed of light, with 506 edits to that talk page since 1 August,[4]; who repeats the same argument again and again, despite near-unanimous consensus that his point is fallacious and that the sources he cites do not support his position; who harangues other editors who disagree with him on their talk pages—including mine at User talk:Dicklyon (under several headings; Brews started 6 discussion topics on Dick's talk page); who refuses to listen to reason and will not respond directly to others' arguments or questions, except by repeating his own thesis; and who will not desist despite overwhelming consensus against his position, which he dismisses on the ground that nobody else understands or has the "courage" to speak out against mainstream physics. And Speed of light is a replay of Brews's and Tombe's performance at Centrifugal force. Count Iblis's proposal to have even more "very lengthy discussions with Brews again" is, in my opinion, π radians from the correct direction. Isn't more than enough enough? Isn't a topic ban in order, as it was for Tombe? —Finell (Talk) 12:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell is beating his own drum, which is that Brews ohare is a nut case. That is his thesis, and any relation to WP speed of light is just to serve as fodder for his crusade. He picked up this banner from a few other editors and made himself drummer boy. He has never pointed out specifically any wording or argument that I have used to justify claims that I express a fringe point of view. What I have done is try to get sources and argument to replace ideés fixe and found that no amount of sources or arguments can succeed. It doesn't help that Finell continually picks things to argue about that either have not been said or say something different than he thinks they do. Brews ohare (talk)

Well had someone explained the problem above as directly & succinctly as you just did, Finell, maybe Brews ohare would have been topic banned by now. (I'm just a lowly Admin, so I don't know if I have the power to do it & since I'm involved it might be best if I don't try.) Until someone who has that power & is uninvolved comes along & topic bans him, tell him to stay off of your Talk page. I think you have the right to limit your exposure to an editor who is behaving in that manner -- as does any Wikipedian in good standing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Direct and succinct, perhaps, but largely fabrication. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2c: I am a completely uninvolved editor w.r.t. the page and Physics wikiproject, but did happen to take a look at the discussion at Talk:Speed of light a few days back. In my opinion, Finell's description of the situation is exactly correct. The problem, is not that Brew's take on the speed of light is incorrect, rather it is a idiosyncratic reading (none of the sources he cites, actually support his position) and he is insisting that it be given (undue) weight in the article, including the lede sentence. Here is the gist of the problem as I see it:

Consider an editor insisting that we need to replace all uses of the term velocity on physics pages by "speed in a given direction" - the replacement wouldn't be wrong, just undesirable, non-standard and, ahem, plain crazy. Analogously, Brew has argued ad nauseam that c = 299 792 458 m/s is not the real speed of light in SI units, it is just the "SI conversion factor" and that this viewpoint should underly the writing of the Speed of light article. Again unjustified, non-standard, and plain crazy.

There is a bit more but hopefully you get the idea. IMO a topic ban or (at a minimum) restriction on talk page posts are long overdue. Abecedare (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare describes a content dispute, and characterizes it as "six of one, half-a-dozen of the other". That is not the case. The basic issue is one of explaining the implications brought about by introducing time-of-transit ratios rather than length ratios for determining lengths. Brews ohare (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think so far my proposed soluton is working ok. On the physics project talk page we have had some excellent input. Unfortunately, I still didn't have too much time yesterday (I'll try to give my own input later today). What we need are more first principles arguments like the one by BenRG, TimothyRias etc. see here.

What we do not need are comments like by Dicklyon saying that:

"Arguing from first principles has no place in wikipedia; we're about reliable sources. What's not OK is for Brews to push an interpretation that he has no source for; he has sources for bits and pieces of info, all of which is acceptable content, I think, but not for his idiosyncratic synthesis from those sources."

Because clearly that doesn't work. You don't get to the bottom of the conflict this way, as I explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

His comment was correct. We can't just throw out WP:V because it's "too hard". We're not all physicists and we shouldn't pretend to be. Evil saltine (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No he was completely wrong. Also, most contributors on that page except he and a few others have studied physics. And it were these people who by arguing on the basis of sources alone caused the discussion to go on and on in circles for a very long time.

WP:V is important for sourcing the final agreed verion of the wiki article. Discussions omn the talk page should not (necessarily) be shot down on the basis of WP:V alone. You have to be able to argue based on the whole body of a physics theory to correctly get to the bottom of what a source really indends to say. Simple quotes can be taken out of context. In the particular case of this discussion, I asked Brews to forget about his source and present his arguments form first principles, so that I can at least get a chance of what he means.

Of course, he can look things up in his source, what I mean is that he cannot say that X is true, because source Y says so. Instead he has to say that X is true and then dexplain why by, perhaps looking up in source Y what the argument is. If Y cites Z, he has to go to Z and in this way reduce the argument to a trivial statment based on the basic theory. So, he has to present the full argument from A to Z on the talk page, right in front of the other editors some of whom are professors, Post-Docs, and Ph.D students. Count Iblis (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that each source should be considered in context of the entire body of knowledge, as long as multiple sources may be used as part of that. I think Dicklyon was mainly responding to your statement "Citing from sources is not allowed." Evil saltine (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis has a very good point here. Arguing from first principles can straighten things out. More than that, a reliance on sources to the degree that simple syllogisms are unacceptable, and exactly the same wording must be found in a source is ludicrous, but often practiced when blows begin. And add to that the fact that many topics exist where the same exact wording is used with technically different definitions: then a source vs. source exchange gets nowhere.

So far as I can see the main problem with Count Iblis suggestion is that it works only among parties that are interested in getting to the bottom of things. The far more common experience is ego-tripping in which one or several editors want to score points, and will go to any lengths to do so. One symptom of that is the use of pejoratives to describe the opposite views (without any attempt to identify the criticized text, but only assertions, mostly incorrect, about what was said) and also vilification of the opposing editors. For some reason this type of cat-calling is so much fun it attracts other editors like flies to dung, and soon they are all enjoying repeating each other, buzzing about, outdoing each other in extravagant invective.

Possibly a stricter enforcement of sticking to the discussion and not using cat-calling could ameliorate this problem. Brews ohare (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Arguing from first prinicples" is an extraordinarily bad idea. In addition to being an essentially endless time sink (the filibustering mentioned much earlier in this discussion), it almost invariably leads to prohibited synthesis. Article contents, language, and arguments should reflect what reliable sources say on subject, not some wikipedian's argument from first principles. This is essentially Archimedes Plutonium redux. Quale (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. "Arguing from first prinicples" is vital on the talk pages to remove WP:SYNTH and WP:OR from the articles themselves. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

Resolved

 – Chillium has left a comment on Sarah777's talkpage, that's enough. No need to take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'd like to draw attention to this series of edits. We're used to all kinds of behavior from this editor but I think this goes beyond the pale to WP:Hound. Note the pointy use of edit summaries, [5], [6] on the intervening edits. Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I should just point out that I fixed the formatting error when responding to the question, but in doing so I do not endorse the content (my opinion is that it is somewhat childish, but ignoring it probably serves the project better than taking the bait). Rockpocket 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems too trivial to concern us. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes with the recent conflict around this user, what is one more? This is clearly disruptive, clearly a violation of civil, and clearly a continuation of counter-productive behaviour by this user.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a peaceful POINT warning. I don't know if more is justified - but am not going to take any action on my own beyond a metoo on Chillium's note. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a comment on Sarah777's talkpage, I think that's enough. Sarah should protest peacefully, admins shouldn't take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins shouldn't take any action against Sarah777 on this issue. I guess anyone with half a brain can understand that. AdjustShift (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nasty comment. Care to retract it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment wasn't nasty. I've never indicated in this thread or anywhere else that no admin should ever take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Apparently I misunderstood I guess anyone with half a brain can understand that. In what way is that not nasty? Please let me know so that the next time someone says that, I'll be sure to understand that it wasn't nasty. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question wasn't appropriate. I've never indicated that no admin should ever take any action against Sarah777. You needlessly asked "Ever?". There was no point in asking such a question. AdjustShift (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. By definition, then if a question is not appropriate, then any response cannot, by your definition, be nasty. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• In looking into this a bit the context seems to be an admin's repeated use of the F-Bomb in a very pointy and confrontational manner. I haven't seen any of the outrage expressed in comments here directed towards the admin. What gives? Is she on the wrong side of the thin blue wall? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  Two wrongs don't make a right, and no one has provided any diffs on the admin.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite

Resolved

 – Tim Vickers (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, I objected to the opening line of the article on The Waste Land, believing the claims it made were unattributed and a little POV ("The Waste Land is a revolutionary, highly influential poem..."). I appreciate RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) may disagree. And he is entitled to revert me. However, I do object to having my good faith edit reverted twice without comment and marked as minor. It seems at least half this user's edits involve using the WP:ROLLBACK feature to revert edits that were obviously meant in good faith. Rollback is for reverting vanadalism and nonsense. It is not for removing people's attempts to be helpful without any explanation. As I understand it, this rule is quite strictly enforced. I'm not asking for this user to be blocked or to have this permission revoked but I do think he might benefit from a polite note from a registered user.--81.108.130.124 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to remove rollback from the account, but the last time I did so (for a different user) my action was unilaterally reversed. So I'll wait for some comment from the editor in question before doing so. Perusing the last 100 contributions for rollback reverts without an edit summary I found >50% of them to be good faith edits reverted as vandalism. This is totally unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• The use of rollback to twice revert legitimate edits alone, with a single talkpage posting, is problematic. The fact that many of RepublicanJacobite's Rollback reverts are of edits that could be considered good-faith shows clear abuse of the feature. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, I've removed rollback from this account. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Endorse removal of rollback, with the note that if he continues to use the "undo" function availible to all users without explanation, it should be viewed as continued problematic editing. Where a good-faith edit is reverted by ANY method, a reasonable attempt to explain why should be undertaken, regardless of the mouseclicks used to cause the revert to happen. --Jayron32 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his response to Tim Vickers [7] I think he may continue to have problems, as his view appears to be that non/dub-consensus edit = vandalism.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And another one bites the dust thanks to Wikipedia's administrator culture. How difficult is it to understand that when you have a non-emergency legitimate concern with an editor, you raise the matter with them first personally and in a sympathetic manner before escalating it? Do you realise what deficiency in emotional intelligence is shown when a volunteer returns to the project after a day or two to find a note saying "Hey, we didn't like some of the things you were doing, so in your absence we held a public meeting to criticise you and decided that you were wrong and needed to be taken down a peg or two. :D"? We act like a mob of socially stunted twelve year old boys so routinely that the above request for pitchforks looks like normal practice. And then wonder where our reputation for being insular disagreeable autistic obsessives comes from. Fucking hell.  Skomorokh  07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I've changed what you put in 'resolved' as I don't want people thinking your comment reflects anyone's opinion. It was his choice not to join in this discussion, he was around at the time. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, rollback is a privilege that can be revoked at any time if it's misused. Asking about it might be a courtesy, but I don't know that it's required. The rules for rollback usage are very clear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I truly regard this as a waste of time and energy, but I want to be clear about the facts, at least. You are wrong, Doug, when you claim that I "was around at the time" and chose "not to join in this discussion." As you can bloody damn well see from my contributions, my last edit was to the Johnny Cash article at 17:31, and the ANI message was left at 19:29, nearly two hours later. I was not in my office or near a computer at that time. My next edit was not 'til 22:41, when I left the (admittedly angry) message on Tim Vickers' talk page. Less than an hour passed between the original ANI message and Tim's message stating the rollback privileges had been revoked. That is one hell of a discussion period. I did not choose not to take part in the discussion, Doug, the discussion, such as it was, occurred, and the decision was made before I ever said my piece. I think it is telling that you regard the matter settled because I decided to retire, and feel no need to consider any of the points made by Skomorokh. The irony of all this, at least to me, is that, given the tone of the message the anonymous user left on Vickers' talk page, I believe that he and I could have worked this out quite easily had we discussed it. C'est la vie. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant you were around before you retired, I'm sorry if I wrote that in a way that was ambiguous. As for saying the matter was settled, what I actually did was change a 'resolve' template from Skomorokh which said (obviously ironically) "The miscreant has been run off. Hallelujah. " to a factual message. Perhaps I should just have removed it, but you said you'd retired and therefore no Admin intervention was necessary. I'll remove it Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, I really am sorry if I caused you to retire. I think there was a problem with the way you were editing. Not so much for me but uncommented reversion discourages all but established users from editing. You're one of many, many others, including admins who've used rollback at inappropriate times. Yesterday I felt I was probably too much of an interested party to say anything more than I'd said. Besides, I wasn't able to leave a message on your talk page because of the semi protection.

This page will be archived in a few days and the whole thing will be forgotten. Unlike with a block there's not, as far as I know, a permanent record of rollback rights being revoked and I imagine you can have them back if you ask again in a few months' time. I really would encourage you to reconsider and stay. --86.25.237.87 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was afraid this was going to happen, but I didn't expect someone to come in here flaming about admin culture. Rollback is a priviledge. The folks who use it are our ambassadors to the world. No one reads or much cares about the signpost, VPP, policy talk pages and what-not, so we can be as newbie friendly as we want there. But they do make edits to the encyclopedia, tens of thousands of people do every day. Each time WP comes up on a site like /. or ars the forum complaints (I know, take it w/ a grain of salt) are invariably focused around admins and hugglers reverting good, sourced edits as vandalism. Each time we revert one of those edits we lose a potential contributor. More importantly, that potential contributor goes off to bad mouth us to their circle of friends. Literally more than 50% of this editors recent edit summary free reverts were improper. More than half the time that he implicitly rejected a contribution as vandalism it came from a good faith editor or potential editor. More to the point, we never would have known about it had someone not come here to complain, because there isn't a lot of energy or willingness to watch the watchers. So no, I don't think this was an abuse of admin power or a reflection on admin culture. I think this was a case where someone was misusing the tool and the tool got taken away. Period. It's not the end of the world, even after a stormy retirement and (seemingly) return. As for your hyperbolic personal attacks and EQ-mumbo-jumbo, I'll let them speak for themselves. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is directed at me, Protonk, you miss your target entirely. I did not object to rollback being removed in this case – the concerns were justifiable, and speak to the same issues I highlight, namely deterring potentially good contributors and fueling an adversarial editing environment. Nor did I claim that any actions taken were an "abuse of admin power" – the actions taken in this case were, as far as I see it, in line with community norms. It's those norms that are the problem. I haven't personally attacked anyone, because no-one is personally to blame – the clueless, self-defeating and project-damaging ways we react to issues with individual contributors are widespread and are our collective fault for failing to reflect and consider the optimal outcome rather than what punitive measures are allowed in a given instance. And no, alienating yet another dedicated contributor is not the end of the world, or even remarkable – it happens around the wiki constantly, the cost of consistently failing to relate to the person behind the other username.  Skomorokh  19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was directed at you. And with respect, "Do you realise what deficiency in emotional intelligence is shown when a volunteer returns to the project after a day or two to find a note saying "Hey, we didn't like some of the things you were doing, so in your absence we held a public meeting to criticise you and decided that you were wrong and needed to be taken down a peg or two. :D"? We act like a mob of socially stunted twelve year old boys so routinely that the above request for pitchforks looks like normal practice. And then wonder where our reputation for being insular disagreeable autistic obsessives comes from." is out to lunch. The entire content of the discussion up until RJB's reply to tim vicker's was calm assent to the claim that someone was misusing a tool, followed by removal of that tool. A tool with a policy page littered with warnings that it will be removed immediately for even accidental misuse. You chose to characterize this process and this discussion as some sort of adolescent/autistic failing of the admin corps. I take deep issue with that characterization and so I pointed out its failings. Walking back the accusation is a welcome step, but you brought it to the table. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, it is a bit odd to try to focus on the hurt feelings of somebody who routinely used a tool to falsely accuse other editors of vandalism. Surely this misses the point? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, who said anything about anybody's hurt feelings? I never said anything about my feelings being hurt, because whether they are or not is beside the point, and it was never mentioned by Skomorokh either. So, what is the point of your bringing it up? I did, however, make specific responses, in the message I left on your talk page, to your accusations, and you have not seen fit to respond. Why is that? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As Elen of the Roads has already pointed out, an edit that you do not feel has consensus is not a "blatantly unproductive edit" and that if you are arguing that you were justified in using rollback to edit war in this fashion it would only reinforce my view that you should not have access to this tool. I hadn't pointed this out before since I thought it did not need commenting on further and that you'd seen this yourself, since you described that comment as just an angry response. I'm sorry if my talking this tool away before you'd had a chance to respond did annoy you, that was not my intention and I'm sorry if it did, but all I was doing was applying the rules - if you use the tool for reverts apart from vandalism it will be removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, let's apologize for removing the tool in a non-emergency situation. We should have waited for the user to respond. That's common courtesy. Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skomorokh; basic courtesy would have been to afford RJ the chance to tell his side of the story before acting. If we don't have enough respect for an editor to want to hear from them in this sort of situation, that editor was not a good candidate for rollback. In Tim's defense, RJ had been notified of the ANI posting and not responded within five hours, but people are sometimes busy in IRL and no harm would have come from a little patience.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like edit warring with rollback to me. I'm neutral as to how this was handled, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor checking in here; but my observation was that RJ was a competent and committed wiki editor who should at least have been afforded the courtesy of a response before actions were taken unilaterally. Rollback is a privilege and in deciding how to use it, sometimes there is a "snap" decision as to whether an AGF edit or vandalism is involved, given there are instances of "sneaky submissions" that appear to be legitimate. That an edit war resulted is unfortunate but more unfortunate is that a good editor is gone. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is spot on why I'm staying neutral, other than to say, maybe it could bear more talking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think in retrospect, although I stand by my decision, I could have handled it more sensitively. I apologise for acting so quickly but at the time it looked like a pretty clear-cut case. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it is rather belated, I've left him an apology. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the right approach; no one acted irresponsibly or with malice in this case, but the acknowledgment that a reconsideration of the process may have been the better course, is commendable. I hope that RJ comes back to the fold, and again takes up the cudgel (have I mixed enough metaphors?). Good on 'ya, Tim! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

Catholic Church again

Resolved

 – After review, text removed per WP:V and Farsight001 warned for edit warring.

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

---

Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has restored an unsourced sentence in a dispute that has gone on for over a year, after being warned that it is a violation of WP:Verifiability. I'm not seeking a block for Farsight001 at this time, but I would like an uninvolved admin to review the situation here and issue an appropriate warning. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive561#Xandar for more background. Gimmetrow 11:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't seek a block, what good would a warning from an admin do over merely warning them yourself? Admins don't carry any extra weight in their warnings... It is not safe for him to edit tendentiously after receiving a warning from anyone; having an admin give the warning neither insures he will obey it, nor does it make any response more severe should he violate it. Why not just issue the warning yourself? --Jayron32 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Farsight already was warned (on the article talk page). Consider it independent review. Gimmetrow 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

It stands to reason the Roman Catholic Church would call themselves just plain Catholic Church, as they believe they are the one true "universal" (catholic) church. Wikipedia is playing into their hands with this misleading title. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetyrow is the one edit-warring here. The whole passage concerned was agreed line-by-line in mediation. It contains two statements of fact, allowably used from Primary sources. One goes Gimmetrow's way. The other doesn't. It was the one that goes against Gimmetrow that he was trying to remove.

PS Baseball. Catholic Church is the name of the Church, and used in full conformity with WP naming policies. Xandar 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, its name is the Roman Catholic Church, to distinguish from other "Catholic" churches such as Byzantine Catholic. The Roman Catholic church is often called just plain "Catholic Church" for short because its so much larger of a church than the others (than any other, in fact). And don't give me this "common name" stuff. I look for "Edelweiss" and it redirects me to Leontopodium alpinum. Yeh, they wrote a song about that: "Leontopodium alpinum, Leontopodium alpinum, every morning you greet me..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is a sentence which 1) make a controversial claim, 2) is likely wrong, 3) is explicitly disputed, 4) does not have source and 5) editors have failed to provide sources or clarify the sentence for months. Enough is enough. Gimmetrow 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What "controversial" claim? That they call themselves the Catholic Church? They probably call themselves just plain The Church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that "they call themselves the Catholic Church more frequently than any other term - even 'the Church'". This should be a simple issue and shouldn't take months to resolve. Gimmetrow 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow alittle sanity. We Orthodox Catholics don't call the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church. Gimmetrow is right.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, LM, but that's a different content issue. Gimmetrow 04:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The point being that the article has the wrong name. "Catholic Church" is incorrect. It used to have the right name, "Roman Catholic Church", but apparently some editors with some kind of agenda got it changed. That's one of the negatives of wikipedia - that a small block of persistent editors can force incorrect information into an article and keep it there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the problem is one of labelling. On one hand "catholic" has the meaning of "pure, correct, orthodox"; to refer to the Roman Catholic Church as simply "the Catholic Church" can be seen as implying all other traditions of Christianity are heretical (some Roman Catholics do believe this, but that is not relevant here). On the other, almost every existing tradition of Christianity considers itself "catholic", especially if they recite the Nicean creed as part of their worship (it contains the passage, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church") -- even Protestant Christians find themselves professing to believe in a "catholic church". In brief, "Roman Catholicism" is less offensive & more precise than any other alternative. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, naming policy supports the use of "Catholic Church", which is the more commonly-used term. And Baseball Bugs is just plain wrong -- the article is about the entire Catholic Church, including the Eastern Catholic Churches. Majoreditor (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That argument for naming it is bogus, as it's not it's name. And the first line says, "Catholic Church, also known as Roman Catholic Church", unless you've decided all the other Catholic churches are part of the Roman church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the entire Catholic communion, including including the Eastern Catholic Churches. Since the subject of the article is both the Western and the Eastern Churches, it makes sense to dispense with the moniker "Roman". I also urge you to read Wikipedia naming policy. Majoreditor (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DBZfan29 unblock request

This editor has been blocked, again, for edit warring and is now requesting that he be unblocked, under the false claim that no one investigated the issue. As he has cleared the lengthy discussions multiple administrators have had with him,[8][9][10] would like to be sure that any reviewing admin for his unblock request make note of his talk page history and the full story before deciding whether to unblock him. Also good to note that he continues to deny he ever reverted despite proving he did so in his own "story" and his second round of retaliatory AIV reporting before he was blocked again[11][12] - he did the same the first time around, as well as make personal attacks against PMDrive[13])-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said they didn't investigate. I said that my report against you was denied because we need to resolve the dispute ourselves, but you weren't. And you make me seem like I'm bad in your sent notice, like I'm lying about all this. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I never made a personal attack against the admin. I even pointed that out. I was just requesting that he not be a part of this since he said he had your back and even threatened to talk me to me again a while back. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acme Plumbing (talk • contribs)

"threatened to talk with you"? How is talking wrong? I also know what happened too because I was involved in it for a second. But then I just watched. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 04:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm smelling something fishy. Another account speaks for the user? Strange. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 04:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow! I knew he was using an IP to edit, but this? Acme Plumbing seems to be a new account and possible been used in disputes before. One could AGF that he jumped in to copy/paste DBFan's responses from his talk page, but of course that begs the question of why? Hmm.... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers, and a word of thanks is due for kindly disclosing the sock and block evasion at a main admin board. Everyone should be so courteous. :) Durova³⁰⁸ 04:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody going to block Acme Plumbing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've posted on Acme Plumbing's talk page saying there is a discussion here and asking him/her to explain the edit. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Startling, their contribs seem to share no topics at all, but it's very likely a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• wonders if this is perhaps a PinkgirlXXX sock instead* Syrthiss (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Acme Plumbing is  Unrelated, just someone trying to be helpful by cross-posting DBZF's talk page comments. However, someone should ask DBZF about edit warring while logged out and the other two accounts operating from his home. Thatcher 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • • • ..."Curiouser and curiouser." Durova³¹⁰ 02:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "...the other two accounts..."? Well, well! Or as Alex would say... [14] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Since DBZF shows the maturity level of a young child, the other accounts could easily be his/her parents, hence (presumably) the hesitancy in naming them. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DBZF has said that both accounts belong to his brother, agreeing with the first part of Looie's comment. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the contributions of the accounts are fairly different, that's a plausible explanation for now. Thatcher 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DBZfan29 does not appear to have learned his lesson from the last block and insists that he did nothing wrong. In fact, he repeatedly blames other editors for all of the "wrong doing," which is not a good sign. I see no indications that the editor will not return to the same edit patterns that originally lead to his blocked in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He keeps clearing responses he doesn't like from his talk page and demanding more opinions when I'd estimate some ten other editors and adminstrators have responded to him and offered him explanations. Instead he continues to claim he did nothing wrong and continues pushing his view, which to me indicates that he will just come back and continue doing the same edits and edit warring the minute he makes an OR edit that is removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that editors do have a right to remove comments from their talk page, I don't think they have a right to selectively remove comments that undermine his position while leaving others. --Farix (Talk) 11:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He can remove almost anything he pleases other than declined unblock requests. He may not understand, though, how this can do him more harm than help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know he can remove anything he wants, its just his selective removals followed by "I want more opinions" just doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth. It seems like he still continues to deny that he did anything disruptive or wrong, and is continuing to dismiss every advisory message left for him. Man, I wish I had the power he seems to think I have :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez

Although this relates to civility/communication issues and I'm uninvolved in this matter, it would not be right to subject another party to go through an earlier step in dispute resolution, when it already went through a later step for similar issues (RfC/U - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GabrielVelasquez#Summary). Therefore, I've brought it here for admins to decide how to handle it. The report made at WQA is pasted below. Also, some other comments/edit-summaries made in general which may warrant attention [15] [16] [17] [18]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Below text copied from WQA.

I am requesting a neutral, third party to intervene in a wikiquette regarding this editor. He has placed a personal attack against me in an article talk page and failed to assume good faith on my part. The origins of this incident are at the Survivorman article.

• An anonymous IP added content that I felt was unsourced and a personal opinion/review of the show
• I reverted the addition using the edit summary "Rv, unsourced and personal opinion"
• GabrielVelasquez undid my removal
• GabrielVelasquez then added a comment to the article talk page calling me arrogant and my edit and edit summary stupid. A confrontational tone was used to regarding verifibility and my apparent lack of perfect memory
• A note about my edit was left on my talk page that I feel was needlessly confrontational
• I requested that GabrielVelasquez retract and strike the comment about me left on that article talk page and reminded him about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF
• I received this reply stating that I did not AGF to the anonymous IP

The paragraph that I felt was an opinion was subsequently removed by another editor.

On a side note, there appears to be additional incidents of GabrielVelasquez not AGF on Talk:Planetary habitability. I am not involved in this dispute and have no further comment or opinion upon the matter.

If a neutral, third party can intervene in this issue, I would appreciate it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The paragraph that I felt was an opinion was subsequently removed by another editor."
  - This a deception, that paragraph has nothing to do with the removed and returned-with-source comments.
  This is a desperated attempt to save face rather than admit error. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NOW that I look at the entire, three-in-one edit I see the other paragraph. I meant to return the single top sentence mid-paragraph and didn't see the full paragraph much lower down in the multi-edit. I would not have return that commentary and was going to reword it or delete it but didn't give it enough thought to do either. As I said on your talkpage Dodo I am not your enemy and asked you not to judge me by that one edit. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also the fresh-IP edit ("removed by another editor") Special:Contributions/207.42.152.210 appears very sock-ish. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Above copied from WQA.

Ncmvocalist, why is this here? Dispute resolution appears to be ongoing between these two users and absolutely does not belong on this noticeboard at this stage. The fact that there was an RfC involving GabrielVelasquez a year ago is completely immaterial to resolving this situation, and does not require that any dispute involving that editor must automatically be escalated to...well, the next step from a WQA is an RfC, so I am still unclear why it is on this noticeboard. Risker (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur - this looks like a simple misunderstanding and overlooking parts of edits and reverts. A little more AGF and a little less aggressiveness in the edit sequence and talk posts would have been nice but this isn't a ANI worthy problem yet. Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I took it personal, does that help?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Understating the seriousness of what happened is not a service to anybody. The series of repeated nasty insults was completely unacceptable -- I am not an admin, but if I were, I would give a warning that any repetition of something like this would result in a block. Apologies are well and good, but the main thing is that you must not do anything like that again. If you are intolerably provoked, get help, don't lash out in that way. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You ask that I not "judge you by that one edit". The issue is not the revert to the article, but to the article talk page. Proclaiming that you are not my "enemy" or am "on your side" does not absolve you of your incivility by calling me "stupid" and "arrogant". And now you have begun to question my integrity by implying that I am involved in sockpuppetry. Feel free to file a request to WP:SPI. I am sure that it will be found that I have nothing to do with any of the other accounts or IPs. Lastly, I find it very ironic that you tell me to "cool off". I'll ask you again: retract and strike your comment about me on the article talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling an edit stupid is not at all the same as calling a person stupid. The strike out was coming, if you look at my contributions you'll see I'm not orbiting you, can I finish my dinner? you can put you spin on whatever how ever you want, but I see you don't want the peace that has been offer you, you want to protect your pride. I appologize for the misunderstanding, but to me your multiple edit shows inconsideration of what you do and pride, even people who looked at this have said it's premature. you'll notice that I replaced the comment that you deleted and added a reference for it. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record I took a second look at my comments in question and I repeat calling an edit stupid is not calling an editor stupid. And I have already apologized several times for the misunderstanding. And in this case this administrator is abusing his privileges to defend his error and pride. How do you start a review of administrator abuses?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did I know this was going to come down to me supposedly abusing my administrator privileges? Very well, since you asked, you are in the correct message board for allegations of administrator abuse. Or you can file a more formal complaint at WP:RFCC. Feel free to point out my abuse of my administrator privileges and the community will decide if your allegations are true. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Before this is closed, since it is an edit by the same notice posting admin and that same time, would someone mind checking this exchange for admin bias. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, I object to the bias representation of my edits by Nmcvocalist's statement.

GabrielVelasquez modified a part of Nmcvocalist's statement. I can understand the motive, but this still needs to be considered when deciding what to do here.—Kww(talk) 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel - Please do not edit other people's comments like that. If you believe that a particular diff does not accurately represent a situation then provide alternate diffs or diff sequences rather than changing the one someone else presented.

We depend on the integrity and accuracy of complaints and responses. Even if a complaint or response is problematic or inaccurate, we need to know that people aren't editing them willy-nilly making it look like one person said something or proposed something when in fact it was someone else.

Please do not do that again.

I have no time at the moment to investigate the depth of the underlying complaint, so will withold comment on that at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Resolved

 – Closed.  Skomorokh  11:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Still Living has been relisted three times and it looks like there is a concensus to delete. Joe Chill (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone else better take a look ( I !voted instead :} ) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I voted too. Onward, yon buck! Protonk (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys suck at closing stuff. D: — neuro^(talk) 08:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Joe, seems your request attracted more keep-happy editors than decisive administrators; closed as no consensus.  Skomorokh  11:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Another reason not to bother with admins at ANI. Whenever I look at ANI, it just seems like it's a place for admins to have fun or defend their favorite editors when their favorites are obviously wrong. It takes bad admins to not except a request to close the AFD and pile on keeps when there isn't even one source with significant coverage. That's just a way for you guys to goof off. Don't say that this is a personal attack because there isn't a better way to say it. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued incivility by User:Ottava Rima

Resolved

 – RFC/U is that way... Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Note: This is not a tit for tat issue, there are serious problems that need looking at User:Ottava Rima has a long history if incivilities and disruptiveness, being bought up here twice in the last 2 months.[19][20]. Forgive me for not going back further, but I think it can be taken as read! Ottava posted a link to an IRC room this evening, which I proceeded to follow (as you do, when presented with a link). Noticing there were two articles by the title Break, Break, Break, with neither showing any particular strengths as a primary topic, I moved the page to Break, Break, Break (poem), and set up a disambiguation page. This causes him to go on one of his outbursts, claiming I am edit warring because I moved a page (I only moved it once I might add).[21] He claims that I am "intent on causing problems in relationship to this set of articles"[22]. Calling for me to be blocked for moving a page.[23] General incivilities towards Hesperian.[24] More incivilities towards me.[25] He then proceeds to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum for no apparent reason, and posts "well, there is one word for them, and I don't understand how such a person is even allowed to walk around without being banned. "[26] going on to later call me a troll.[27] Given his recent outburst, I strongly feel its time something should be done about this user rather than being allowed to continue to roam around insulting anyone who disagrees with him, AN will soon be full of everyone who he doesn't like! It would be inappropriate for me to suggest a course of action, so I'll leave that for others to suggest. I have brought this issue here as AN is not the correct venue for such a discussion. Jeni (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC) User informed of this discussion here. I'm off to bed now I can't reply to anything right away, but I'll be up again in a 3 hours. Jeni (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I think discussing the issue in one forum would be ideal and the wp:an discussion seems to have started first. I think this discussion can be moved there and a pointer left. It looks to me like there may have been an overreaction, but people sometimes get frustrated when poked. If the article was being discussed off-wiki I wonder why you didn't suggest that you think it should be moved and disambiguated instead of just doing it? Also, if you expect civility from others, try to avoid saying things like "I'm guessing you are trying to cause trouble" and "you... are making a fool of yourself". The dispute looks overblown and the editing issue should be resolved through discussion without any more attacks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) This isnt about the issue being discussed at AN, this is about the user. Jeni (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Jeni, for someone who previously had nothing to respond to, you have done ALOT of responding and I can now safely say you are nothing but a big trouble maker. Yes, I am actually defending Ottava. You are the one in the wrong and Ottava did nothing wrong. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) So you are defending his incivilities? Jeni (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Neutralhomer, here's an idea. How about you back up what you are saying with some evidence, and don't just call Jeni a "big trouble maker" unsubstantiatedly? No opinion on discussion. — neuro(talk) 06:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) edit conflict**I have to disagree with Neutralhomer completely. From what I can see Jeni is a sensible editor in very good standing who has made valued contributions to this project and seems unlikely to have any need to be causing trouble. Ottava Rima on the other hand, does indeed have a history of being reported by many editors for problematic behavior and has a busy block log to go along with it. True, Ottava Rima hasn't been blocked at all this year, but that is mainly because they have gotten by with firm just-don't-do-that-agains several times and therefore hasn't done enough in an individual incident to warrant a block but it would all add up. So, no, there is no reason to be defending Ottava Rima incivilties at all.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) For the record, I have no objection to the way Ottava spoke to me. I don't think it was uncivil, and I wouldn't much care if it was. In general I think this place would be much better if a lot of people got thicker skin. Hesperian 05:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC) This isn't a black and white either or. I'm pretty damned outspoken when it comes to OR and incivility. In contrast to Hesp above I think it would be a lot better if insults weren't thrown around so casually and callously. However I think there is merit to the claim that you are stirring up more trouble than the incident merits. Furthermore, I don't have to "defend incivility" in order to assert that you might be overreacting, neither does NH. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not stirring up trouble, I think it has now got to a point where enough is enough. I'm sure your opinion would be different if you were on the receiving end of one of his outbursts! Jeni (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Agree with Jeni. Besides, whether Jeni is overreacting or not Ottava Rima has a history of this kind of editing and has been reported by many editors for such behavior here and elsewhere.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I have been. As I said, I'm in the camp of folks who believe OR is out of line when he acts like this. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Looking at your diffs, no admin action is warranted here. I don't see anything I would block anyone for. If you have a dispute with OR, you will find him more than capable of reasoned discussion. If you have a problem with his overall conduct, open a user conduct RFC. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I see no diffs that support your claim that Ottava Rima even knows what reasoned discussion is.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Oh for Christ's sake. Let's all line up in one camp or another and take cheap shots at each other. Never mind who is in the wrong, nor whether there is anything to be done about it. Just pick whoever you like best and let's get started. Hesperian 07:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I know you are essentially defending me here, but I have to kind of agree with Hesperian, that was a little bit of a cheap shot. Andy was only commenting on the situation as he saw it, and we can't blame him for that. Jeni (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, maybe it was. But that does not excuse Ottava Rima from his actions.--The LegendarySky Attacker 07:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (ec)I agree that this issue on its own doesn't warrant a block, but this isn't an isolated indecent, this user has a history of incivility and disruption, which when all put together *may* warrant a block. When I say this, I mean no disrespect to you, but I haven't seen you around the Wiki before, so I have no idea if you have any past knowledge of Ottava. When I get back later this afternoon I'll see if I can get together a few more diffs to give a bigger picture of this users conduct. To be completely honest, I'd support a "final warning" type action, if any more similar incidents happen, then he gets the block immediately. After attempts in the past to try to get to the bottom of issues with this user privately, I have no desire to try again! Jeni (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC) There doesn't appear to have been an RfC about this user before, and that could be a logical step. Ottava Rima and I have been on opposite sides of a dispute over the wording of a policy just recently, and he immediately started making innuendos of bad faith and was hostile to me. Since we've never had any negative interactions that I recall, it seemed to me to be excessively personal and unhelpful. A recent comment was that my editing made him want to vomit,[28] and he didn't seem to be joking, and another described me as a "single topic editor",[29] which is obviously false. I wouldn't mention it but if there are other editors who've also had problems with this editor then perhaps it's a pattern. If so, an RfC might be the best route to resolving the problem.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The diffs you provide give a more compelling reason to take action in my opinion. I have no experience with the RfC process, so I will leave it up to someone else to start it, but I will support it all the way. I suggest letting this thread run for a while first, to at least let Ottava have a chance to defend himself. Jeni (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I don't see why not. After all, many editors have had problems with Ottava Rima and when this editor is brought to AN/I the same thing happens. Ottava Rima gets off with a warning because the individual incidents have not appeared severe enough. But added up, one does not have to look hard and deep into their history to see that several editors have had issues with this user. And, just for the record, I am NOT one of those editors who has had an issue with Ottava Rima, nor can I recall any dispute from my own experiences on Wikipedia with him. However, one need not look far into this to see that the judgement scales as they may be tip very strongly against Ottava Rima's favor. So, essentially, an RFC for this user, couldn't be further overdue.--The LegendarySky Attacker 07:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) ANI is not WP:DR, and I think you do need an RFC here. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Concur that RfC/U is next step - simply based on opening statement that a pattern was being established. A pattern is not an incident. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Major problem

I would like to note that this user was well aware that I was going to bed and that I would be asleep by the time this was put up in the same manner that they were aware jdelanoy was performing an admin action to make the original move. Such actions show a clear harassment campaign. I do not think this will end unless there is a block, and it would probably a require either probation or a ban in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was curious as to whether this had happened when I first looked at this thread early this morning. What I found out then would indeed suggest that there was some intended timing, although that evidence will be useless since it is all IRC. — neuro^(talk) 14:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An IP Editor

Resolved

 – If you two are going to keep going hammer and tongs at each other you should find another venue for the argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going hammer and tongs at anyone. I asked for help in clarifying that reverting without discussion is wrong, because some editors seem to think otherwise. Jaakobou, on the other hand, made a series of unsupported and serious and accusations impugning multiple editors. Instead of treating our comments as on par, one would think you would be able to make a distinction. Per my comments at your talk page, at the very least, I would ask that you please change your comment above to reflect that, "Jaacobou's original charge had clearly not gained traction..." Given that there is no basis to the complaint, perhaps another admin sould consider issuing a warning against making such accusations in the future. He was already warned of this in the past here, but the message doesn't seem to have gotten through. Tiamut^talk 11:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

209.6.238.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The IP editor has repeatedly[30][31][32][33][34] restored (on Operation Defensive Shield) a version that was initially introduced by two, now banned, editors that has not seen article daylight in over a year and has also canvassed User:Tiamut to edit-war for them on the article[35] - which Tiamut is now doing[36] despite 3 other editors raising concerns about mass editing in the article. It seems logical, at this stage, to suspect this IP to be one of the banned users from the I-P "clique". JaakobouChalk Talk 09:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) WP:AGF. I see no evidence indicating that this user is an experienced editor, let alone one who has been banned. What I do see is an IP editor who noticed that Operation Defensive Shield has some serious NPOV problems and has set about correcting them. Jaakobou may not like it, but the edits are in fact legitimate (and welcome). Tiamuttalk 08:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I concur with Tiamut, assume good faith. IP editors are not inherently evil just because they show an inkling of Wiki-knowledge. — neuro(talk) 09:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Jaakobou has now changed his comment opening this section to impugn me as well (difference between first posting and what now appears). I'd like to note that it is he (and User:Nudve and User:Brewcrewer) who have repeatedly reverted the contributions made by the IP, without detailing their objections to the content on the talk page. It is this behaviour by experienced editors that I find disturbing here. WP:REVERT says quite clearly that sourced edits should not be reverted without a non-frivolous explanation. No such explanation has ever been provided. Tiamuttalk 10:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I apologize if this is a misconception, but I don't think there has been a serious attempt to discus with the IP. There's nothing on the IP's talk page about this at all. The article talk page just says "please discuss". How is that going to persuade anybody to discuss? I know I wouldn't be discussing if someone said they were open to discussion so please discuss. You have to tell them what you think is wrong with their edits and what you think could be done to fix them. The IP has given 2 policies to defend his edits, and the only things that three users have managed to do is to ask him to "discuss" and to get an account. I don't see you guys accomplishing anything but frustrating the IP. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Chamal for noticing the problem. This has also been the case at Battle of Jenin, whrre Jaakobou reverted over 4,000 bytes of sourced material I added without providing a single explanation anywhere. (See here) Nudve also supported his actions there, promulgating the misconception that reverting reliably sourced material without explanation is fine at Wikipedia. Tiamuttalk 10:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Tiamut, In regards to other articles, I'm not overly interested in connecting this "incognito" user with any issues I've had with you recently (e.g. [37][38][39][40]). This notice is in regards to an IP editor who repeatedly introduced a major article change, a revert to an old version that hasn't been introduced to the article for over a year, and that was initially done by two indef-banned editors. p.s. if you're so interested in finding out what is wrong with that version, why not ask? Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Jaakobou, if you're not interested in connecting this to issues you have had with me recently, why include that cherry-picked selection of diffs after your statement to that effect? Also, would you mind identifying the two banned editors you claim originally added this text? I have searched the article history to try to locate the first time it was added, but was not able to find it. You must know, since you keep referring to it. Tiamuttalk 11:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC) PalestineRemembered and Eleland. I'm actually not 100% sure PR was indef-banned, but he did get about 5 mentors frustrated with him and I'm certain his last mentor nominated him for it. Anyways, I think you should revert yourself since, even if it wern't your intention, you have now made the 6th revert to the same text, just 2 days after you've been warned for edit-warring and asked to hold a voluntary 1RR.[41][42] If you don't understand the reasons that the mass change was rejected, you can ask for clarifications. Edit-warring after being canvassed is hardly the right way to work through disputes (see also: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editorial_process). Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, again

Extended content

Everyone walk away. Now. lifebaka++ 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Um, no. We have some DICK issues we still need to work out. For one, the MFD issue is still open, and Tanthalas' admin review is coming up. -Stevertigo 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Both of you said things. At this point nobody cares who started it. Would it not be better to just drop it and move on? Evil saltine (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Yes it would. Collapsed again. Everybody go and do something encyclopedic. Rd232 talk 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) See also: Talk:Barack_Obama § "National Socialism" Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [43] I really hope I don't have to write an explanation. The latter two bullet points put my point across better than any paragraph of wiki-legalese ever could. Sceptre (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I cannot see where you have informed the user of this report? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I closed the MFD and deleted the page. Was there any other admin activity you required? Spartaz Humbug! 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC) ? It doesn't appear to have been deleted yet Spartaz. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Deleted by Chris G. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Restored by Chris G. wtf is going on? MickMacNee (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Ah ha. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I fouled the close - too used to the script I use for closing AFDs I guess. Its gone now and I reclosed the MFD. Its still snowing and the page is never going to go into mainspace in the format it was in. Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Now deleted by Spartaz. Isn't this like, wheel warring or something? Seriously guys, get your ducks in line. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC) How can it be wheelwarring. I see two admins who speedied it and then reversed themselves when they saw the original speedy request had been rejected and one admin (me) who closed the MFD under snow and deleted the article under due process. The next stage for anyone who wants to contest this is to open a discussion at DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC) An 'attack page'? Really? About the only thing attacking Obama in that page was the title if you try really hard to assume bad faith, the content was actualy an attack on Conservatives if anything, and could well have been the making of a good article/section. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Anyone that sees value in that insipid coatrack of an attack article has no business being a Wikipedia editor, to be extremely blunt about it. Haven't heard a peep from Stevertigo since the ArbCom case ended, this is an odd sort of acting out. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Bull shit, to be even more blunt. It was called an attack page denigrating Obama, yet it was nothing of the sort. Unless you are of a mind to automatically assume the title was an actual judgement. Have you read the content? It is not an attack on Obama in any sense of the word, unless or until someone proves it gives massive UNDUE weight to the accusations, and thanks to Fox news half the world knows these comparisons have been made over the healthcare bill, that is obviously not the case. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC) You're assuming good faith when there's no good faith to be assumed. Steve's POV-pushing was the reason RFAR/Obama articles was opened. This is just a run-around process and his sanctions to create a coveted "Criticism of..." article. Sceptre (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Maybe you should include such details then when filing an ANI report, instead of stating that you don't think you need to say anthing. If anything, why didn't this go to AE if the Obama case is relevant? Infact, I'm unsure even what you were requesting with this posting, deletion of the draft or action against steve or both? MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC) And on looking it up, you and Steve recieved identical remedies for whatever you two got up to on Obama's article's, so I think anybody is entitled to assume good faith or bad faith equally on either of you. 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Because I think the facts should speak for themselves when I present a user seriously suggesting an article covering comparisons of a person to Hitler. And the ArbCom remedies did not reflect the disruption caused at all. The equality of sanctions is only because, I feel, that AC wanted to look politically neutral when they didn't really need to make the remedies equal at all. Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) It should probably have been called Obama and the national socialism analogy to avoid the inevitable kneejerk reactions though. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) "othercrapexists" isn't exactly a compelling argument, mick. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Who's making an argument, I'm merely saying that might have been a better title to forestall the kneejerk reactions. MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Tempting to just delete it now but, in all honesty, it will save a great deal of otherwise inevitable wikilawyering and general kerfuffle down the line if the MfD is allowed to run its course. CIreland (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) There's someone sensible among you? And you wrote this an hour ago - amazing that noone else here had the sense to find your comments sensible. -Stevertigo 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Spartaz Resolved  – No admin action necessary. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Note: User:Neurolysis is a partisan in the related MFD and thus has no business closing this ANI thread. -SV Spartaz twice now has early closed an in-progress MFD discussion. His response to my request to reopen and restore the relevant non-BLP, draft, userspace subpage was "no." I'd hate to pull a Sanger here, but if we are going to let 12 year olds be admins, can we at least set some ground rules? Its bad enough we have MFD's where people obviously don't read what they vote to delete. -Stevertigo 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I think you got lost on your way to DRV and I'm considerably older then 12. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Its not a DRV issue at this point. It's about you, your pre-emptive/interrupting/disrupting action, and your non-responsiveness - such that might demonstrate the need for people to be at least.. <this high>.. to be an admin. 14 maybe? -Stevertigo 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) That was the most inappropriate comment I have read in a long time. You should really think before you speak, Steve. — neuro(talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Well, if he hadn't acted out of line, he wouldn't be in tears right now. -Stevertigo 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Wasn't this just being discussed above? In other words, it wasn't necessarily out of line. I would suggest some striking on the inappropriate comments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Where is this discussed above? And how is this above discussion somehow a validation of the appropriateness of nullifying another discussion? -Stevertigo 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The correct venue to discuss the close of a deletion discussion is DRV. ANI is for drama and since you decided to preemptovely reverse my first close without the courtesy of even telling me on talk page I would suggest that you would do well to look at your own contribution to harmony and promoting good faith. Where are you getting the nonsense about my age from? I',m not crying, I'm not upset and I'm not a teenager. You make yourself look stupid carrying on like this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1) (Was added to above comment, but preempted by conflict): You can of course redeem yourself by just doing as I requested - what I shouldn't have had to request in the first place. 2) You had early closed the MFD just as I was posting my comment there. I did not need to inform you on your talk page - I noted my reasons in the comment line. 3) "harmony and good faith" - don't premptively close things and you will also be a contributor to these.-Stevertigo 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Or, you could have saved us said drama by not creating such a piss-poor article that you knew would never have made its way into mainspace in the first place. I fail to see how your actions today can be described as anything but trolling. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) "A piss-poor article" it is not. It is a non-BLP, draft, in my userspace. And I fail to see how wanting to make at least one comment on the MFD before it getting deleted is "trolling," or how what your doing now can be anything but. -Stevertigo 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) You must be kidding me. A partisan in an MfD? Now I've heard it all. — neuro(talk) 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Well you did make a comment there did you not? Hence, why pretend to be neutral here, such that would give you standing to close this thread also? -Stevertigo 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) All I see is you acting like a total dick, Stevertigo. I'm closing this thread before you do something stupid to get yourself blocked. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) That comment means I just reversed your thread closing, and you got yourself your own ANI section. -Stevertigo 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) well, technically he got himself his own subsection. just saying. Syrthiss (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) To throw off a quick reply to Steve, at no point have I pretended to be neutral. You might want to check on your use of the word 'partisan'. — neuro(talk) 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Good. Then the point of all of this is: Don't close threads while they are still running, for whatever reason. This is a principle that goes way back to the beginning of talk pages: Don't alter other people's comments, and don't try to derail discussions by being a troll or a process dick. -Stevertigo 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC) User:Tanthalas39 User:Tanthalas39 wrote: "All I see is you acting like a total dick, Stevertigo. I'm closing this thread before you do something stupid to get yourself blocked." - Violates WP:DBAD and maybe also WP:NPA. -Stevertigo 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) See meta:Don't be a dick. lifebaka++ 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) User:Stevertigo wrote: "if we are going to let 12 year olds be admins, can we at least set some ground rules?" - Violates WP:DBAD and maybe also WP:NPA. — neuro(talk) 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Lol. You've got to be fucking kidding me. Tan | 39 15:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (ec)You mean the "Telling someone “Don't be a dick” is usually a dick-move" part? The key there Steve is that it says "usually"; it doesn't say "always". You're in a hole, bud. Stop digging. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) No, telling someone not to violate DBAD is not the same as what Tanthalas said, which was to call me a "total dick." I of course am doing my best to refrain from using similar language. -Stevertigo 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Man, just drop it and walk away. DRV the MfD close if you feel like it, but continuing here isn't gonna' make anything good happen for anyone. lifebaka++ 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Don't get your threads confused. This one is about Tanthalas' foul NPA-violating mouth.-Stevertigo 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) If this fucking thread is about my fucking mouth, you've been fucking misinformed that Wikipedia is somehow fucking censored. Get over it. Tan | 39 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Keep talking. -Stevertigo 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Will somebody please collapse this mess? — neuro(talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Why? It's almost an Arbcom case. -Stevertigo 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRV

As there is no appetite to resolve this here, I've filed a DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism. It might be helpfull if some kind soul does the temporary restore jazz, to help those without magic powers to see for themselves what was and was not on this page and why it needed to be spirited away into the night with such haste and accrimony. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest against the temp restore, simply due to the number of people already shouting BLP. I am happy to email the code from the last version upon request, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackbooted Thug

On July 12, 2007 User:MatthewSMaynard made Jackbooted Thug, and made it a redirect to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, diff. Thanks to the alertness of User:IvoShandor, I was made aware of this and have changed it to a redirect to Thug for now. I checked the 3 most recent months for hits on this title. The most were 27 in June 2009, while July and August had only 11 and 12 hits each.

My initial thought was just to delete the page altogether, but I thought I would wait and ask here for consensus. It does not get a lot of hits, but it does get some, so perhaps it should stay as a (protected?) redirect.

I am also wondering what sort of actions beyond a warning (if any) should be taken with regards to User:MatthewSMaynard. After I post this I intend to leave a note on his talk page directing him here. A quick check of his recent contributions shows he is not very active. I have not gone through all of his contributions to look for more nonsense like this, or his talk page history to see if he has received warnings.

Your thoughts? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The user ID was created almost exactly 4 years ago. The "jackbooted thug" redirect was created in summer of 2007, as you noted, so a warning about it seems a tad late. The user has had a grand total of 2 edits in 2009, so either he's mostly editing under a different user, or is just an occasional drive-by. He's obviously a gun lover, which his latest edit indicates, and hence I don't think it's a compromised account. But it bears watching. A warning at this point would be a more generic warning to watch out for POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a valid redirect using a valid search term. In the firearms community, the BATFE is almost exclusively referred to as a group of jackbooted thugs. This is a notable term as its use in a fundraising letter from the NRA caused President George H.W. Bush to resign his membership in that organization. Why does the redirect so trouble you? L0b0t (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a POV-pushing term. Can you demonstrate that its origin and sole usage is by the NRA? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec w/ Bugs) There's likely an article to be had on this. Meanwhile, if sources can be found to support the redirect and the article itself notes the term, it can stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just checked and neither the word "jackboot" nor the word "thug" appears in the current version of the ATF article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To put the jackboot on the other foot, how about if we create a redirect for Redneck gun-freak to National Rifle Association? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, if the sources are to be had, which is to say, if the term has become widely noted as popular jargon for members of the NRA (or whatever), it can be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point of the "Neutrality of redirects" section at WP:REDIRECT, but at some point there is a line drawn between non-neutral terms to direct users to article and outright pejorative attacks. "Jackbooted thugs" doesn't seem to be specific enough to any one group or movement, it is more commonly used to refer to any group, government, organization, etc...perceived as heavy-handed or oppressive. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sources would at least need to show that such a term was widely used/noted in published coverage of the topic to which it was redirected, such as Dittohead. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Bugs, your redirect sounds fine too except for the obvious fact that most NRA members are not southern or even English farmers in Southern Africa (redneck comes to us from rooinek, a Boer slur against the English) Having several friends & family members who are FFL holders, I can assure you that the BATFE (esp. in the 70s-80s) acted like stormtroopers, showing up at one's house in the wee small hours, handcuffing license holders to chairs while agents conducted inventories of license holder's firearms. This situation got so bad that Reagan made a campaign promise to do away with the BATFE (he broke his word). Then in 1995 (IIRCC), Wayne LaPierre sent out a letter in which he referred to BATFE agents as "Jackbooted government thugs." Now, as far as I an tell, the term jackbooted thugs has been used since (at least) the 1960s to refer to oppressive appendages of officialdom so the term itself could use a discrete article or at the very least a mention in BATFE, Thug, Jackboot, etc. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The incident is actually already covered at Jackboot so I will change the redirect to point to that article. L0b0t (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To redirect such an obviously biased and inflammatory term to a government agency is nakedly obvious POV-pushing. Some of us consider the NRA itself to be the "jackbooted thugs", but that's another story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could balance things out out redirecting Floyd R. Turbo to the NRA. PhGustaf (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Freakin' A, Bubba. I was also thinking maybe we should redirect "Treason" to "Confederate States of America". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to redirect Open Dates in October to Wrigley Field. --Smashville^talk 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is fair and proper to create helpful redirects to perpetuate rhetorical hyperbole, there are a number of helpful lists out there: List of ethnic group names used as insults, List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity, List of religious slurs, etc. The subject redirect may be entertaining in some sense, but really, should WP be selling woof tickets? Steveozone (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Man. I was all like, "what the hell is a woof ticket?" when damned if woof ticket isn't a blue link. Obviously there are gaps in my education. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, thar be some gems out there. If you didn't know it, but get it having read it (before writing it), ain't Wikipedia grand? [ ;-) ] Steveozone (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this anti-Semitic?

Here's a recent post to Talk:David Irving [44]. In my view "religious zealots" is a euphemism for Jews. And the fact that I am an atheist won't prevent me from being classed in with those religious zealots who watch the article for 24 hours a day and insist on describing this individual as a Holocaust-denying anti-Semite just because he has lost court cases on those issues in ultiple jurisdictions.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can't tell, how can it be "anti-Semitic?" -Stevertigo 15:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the user's first edit in a month, so I'm kinda' confused where that comment came from. Regardless, all they need is some talking to. No admin intervention necessary here. lifebaka++ 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz/Fan mail

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the proper place to bring up such a concern, but this page seems to be a violation of WP:DENY. I know it is userspace, but I have heard of userboxes that referenced WillyOnWheels, and this was done away with due to the successful WP:DENY policy. This "fan mail" page seems to give recognition to obscene vandals and trolls. When view the page's history, you can see that some of the attack comments were even directly added to that page by the trolls and vandals themselves. The page does seem to give encouragement for recognition. I know it is only one page, but only User:Malik Shabazz has a page such as this. I have nothing against Malik Shabazz. I only request that this page be deleted. I don't think that there should be any pages such as this, and I certainly wouldn't want any other users to create one. However, I wouldn't bring my concerns here unless I thought that there was a violation of policy. WP:DENY has been successful in keeping even the most infamous vandals, such as User:JarlaxleArtemis, off of Wikipedia. A certain redirect reference his nickname was deleted per WP:DENY. I only request that the "fan mail" page that I have brought to your attention be deleted. Thank you for your time.--Quince Quincy (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD is the right place for this. :) — neuro^(talk) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Quince Quincy (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I have seen multiple users with pages and sections on their userpages like this, dedicated to the same thing. If memory serves, some were kept. — neuro^(talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I collected a few off-wiki bits where I am mentioned by name and put them on my user page (linked in sig). I don't think a collection of personal attacks would necessarily encourage more. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Peltimikko at Communist genocide

There is an on-going discussion at Communist genocide concerning an article merger. User:Smallbones deleted the merger tag without discussion with the notation No consensus to merge despite lengthy discussion. I then set up a discussion on the talk page stating that consensus was required in order to remove the tag[45] and restored the tag with the notation Need a consensus not to merge in order to remove tag - see discussion.[46] User:Peltimikko then reverted without any discussion on the talk page with the notation One month without consensus. What would a month or a year more do? Probably nothing.[47]

The WP policy is:

To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.[48]

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't keep a discussion open forever until a consensus has been reached one way or the other. That's nonsense. And you're misinterpreting the above passage, it's saying what to do if there has been a consensus reached, it says nothing about what to do if a consensus has not been reached. Requesting a major change to an article such as a merge, or deletion, or rename requires that a consensus be reached if there is opposition to the change. If, after a reasonable amount of discussion that consensus can't be reached, then the change isn't made. It is not required that a consensus be reached one way or the other, if there is no consensus then you leave the article alone. It sounds like both Smallbones and Petlimikko were correct in their actions, a month certainly seems like a long enough time to wait if discussion has stalled and nobody can reach an agreement (for example, deletion discussions only last a week). If you feel strongly about this you might want to seek dispute resolution but I don't think administrator action is required for any of this. -- Atama頭 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, "no consensus" often is the outcome of these discussions (look in the passage you quoted about about how to archive a merger proposal, and where it talks about indicating the outcome). Also, did you post this here to request that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion? (I assume you don't want the discussion closed at all.) That would be the only administrator action that I could see resulting from this. -- Atama頭 17:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The merger proposal has been open for 24 days (since August 10), so sorry if anybody thinks that is not "almost a month." The wording here is a little tricky with "no consensus to change" perhaps meaning different things to different people. So I'll ask an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Can I do that here? Smallbones (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire

I am echoing what Georgewilliamherbert has said and laying the ground rules. Once the protection for the page ends on September 11, any person that restores the article or replaces the redirect will be blocked at increasing increments as is standard practice for edit warring until such time that a clear consensus has emerged. Any editor who disputes these ground rules please feel free to get the blocking policy changed. If you cannot get the hint after the page being protected three times and cannot come to an agreement and cannot be mature enough to simply leave the article be, then its clear that protection is not helping. Start working together. Thank you.

Seddσn ^talk 01:13, 5 September 2009}}

This is a blanking of a Top priority and High priority article with a personal attack in it. If you look through the history, a group of five editors, Alefbe, Kurdo777, Dbachmann, Folantin, and Fullstop, have been pushing for a removal of the Persian Empire page in various ways.

The first time this was undone was by Wizardman. This was reverted by Folantin, claiming that there was consensus. The page, before her revert, reveals Dbachmann at 14:05, 15 August 2009 stating that the page should merely be renamed, R'n'B at 09:26, 21 August 2009 saying that "rather, there is a historical succession of different states within the same (or similar) territory and culture that have a clear relationship to each other" and arguing for the page to be met with a better summary style but kept. Then there is BritishWatcher at 14:33, 21 August 2009 saying that the page should not be blanked.

It is clear from the talk page that there was no consensus at the time. Afterward, myself and others, including Shoemaker's Holiday, NuclearWarfare, Xashaiar, Warrior4321, Dekimasu, etc (at least 8 in total) stating that the page should not be turned into a disambiguation page or a redirect. There have only been five editors claiming that it should be, and they are constantly edit warring and fighting against consensus. Folantin, Fullstop, and Dbachmann have a very long history of interacting and working together to push the same views on multiple pages as you can see here and on their talk pages. Alefbe has a long history of pushing his POV at various Iranian related sites and Kurdo777 is a Kurdish POV pusher with an anti-Iranian agenda that has been criticized for using sock puppets and violating our policies on content many times before. It seems clear that these users would rather edit war and attack others in order to push their POV than actually deal with consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not about content dispute. Alefbe (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Ottava's claims are clear examples of Ad hominem and should be addressed according to the Wikipedia policy (this is the only part of the dispute which is relevant to the admins). Alefbe (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava is just trolling and should be sanctioned. He has no interest in Iranian history whatsoever. He's just there to disrupt because he has a grudge against me over his failed RfA (this can be documented with evidence). The one feature members of the "cabal" he is alleging have in common is that they have all spent a lot of time contributing to articles on the history of Iran. The same cannot be said about some of Ottava's "supporters". It's time for a ban on OR for his constant violations of WP:POINT.--Folantin (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you honestly suggest that you have the right to WP:OWN a page and tag team simply because you work in an area a lot? Furthermore, you edit warred to promote this POV on a lot of pages I am involved in. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Ottava, you have a grudge against me. That's the only reason you are there. Articles are generally best edited by those with some knowledge of the subject. You have demonstrated a woeful grasp of the most basic facts of Iranian history. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN applies to groups of editors just as much as it does individuals -- even people who in your view have a "woeful grasp of the most basic facts of Iranian history" are allowed to edit there by default. Ottava and others have the same right to edit such pages as you. — neuro^(talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise stalking was allowed now. --Folantin (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a page that I have seriously edited for a long time. As can be seen, Folantin came onto the page at 15:45, 21 August 2009 and altered the title away from "Persian Empire" on a link with an edit summary (→1730s: sp. per Wikipedia article. Persia=Iran). It was reverted after Wizardman restored the Persian Empire page back to what it was. She reverted again with an attack on my understanding of 18th century history. As you can see, there is no "stalking" going on. However, Folantin does have a history of going to pages I edit and disrupting. This can be seen at Ludovico Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd been editing articles relating to Ariosto long before you turned up, e.g. [49] --Folantin (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you never showed active interest until after I was expanding the page. Making one little change is far different than attacking someone who was fixing the page. Hell, you never showed any actual active interest on that page besides some of the most minor changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have provided more than enough sources on the talk page verifying my statements there, and if Arbitrators or anyone else in high status would like to query me on my academic background and possible post-graduate classes I may have taken in the area of the topic to verify that it is not just some "random" subject for me or something I don't know about, they can feel free to email me. Most Arbitrators should already know my personal information, but I can forward more information verifying this in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No you haven't, because there's no way the following statements (a brief sample of your gaffes) can be justified: "The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD." Again: "The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." And when did the "Ottoman conquest" occur? In 1800 AD apparently: "Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD." --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided many sources verifying my claims. But ANI is not about content, it is about actions and edit warring. Please stay on topic instead of trying to derail this like you did with any discussion on the Persian Empire talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Constant page blanking and edit warring is not a content dispute. It is a major policy violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

all there is to say about this is that Ottava is trolling the page (and now forum-shopping about it), but is about to hit 3RR, which is why we have 3RR, so the problem is going to take care of itself. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why would redirecting the article Persian Empire to an article on the "first" Persian Empire make sense? And secondly, why was the edit summary "reverting unproductive edit from unproductive editor" used? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Clear evidence of Ottava's trolling. When I pointed out the use of "Persian Empire" in the current version of Encylopaedia Britannica, he stated, "Britannica is not a reliable source. It is a tertiary source. We use secondary sources." [50]. A few days later he started a section discussing how he was going to use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source. So the up-to-date Britannica and Encyclopaedia Iranica (dismissed by Ottava as "not a reliable source") are irrelevant, but a 100-year-old work is worthy of consideration? Ottava doesn't actually care what he says. He just wants to create drama and get his way no matter how much time he wastes.--Folantin (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• The 1911 source was used to point out a pre-modern source. There is a major difference from using an old source to show how the term used to be used extended back into history and a modern source in order to claim how the source -only- should be used. Furthermore, why do you keep trying to dodge from the edit warring aspect and the lack of consensus for your version while edit warring to keep it in? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of OR's grudge against me. Significantly his very first edit to Talk:Persian Empire was to accuse me of "disruption" (even though I've edited at least a dozen articles on Iranian history) and call for me to be banned [51]: "However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Wikipedia to put a page in place". This is clear violation of WP:TALK, yet it is a threat Ottava will repeat many, many other times in the course of the debate. (of course, he's made worse threats during the course of the same debate, some of which have ended up on ANI [52]). --Folantin (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we not consider the reversion of an Arbitrator in good standing, Wizardman, as disruptive when he makes it clear that there was no justification for a large scale blanking of a page on the talk page? Folantin, it is clear that your behavior was highly inappropriate and no amount of deflections or the rest can hide from that. You edit warred a vandalistic act against an Arbitrator in good standing without even having the decency to try and talk about it first. That is highly inappropriate conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually understand Wikipedia? Arbitrators have no more authority over content than anyone else. Wizardman was not there as part of ArbCom, he was there as a private editor. He made no contribution to the discussion on the talk page before he reverted me. I asked him to do so because the article was undergoing an overhaul [53]. I haven't edited the page itself in two weeks so your constant demands to have me "banned for edit-warring" are simply evidence of your harrassment of me. --Folantin (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is this - you can bash me all you want, but you have no grounds to claim that Wizardman was acting inappropriately. As such, you have no argument to justify your actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava -- would you please listen to me if I make a suggestion? -- When you encounter someone who disagrees with you on something, large or small, content-related or policy-related or anything else, would you please strive to treat the editor with whom you disagree with dignity, respect, and decency, in accordance with the Golden Rule and, I believe, our policies? I see you shrilly calling for various people in the last couple weeks to be banned, and in one case you threatened to call someone's school because you'd "discovered the new Essjay" -- please, please, please dial it back before something bad happens? Do you really want other people to treat you that way? Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, you are not a neutral party, so please don't pretend to be one. Your characterization as things like "shrilly" do poorly for you, as they don't represent anything close to the truth. And "threatened to call", that is a fine way of completely misrepresenting a situation. What I want is for people like you to stop violating our rules, making false accusations, and making up things simply to defend a friend. It is 100% obvious that the five listed were edit warring in a blanking of a top priority page. Your ignoring of that is telling. You and Folantin and anyone else can try and hide from the issue, but it is blatant to any objective observer. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What's blatantly obvious is that you are prepared to disrupt Wikipedia in the pursuit of your own grudges. It's obvious it's personal. Here are a selection of your comments about me: "You are a troll and you should have been banned long ago." [54]. "Folantin, I am going to call you a liar" [55]. Bizarre accusations that I am a Georgian show you are desperate to smear me with anything that comes to hand [56] [[57]--Folantin (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, are you saying that Wizardman is now under my payroll and that the page was originally created just to spite you, and that his revert was to do the same too? Once again, you are trying to hide from the fact that you are a disrupted user that edit warred on that page and that you have a history of doing that to articles at the fringe noticeboard and elsewhere. If anyone needs proof to see how badly Folantin tries to manipulate things, check the claim that I said that Folantin was a Georgia ("accusations that I am a Georgian") with the link. I never said anything about their ethnicity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(We will return to The Young and the Relentless after this commercial break)

Geez...no kidding...I honestly don't even know where to begin here. Help! --Smashville^talk 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about blocking Ottava Rima for a short period of time for personal attacks and disruptive editing? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support this based on the other events of the last 24 hours, alongside this. Jeni ^(talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Jeni. Tan | 39 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to state my opinion. And I have expressed it in a reasonable and civil manner. Are you trying to censor me? Jeni ^(talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to censor you. Perhaps censure you for jumping in to a discussion that you weren't involved in and waving your "I support a ban!" flag about an editor with who you clearly have a grudge. It's possible to be technically civil but ultimately disruptive. Tan | 39 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't suggest I have a grudge without providing evidence to back it up. Its only reasonable I notice this discussion, after all, ANI is still on my watchlist from the previous Ottava thread. This just hammers home the need for action. Jeni ^(talk) 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus has a long history of tag teaming with Folantin, which can be seen at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And the smears keep coming. --Folantin (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that he did not edit that page? Are you claiming that you two have not worked on many topics together? That you two haven't spent a lot of time at the fringe noticeboard together? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How utterly predictable. Indeed, some of Folantin's interests overlap with mine, and we've edited some of the same pages (I bet you could count the number of overlapping _articles_ on your fingers, though). Exactly how does this prevent me from forming an opinion that Ottava Rima is a tendentious editor whose personal attacks are irritating and block-worthy? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Some? You sure do have an odd definition of the word. It doesn't take much to see that glancing at most of those pages show a lot of constant backing each other up, answering for the other, etc. You aren't a neutral editor in any kind of capacity but quite the opposite. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is definitely a good one to see how neutral you are to the users here. Or this one, another fine meat puppeting. Or this, surprising how so many of the same names keep appearing. Another. I can go on. There are many wonderful ones and this hasn't even touched the noticeboards that have a lot of reinforcement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's awesome that statements like "you aren't a neutral editor in any kind of capacity but quite the opposite" and unsupported accusations of meatpuppetry aren't covered by WP:NPA. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"and unsupported accusations" I'm sorry, but those links are clearly visible for everyone to see. That means that you are lying or you failed to see what you were responding to. Either way, your comments are inappropriate and make you look very poor especially when the links show that you have acted highly inappropriately for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and now an accusation that I'm a liar. Thanks for maintaining the elevated tone of discourse around here. Pray tell, what highly inappropriate behavior are those links supposed to show, exactly?

Also, if you're going to accuse me of failing to see what I was responding to, you might want to note that I said "I bet you could count the number of overlapping _articles_ on your fingers". Now, your little "wikistalk" page might show that Folantin and I have more _articles_ in common than I thought, but I don't see how our editing of Athena, Cadmus, Orpheus, and Corinth is problematic. I'm sure you'll come up with something, though!

And I repeat, even if I share editing interests with Folantin and Dbachmann, how does that prevent me from coming to my own independent opinion that you're a tendentious editor who engages in unjustified personal attacks? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The point

The matter has been ignored: 1. the Persian Empire page is still blanked as a redirect against consensus. 2. this has been edit warred back in against consensus. 3. the page was protected many times because of this edit warring removal of the page. The five users listed above are intent on edit warring to their version no matter what and not discussing how to actually improve the page. The page is a top priority and high priority page, and overwhelming consensus is that an encyclopedia article is needed on the term. WP:VAND makes it clear that blanking is the large removal of content from an article without discussion and going against our policies. This fits and these individuals are edit warring in a vandalistic action. This must be addressed by admin. I would recommend either blocks or probation against people blanking the page under threat of a block if they do. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No the matter is your appalling behaviour once again. Since ANI is the chocolate teapot of Wikipedia noticeboards, I imagine this will end up being marked "resolved" with no action taken against you because you seem to have carte blanche to behave however you like. ("The page is a top priority and high priority page." Um ,it's been marked for clean-up and unverified claims since March. You only saw it as a "priority" once you noticed me editing there). --Folantin (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I made you, Dbachmann, and Alefbe edit war and blank a page against both consensus and our policies? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid it, a sourced article of a well known empire shouldn't be redirected. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Uninvolved editor who just noticed this) --Rockstone (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You really should have read the arguments on the talk page before you did that. The whole page is simply a content fork of History of Iran. Far from being "well sourced", it contains multiple errors. --Folantin (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Folantin's claim that this is a content fork or copy of the History of Iran page has been pointed out as 100% wrong, since it covers material from History of Afghanistan and many, many other pages that the History of Iran page does not. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: ANI is not the right place for discussing the content of pages. For that, you should go to their talk page and read arguments of others and then elaborate your justification there (before doing any drastic edit in that page). Alefbe (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Alefbe just edit warred on the page again. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflation of two issues

There are two issues we need to seperate here, because the matter is getting confused...

1. Should the article "Persian Empire" be redirected to the Acheaminid Empire, or should the old article which discusses all various empires which have occupied the area of modern Iran be there instead.
2. Has Ottava Rima engaged in personal attacks and incivility

I posit that the main problem here is that, from what I can tell by looking at the talk pages, and most importantly per WP:PRESERVE, there does not appear to be a compelling consensus for replacing the old content with a redirect, and without preserving the old content in another article. If the Persian Empire title SHOULD be a redirect, then something needs to be decided with how to handle the content that was removed in making it a redirect. Thus, the gist of Ottava Rima's objection is compelling; the redirect does appear to be a problem. AND YET, I find that Ottava Rima's behavior here is a major problem; in that this user is clearly engaging in unaccepatable personal attacks in trying to defend their position. Calling other editors names like "POV pusher" is unacceptable. In conclusion, the article should probably not be a redirect, thus I agree with Ottava Rima, and yet I find his behavior to be reprehensible in the way that the issue has been handled. --Jayron32 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The content is available elsewhere at History of Iran, Achaemenid Empire etc. etc. --Folantin (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I kinda see that. Let me change my proposal then; the Persian Empire should probably redirect to History of Iran, since THAT article is the one that covers all of the various states that have been known to history as "Persia". I think the major concern, since WP:PRESERVE does not seem to be as big of a problem as I thought, is the singling out of a single Iranian empire to be the target of the "Persian Empire" redirect. Why not just redirect the article which describes ALL empires in the area of Modern Iran, and let the reader figure out which "empire" they want. Now that I see that most of the content WAS redundant, I can see where a redirect would be a good idea, but the target appears to be a problem. --Jayron32 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Persian Empire deals with the History of Afghanistan and other pages and cannot be redirected to the History of Iran nor is the content the same. Folantin's claiming of this over and over has been proven as incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"n that this user is clearly engaging in unaccepatable personal attacks" NPA says that a personal attack is only one that does not focus on action. POV pushing by definition is an action. POV pushing is -exactly- what happened, as edit warring and blanking of pages based on a POV that is not accepted by consensus is POV pushing. Jayron, please read WP:NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NPA states clearly to comment on the content, not the person. If you feel that the content that they propose violates WP:NPOV, then state "This content violates NPOV and should not be the way it is". When you call someone a name, then you cross the line, regardless of what that name is. You will stop calling people names, which is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You can raise problems without resorting to name calling. --Jayron32 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, commenting on the person would be calling them ugly or stupid. Saying they are pushing a POV is describing an -action-, not a physical attribute. And calling someone a name? Please, there is no way you can stretch that one, as there is even a major essay about calling something exactly what it is when they are violating a rule. I think you need to refresh on your policy understanding. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering and policy wonkery. Your smears (e.g. the ludicrous allegations about my membership of Project:Georgia) are clear evidence you came to that page as part of a personal vendetta. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Ottava). Essays, even popular ones, have no bearing on the application of policy. NPA, which is policy, clearly states "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." (bolding mine). Saying User:X is a <BLANK> is never acceptable, regardless of what <BLANK> is. Just because you do not want your actions to be personal attacks does not mean they are not. Insofar as refering to other editors as "POV-pushers" will only escalate conflict, and serves no purpose except to disparge the people who hold a different opinion from you, this action is not good. Repeatedly claiming over-and-over that such behavior is perfectly OK does not make it so. --Jayron32 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, did I say essays had weight? I did not. So why would you mention such a thing? It is quite simply that NPA makes it 100% clear that it does not deal with what you claim it does. NPA requires an attack on their -non- Wikipedia self. Characterizing -any- on Wiki action is not a personal attack. To claim otherwise is so absurd that if you honestly believed the above to be true, I would ask you to risk your admin status by putting yourself up for recall and state that you believe the above to be what NPA stands for. You will be opposed so fast and removed from admin status that Wikipedia would probably be better to have one less admin with such a poor grasp of the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was getting ready to do it, but looks like Tan got to it first...the page has been protected while we settle this here. --Smashville^talk 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed: Topic ban

The page is protected again. I propose a topic ban for the editors involved in the edit-warring and most contentious elements of the discussion, for a period of one month, enforced by block if necessary. These editors are Folantin, Ottava Rima, Alefbe and Dbachmann. The pages effected are Persian Empire and Talk:Persian Empire. Unfortunately, there has been little if any progress during this extended dispute. It has been personalized to an extent that resolution is unlikely to occur with the current cast of involved editors. Nathan ^T 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the history again. There is a clear difference between my reverts and the constant tag teaming destruction of those. Furthermore, I had the vast majority of consensus behind me, and WP:VAND includes a nice section on -blanking- which says that reducing the page is vandalism. Check the Edit war page to see that reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Nathan, my revert is the same as yours, as you said: "(Reverted to revision 310386236 by John Kenney; This version has the most support; please don't remove 90% of the text of an article without advance consensus. (TW))" So, if you want to lump me in with a topic ban, you would have to lump yourself in. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have presented arguments based on my knowledge of Iranian history on the talk page with sources. I have made major contributions to most of the articles on the Safavid shahs of Iran. I have not edited the article for two weeks. Why shouldn't I be allowed to contribute to the encyclopaedia on a topic I know about and on which Ottava has demonstrated his complete incompetence? Alefbe and Dbachmann have also edited many Iranian pages. I find your suggestion a ridiculous application of the fallacy of middle ground and I don't regard you as a neutral party to this case since you have been in e-mail contact with Ottava. --Folantin (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

@Nathan: You and Dbachman have both reverted that page once. The difference is that Dbachman has been previously invloved in Iran-related pages and you haven't. Also, Dbachman has elaborated his proposal in the the talk page and has justified it (but you hadn't elaborated your justification before reverting that page). So, how do you justify your proposal? Alefbe (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've received one e-mail from both sides of the debate, and sent one short e-mail in response (not to Ottava). I have participated in the discussion, if not (in my opinion) as a party to the dispute. I don't propose the topic ban merely to prevent edit-warring - that can be accomplished by protection. The purpose of the topic ban is to separate the people for whom discussion has consistently been heated and personalized. I'm not arguing that all parties are equally culpable, making a claim on personal knowledge of the subject or determining whose expertise in this area is superior. The idea is to allow the article to be discussed and improved without inflamed and personal debate, not to punish any editor for any specific infraction. Nathan ^T 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about personal attacks, they should be addressed according to the Wikipedia policy and those who have committed that should be warned or blocked for that. Your topic ban proposal doesn't solve anything in that regard. The thing is that by looking at your proposal, it's obvious that you have listed those who have participated extensively in its talk page and you have forgotten that among those who participate in edit war, those who have elaborated their reasoning are more justified. So, among Dbachman, you, Durova, Rockstone35 and others who ahve participated in reverting the page, drastic edits of someone like Dbachman is much more justified than edits like [58] [59] and [60]. Alefbe (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The "personalisation" began with Ottava Rima, as has been clearly demonstrated. That, coupled with his extreme incompetence in Iranian history, should have been enough of a clue to admins. But, as we saw with the lack of action regarding the John Kenney incident arising from the same page, Ottava has carte blanche' to behave as he likes round here. --Folantin (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Such a topic ban is moot anyway, as the page is fully protected for a week, if these issues continue beyond that week, then perhaps its a better time to look at it. Jeni ^(talk) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not moot, as the proposal extends to the talk page, which isn't protected (and is putatively the primary way of resolving the conflict). Tan | 39 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the context of the discussion and the history of the debate, banning Nathan himself (from that topic) is much more justified than banning Dbachman. Alefbe (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In which case the protection is a better option than the topic ban, as it allows these users to try to discuss the way forward! Jeni ^(talk) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there. I was merely saying that proposed topic ban isn't "moot", as it would make a significant difference in the situation. Tan | 39 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the history so people can see who did what, when, and what fell under our policies as appropriate or not:

• 16:43, 20 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 16:02, 21 August 2009 Wizardman Restores page.
• 16:03, 21 August 2009 Folantin Deletes page.
• 20:17, 21 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page.
• 20:52, 21 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 13:42, 23 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page after getting consensus against the removal of text.
• 15:29, 23 August 2009 Fullstop Deletes page.
• 16:06, 23 August 2009 NuclearWarfare Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 17:37, 23 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 23:04, 23 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 23:12, 23 August 2009 King of Hearts Protects page.
• 07:53, 27 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page when it comes out of protection saying "The old crappy version is so full of misinformation that cannot be useful in any sense"
• 15:36, 27 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page saying "subjectivity is not a justification to commit vandalism by blanking the page"
• 18:37, 27 August 2009 Kurdo777 Deletes page and claims "cleaning up a poorly written page, is not vandalism"
• 19:22, 27 August 2009 Nathan Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 19:25, 27 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 19:44, 27 August 2009 Durova Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 21:06, 27 August 2009 NuclearWarfare Protects page.
• 14:40, 4 September 2009 Alefbe Deletes page as it comes out of protection.
• 14:43, 4 September 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 15:32, 4 September 2009 Dbachmann Deletes page with a personal attack as reason.
• 19:55, 4 September 2009 Rockstone35 Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 19:59, 4 September 2009 Alefbe Deletes page claiming that uninvolved users have no right to restore the page.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

None of this even exceeds 3RR. None of this addresses the problems with the content/duplication of content discussed at length on the talk page. --Folantin (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is not three RR. Per the page: "Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." Consensus was for keeping the page and not blanking it. The actions in destroying the consensus determine version over and over was edit warring and an act of vandalism per WP:VAND. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that the editors have formed "grudges" agaisnt each other. Even when a editor makes a valid suggestion, it will be shunned down one way or another by them, because they want only their suggestion to win. Warrior4321 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• A useful alternative to a topic ban might be a voluntary editing and discussion moratorium from the same editors; eliminates the element that seems punitive, but accomplishes the same goal of allowing the content discussion to continue unimpeded with personal disputes. An agreement like that could conclude this thread and provide some respite for these editors, if nothing else. Nathan ^T 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Or how about we impose normal consensus based restrictions in which people don't remove wholesale content from a page after 9 people have said that such actions would be inappropriate? In any normal situation, Alefbe would have been blocked multiple times along with Folantin for even daring to blank the page in such a manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, would you stop trying to make these "it's six of one and half a dozen of the other" proposals? I don't trust your judgement. ANI could have stopped this problem by cracking down on Ottava Rima after the disgraceful John Kenney incident. It chose to do nothing about him. Again. The debate was over before I and others even had a chance to take part in it [61]. --Folantin (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed two methods that both have a chance at solving the dispute over the article; neither allow one side to "win" the dispute, because that isn't the point. If you believe that there is a superior alternative, then post it with your evidence and rationale. I think you'll agree that its unlikely that anything will be resolved through talkpage discussion if the participants stay the same, so unless you prefer that state of events some change is necessary. Nathan ^T 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Because there was nothing even though you keep trying to claim their is. It is just one more event in a pattern of things you've been making up. You do realize that it is against the rules to do such, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin - I see a bunch of bad behavior, on all sides. None of you have anything to be proud of here. If this is not otherwise resolved and the edit warring on the article continues next week when the current full protection expires, I for one will willingly disruption, edit war, or personal attack block any or all of you as required to end it. None of you are currently showing the type of collaborative attitude required to actually work on a consensus solution moving forwards.

I Support the proposed one-month topic ban. At this point, if you cannot participate constructively, don't participate at all. Find another topic for the next month if you can't be civil and collaborative. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One month topic ban against whom? and based on what? Alefbe (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see this subsection's first paragraph. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that. Please see my comments after that. In particular, if you are talking about edit war, how do you justify a ban against Dbachman (while his involvement in edit war is not more than Nathan himself or users who have not elaborated their justification for their revert, such as Durova and Rockstone35). Also, if you are talking about personal attacks, how do you justify a ban against me? Alefbe (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not asserting that each of you has committed all of those offenses. I am, however, asserting that all of you are behaving unconstructively, and I support the proposed topic ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You support banning me from participating in that discussion. You should present a justification for that. You haven't presented any example of personal attacks or disruptive behavior on my part. Other than personal attacks and disruptive behaviour in talk page, what can justify banning a user from participating in a discussion? Alefbe (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is justified. The involved editors are not equally at fault, so this proposal is not equitable for them; nor is it going to result in the best outcome for the article its readers. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought we were supposed to be encyclopaedia. Punishing editors with long histories of working on Iranian history topics for, er, editing an article on Iranian history really sends out a good message. --Folantin (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Laying the ground rules

I am echoing what Georgewilliamherbert has said and laying the ground rules. Once the protection for the page ends on September 11, any person that restores the article or replaces the redirect will be blocked at increasing increments as is standard practice for edit warring until such time that a clear consensus has emerged. Any editor who disputes these ground rules please feel free to get the blocking policy changed. If you cannot get the hint after the page being protected three times and cannot come to an agreement and cannot be mature enough to simply leave the article be, then its clear that protection is not helping. Start working together. Thank you.

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:13, 5 September 2009

I don't agree with this unilateral statement. Presumably, the proposal above was a proposal--something that we're supposed to discuss, and come to some sort of consensus about. I don't think the discussion has come to a consensus yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think month long topic bans are going to work here if three weeks of protection doesnt. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The way we have for preventing changes is page protection. In this case it is not a general content dispute, but a dispute over one particular change--the redirect. Saying that after pp ends that someone will be blocked for changing back to the other version edit--the only edit in question--is extending the protection indefinitely. I can understand people get frustrated over this, but Seddon's proposal goes beyond what an admin should do. This discussion does highlight the major gap in Wikipedia procedure--our lack of a good binding way of resolving conflict disputes. Nor do I agree with the attempt to foreclose an agreed settlement by archiving the page. The discussion is not over, and I have removed the archive tags.I think placing them was premature. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, we can have a discussion on that, but I think the lack of resolution is remarkably obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC) .

This is not permanent - Seddon put it as until such time that a clear consensus has emerged which I support. If all the parties involved can agree on a mutually acceptable compromise way forwards then the issue is done and over with. If they cannot, the communities patience for this reaching ANI over and over again is reaching or at the limits of "nice doggie" and the stick is coming out... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll respect the reversion of the close and ask for one other non-involved admins opinion. I would point out that my close statement with regards to the blocking was only enforceable until a clear consensus is formed. I do not believe ANI is the best place to form a consensus on content(for countless reasons) and the recent poll (as part of an rfc) started at the talk page should be the method to resolve this. I do not see this discussion here resolving anything at this time. We should allow the parties to use the 6 days to get somewhere.

I also agre completely with your statement that This discussion does highlight the major gap in Wikipedia procedure--our lack of a good binding way of resolving conflict disputes. This is a clear weakness in our dispute resolution process and "enforcing" consensus which is subject to change is difficult. That is something that we need to address.

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus take 2

Even though there was a clear consensus of 9 people saying not to turn the page into a redirect or a disambiguated page and only 5 people saying to turn it into one, this has been ignored by all of the administrators above. Seddon, DGG, and Georgewilliamherbert, for example, do not acknowledge this. As such, I have started it all over again. If admin are willing to ignore the clear consensus that comes out of this Straw Poll (as they seemed to want to ignore the one that came out of the before polling along with a connected RfC), then I have no other recourse than to scream and pull out my hair (or really cuss a lot and send angry emails). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

what you have, rather, is the opportunity to try to prepare a sound and irrefutable argument. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It was sound and irrefutable. The case should have been open and closed with blocks against the five listed for constantly blanking a page against consensus. It seems that the admin corps really dropped the ball. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The case has been reviewed. If I were to actively intervene and treat everyone with a content-blind behavior-centric response, you'd be blocked along with them. You are pushing too hard and behaving too disruptively Ottava. Please stop doing so. You are not innocent of wrongdoing in this. We're giving everyone a breather on the topic and article by full protecting, and an extended one by taking those of you most combative in the incident out of it for another month with the article ban (maybe). The alternative is behavioral blocks which you would find yourself on the receiving end, among others.

Wikipedia uses consensus and not majority vote because we do not want situations like this where a majority feel empowered to break rules and abuse the situation because there are more of you. Consensus is getting along with the people who disagree with you - and entirely the opposite of your behavior here. Consensus, civility, not making personal attacks, and not disrupting things when you don't immediately get your way are important.

ANI is not a hammer to beat down your opponents. If you begin to try to use it like a hammer, the things it hits will not be the ones you point at, necessarily. We are assuming that the full protection and proposed topic ban will get the message across to everyone and that an outbreak of reasonableness and civil discourse will ensue. If that is not what happens, the hammer will probably come down. Your thumb is currently under the hammer, along with others'. If you feel like squashing yourself, continue the way you have been going.

Community patience nearing end. Caution. Do not proceed further. Work it out. Assume good faith and move forwards, not backwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is -never- a push too hard against clear vandalism. There -was- clear consensus and it is obvious that they -don't- want to discuss it. Did you bother to actual read the discussion and see how every time there was a chance to correct the aspects of the page they instantly reverted back to edit warring and pushing for a redirect? Those are some of the oldest ploys around. ANI is a hammer to stop edit warring, vandalism, and the destruction of this encyclopedia. When Wizardman first reverted Alefbe, it should -never- have been reverted back by Folantin. None of the edit warring should have happened, and Wizardman or any of the other administrators should have handed out blocks from the very beginning against anyone even thinking about blanking that page. I am quite confident that if this went to ArbCom, there would be clear evidence that I had consensus for my actions and that the five listed above went out of their way to troll and vandalise the page simply because they could not stand that they did not "win". That is a severe abuse of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, ANI fails. A clear case of stalking and nothing is done about it. Ottava's comments (e.g. "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less") show he has no knowledge of even the most basic facts of the subject but is just there to troll. This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social networking site. --Folantin (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Folantin - Please see my comments to Ottava. These apply equally much to you. Either stop doing anything near each other, or work within the policy and community standards to cooperate, get along and treat each other with respect, etc. Continuing to fire salvos back and forth on ANI is not appropriate at this time unless you are seeking to be blocked for the weekend.

The combined lot of you have about exhausted my patience and I believe I speak for the community here (though others can refute and comment, of course). I am at this point fully prepared to end the sniping with blocks if the collective "you all" cannot act in an adult, responsible, constructive, and respectful manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tried avoiding this guy since his RFA in April. I've presented clear evidence of his stalking. This place is a joke. --Folantin (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Many, if not all, uninvolved administrators are now acutely and painfully aware of what everyone involved is doing. You have stated that you feel he's stalking. You do not need to say that again. You do not need to call him a troll, period, and should not have in the first place. Insulting Wikipedia as a whole ("This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social networking site.") and the administrator community ("This place is a joke.") in the process of continuing to push Ottava's buttons and visa versa is not a good long term Wikipedia survival strategy, either.

If you believe that any of your behavior here was a good thing, I suggest to you that your judgement is impaired by the stress of the situation, and that you may want to walk away for a bit and come back when you are feeling better about it and can work more constructively to avoid unnecessary conflict.

As I said several times above - this uninvolved administrator has seen about as many buttons pushed in this series of incidents as he is willing to tolerate without starting to block people. If you stand up and start pushing buttons after several explicit warnings along those lines - what exactly do you expect to happen next, and why are you doing that?

Perhaps this needs more uninvolved admin mediation on specific talk pages or some such. But what it does not need is any more disruptive incivility, personal attacks, insults, and assumptions of bad faith. Stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to end the conversation here then the correct procedure is to mark this as "Resolved", not to threaten all and sundry with blocks on no rationale but your own patience. I suggest you do this. (ANI is not the "administrator community" as a whole. Most of the decent admins I know are disgusted at its ineffectiveness. With good reaon. Plus, I can say what I like about Wikipedia. I've been here long enough to know this place has been going down the sink over the past year or so. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia based on accurate content. Clearly, it isn't). Now you can mark this as "Resolved". --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot is still malfunctioning - I've blocked it again

Resolved

 – No more weird behavior. @harej 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights), despite having apparently been fixed following its problems yesterday still appears to be malfunctioning/displaying undocumented features. It's now pasting stuff from elsewhere onto unrelated talkpages (it apparently thinks that howitzers are trains). In addition it's been edit-warring with itself all day at Talk:White-bellied Parrot, Talk:Nanday Parakeet over the presence of {{moveheader}}. As User:Harej appears to be offline and in the interests of preventing further disruption (I'm thinking mainly of the cut+pasting) I have blocked the bot. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Having just had a look through RFC bot's contribs, it's dumped the same 'trains text' onto several inappropriate pages.

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

I've reverted all the instances that were as yet unnoticed and un-reverted. I also notice that the bot has created the user subpage User talk:3247/XDM (disambiguation), for some reason. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to sleep ever again? Hold on, I'll get to the bottom of this. @harej 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The featured to add {{moveheader}} has been shut off for now. @harej 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Torchrunner

Torchrunner (talk · contribs) has been persistently been disruptively editing a small group of articles on 19th century Northern European Christian Mysticism including Jakob Lorber, Great Gospel of John and Swedenborgianism. Multiple editors have repeatedly advised him that his edits violate WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV among others. He has disregarded advise and engaged in tendentious debate over his synthesis of biblical quotation and it's relationship to these mystic's own christianity. He has, on talk pages and on articles, attempted to suggest that these mystics were inspired by Demonic forces or possibly by Hinduism. Torchrunner remains mostly non-responsive to advice and I feel it has reached a point where a good faith effort has been made to draw his attention to applicable Wikipedia policy. Pursuant to this I felt it was necessary to bring this to the attention of WP:ANI. This is the first time I have taken this action and if I have acted incorrectly please accept my appologies.Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I documented some of my attempts to help Torchrunner at WP:NPOVN#User:Torchrunner again.. His most recent comment may suggest the problem is moving from WP:OR to WP:RS, but truthfully I don't blame Simonm223 for being frustrated. Our advise just doesn't seem to be sinking in. What he needs is a broader perspective of how Wikipedia works by looking at articles and editing of those articles outside of this immediate topic area... Singularity42 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:El estremeñu keeps restoring article redirected by AfD

La posada de los muertos was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted. User:El estremeñu then restored it.

An AfD was later started, and the decision was to redirect. However, the user restored it again.

Therefore, I clearly warned the user, but that only resulted in them restoring once more with an incoherent edit summary.

I had previously reported this user on this board for other reasons; those issues are also going on, with continuous unjustified removal of templates that request sources or clarifications to incoherent sentences; I believe most of their actions are not helpful to Wikipedia (lack of English knowledge not being an excuse for arrogance), and that really needs to be fixed.

--LjL (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've given the editor a warning that they will be blocked if they keep it up. I'm not familiar with this editor's history, but in most cases I would say let's wait and see at this point.  Skomorokh  20:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I feel bringing it here was a good call. The user needs to be communicated with, preferrably by a user who speaks fluent spanish. I note that Ljl seems to be exasperated with the user and has shown a clear head by bringing it to others who aren't quite at their wits end with the user yet. Wish that course happened more often sometimes :) --M^ask? 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've translated the original warning message into Spanish on his talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a general "If you don't speak english, click here to tell us which language you do speak" with the various names of languages on it? I feel like we could use such a template in the event we encounter an editor we think doesn't speak english. Maybe something that could direct them to the babel template and how to fill it out?--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, this is the English language Wikipedia, and a basic level of communication in that language should be assumed. I've found that Google Translate has been adequate for my needs in communicating with non-English speakers beyond my own capabilities, and perhaps these editors should be encouraged to create their articles on their native language Wikipedias and have them transliterated here. There are embedded projects that can do this, but the overhead of providing this facility for a minority would seem to me to be unnecessary. Rodhullandemu 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't assume it blindly though and just because its assumed doesn't mean editors who don't speak english don't come here to try and add links or other such things and can't communicate properly. There would be nothing bad faith about having a template at our disposal to facilitate interaction with them, the only other choice is to play guessing games to figure out what language they're trying to speak or what their native language is, and then find an editor to translate or speak to them. We already have categories to group users by their languages so all we need is a template that can be left to explain to them how to drop babel on their user page and link them to categories of users who speak their native language to get them some help. The only other choice we have with editors who are causing problems and can't communicate is to block them. I'd rather have a tool to attempt communication that have to go that route.--Crossmr (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the case here, anyway. The user speaks Spanish, you don't need any fancy templates to know that. I can speak Spanish to some limited extent, too, and I have previously done so with this user (actually, they started speaking Spanish to me in response to the first message in English I sent them). The problem, as I see it, is that Spanish or not Spanish, the user doesn't seem to accept that he might not have some things about the English Wikipedia very clear. --LjL (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NLT violation at User talk:WLU?

Take a look at this and tell me what you think, folks. It's borderline, but falls on the actionable side to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Also, take a look at this user page by the same poster. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. Could you help us out by giving some more direct clue about the nature of your concerns? Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell the user to remove all traces of anything that talks about legalities, or they'll be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to completely censor people from talking about legalities -- if an article is libelous, we need to allow people to tell us so, otherwise how can we fix it? Problems only arise when people threaten, either explicitly or implicitly, to take legal action themselves. Looie496 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are ways to do that without it being a threat. They could say, "I'm concerned this article may be violating the law in some way." That's not a legal threat, that's raising a question. Such was not the case here, and he gawn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A single purpose account tell people that they should consult their attorneys is legal intimidation plain and simple("Mr. Watkins would be well-advised to consult with his attorney—especially in light of the precedent-setting case of Ms. Liskula Cohen vs. Google (re. inappropriate and anonymous Blogger use)"). Such comments are a danger to neutrality as the create a chilling effect on editorial decision making. Discussion of liability is fine but sending specific people to their lawyers and citing precedent is a form of intimidation and needs to be done outside of Wikipedia. This account has been used for no other purpose than to make these comments. I have acted accordingly. Chillum 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for sure (TLDR), but it looks like this relates to the external links I removed from Blue Velvet and a couple other pages [62], [63], [64] and [65], with [66] in the bargain. I dropped a comment at Talk:Blue_Velvet_(film)#R._W._Watkins regards Mr. Watkins. Looks like pretty clear self-promotion.

Thanks for the revert on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a clear violation of NLT--advising someone else to pursue legal action in this manner is a NLT directed against a Wikipedia editor. But the account has now been blocked, as it ought to be, so there is nothing more to do here. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it as substantially less clear. The NLT discussion at RFAR currently provides a good example for what I would consider the bottom of the 'unambiguous range' for legal threats. This seems much more like an attempt to be snide and talk down to someone over the internet. I'm sorry that Mr. Edwards condescended to edit here largely to make this sprawling comment. Perhaps he could have instead chosen to edit collaboratively and constructively. But that was his choice. Protonk (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In effect, he also chose to be indef'd. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fred Singer

Article appears to have a history of controversial edits, but latest series is over content, involves multiple deletions of sourced text and reversions. Don't know if it's appropriate to list for edit warring, sockpuppetry, or page protection. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly Scibaby edits and reverts thereof. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mufka

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked for disruption. Another Plaxico moment. MuZemike 07:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

THIS GUY IS A CORRUPT MOD! HE BLOCKS EVERYONE THAT HE DOESNT LIKE! I DEMAND THAT HIS POWER OF BEING A MOD TO BE REMOVED!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleHawk08 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No. And you have been warned for your personal attacks at User talk:Mufka. And could a CU find out whose sock this is and do something about it? → ROUX ₪ 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the above user is also Jbr999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 79.78.106.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). — Gavia immer (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gavia, you have buttons I don't. Can you do the honours? A CU may be needed to identify a rangeblock if these are dynamic IPs. → ROUX ₪ 01:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him as an obvious sock of the above blocked account; the personal attacks don't help. Kuru ^talk 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have the magic buttons, sadly enough. My information is just from a two-minute look at the less-than-subtle article history. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Public_image_of_Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)

I'm attempting to implement the results of this AfD decision to merge, and I am being told by other editors that my behavior is disruptive because they want to implement an alternative. Given that this is a contentious article, a formal deletion review would be my expectation of how they should have proceeded, but that has not happened.

This has been a rather heated discussion and some cooler heads would be much appreciated. SDY (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the two weeks pass? Shouldn't it just be a redirect now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can try reverting the last edit (which should restore it to a redirect), but expect feedback. SDY (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Having similar issues with CoreSite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  Skomorokh  02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the admin who closed the AfD discussion as a merge, but allowed the stakeholders in the article wide latitude in how they merged and distributed the article's contents. I imposed a two-week deadline on the merge closure in order to light a fire under the involved parties. We're at nearly one month now, and from what I gather most of the merging is complete. I'm going to put the redirect in place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for resolving. SDY (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Extreme racism from editor

Resolved

 – Indef blocked.  Sandstein  06:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to invite attention to the edits and talk page content of one User:Raghuvir.tomar. His talk page contains extremely racist literature [67] inciting genocide[68], and his edits to Poverty in India, also extremely racist and hatemongering, went unchecked for days[69]. I believe that a community ban is appropriate for this user. Please investigate this matter. Thanks and have a nice day. Endedrates (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've deleted the user page - serious racist rant that appears to have been published elsewhere. The rest of the dribble is inappropriate for a user page. Kuru ^talk 04:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• … and solving the user talk page problem didn't require an administrator tool at all. Uncle G (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but indefinitely blocking Raghuvir.tomar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption, which I have now done, does require an administrator. See his latest contributions for the reason why.  Sandstein  06:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good choice there, Sandstein. I reviewed some earlier and was strongly considering that. I support the move - they're not here to build an encyclopedia, even vaguely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

Requesting undeletion of Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 2, Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 3 and Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 4 as part of a refactoring of the archives. The deleting admin declined due to being conflicted, but suggested I bring it up here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done per deleting admin.'s comment here. — Ched :  ?  11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Coding problems in closed AfDs today

See VPT discussion. Thanks,  Skomorokh  12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez at Thessaloniki

I've been in a small disagreement with this user over the technicalities of some disambiguation notes at Thessaloniki, which unfortunately he seems entirely unwilling to discuss without a constant stream of abuse and personal attacks: [70] ("leave the real work to real men, not clowns"); [71] ("You think your funny, pair of Clowns, probably responsible for the Hitler redirect vandalism"); [72] ("Just because you get easily confused by logic..."); [73] ("sheer ignorance"); [74] ("stop being such a proud moron."); [75], [76] ("bullshit ... lie"). I note the same user has been involved in several heated disputes elsewhere over the last few days and has been the subject of previous ANI and Wikiquette threads. Could somebody please step in, as this is rather annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's funny coming from your considering all the noted provocations and abuses of yours(see last entry) I have discovered. And in my humble opinion the remedies are far from enough. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just to note, Future Perfect at Sunrise is under an editing restriction by ArbCom here. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 13:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)