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

User:Leatherstocking at Lyndon LaRouche

I would appreciate administrative help with this. I'm posting this here rather than at AE as it may get more attention here, but I can move it if people think that page is more appropriate.

Leatherstocking (talk · contribs) is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. The article is in poor shape as a result of around 1200 edits over the years from LaRouche accounts. Will BeBack and I recently started trying to get it into shape. This involves removing material sourced only to LaRouche if it's unduly self-serving, and restoring or adding material from mainstream secondary sources. We're also tidying refs, fixing the writing, and generally trying to make the article more policy-compliant.

Leatherstocking is reverting my edits as I make them, ignoring the in-use tag. He has posted complaints about me on AN/AE, AN/3RR, the BLP noticeboard, and the NPOV noticeboard. He wants to retain or add material sourced only to LaRouche, and remove or reduce material sourced to, for example, The New York Times. One example of his reverting is this. It concerns the period where LaRouche moved from being a left-wing group to becoming, in the view of The New York Times, a far-right group with extensive commercial interests. Leatherstocking removed the names of the companies LaRouche was associated with. He removed the details of the training camps LaRouche members were being sent to.

I feel this is unacceptable editing that violates all the LaRouche ArbCom cases. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Too early in the morning for me to do anything but protect the page for 1 day while sort out what if anything is to be done about Leatherstocking and stop any more disruption meanwhile - my first reaction given his forumshopping is that action should be taken, but I'm not sure what. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The problem is that Leatherstocking seems genuinely unable to understand the policies, or apply them to LaRouche. He wants LaRouche sources to be treated on a par with academics and mainstream high quality newspapers. He removes The New York Times information about LaRouche's commercial interests and anti-terrorist training camps, but restores that LaRouche was given the key to the city of a town in Mexico, and wants to go into great detail about some interviews with LaRouche in newspapers in China. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I getting a feeling of deja vu here? Wasn't there another user recently that was doing the same thing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd encourage everyone to closely examine the recent edit history of the article. SV wants to own the article. She and WBB are tag-team edit warring. See also here and note two things; a) Leatherstocking had the courtesy to supply links documenting the edit warring, while SV makes vague charges with one link, and b) anyone who isn't hostile to Lyndon LaRouche gets dumped on and ridiculed.

Finally, regarding the 'key to the city of a town in Mexico' and 'interviews with LaRouche in newspapers in China', we should all endeavor to counter systemic bias. Just because something happens outside the United States doesn't give SV the right to delete it. --ZincPlatedWasher (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The above courageous redlink was created 12 minutes before filing this complaint, or 1 minute after I made my comment above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious sock account to me, it's now blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, a "leather" stocking??? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

D'oh!, I was trying not to go there! :) If any admins disagree, feel free to reverse the block. Dreadstar ☥ 09:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited a Larouche article in my life. You people are paranoid. --74.220.229.154 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least not under that IP address, this being its first entry ever. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S., your paranoia is now being discussed here. --74.220.229.154 (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not paranoia, it's more like a puzzle or mystery to be solved. Kind of like a game. Which is also what it is to many socks - a game that abuses wikipedia. And the reason we are "so bad" at finding socks is because we give far more latitude to those sock game-players than we probably should. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Zincplatedwasher may not be Leatherstocking, but should we check? Yeah, maybe just another troll, but if it is a sock of Leatherstocking, that would simplify matters. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You could check that IP address while you're at it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. That duly noted, regarding Zincplatedwasher and Leatherstocking: Unlikely . Vassyana (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• First, I am not "a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche." This appears to be an attempt to initiate the WP:9STEPS. When I first began to edit here 2 years ago, I watched the POV wars at the LaRouche articles because I found them entertaining. Over time, I grew more annoyed by the tactics of the anti-LaRouche team than by those of the pro-LaRouche team, in part because the anti-LaRouche team seemed to have an unfair advantage (again, see WP:9STEPS.) However, until last month, it had been my practice never to actively edit a LaRouche-related article; I confined myself to adding tags, or reverting edits that I felt were in violation of policy. I only began to edit some "LaRouche" articles after engaging in mediation with Will Beback (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche movement.)

• Regarding the one diff that SV cites as an example of my alleged misbehavior[1], there is already a separate article for U.S. Labor Party, which would be the appropriate location for an extended summary of a newspaper article about that organization. However, even at that article, I don't believe that it is necessary to include every minor detail, such as how much the alleged training costs per day, in which states it allegedly took place, or that U.S. Labor Party members were employed at a company that allegedly printed high school newspapers. For readers who are interested in such minutiae, we have external links. SlimVirgin herself has deleted substantial amounts of well-sourced material, and she has dismissed objections by saying that the article is too long and she is "trimming" it. However, the "trimming" seems to be POV-based, and there seems to be some simultaneous "fattening" going on.

• SlimVirgin complains about being reverted. She has made over 140 edits to this article since August 28, and she has reverted virtually every edit made by other editors during this period. On top of that, she went so far as to revert the NPOV tag I posted[2], which as I understand it is a policy no-no. I would also like to point out that when I do revert, I include an accurate edit summary. SlimVirgin mixes her reverts in with other, more innocuous edits, and then disguises the process with a vague edit summary along the lines of "tidying." --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Comment: Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has indeed been quite disruptive on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche in a manner contrary to multiple site policies. (Examples: WP:BAN: Restoring banned editors, WP:EW: Blocked for edit warring on Views of Lyndon LaRouche, WP:FORUMSHOP: Forum shopping). Perhaps it is time to consider a topic ban of the account from related articles? Cirt (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the "forum shopping" rule, and I promise not to breach it in the future. I simply assumed that since I saw evidence of several policies being violated, I ought to report each type of violation at the relevant board. I won't make that mistake again. As far as being blocked (once) for edit warring, I believe that block was improper, and I said so here. And regarding the "restoring banned editors" charge, I have made my opinions known at Wikipedia talk:BAN#call for wording. I have no problem correcting any policy mistakes I have made. I still contend, however, that SlimVirgin is outrageously flouting numerous policies, and no one seems to raise an eyebrow. Does she have a free pass of some sort? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent question. The answer, of course, is that no one has a free pass here. Theoretically, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Leatherstocking writes above that he first edited a LaRouche-related article last month. That's very far from the truth. His earliest edits in 2007 show an interest in LaRouche-related people. His 15th edit was to add a detail to Dennis King, [3] LaRouche's biographer, someone the LaRouche movement regards as an enemy. By his third month—and he hadn't made many edits so this was early in his history—he had started posting in LaRouche's favor at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. [4] In October 2007, there's a complaint that he's altering bios of people opposed to LaRouche. [5] His top-edited articles are all LaRouche-related, [6] and his edits are invariably pro-LaRouche: removing critical material no matter how well-sourced, adding material from LaRouche publications, reverting, adding NPOV and other tags and reverting if anyone tries to remove them.

He has made 782 article or article-talk edits overall. Of these, 408 have been to the main LaRouche articles or their talk pages: Lyndon LaRouche, Views of Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Kenneth Kronberg, Dennis King, and Chip Berlet, and many of the rest to pages LaRouche is tangentially involved with. All or most of his edits (173) to project space have been about LaRouche (BLP noticeboard, AN/I, RS noticeboard etc), trying to prevent LaRouche accounts from being blocked, trying to have other editors of the articles sanctioned.

The main problem is that he seems not to understand NPOV. He appears to believe that material from e.g. The New York Times is on a par with material from LaRouche, and that the article must reflect LaRouche's views in the same proportion as it reflects everyone else's. He also believes that everything LaRouche says and does must be added to the article, the result of which was that it had turned into a vanity page and a platform. He fights to keep, "LaRouche flies to Moscow, is welcomed at the airport; LaRouche given the keys to Sao Paulo in an elaborate ceremony; LaRouche thanked in the Mexican parliament," invariably sourced to LaRouche himself, while removing or reducing material from mainstream newspapers about LaRouche's commercial interests, or violence against opponents, and so on.

It is going to be difficult to get the article in shape with Leatherstocking continuing this behavior. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I said (not what SlimVirgin says I said.) My practice was to add nothing new, either positive or negative, to "LaRouche articles," but to tag or revert when I believed I saw policy violations. SlimVirgin says I made an edit Dennis King, which is correct, but the inference that it had something to do with LaRouche is incorrect. When I first came here, I knew more about Dennis King than I knew about LaRouche, because of my interest in the Youth International Party. King runs with that crowd, and the webmaster of King's website is A.J. Weberman (see my recent post on this board about Weberman.) SlimVirgin would have you believe that I am adding all sorts of pro-LaRouche material to the Lyndon LaRouche article; this, too, is incorrect. I am objecting to deletions of material that I think unbalances the article, combined with undue weight given to newly added material sourced to obscure critics. The "LaRouche articles" were battlefields for such a long time, and they finally stabilized in a form that I thought was an honest compromise between the two teams, and there was peace in the valley. Now I see SlimVirgin, with some assistance from Will Beback, on a major POV re-write campaign, and I think that it does a disservice to the project. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles had not stabilized. What happened is that people (except LaRouche editors) had largely given up on them, and the focus was only on how to stop them from getting even worse. What you call a "compromise" is, "On the one hand, The New York Times says this, on the other hand LaRouche says that," but that is not what NPOV means. And the people you are calling "obscure critics" (e.g. Antony Lerman) are mainstream writers with mainstream views of LaRouche, who write in scholarly journals. Lerman's view, which you have tried to remove, that LaRouche's ideology is too extreme and bizarre to characterize easily, is the majority view.

This is why I wrote above that you seem to have problems understanding our NPOV policy. The article must reflect majority and significant-minority views in rough proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. It must not allow the tiny-minority views of the LaRouche movement to dominate or be presented as on a par with the majority view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to make one thing clear about Lerman. Although he specializes in anti-Semitism, he is strongly opposed to defining that term so widely that it catches people who are simply anti-Zionists. He opposes the concept of "new antisemitism," and has been criticized by Jewish groups for so doing. So this is a very mainstream scholarly writer, not someone with extreme views in any sense. In addition, the view we're using him as a source for—that LaRouche's ideology is too bizarre to describe easily—is very much the majority view of LaRouche. Lerman is a good example of using a mainstream expert, whose article was published by a scholarly journal, to express the majority view, and adding the name only to make sure we had in-text attribution. Yet still you remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Antony Lerman is in fact an obscure individual, who had no bio at Wikipedia until you authored it[7], shortly after adding multiple references to him at Lyndon LaRouche. Lerman consequently does not have the wild-eyed public image that Dennis King has. However, his contribution on LaRouche to the anthology that you cite as a source is all of 4 pages long, and consists simply of an uncritical summary of the material in Dennis King's conspiracy-laden tome. Inserting Lerman's quote in the lead adds no new information and serves simply to amplify the already-existing "extremist" claim. WP:BLP#Criticism and praise states that criticism must be written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If Lerman is an "obscure individual", you'll need to provide a better reason than that he doesn't/didn't have a Wikipedia article: I can provide dozens of examples of notable individuals who don't, at this moment, have articles about them in Wikipedia. (One example would be the majority of Ethiopian government Ministers, both past & current; it should be a no-brainer to conclude that being a high government official of the second-largest African country is notable.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

These articles have had significant problems with LaRouche related single purpose accounts doing things our policies and principles really don't agree with. We've had quite a number of accounts blocked over this over the years, and a couple of what appear to be persistent recurring sockpuppets.

Leathersocking has been participating for some time and has managed to generally rise above that - he's got a LaRouche associated viewpoint, but has on review generally been found to be acting reasonably (with a possibly COI viewpoint, but not hiding that and listening to criticism etc) in the past, and has never been tarred by association with the sockpuppeteers as far as I have seen. In many contentious fringe related articles we have nobody from the fringe's point of view who makes an effort to play by the rules here and represent that viewpoint fairly in consensus discussions - this set of articles has in a way been lucky to have Leatherstocking, in that sense.

I am concerned by the current reports, but I urge everyone involved to assume good faith - I can believe a change in behavior, but I also can believe a non catastropic accidental butting of heads where consensus can be discussed out given time.

I am not in a position to spend a couple of hours or more on diffs on these articles tonight - but, in general, I urge patience and good faith. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just back from a long weekend away from the computer, and I have plenty to add about this matter. However I won't be able to spend much time on it until tomorrow at the soonest. (It's gonna take me an hour or two just to catch up). What I can say now, and substantiate soon, is that Leatherstocking is a single-purpose editor who has repeatedly restored material added by a banned user and who has edit-warred to add LaRouche theories to Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I don't have "a LaRouche associated viewpoint," and (I'll repeat for Will Beback's benefit) I haven't added "LaRouche theories" to anything. I have simply opposed what I saw as POV deletions. I have also been the only voice objecting to the attempts of Will Beback and SlimVirgin to control these articles, as if they had never read WP:OWN. Both sides of the great divide have their respective sins; in the case of the LaRouchians, it is a tendency to make overly grand claims on behalf of their leader, with inadequate sources. I am also told that they engage in sockpuppetry, although I have come to suspect that this card has been played a few times too often. From the other, anti-LaRouche team, I have seen a fair amount of abuse of process that is consistent with WP:9STEPS. GWH is correct in saying that I make an effort to play by the rules here, and I regret having run afoul of the forum shopping policy. It still appears to me, however, that SlimVirgin has an extremely cavalier approach to the rules. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on the related evidence separately. However Leatherstiocking's assertion that he doesn't have a "LaRouche associated viewpoint" should be addressed. While we have no way of knowing what Leatherstocking's personal viewpoint is, we can see what viewpoint his edits have promoted. I've seen so many claims of disinterest by single purpose editors that they're suspicious in themselves. For example:

• I came to Wikipedia seeking information about Lyndon LaRouche, since I am often given his literature on the street and I find it eccentric, difficult to read and super-intellectual. However, what I found at Wikipedia is lots of articles, all dominated by the same two or three people, which make all sorts of undocumented claims. They provide little information on the material in LaRouche's pamplets, and all sorts of other information which appears irrelevant or bogus. When asked for source citations they simply quote themselves or each other. I think that this is a problem. I hope that the other articles in Wikipedia are better.[8] -user:NathanDW

I think that actions speak louder than words.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded behaviour on Dark dune spots page

User:BatteryIncluded has proposed a merge of article Martian spiders under Dark dune spots (see Talk:Dark_dune_spots#Merger_proposal). I was practically the only editor who came out, and while thinking that covering the two subjects under a same article could have been a good idea, I opposed the merge under that name because the nom showed no scientific consensus of Martian spiders being the same thing of Dark dune spots, or a subset/subfeature of these features -see discussion. Incidents were as following, in order of concern:

1. Closed proposal and merged article, claiming consensus for his own motion even if no consensus was achieved : Discussion on talk page was ongoing however more or less normally, while he arbitrarely decided that discussion was closed with full support for his motion [9] and proceeded with the merge, declaring that I agreed with his merge even if no such consensus was achieved on the subject and only two editors (the nom and me) were involved in the discussion.

1. Deleted comments by User:Cyclopia on talk page : After discovering that, I promptly removed the closed discussion template [10], asked for explanation and clarified my actions [11] [12]. As a result he [13] deleted my previous comments insisting that "discussion was archived", in violation of WP:TPO.

1. A very minor incident was nom !voting on his own proposal [14] reiterating arguments of nom. I found this misleading and confusing for other editors potentially interested in discussion, giving superficial impression of more support than really it is on nom proposal. I tried to reformat (without deleting or modifying any content) his comment [15] to clarify discussion, but he reverted [16]; I didn't further revert but clarified my position. Discussion on this with nom can be found here.

In short, my personal impression has been that BatteryIncluded has basically ignored discussion and WP:CONSENSUS: while we all know of WP:BOLD, a merge between two established and well sourced articles is a risky and complex (and in this case controversial) action that would have warranted more discussion. He also misrepresented my views, claiming they supported his motion when it unambiguously was not so. He single-handedly declared a discussion closed while it was not, and, most concerningly, he decided to delete my comments while I asked for clarification and reasons. There is also a strong WP:SYNTHESIS problem on content, but probably this is not the right place to discuss. I ask admins to review the situation and advice/decide how to proceed. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the only 'main editor' of both 'Dark dune spots' and 'Martian Spiders', which I found and developed both from one-liner stubs to full size, so I know the science reports, and since they shared the exact same references (which i provided) for both, I proposed a merge -not a rename- back in August 11. Cyclopia showed up several days later -in the negative- only after I voted against him on a survey to rename the article Planetary habitability[17], in a move that resembles stalking and vindictive behavior from his part, mostly because it is painfully obvious that he has not read and/or understand the referenced material and continually changed the point of his opposition: At the beguining of the discussion he denied there were scientific references suggesting that they are related phenomena: "If there is good scientific consensus on a phenomenon that describes them both where they can be merged, all good, but the current sources do not seem to indicate that." [18]

When i pointed at the references, he produced a second excuse to not merge: What is unquestionable is that some scientists are treating them as possibly a manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon. This means that 1. Apparently there is no scientific consensus on that."

When I indicated to him that several publications stating the same hypothesis, is 'scientific consensus', he changed his objection for third time: he wanted to see a "review paper stating a general consensus that DDS and spiders are the same thing" [19], which of course, nobody would write as they are two separate components of the same geological system.

A large 'spider' feature apparently emanating sediment to give rise to dark dune spots. Image size: 1 km (0.6 mile) across.

Sunlight causes sublimation from the bottom, leading to a buildup of pressurized CO₂ gas which eventually bursts out, entraining dust and leading to the dark fan-shaped deposits.

When I said that even one research paper stating their relationship would be enough for the merge, (WP:Truth) he objected again: No, as an author of peer-reviewed papers, I can guarantee you that one peer-reviewed paper is by all means not enough to warrant anything in most or all cases. You can find peer reviewed papers in support of practically everything: appearing in an academic journal does not mean it is the truth. [20], and also: "You linked a lot of articles which seem all to converge on the possibility of a relationship, but still very vaguely, nor there is any indication that these articles do represent the majority viewpoint."[21]

It was at this point that I realized it was all about his POV and that he was not reading the papers I presented to him, or discussing the science in them, he has been making up objections as he went along, effectively disrupting a simple merge process that has a vast supporting material from high quality references to grant it. Cyclopia has been only expressing his POV, not the science in the articles. It was at this point that I decided to quote to him Wikipedia:Truth and remark that his POV can't compete against the references cited and proceeded with the merge (migrating data) as he has not been reasonable in making an effort to either read/understand or produce supporting material for his POV.[22]

Then he invented yet another excuse to oppose the merge saying that he approved it but must be done only done under a different title.[23] Again, my proposal was about a merge, not a rename, that can be done later if granted.

Regarding the article's name, sources indicate that Dark dune spots are small CO₂ geiser-like systems which are fed gas by the spiders' sub-surface channel network. How is the volcano WP article named: Volcano or "Conduit" How is the geyser article named? Geiser or "column"? They are not synonyms but components of the same system, and like the Dark dune spots, those articles are named as Volcano and Geiser -respectively, not by their underground channels.

Anyway, Cycolpia did agreed to the merger and asked me to choose the page name, he wrote: "That said, I think that a merge is a very good idea because there are indeed enough sources to justify treating the features in the same article. What I disagree with is merging within either of DDS or spiders. I would merge under an umbrella term: you look more entitled than me to suggest the right one. --Cyclopia" [24] So I did the merger and chose the name most used in the scientific literature cited: Dark dune spots, as the fundamental objective in naming articles is to choose unambiguous titles that readers will most easily recognize, and because articles should be named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.(wp:COMMONNAME) My revert he mentions is because he tried to to undo the merge, [25] despite he agreed to it and is now archived and redirected.

Having said that, I don't mind a move (rename) as "Dark dune spots and spider features on Mars" or "Spider and dark dune features on Mars" per (wp:COMMONNAME), and I object to the false name he invented and he is pushing for: 'Planum Australe albedo' features because 1) most readers do not know what albedo is or that Planum Australe is on Mars, 2) because his empirical take is not the name used in ANY news release or scientific publication on this geological formation. Lastly, I don't think there was a "controversy" in that discussion as he claims (maybe a 'debate') as the scientific literature I am referring to, and quoting in the article (& discussion) has been published and bears more weight than his POV. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, I am not here to debate the merge itself. I am here to debate your behaviour in managing the merge: declaring closed a discussion that was not and deleting my comments on a talk page. If you want to debate the merge, do it on the article talk page. As for me "making up objections", my objection has always been one and only, you know perfectly well. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to stop a merge on the basis of "I don't believe/understand the references", is not a valid reason. (WP:MM) The history of Cyclopia's excuses (unreasonable interferences) is archived for anybody's review. The only reason this landed on ANI is because Cyclopia is unable/unwilling to understand the references cited; in a nutshell: Spiders are under-ice channels that conduct dust and gas to the surface, upon eruption, the expelled dust and gravel accumulates on the surface creating a dark dune spot. I don't care if he won't read the references or if he is not a believer of the science models, as almost 40 high-quality scientific research papers (all with inline citations) disagree with his POV. The article has plenty very relevant references supporting the statements in the article, and that is that. As I write this, he is again in the DDS talk page challenging the verifiability of statements (e.g. spiders are gas channels that feed the geiser-like vent), when it has inline citations right next to it!

Cyclopia does not only deny the science, he does not read it before denying it! This is harrassment pure and simple, and it has to stop. I am asking now to please ban Cyclopia from editing the page Dark dune spots (and its talk page) or whatever other name it may been given in the future. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not engaged in acts of policy violation on the Dark dune spots talk page; you instead violated WP:TPO eliminating my own comments and misrepresenting my opinions. My edits to the Dark dune spots page were all minor and none of them challenged your editing. So your rationale for a page ban is really unclear. As for the content of the article and the science, please talk about that on the article talk page, not here. Here I am asking for opinion on your behaviour, not on the article content, which warrants an entirely different discussion on itself. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed to answer this accusation: Trying to stop a merge on the basis of "I don't believe/understand the references" is not a valid reason. I want everyone to notice that I believe and understand the references, absolutely. The references explicitly propose speculative hypothesis. See Talk:Dark dune spots#Requested move for details. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed this one too: he tried to undo the merge. Have you a diff confirming that? I never tried to undo the merge, I only objected to it. What I undid was keeping the discussion as archived and closed: it was (and it is) not. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first a disclaimer -- I'm not an admin. Second, it was clearly improper for BatteryIncluded to declare consensus when there was only one support and one oppose. Third, the only people involved in this dispute so far are the two of you. One-vs-one disputes are usually intractable, especially when the parties get annoyed at each other. The only way to get anywhere in the long run is either to find a way to deal with each other, or to bring some third party to the table. Admins are not going to decide the content issue here. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I understand that it is a one-vs-one dispute, but there has been repeated disruptive behaviour and, especially when I saw my comments (which were on-topic and polite) deleted from the talk page, I felt entitled to ask for admin's advice on the situation. As for the content dispute, I am trying to untangle it on the appropriate talk page (despite the other editor trying to bring it here, which is not the correct place AFAIK). --Cyclopia (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at this this deletion by Cyclopia:[26], on the exact same basis I could claim then that he indulged in 'bad behavior' when he deleted my entry in the form of merge header and footer. I repeat: Cyclopia could not impede the merge simply on the basis of his ignorance of the subject and/or that he does not believe the scientific models are worth of being used as references (POV). Please notice that now he has reverted to his excuse #1: He declares above that I used 'synthesis' to reach the conclusion that this phenomenon is geyser-like, with spiders being the channels that upon eruption produce the black spots. Again, if he does not have the training required to understand the subject, he should not try to get involved with only his POV. Simply he does not understand/aknowledge the science articles cited and therefore his oposition to the merge was always unreasonable. I do not expect the administrator to go read the 40 research papers cited, so I will quote two easy ones verifying the geyser-like model:[27] (just look at the image!), and this one: "These observations are consistent with a geyser-like model for spider formation.[...] Also consistent with such venting is the observation of dark fan-shaped deposits apparently emanating from spider centers." [28]. I don't care if Cyclopia does not believe the scientific references, because: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth —that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.(WP:TRUTH)

Now, for respect to the administrators, I won't go over all 40 scientific references, which believe me, have a consensus on this model, except where indicate in the WP article. Of greatest importance is to understand Cyclopia's refusal to aknowledge these references have no intelectual or WP legal weight on whether the merge was justified or not. I have not done "synthesis" on the geyser model as I showed above, and I gave him ample time to express his negative views, which turned out to be unreferenced and insubstancial to reasonably impede the merging. I have absolutely no reservation with the faithfull representation of the geophysical phenomena presented in the WP article as they all are supported by scientific references, and if "behavior" is an issue in this ANI page, there is a lot to be said about Cyclopia's demonstrated ignorance on the subject, his refusal to aknowledge the role of the scientific articles perfectly placed as inline citations, and his disruptive and inflamatory behavior in the Dark dune spots page. I did not do the merge 'just because', but relied on the scientific references cited weighed agains his POV. Again: his excuse that he doesn't "believe" the references cited, was never a valid reason to have impeded the merge or even having prolonged the circular discussion any longer. Finally, I already demonstrated that he agreed to the merge and even conceded to me the choice for the article name, [29] which I did according to the scientific literature: Dark dune spots. I still request that Cyclopia is banned from editing this article and its talk page as his disruptive interference seems to be vindictive (see my fist post).

I hope I am clear, and am willing to take questions from the administrators. Sincerely, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

Please, both of you - stop attacking each other and assume good faith.

This is going to take time to review. I am familiar with planetary science in fair depth (I know some of the authors of the sources for this article), and even so, you've put forwards a body of reference material which is intimidating to have to review independently in this.

I'll look in to it, but you have to stop provoking each other. ANI is not a club to win content disputes. You have an uninvolved administrators' attention now, who is familiar with the subject area, and you'll get a review. But if you keep swinging ANI around like a club you're going to swing it right into your own noses. Try to remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we expect you to be adult and collegial in your discussions here, assume good faith, be civil and polite to each other, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you. I am personally sure that the other editor is in good faith, despite our disagreements and my concerns with his behaviour. Thanks for taking the time and patience for reviewing this. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the reason I have been inactive in that page. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, as our mediator I want to tell you that I thought of a solution -actually a significant improvement- to the naming. Cyclopia and I agree that the Dark dune spots and spiders are thought by scientists to be related formations. Therefore I am proposing not to name the article after either structure but after the system they are thought to constitute: they are reported to (possibly) be components of a system similar to a geyser, so I am proposing Geysers on Mars or Jets on Mars (i like best the first one as it denotes at first view its geological nature). I have been studying the related literature for one year and after reading additional references today, I realized that this is indeed THE central theory of these two formations' dynamics; I could produce at least one dozen cientific citations refering to the system as geyser, jets, eruption event, outflow, etc. If you check the WP article (and even check the references), all of the models are based on a geyser-like system, and each one proposes a different mechanism powering the system. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let BatteryIncluded know that I answered on this proposal on the relevant talk page. The AN/I has not to deal with the content dispute itself but with editors' behaviour; my feeling is that this should not be discussed here. Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd

At Sea Shepherd Conservation Society there is trouble with an anonymous user who disagrees with what has been a long-standing consensus: while there are notable accusations of "eco-terrorism" against the organisation, it is not NPOV to claim that it is eco-terrorist. In particular, the IP disagrees with the argument that due to the analogy Sea Shepherd/Eco-terrorism ≈ Psychoanalysis/Pseudoscience Category:Eco-terrorism (which would be misread as saying that Sea Shepherd is eco-terrorist, even though it might be applied on the basis that Sea Shepherd is important to the eco-terrorism debate in the same way that psychoanalysis is important to the pseudoscience debate).

I am not sure whether the long-standing consensus still exists, since two other editors (Mdlawmba and to some extent Cptnono) agree with the IP. But there is clearly no consensus to apply the category, either, and the IP is trying to push this change through. Since 11 August the category has been applied to the article 12 times by the anonymous editor and once by Mdlawmba. It has been removed 6 times by Tranquillity Base, 4 times by me, twice by Cptnono, and once by Craftyminion.

The anonymous editor (previously always as User:68.41.80.161, but today when for the first time doing a 3rd revert in 24 hours as User:69.213.86.67) has been leaving bogus warnings on editors' talk pages. For example when I removed the category and left a long explanation on the talk page, I got a warning not to "remove content" without explanation. The most recent incidents of this kind (both today) were a bogus vandalism warning [30] against Tranquillity Base and a warning I received [31] for an admittedly borderline comment [32] on the Sea Shepherd talk page. The editor is aggressively whitewashing their two IP talk pages and even censored [33] a comment of mine with the misleading edit summary "Removed comments about myself. Discuss the issues, not me plz." (I can understand that the anonymous editor doesn't want to be reminded of their edit warring to misrepresent a key source of the article, but surely it would have been enough to remove the last relative clause rather than the full paragraph.)

I would appreciate it if an experienced admin or two could watchlist this article. Hans Adler 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the second IP for disruptively editing the User talk:68.41.80.161 page. However pardon my confusion on the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article, but if notable sources have called it an eco-terrorist group, then why not call a spade a spade? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We are advised to tread lightly using such terms.  Skomorokh  20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since it's transparently the same user and the IP in question seems to be a static one, I disagree with the reason for the block. (Not with the block itself, though.)

Regarding your question (which is off-topic here, has been discussed on the article talk page and perhaps should be discussed at WP:NPOV/N as well): It's not NPOV to call a spade a spade based on cherry picked sources that do so, if other, equally good sources call it a club or a diamond. Perhaps you didn't understand my analogy, but the most important experts on "pseudoscience" generally call psychoanalysis a pseudoscience, and yet Arbcom found in WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE that we can't call it one. This is now policy in WP:PSCI. Both terms have similar demarcation problems. "Eco-terrorism" also has additional problems, since the term has transparently been coined to make "violence" against property sound more dangerous than it is and thus make extreme action against harmless idiots more acceptable to the general population. Since this is part of a general trend to make the definition of "terrorism" more and more inclusive it's hard to tell whether "eco-terrorism" is terrorism. Also note that our best source for the connection, an FBI person's report to the US Congress, does not say that they are eco-terrorist but only appears to imply it. I am sure that this is no accident, since the same 2002 source also implied that eco-terrorism is terrorism and it would have been strange that Paul Watson wasn't put on the No Fly List if both statements were true. Hans Adler 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Were that strictly the case, then I suspect that Category:Eco-terrorism would be an empty category. However I wonder what gets Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front added to the category, while Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is excluded. Certainly all three have been described as "terrorists" by Western governments. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories are intended as search tools, not as vehicles for making assertions, although they are frequently misused that way. The question is basically whether a reader of the article might be interested in locating other articles that have been associated with eco-terrorism. Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question is easily answered by a quick look at the three articles. Sea Shepherd is a legal non-profit organisation incorporated in Washington. Earth Liberation Front is an illegal organisation; being suspected of membership in it seems to be a sure way to see the inside of a prison. "Animal Liberation Front" is a label used for a certain type of criminal activities. I am not sure where your confusion comes from. It seems the drama we are having here on Wikipedia is mostly related to a sympathetic programme about Sea Shepherd that currently runs on US television. Is there a similar programme glorifying the Earth Liberation Front or perhaps even Al Quaida? Hans Adler 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree 100% with your final two sentences. It would seem to me that an organization could be legitimately added to Category:Eco-terrorism if any WP:RS reported that a government had declared the group to be "terrorist," regardless of if that government were the United States (Earth Liberation Front, Earth First!), United Kingdom (Justice Department), or Iceland and Japan (Sea Shepherd Conservation Society). — Kralizec! (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. We only tag an organisation with a disparaging label when it is NPOV to do so. This is because a category inclusion can't be qualified with "according to the Japanese government" or "we don't mean they are eco-terrorists, just that they are sometimes mentioned in that context". So long as it isn't NPOV to call the previous US president a war criminal, it's not NPOV to call Sea Shepherd eco-terrorist. Hans Adler 11:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to stick with uncontroversial categories. If there was wide acceptence that what they did was terror (or a self catagorisation), but if we go based on what one or two people say, then we could just as equally put Japan or Iceland in the category based on Paul Watson's claims. To be honest the entire term smacks of meaningless news speak designed to dehumanise and trivialise a debate (and sell copies, of course), and while we should cover the term (it is wide spred) I'm not sure how much value we should be giving it. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been forced to link PETA to the "terrorist" word in the lead, with in-text attribution, even though they're a charitable organization with an all-star cast of members such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson. But if even one lone American senator or FBI official uses that word in connection with a group Wikipedians tend not to like—even though no other country in the world uses the term so lightly—then immediately the claim has to be added to the lead or the article to certain categories. I ended up having to write it into the lead myself at PETA, as I recall, just to make sure it was properly written and sourced, because people were constantly adding it. The attraction of these "boo-hurrah" terms (e.g. terrorist, pseudoscience), as philosophers calls them, represents one of the ongoing failures of how we apply NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, if a consensus of reliable independent sources call a spade a space, we want to be reflecting that in our coverage and not whitewashing things.

The organization has damaged property, sunk ships (and has sinking kill markers on their own vessel), and threatened lives (their own, and those of some of the whalers), though they seem to be trying hard not to get anyone actually injured or killed. They're trying both to change public opinion with PR campaigns (the TV shows) and direct action (they've used explosive mines against whaling vessels in the further-ago past).

I don't want to conflate them with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but "Environmental terrorist" is the current commonly used english word for those who take direct action in the name of environmental causes. It's applied to organizations which many of us support to some degree (PETA, and Sea Shepherd), some we find extremist (ALF, ELF). But it's the category in use in the real world.

I want my free-range whales to be harpoon free, too, but they match the definition of the word, and they blow things up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We are currently working on the question whether there is such a consensus of reliable independent sources. It may surprise you, but it's not even totally clear that there are more than perhaps one or two reliable and sufficiently independent sources that openly call them terrorist or eco-terrorist. And before we can talk of a consensus we would need to consider sources of comparable quality that disagree, or possibly other evidence that points in the other direction. Hans Adler 08:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. A quick scan of the field will reveal several countries that openly call them terrorist and a handful more that call thier actions those of a terrorist without calling them a terrorist directly. As noted elsewhere, a quick google search will show anyone the connection between SSCS and the term eco-terrorist. A careful scan will reveal who actually considers them as such. A review of dictionary definitions of eco-terrorism mixed with the violent history of sinking ships and a little common sense will tell you that they fit the dictionary definition perfectly. All that is missing is the question, should such a category exist? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeni and the Lincoln page

I had worked out a clear compromise on the Lincoln page between those who want to redirect Lincoln to Abraham Lincoln and those who barely want to mention Abraham Lincoln at all--mention Abraham Lincoln in the lead. At least one other editor signed on to this compromise, and provided ample justification as to why. Then Jeni and another editor come along and undo our compromise with just one little mention on the talk page that attacks us and accuses us of being America-centric. When I tried to enforce the compromise, Jeni started an edit war and accused me of not knowing POV and threatened to take me here Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a feeling this user would do this when I let him know that I would bring him here if he continued his POV pushing edit war! This user is making edits without consensus and has been reverted many times by a selection of editors, yet he won't take the hint that he needs to generate consensus before making such controversial edits (You'd think the reverting may just be a hint!) For what its worth, I don't mind bowing to a consensus either way, even if I disagree with it, its just that there is currently no consensus for the changes he is making! Jeni ^(talk) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jeni. You have to allow for others to join in. Not make a quick one hour discussion and change. Continuing to revert only escalated the matter. Reach consensus and then change. –túrian^patois 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, I think the problem is that you had worked out what you wanted as the compromise......and one other editor agreed with you. That's not the same as consensus to support the compromise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

When you've got both people and places with the same name, what's the normal protocol? Most if not all of the American cities called "Lincoln" were named for Abe Lincoln, so putting him afterward seems a bit out of sequence. The dilemma there is that presumably the British locations were named before Abe came along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agree with me, Bugs. For the record, the original compromise was between:

1. People who want Lincoln to redirect to Abraham Lincoln (several people)

1. People who want little or no mention of Abraham Lincoln (Jeni and a couple of unknown IPs)

The compromise was to mention Abraham Lincoln in the lead. I am merely managing it by reverting anybody who a)doesn't explain edits on talk page; b) vandalizes (which has happened at least once); or c) uses poor grammar (one editor left out commas). At least one of those reverts I made was vandalism or trolling, and none of them were discussed on the talk page. Also, remember that Abraham Lincoln is much more visited than any of the articles mentioned by a ridiculous margin Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The only part of it that is actionable here is the edit warring. What stands out for me is Purplebackpack89's 10 reverts in a few weeks, including 3 in 25 hours on 3 September, and 3 in less than two hours today. Hesperian 03:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Can I remind Purplebackpack not to bring the ins and outs of the content dispute to ANI, this isn't the place. I have started a discussion on the Lincoln talk page for that. Jeni ^(talk) 03:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Also note that another user has got involved with the edit war, continuing to edit against consensus. I am unwilling to revert anymore as I think that may take me past 3RR. Jeni ^(talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "agree with" anybody, I asked what is the normal protocol for a page where both people and places have the same name? Or is there a protocol? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reaching a agreement with extremely limited participation and then revert-warring to enforce the position is not consensus by any stretch of the imagination and reflects poorly on your judgement as an editor. Until you can demonstrate clear broad-based support for some alternative introductory lines, I suggest that the long-standing intro line remain in place (simply Lincoln may refer to: -- with no other elaboration). older ≠ wiser 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(multi-ec)Purplebackpack should not have gotten sucked into an edit-war (note that Jeni is equally guilty), but is correct on the content issue: it's idiotic that the dominant link by a margin of over 10-1 is hidden inside a table deep down the page. It is arguable that policy says the proper solution is to redirect to Abraham Lincoln with a pointer to the disambig, but pointing to the dominant article in the lead is a reasonable compromise. Hiding the link that 90% of visitors want is taking paranoia to an extreme. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the place to discuss the content dispute itself. Generate appropriate consensus on the talk page. Jeni ^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(more ECs than I can count) Seriously. This is no more than Argueing over the color of the bike shed. This is quite a WP:LAME issue to be worrying over. Its a disambiguation page. Insofar as Abraham Lincoln's name is on it, anyone looking for that article is one click away, and should have no trouble finding it. Otherwise, the level of concern on both sides devoted to this page is rediculously out of whack with the importance of said page to the encyclopedia. We could all use some tea, and to call the Mastodons back home and climb down from the Reichstag and take off our spiderman suits. --Jayron32 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at the talk page, I see no consensus or even a "happy medium" as you mention, Purplebackpack89, to make this change. Even if there was, a "happy medium" does not allow you to make any change. Even then, the amount of reverting taken place should have told you that consensus is clearly not for or against it, which means you guys should have discussed about this more before putting on your battle dresses and heading for the undo button. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(2Xec)This is more about the actions of the user, rather than the content itself, as I said, I have an opinion but I'll bow to the consensus, when reached. Also worth noting is that the user had the intention of edit warring from the start, per this diff.[34] For that reason I'd propose a short sharp block. A mentality like that is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia in my opinion. Jeni ^(talk) 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There's so much reverting going on, everyone is liable to be getting blocked pretty soon.

Then I can redo the page my way. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly had no intention of entering into an edit war, on my final revert I stated my next actions should it continue (which was bring it here). I merely reverted per the WP:BRD discuss cycle. If however, my edits are deemed to be inappropriate, I will take any sanctions made against me appropriately, but I feel I was acting appropriately in the circumstances. In retrospect, I perhaps should have bought this here one revert sooner, but we aren't perfect. Jeni ^(talk) 03:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 12 hours. This is getting ridiculous, and since there are other editors involved in the reverting as well, I think this would be best to allow (more like force) discussion. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the user has started inappropriately WP:CANVASSing on WikiProjects. I have no issue with him letting WikiProjects now, but he should do in a neutrally worded manner,[35][36] as I did while notifying WikiProject England.[37] This user is seriously starting to become disruptive now. Jeni ^(talk) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"A few Brits are saying that...."[38] If you agree, comment".[39] That's pure gold. :-D The sheer clumsiness of it just beggars belief. Hesperian 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeni's is WP:CANVASS as well,because she notified an English one without notifying an American one. That's partisan audience. If she didn't like it, she could've counter-commented. And did somebody do something to my talk page? The archive is on the talk page, and the new points from the last few weeks are gone Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that it is not possible to tell from her post where she stands on the debate. She is asking for people to join the discussion, whereas you are asking people to come support your side of it. Hesperian 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to mention this with my "canvass". Thus justifying it. I would now like to see this user blocked for continued disruptive editing. Jeni ^(talk) 03:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see clumsiness rather than malice here. It may suffice for someone to point out to Purplebackpack89 that they are behaving like a complete goose. Hesperian 03:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how much clumsiness is involved, as he refused to reword the posts when I bought him up about it. Jeni ^(talk) 03:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I said you could counter-comment. Besides, Hessy already fixed them.

Great. How long before this descends into "Soccer sucks!"... "No, American Football sucks"... "Cricket sucks!"... "No, Baseball sucks!" The last thing we need is ANOTHER pointless naming debate drawn along nationalistic lines... --Jayron32 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's called "Association football" you scoundrel! :-) Hesperian 03:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for us, you Brits would be living under the Third Reich ;-D Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC) loves jokes

Maybe it'll create political tension between UK and US? Rubs hands together excitedly ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cricket is a fine sport - lots of scoring, continuous action (except for the tea breaks) and plenty of intrigue. Soccer is... well, soccer is watching a bunch of guys in shorts kicking a ball from one end of a large field to the other. Tiebreakers are great. They should skip the 90 minutes of kicking the ball from one end of the field to the other, and just go straight to the tiebreaker. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if a successful compromise has been reached among the "warring" parties, on the Lincoln talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

On another note, can somebody explain to me why all my talk page edits since August 20, when I last talked about Lincoln on my talk page, have been rolled back? They even tossed my archive Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not rolled back, they're simply gone. Admin attention is needed here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins, please hold off on unprotecting the page until a larger consensus has been reached - as per discussion on the page. I'm feeling like Abe's messenger boy here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Purplebackpack89, there are no edits to your talk page after 20 August, as the history shows (unless they have been oversighted for some unknown reason) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh right...I got that page mixed up with a different one Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a sockpuppet, huh? Hesperian 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like "Plaxico" is just around the corner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My interactions with PBP89 haven't been pleasant at all. I have to say, PBP89 is again continuing his POV pushing and edit warring. He has done it in other projects as well. He doesn't care for consensus and the edit warring and this thread is a poor judgement of his decisions. IMO, he should try and cool down rather than going about and reverting. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 17:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Give another example. And how the heck is this POV pushing? I just want a guy with 10K hits a day who's in the core biographies to be at the top of the page. If I was POV pushing, Jeni was POV pushing in the other direction, especially on the Franklin page, which nows looks like the consensus on the Lincoln page (She accused me of breaking consensus when there hadn't been a talk page edit in yrs). And you guys forget that, among other things, I had to clean up typos and vandalism that included, "Lincoln was three feet tall and gay". PMLine, you're making baseless accusations that are practically WP:NPA. And Hessy, the "other page" is my page at Simple English Wikipedia. I also have pages in Simple Wikibooks and the French Wikipedia. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously false. There is no source that asserts Lincoln to be 3 feet tall. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. (I can't believe I just answered to "Hessy".) Hesperian 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher

This really isn't an incident, but Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs) has a history of adding nonsense to articles and having it removed (see add & revert, add & revert). He's been warned o f t e n about this, but claims to not understand. Is there anything that can be done? Deserted Cities 03:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about those bands. Is there any evidence of edits which are actually nonsense and not just apparent confusion about genre or addition of redundant text (such as a sentence fragment about a song being unreleased when it is on an article titled unreleased songs by blah). Like this? Are those the correct tour dates? I'm not seeing disruption here. Protonk (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is just someone without a great grasp of English trying their best to improve an article (and failing), such as in this series of edits. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, that lack of language skills means they don't appear to understand when people try to communicate what they're doing wrong. Black Kite 06:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The issue is, as Y2kcrazyjoker4 put it Chris is "utterly incapable of following directions or making a constructive edit". As I mentioned, he's been warned to stop adding stuff (generally genres but other stuff as well). The issue here is that Chris does not respond to most warnings on his talk page and doesn't discuss any changes he makes. But yes, some of it is absolute gibberish. Deserted Cities 06:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sidenote, someone should look over his userpage. There's some personal information on there which may not be a good idea. Deserted Cities 06:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok. I just couldn't really pick out what the immediate problem was from the posting or a quick glance at the contributions. Protonk (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I would just like to point out that all of this could have been solved long ago. The Laws of the Universe, clause 42 clearly states that "an individuals potential contribution in any field is inversely proportional to their expressed appreciation for Coldplay". The user has at least 6 userboxes expressing said sentiment. This rates about 8 on a scale of one to Gary Busey. --M^ask? 08:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like the user is very young. He claims to be in the 8th grade in the US school system which, as far as I understand, means he's probably about 13 years old. That could account for his failure to understand what's going on as well as his poor grasp of written English. --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Being a student in the 8th grade of the US school system should not at all explain a poor grasp of written English. If someone doesn't understand how to write properly by 8th grade he probably never will. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That statement indicates that you haven't graded many papers from 8th graders recently. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Will-I-Am Shake-Spears (NO RELATION TO BRITNEY) wus a early righter in english of poetry and plays and rightings that is wellknown for her many many rightings who are published a long time ago and even today still". Yup, did an article once on basic literacy skills between US and Canadian students. Good news is that US kids know their history a little bit better. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles

• Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Last week Racepacket had removed a statement and a reference that stated that the University of Miami was commonly referred to as "The U", which was supported by the original link, citing a discussion on the talk page that had occured in April 2007. Another editor found the removal, undid it and added a new reference. Racepacket for the past two days has been editwarring over the exclusion of the words "The U", despite consensus being against him on the talk page of UM's article and at WT:UNI, where an ongoing discussion concerning the usage of the shorthand names continues for reasons I can't ascertain. He continues to assert that common names or short hand names or nicknames are slang and violate a precept of WP:NOT.

His disruption of this article (removing references, removing non-controversial common sense statements, filling an entire paragraph with {{fact}} tags) has moved onto other articles relating to the University of Miami (Miami Hurricanes and a {{notability}} tag on Iron Arrow Honor Society). The straw that broke the camel's back was when he removed the 3 references that supported what he was questioning [40] and then a little over an hour later removed the statements entirely [41], including undoing many formatting changes I had made to make the article easier to read. This accompanied with his inability to work with myself, DroEsperanto, and other users who have been trying to make the article meet his strict sourcing requirements is getting tiring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U (University of Miami) might be informative, here. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Uncle G, your reference is helpful. Obivously, User:Ryulong's claim is not true. I did accidently remove some changes when there was an update conflict which I immediately added back. The problem is that User:Ryulong has an emotional ownership in the article, as evidenced by his discussions on the talk pages. I am trying to get concensus while removing redundancies and reorganizing the article to conform to other university articles. I appologize for any inadvertant deletion, but I try to add stuff back as soon as I can examine the diffs that occured while I was editing and saving. When one gathers related sections of text that is scattered, one must edit the entire article and not just one section at a time. There are content disputes galore here. User:Ryulong (who is an undergradute student) has strong, but mistaken ideas about how the Graduate School of University of Miami and its Business School are organized. When I started fact checking the article, I found many comparative statements without any citations, such as the University was the largest employer in Dade County and that it was "the youngest" university to ever conduct a $1 billion fund raising drive. (The source said it was "one of the youngest....")

The problem with the deleted references is that they do not support the claim that the University of Miami is commonly referred to as "The U." The references are merely examples of websites where people are quoted as saying "The U" after laying down a context or antecedent. If there was a press report of a sociological study or a trademark strength survey documenting that people (beyond the campus) understand "The U" to refer uniquely to the University of Miami, I would support including the footnote in the article. The footnotes offered are either local, school specific, or not on point. We have had many inches of discussion on this where I have explained the concerns and I offered several compromises or alternative formulations. None of the cited works discuss or conclude that "The U" is in widespread use as a replacement for the University of Miami. (There is already enough confusion between Univeristy of Miami and Miami University.)

The reference to WP:NOT was explained earlier in full when I quoted from it that Wikipedia is not "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides." I think a little "Assume good faith" can go along way here. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/achievements_and_traditions/traditions/ and scroll down to the the 6th boxed area, titled "The U". For that matter, use any of the other 657 g-hits on miami.edu or 89 g-news hits. If you still don't believe it, five minutes of watching the FSU-UM game tonight will show you that they are often referred to as "The U". --B (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:B, thanks for the research, which again shows the problem -- even on the official Miami website (which is a primary source), "the U" refers to the split-U logo, or the U-hand-gesture or the University-as-a-whole. The question is whether there is any reliable secondary source, that is not just local coverage, that shows that "the U" is generally understood to mean that particular university. It is not like UNLV, SUNY, Cal, etc. I have given examples on the talk page that there are several schools that use "The U" in their own locality and 1) Wikipedia is not in the business of trying to document the geographic and demographic scope of particular nicknames and 2) it has proven to be impossible to find verifiable reports that people generally understand "the U" to mean the University of Miami. I have offered as a compromise to move it down to the ahtletic section of the article were it can be discussed next to the school colors, team mascot and athletic logo. But it does not belong in a parenthical equating itself to the name of the school in the first sentence of the article. Thanks for your help. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if that single example is referring to the logo, plenty of instances are unambiguously referring to the school, eg [42], [43], [44], [45]. Even the news media says the school is known as "the U" [46] This was a generation that grew up rooting for Miami, the school known as "The U," which won 34 straight games from 2000-02. Miami is one of my three least favorite teams (UVA and WVU are in there somewhere), but it is what it is. --B (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I know there are no reliable sources involved, but whenever a Miami alumnus announces on national football broadcasts what school they attended, they invariably say "The U". So to claim that it isn't called The U is simply wrong. Any more than claiming that Ohio State isn't called The Ohio State University. It's just something they do. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC

While I somewhat agree that it requires a bit of original research to look at the usage of "The U", I think this may be a case where Ignore all rules applies and where adherence to WP:V is borderline wikilawyering. Racepacket has also asserted that calling a school "The U" is just like saying that I'm going "to campus" or "to school", which I believe is an illogical comparison because "The U" is used as a proper noun and is only applied to some universities, not all. The use of providing context about which school they're referring to before saying "The U" and the fact that "The U" may not have the singular meaning of "University of Miami" are irrelevant: people often omit "University of" when mentioning their school (e.g., "I studied physics at Maryland" or "Have you applied to Chicago yet?"). — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that someone can remove all of the references to the lead (in the first diff) and then decide to remove the text entirely. I can only assume good faith so far. The wikilawyering and the continued removals of the references is going too far.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As is the nonsense text he added to further disrupt the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• With all due respect, summarily reverting changes without discussion or offering alterntiaves is being "disruptive". I've made many proposed solutions, which I don't think are perfect, but it is impossible to come to consensus unless people discuss where to go from here. I think that discussion on the talk page or WT:UNI is more productive than trying to discuss it here. If I am "borderline wikilawyering" I am sorry, but I don't know any other way to consensus. Bullying is not a solution either. Racepacket (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket is continuing to argue against the inclusion of the text on the talk page of UM despite consensus being against him here, on the talk page of UM, and the talk page of WP:UNI. Someone else's intervention would be good.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Would getting a third party mediator help? We need to get past the hostility here. Racepacket (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(To reply to both points): You have summarily removed the references and statements regarding the content on this page more than once in the past three days. There have been multiple third party mediators on every page where the actions on the article are being discussed. The consensus, as far as I can tell, is that you are incorrect in your removals of the text regarding the alternate names, and there have been multiple people saying that here, Talk:University of Miami, and WT:UNI. I have done all I can to improve the article in its coverage of the shorthand names, but you have thrown out every reference shown to you or have been saying that they do not show that the name is used, but it shows uses of the name. Your wikilawyering over this point has made me lose my patience in dealing with you. And I have stopped assuming good faith after you purposefully have been removing the references used from the article and then used that as an excuse to remove the text entirely.

You have stated that you want to create a new policy to cover these alternate names and it is clear that you have been using University of Miami as a case study. This content is on every article on a college or university. I am tired of arguing this same point over and over again. "UM" and "The U" have been proven on every possible chance that they refer to the University of Miami, at least in the context where the University of Miami has already been stated. People from the school refer to it as such. This point has been hammered in so much that you can't use the claw end of the hammer to get it out. I want to move on, but every time I check the page again you have found some other reason to expound that the content should be removed, which you then do yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a point I bring up above, Racepacket is suggesting that a mediator (a la WP:3O) be brought in despite there being multiple opinions brought here, on the article talk page, and on the WikiProject talk page. I am confused as to why he thinks an umpteenth opinion will change anything here. The horse is thoroughly dead and beaten after six days of this dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think were are near consensus. For the first three days, you just summarily reverted the edits without comment or justification. I then make some proposals and you asked me to wait to have others comment. Since this ANI was posted, I have proposed two different compromises, and User:B has posted a third and you have summarily reverted his changes as well. I have tried to get more input from other editors at WP:UNI and all we have learned is that "The U" / "The University" problem exists on other pages as well. The University of Virginia acknowledges the problem in a footnote, but you won't agree to include the Virginia disclaimer in the Miami footnote. We need someone to get the discussion to focus on the problems at hand -- the footnotes not supporting the article text and misleading the reader that there is a widespread "common" belief that "The U" means the University of Miami to a large number of people. From what I've read above, you might want the article to discuss the phrase "The U" and the strange U-shaped hand gesture along with the Athletic Logo or in terms of some branding scheme launched by the Athletic Dept in 1973. But the current parenthetical in the first sentence with the misleading footnotes is very strange and a disservice to the reader. A mediator would require you to write down what you are trying to say with that parenthetical and then we could figure out how to incorporate it into the article. Perhaps you are reluctant to do that because no verifiable sources exist regarding some of it, but it is worth the effort. I will bide my time and comply with the 3RR, but we are far from a consensus, and I am looking for an avenue to work toward one. By the way, leaving profanity or curses on my talk page does not move things along. Racepacket (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not reverted anything by B. There is no need to address the text in an extensive footnote as is featured at the University of Virginia page. There is no "problem" with "The U"/"The University". Only you see it as that. There is no need to express anything extensive about these alternate names. They are merely annecdotal references that need not be expounded upon in prose as you suggest, and there are no "misleading footnotes". You have been the only person to express any concern about these items (the thread on the talk page where you have reinitiated discussion was about a lack of references on these terms). There is currently a consensus against the various suggestions you have been making. And there is nothing that another mediator in this process will do anything about. You have been removing citations from the article which is practically vandalism. Multiple editors have been disagreeing with your changes (MiamiDolphins3, B, Do be good man, myself). Why can't you get the freaking point?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have reverted B. You are also engaging in indiscriminate reverting of my edits and incivility and are pushing Boosterism and emotional ownership of the article beyond what many would consider acceptable. Please reread the discussions and my comments. I get your points about "The U", but when an author drops a footnote reference it must match the statement in the sentence. The footnote just has references that quote someone local saying the "The U". That does not proved that "TheU" is "commonly referred" to mean Miami. Let's leave out the footnotes unless they prove the point. The talk page has a number of alternative formulations, but the phrase "commonly referred" is just weasle words that does not tell the reader what you seem to want to say about "The U" phrase.

That was not a revert of B's edits. And I'm tired about the semantics about the references. And "commonly referred" is in no way a weasel word/phrase. You are continually suggesting that there should be an extensive discussion of the name "The U" in the article, which I doubt I would find anywhere online (you continue to assume it refers to the Split-U logo or the gesture depicted in the article by the mascot based off of said logo and not because it is "the University of Miami"). I do not indiscriminately revert your edits, as I have not gone through and undone everything you have done to the article. Some edits I disagree with and undo and then change things to match your issue. Throughout your editing of this article you have shown zero knowledge of the subject matter as per your comments on the talk page and your inference that "The U" is a common noun and that Iron Arrow Honor Society is not notable for inclusion, when there was a Supreme Court case concerning the subject of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. However, the proper noun/common noun distinction was from DroEsperanto. I said "The U" is like a pronoun in that it needs a context or antecedent for meaning and pointed out that the Univ of Minnesota also uses "The U." If the Athletic Dept. is trying to build a tradition around it and is encouraging football players to introduce themselves that way, you can write about it in the article and people will understand that it is an on-campus, insider thing. If you want to use UM or The U as an abbreviation in the article, we can put it in a naked parenthetical without a footnote. But please do not claim that it is "commonly referred" without explaining the geographic or demographic scope of your claim of use. "The U" is too redundant with other schools to have world-wide meaning, and it could mean the school, the athletic logo, or the hand-gesture. Thanks Racepacket (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest anything you are stating about the single instance of "The U". It is merely an abbreviation and in no way a pronoun that is used to refer to different educational institutions, depending on the context already established. There is no way in my opinion that any of your requests can feasibly be filled because of your incorrect insistances. Why are you bothering with the semantics on the use of the word "commonly" in the lead and why are you insisting on requiring extensive sourcing behind the usage of the phrase? It's pointless and aggravating to everyone else. I think I had attempted to remove "commonly" from the lead paragraph, but then you brought up a completely different issue about it and it was eventually added back. Every time something is done to satisfy your requests, you bring up another issue with the same part of the article. You don't bring up the same issue on other articles (Florida State University, University of Minnesota, University of Utah, etc.), especially when we have found multiple sources and shown them to you here, the talk page of the UM article, and WT:UNI. This is why this thread is here, because I feel that you are now disrupting the editing of the article through your constant requests, deleterious edits, and apparent lack of knowledge of various aspects of the subject matter (and how nearly all of your edits in the past week have been to or related to the article).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your last comment shows the need for a mediator on "The U" issue. On the other points, I have been trying to clean up the University of Miami article since Sept 2, and have found time to work on a number of other articles as well (including creating three others.) We have reorganized the Miami to conform with the Wikiproject University guidelines and fact-checked the references (and found a large number of problems.) The information I found while fact-checking mislead me on two minor points, but we promptly corrected those. I don't think that "commonly" is helpful in the parenthetical, and propose that the parenthetical not have any lead in phrase or characterization. Racepacket (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The "commonly" in the opening paragraph is used on nearly every other institution which has multiple shorthand aliases. This is used on Florida State University, University of Minnesota, University of Utah, etc. It is a word that is in no way a "weasle word" as you have called it and it is just continued edit warring on your behalf due to your constant enforcement that the "commonly" part be strictly referenced. All of your focus has been on the University of Miami's article, including an AFD on Iron Arrow Honor Society despite there being non-trivial third party references to the organization. And all of the mediation should be coming from the multiple threads on multiple pages concerning this dispute. Further third opinions via other dispute resolution processes are superfluous just getting out of hand in an attempt to win your way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I find this situation problematic. There were multiple sources, and there is little grounds for Racepacket to justify constantly reverting the article. It shows a complete disrespect for Wikipedia traditions, such as BRD. I think he should be warned about this and, if he persists, then he should be blocked. I am not a friend of Ryulong, and the history between us would reveal the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Ottava and Ryulong that this is a problematic situation. I've left a warning on Racepacket's talk page. Killiondude (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is a problematic situation, but I am not just "constantly reverting the article." I have offered formulations based on the University of Virginia, the University of Wyoming, etc. User B has offered a formulation, but I think that emotional ownership is getting in the way, and each proposal is immediately reverted by Ryulong. Would everyone please read Footnote 2 in the version currently posted by Ryulong before commenting further. Again, the focus this week is on cleaning up the University of Miami, Ryulong implies that there is something suspicious about that fact. Racepacket (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket continues to make radical changes to the article shortly after bringing the change up for discussion on the talk page, bypassing any sort of possible discussion of the proposed change. This suggestion was made two minutes before he implimented the change in the article. This is getting tiring and trying to use WP:BRD to initiate discussion is getting bothersome when he bypasses the discussion portion every time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is not true. User:Ryulong ignores the discussions, or the contributions of others (besides me) and just summarily reverts even though the result violates various wikipedia policies. He is "constantly reverting the article." I am trying to respond to the discussions and have been deliberately slowing down the rate of edits on the lead paragraph to allow others to participate. The discussion portion of BRD must be something more than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_Miami&diff=312704628&oldid=312693245 "I don't like it."} Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G's take on the specific issue; dozens of university are called the U. It's essentially like saying "the University" . It does not belong in the lead--it;'s much too generic. should me mentioned as one of the nicknames -- "commonly" or "frequently:" for a list of nicknames isn't really a weasel word, but it's easy to avoid it:" Among the names used to refer to the university are: " There are many ways to include it--as Racepacket say in his 8:10 comment above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Ungle G has not said anything. He merely pointed out two AFDs. And Racepacket has been implimenting radical changes to the article without any discussion (or with a comment followed by an immediate change to the format he suggests). I am trying to come to a solution, but every day is just a new massive change with no one but him commenting on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sedna10387

I'm getting tired of dealing with Sedna10387 (talk · contribs), who seems intent, despite all the good advice he's got from other editors, on introducing into WP inappropriate articles about various aspects and institutions of his hometown. His most recent creation is Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings, which I've nominated at AfD; but previous articles of his have been speedied, AfD'd, speedied after recreation, and deleted as copyvio. There's also the problem that he uploads numerous nonfree logos to place in his articles, which then have to be tagged for deletion after the articles themselves are deleted. I think the kid is editing in good faith; but he seems unwilling to comply with WP policies and procedures, and I think the time has come for a block until he agrees to so comply and shows an understanding of what he's agreeing to. (If anyone thinks he hasn't been sufficiently warned or that other editors have not made an effort to educate him, trawl through the history of his talk page, most of the messages on which he's blanked at various times.) Deor (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And, once again, he's moved Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings back into his user space in an attempt to short-circuit the deletion discussion. (He did this before with Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge.) He seems to think that if he can only store everything in his user space until no one's looking, he can slip it back into article space without addressing any of the material's deficiencies. I've undone the move (not sure whether that was the right thing to do, but I'm rapidly losing what little patience I had left). Deor (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The AfD notice says, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Moving the article into userspace is de facto blanking the article. It needs to be evaluated on its merits, not userfied and restored to article space when the danger is past. I think moving it back was right.

My message to him is among those which has been blanked in the past; I informed him of some copyright concerns, including with images here. His only response was to remove the {{npd}} tag from the images, File:2nd building.jpg & File:Frank and mary's.JPG, with his IP. (No guesswork or outing there; see [47]. That & contribs make this a gimme.) This does seem to reflect a history of hoping problems will go away without addressing them directly. Not sure if a block is necessary (it may be, but I haven't looked extensively at recent edits), but if this kind of tag removal to preserve content out of process continues, it certainly will be. I believe he's working in good faith, but communication is essential. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that there is more than one city in America called "Pittsboro", so even if the article were notable (as opposed to being an advertising tool of the chamber of commerce), its title would need to specify which Pittsboro it's referring to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

←I've left him a fairly detailed note about how to interact with the community. Hopefully, he will be responsive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Being stalked by a user

A while back, I gave a 3O on an article about International Baccalaureate, and since then, I've got swept up into the conversation. One editor, ObserverNY (talk · contribs), has been particularly tendentious in her edits, and it's gone on for months. Yesterday morning, I read about Van Jones in the news and went over to the article and corrected a problem in one of the sources. I didn't realize Observer was active on that page, so I was rather surprised to see a snarky welcome from her on the talk page there, and a less than civil comment on my talk page. I participated in the conversation over there for awhile until it turned into a forum, and then I went away. I just checked the talk page of another discussion I'm involved in, and Observer has shown up there, more or less admitting that she followed me over. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive about this, but I'd rather not be stalked around. Can someone comment on this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear ANI - please be advised that the editor HelloAnnyong is engaged in a "conspiracy" here: [48] to have me banned. His/her sudden arrival at the TALK:Van Jones page subsequent to my posting that I was having no problem interacting with editors of extremely diverse POV on an extremely controversial article, was evidence to me of HelloAnnyong's WP:Stalking to bring back "evidence" to build users Candorwein and LaMome's ridiculous "case" against me. Sure I checked out HelloAnnyong's edit at Kitchen Nightmares. It appears another editor there, Roman88, is engaging in WP:Canvas, exactly what LaMome and Candorwein have done.

I don't believe in running to Wikimommy everytime somebody disagrees with me. Certain editors here simply have "control" issues. Or so it seems to me. ObserverNY (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My first edit on the Van Jones article was 9/6; yours was 9/1. I promise you that my intention on getting involved in the Van Jones article was only because I had read about him in the news - not to try to get evidence. If you read the conversation on the other article you linked to, you'll see that I haven't added anything about the Van Jones article. Others may have, but I don't control what comments they leave. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much for establishing those dates, HelloAnnyong. For you see, on 9/5, you said: "Now you need to take it to the next level. Without someone watching, the articles are just going to turn into garbage, basically undoing months of work. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)". And then, all of a sudden, the very next day, you miraculously woke up to read the news and didn't happen to read the history or talk page of an article you decided to leap into. Hopefully the ANI will see through your duplicitous scheme. ObserverNY (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've blocked ONY for 24h for incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Having blocked ONY twice by myself, I would recommend blocking ONY indefinitely. He's got an axe to grind and is a net-negative to the project. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrible block, IMHO. Hopefully it was rectified.--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Die4Dixie. Btw, I agree with your assessment of Reliefappearance's behavior at the Van Jones article. OhanaUnited might want to try an unbiased approach to administration and recognize the articles where organized "lynch mobs" of one particular (usually leftist) POV guard and dominate the page and actually obfuscate and start all of the edit wars when any sort of WP:Balance by an editor tries to be introduced. The Leftist editor's domination of Wikpedia articles is formidable.ObserverNY (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., DJ Pusspuss,and an editor who shall remain nameless

Comments removed. Craftyminion blocked for 48 hours for outing and edit warring by Tanthalas39. A stern warning to all those involved to remember to focus on editing the content and not on who some editor may or may not be. NW (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not sure WP:OUTING should be applied in cases that are completely obvious to all involved, perhaps someone would like to step in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. to end the blanking of comments, etc. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Absolutely. Comments have been rendered in good faith. Downright unsporting to have numerous Sysops reverting them. Crafty (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Crafty unreverted the comments again.[49] Ikip (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Nobody's arguing with your good faith, Crafty, but the tone is coming across as quite vindictive and the identity of the editor who created the articles should, in theory, be irrelevant to the debate. The comments add nothing and have been remove by three different editors (myself included) from both sides of the debate. Try to focus on the content, please. -- Vary (Talk) 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I don't see any real reason these comments should be removed. Tan | 39 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC) There is a discussion about this on Crafty's talk page, in which several editors are warning Crafty, and he is ignoring those warnings. Crafty's absolute statements sound a hell of a lot like User:The Land Surveyor, who was just blocked a couple of days agao because he was a sock of User:Peter Damian I will let a couple of editors who revealed User:The Land Surveyor look at this, if Crafty is in fact not a sock, he has nothing to worry about.Ikip (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Looking through the contribs, the personality and topic area is quite different from Peter Damian. I've never known Peter Damian to be so invested in reverting vandalism, and he is more sarcastic than angry, which the above comments seem to suggest anger at a user potentially violating CoI than biting comments against an encyclopedia that may or may not have failed at appropriately dealing with a user who produced quite a bit of content. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Otta, I consider that issue closed then. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with Vary, such wording as "we shit or get off the pot" only enflames things, let alone the last thing we need is the imagery of people going to bathroom. It is about as bad as the trend I have noticed in films lately that for some off the wall reason has to show people vomiting. Who needs/wants to see that? How does it actually advance the story other than just gross people out? Well, similarly here we do not need to use toilet talk. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) "Shit or get off the pot" is common slang, and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't remove people's comments simply because we don't like the mental imagery they produce. Tan | 39 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) None of this is vindictive. The editor created the articles about himself and he (not to mention his choir of supporters) needs substantiate to the community why they should remain given that sound reasons for their deletion have been offered. The editor surrenders his right to privacy not because he publishes this stuff, rather because he cannot cover his own tracks. For the record I welcome a sockpuppet investigation. Crafty (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Not censored seems to apply more to articles than conversation. In civil, academic discourse (and I have attended multiple actual academic conferences), people do not evoke such imagery. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Strawman argument? This is not an academic conference. This is Wikipedia, and we don't remove people's comments simply because we don't like the imagery. Tan | 39 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't we aspire to be academic? And what disturbs me most is the taunting "I'll out the bugger once more". Since when is it okay to out other editors? I have editors, whose real names I was able to figure out, swear at me and send me blustering emails and yet I have never saw fit to provide their real names on wiki to anyone else and certainly not in a mocking manner. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Deindent. Crafty is now in violation of the three revert rule, with five reverts in just under two hours: 1 2 3 4 and 5 He was notified of his near-violation shortly after his third revert and again after his fourth. Since the issue is already here, do I need to bother with the edit warring noticeboard? Crafty, will you self revert? -- Vary (Talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Reported to 3rr.[50] Wikipedia should have no patience for such editors. It is obvious that he is here on a personal vendetta "These comments will stand".[51] and there is no comprimise in this vendetta. I fear as soon as he gets off block his behavior will continue. Can an admin block him longer than the typical 24hr for edit warring, for his attempted outing too? I need to look into his edit history, maybe a community ban can be considered. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Given this is a matter of principle, I regret to say I'd rather chew through my own leg. My edits stand. Crafty (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I just protected the page for 1 day. You other editors were basically just baiting Crafty to violate 3RR. If some other admin wants to block Crafty for this, fine - but I won't. Tan | 39 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Crafty will take his strapping like a man. Crafty (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (refactored out) Ikip (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) WP:PP applies to all Wikipedia pages, not just articles. It is perfectly acceptable to protect an AfD for a short period in the event of significant edit warring. Your issues here were clearly not so much about the alleged OUTING as a witchhunt to get Crafty blocked - bringing up unsubstantiated sock accusations, baiting for 3RR, etc - even censoring for "tone". Tan | 39 16:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Tan, when you have one editor who has reverted five times and four others who have each reverted no more than twice, the least disruptive action is to block the editor who has violated 3RR, not to protect the page with his/her preferred version in place. This is particularly true when the page involved in the dispute is an ongoing AFD which you have now put on hold for 24 hours. I'm also not appreciating what looks like an assumption of bad faith on the parts of the four editors (again, myself included) who've found the comments disruptive and in violation of WP:Outing. Your comment here puzzles me: WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't seem to apply here: while one commenter in this thread did point out that the metaphor was unnecessarily icky, that's not the reason the comments were removed. -- Vary (Talk) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (refactored out) Ikip (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Bring it on Ikip. Ban my tuchus. Marshal the numbers right now. All my behaviours are available for the community to see. Crafty (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) He now posted a message on my talk page, outing the same editor again.[52] Tan, by letting Crafty get away with this, you are only encouraging it. Crafty's edit history shows that like many editors here, he will continue to push the line, and abuse editors as much as he can get away with. By protecting the page Tan, you are not stopping the drama, you are only reinforcing it, and emboldening Crafty. Ikip (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC) AfD unprotected per Risker and discussion on my talk page. This action is not an endorsement of any editor here - I still feel most of you are acting disingenuously here. Tan | 39 16:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Tan, that is why you are an admin, and I will never be, you seem to have much better judgment :) Ikip (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Tan. Just thank you. :D Crafty (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Per Tan, I think we can all act better and more sensitively to the issues involved. I've removed my own comment, which I think was unhelpful, and I hope everybody will allow that. Crafty hasn't said anything new, but I do dislike the tone. My apologies if I offended anybody. Smallbones (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to prevent anyone from being blocked, not to hasten a blocking and provoke spurious accusations of sockpuppets under every bed, but it's par for the course. NuclearWarfare seems to have removed Craftyminion's comments now, as well as this one, which seems over the top. I would restore it myself, but I don't want to wade into this mess any further. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an accident there; didn't actually mean to remove that comment, only the three below it. I have restored the comment by Simon Speed; anyone is free to reverse my re-addition of that comment. NW (Talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The question has to be asked by someone, so I'll do it - how are we going to be managing the COI going forward? We are going to pretend it does not exist? We are all going to hint to each other and edge around the subject? The use of expressive dance? We are going to have to come up with something or this situation is going to keep rolling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Note that I have re-blocked Crafty indefinitely. While I stand by many of the points I made here in this thread, I am forced to admit that this editor had an agenda, and was poised to follow it relentlessly. Tan | 39 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to read up more on the blocking but I'm concerned about the larger picture here, we have a potential CoI and our pseudonymity policy seems to be preventing coming to grips with it. That seems not good. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with Lar. As it is currently written, the outing policy protects all parties, the guilty and the innocent, the helpful and the not so helpful, equally. In the interest of encouraging contributions, that is probably the best way to leave the policy. However, I think we could beef up our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines to better protect the community. Possibly something along the lines of "If you wish to defend a subject you have a conflict of interest to in a Wiki-debate, you waive the protection from outing of the nature of the interest (biography subjects, company relationships, etc), as a matter of fairness to the other participants in the debate." MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think policy SHOULD make some better allowance (than it does now) for the idea that there are things you could do, that if you do them, you waive your anonymity. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an interesting proposal, and there are obvious deficiencies with our current norms that have been highlighted in this case. Offering lenience in certain instances of outing could very readily be open to abuse by the ill-intended, but existing norms seem also to offer too much protection to miscreants. I encourage you to further this discussion after putting some more thought towards it, MBisanz.  Skomorokh  23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mantanmoreland flap of a couple of years ago is a case in point of what can happen when COI issues get shoved under the rug out of insistence on maintaining an absolute policy against "outing". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if here is the right place to ask, but why is it an issue if someone edits an article on his or herself? Don't the subjects of articles usually know more about themselves and sources about themselves than we do about them? I suppose the subject of an article is less likely to be neutral, but I would find it odd if an article existed on me (I can say with all confidence and honesty that I am not significant enough of a person at this time to have an article on myself, maybe down the road if things go as planned...) and I would not even be allowed to add neutral and objective information or more importantly to challenge potentially libelous information. Anyway, again, if this question should be moved somewhere else, okay, but it was just one thing I am not getting here. Thanks and Happy Labor Day! --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how we rely on third party sourcing for reliability, it would seem silly to not rely on third party editors to ensure neutrality and reliability. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because people writing about themselves may have a tendency to inflate their own importance or distort aspects of their lives in ways that are not readily apparent to outside eyes. Note, for example, that if Xxx Xxxxxx is allowed to write two autobiographies about different persona, then we can hardly object when Yyy Yyyyyy edits his entry to remove reliably sourced information that he was once convicted of lewd offenses with young boys. It also happens that editors with strong conflicts of interest get into behavioral problems over "their" articles, and there are allegations of that here (improper archiving, misrepresenting discussions, and so on). Best practice is to declare the conflict and rely on the views of outside editors. Thatcher 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A WP:COI violation will also be a violation of some other policy, such as WP:NPOV. I view WP:COI as a guideline that helps conflicted editors stay out of trouble. When they get into trouble, it's a good idea to reference the other policies that they are violating. We can enforce our policies without outing people. Outing is a bad idea because it can be used maliciously or abusively. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation but it is still not dealing with the right now, right here issue - how are we managing *this* COI - even a quick look suggests at least one other article that needs care examination for NPOV and COI issues. Are we going to carry on with this completely pointless "this editor" nonsense or are we going to get on with business and deal with the problems? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to go through articles affected by the COI one article at a time. There is no solution that I know of that would remove all of an editor's edits all at once, and I don't think anybody would want such a solution. There is a wish among some editors, it appears to me, to declare some other editors totally beyond the pale, banned, blocked, and blown up, in order to avoid a repeat. I don't think such a declaration will happen here, but I don't think here there's any chance of a repeat, for some editors. BTW, do we have any precedent of what to do if an editor writes three autobiographies? Smallbones (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is completely pointless at this stage to pretend that we are not discussing Benjiboi and I have started a conflict of interest discussion over at COI to co-ordinate article checking. Their first edits were promotional/COI so there is potention that we have three years worth of edits that have COI/promotional material hidden within and overlooked because they were a respected and trusted member of this community. Pretending this identity is not out there is a complete denial of reality. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the hysteria seems to have died down a bit, can Craftyminion's indef block might be reduced now, back to the 48 hours it was originally? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that Crafty hasn't requested an unblock, I don't see the need to go down that road. If/when he requests an unblock, then it would be up for discussion. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that no has blocked Cameron Scott for saying the same thing -- and I'm not suggesting that they do -- it looks like one editor has been singled out for special treatment. The block for disruption may have been warranted, but the indef block was overly harsh then and even more so now. Why expect an editor to plead for an unblock to correct a mistake may in the heat of the moment, which has now cooled? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking by User:24.37.41.212

I would like other eyes to consider the continuing pattern of overlinking by 24.37.41.212 and determine if a long block is in order, after short blocks had no effect to either get the overlinking to stop or to get the editor to discuss the issue. Wikilinking is an important part of Wikipedia's functionality, but overlinking makes an article hard to read, and can if persistent enough be considered disruptive editing, i.e. vandalism. The editor has shown a pattern of linking to random phrases, to disambiguation pages, to articles other than the intended one, to common words, and of repeatedly linking to the same article. Their edits have been reverted by several other editors: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] and they have been warned on their talk page by other editors. After a final warning, I blocked for 24 hours. Then the behavior continued. After another final warning, I blocked for 72 hours. Then the behavior continued, even after another final warning: [58] shows the addition of multiple links to the same common words, such as "oak," "dove" and "spring." In [59] overlinking included linking to "hemotologist" repeatedly in the article "Hemotology." In [60] multiple links were created to "rudder," as well as redlinks to random phrases, and links to disambiguation pages such as Figure. The IP editor has not communicated on his or my talk page. I have requested that he read Wikipedia:Linking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wikilinks. I hate to block at all for overlinking, but it is impractical to follow the editor around and undo all the bad links, leaving only the few good ones added. Since the editor does not communicate or indicate a willingness to stick to just adding useful links, nor has made any effort to change the manual of style to make the overlinking an accepted practice, I suggest that a long block is in order. But I would like someone else to make that determination, since it is better to have consensus. Edison (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have informed 24.37.41.212 of this discussion and invited his/her participation. Edison (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've reverted some more of the indiscriminate wikification. This person was linking things such as
  • "on the coast west of Dodona",
  • "the first founders of places of divination in the aforesaid countries",
  • "brought on the calamities of ill fortune",
  • "endothelial disfunction" in one paragraph and "endothelial disfunction" in the immediately following one,
  • "decreased surfactant production",
  • "A higher mean pressure cycle-wide",
  • "which further impairs oxygen delivery",
  • "the surrounding skin", and
  • "topical vitamin E".
• This is completely indiscriminate — linking without even paying attention to the sense of the words and sentences being wikified. I've had no qualms about using the vandalism rollback tool on these edits, because this appears to be linking just for the sake of it, with no attention to appropriateness, style, or even meaning of the text being edited. I note, from reviewing the editor's contributions history, that others have reverted other similar edits as simple vandalism, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• 24.37.41.212 is prolly just inflating his edit count so he can request adminship! But to be serious, the question of a long block is surely just a matter of how much collateral damage it would cause. If none, then go for it by all means. A really long block, for wasting people's time (and causing them to inflate their edit count). Little Stupid (pretty smart today) splash! 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

I am really tired of reading "they're just trying to inflate their edit count". Let's declare a moratorium on the use of that term, please? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Was that request for a moratorium really necessary, are are you just trying to inflate... oh, nevermind. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a userlinks template to aid in the viewing the IP's contributions:

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

I am blocking the IP for two months. This will be their third block, and their talk page is full of warnings. They have never responded to any warning; in fact they have never left a talk comment about anything. Other admins may lift or modify this block if the editor will promise to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a vandal

One of my edits has been reverted and called vandalism by User:Deserted Cities. The diff is here. Furthermore, he marked the edit as minor, perhaps hoping to escape notice? Even further...um...more, I think he might be stalking me after an exchange I had with a different editor on the talk page of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", a page that Deserted Cities undid me on this morning. I got to "The Ox" by hitting "Random Article" and copyedited to the best of my ability, something I do here and the same way I got to "Weeps", and this guy whom I'd never met before comes shooting in and reverting with a vandal accusation. What does a Wikipedian in my position do now? I'm notifying the other party. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Per this comment and this comment (both on the talk for WMGGW), you show a clear lack of regard for consensus in regards to capitalization of band names. So to me, ignoring consensus constitutes vandalism, which is what you did on the Ox. It was marked as minor automatically because I used twinkle, not because I did it on purpose. Deserted Cities 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See me on my talk page if you want to discuss consensus and the like. This page is for the vandal accusation and the suspicion of stalking. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They go hand-in-hand. Deserted Cities 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. There is a time to defy consensus, whatever consensus is. I'll admit I don't have a very clear idea of that aspect of the Wikipedia experiment. If a clot of zealots squat on an article and come out of the woodwork and revert whenever some editor tries to edit it and shout him down when he tries to reason with them, is that consensus? When a gang of hobbyists decide that their pet thing merits some special consideration in defiance of long-standing convention and common sense and gruffly warn all comers to do it their way, is that consensus? I'm not saying that that's what's happened here, but I have run into things like that. When our friend John from WMGGW mentioned the Beatles group, I did go look at the project page for the guideline concerning capitalization. I couldn't find it. I have checked project pages before for such details, notably the botany and biology pages for conventions concerning nomenclature and reference names. John said that consensus was currently in favor of capitalizing the "the". I looked under "Guidelines", a reasonable attempt, I think, but nada. I tried the talk page with the hope of joining the discussion—no dice. Please show me where it says that on the project page.

There is a time to defy consensus. Ignore all rules. Anyone can edit. Nobody owns an article. Be fucking nice, damn it. You seem to have strayed from some of the core principles of Wikipedia. Be cool. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the pot is calling the kettle black. Deserted Cities 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that. I have done nothing to you. You, on the other hand, have reverted two legitimate edits of mine, called me a vandal, and started following me. And now you refuse to communicate. Show me where it says about the capitalization. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A) You told me to cool off, but it appears from your comments that you need(ed) to cool off. B) Here's one discussion on the matter here. Deserted Cities 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm a vandal if I don't find an inconclusive discussion buried in archive 21 of a talk page merely hinted at by a rude editor and adhere to your interpretation of that discussion? Douglas Adams would have loved this. I repeat that this is not the place for this discussion. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)Well what exactly do you want then? Blood? Deserted Cities 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "vandalism" should only be used for edits that are intended to cause damage. Edits made in the belief that they improve an article should never be called vandalism, regardless of how misguided they are. As you can see, misusing the word makes people very upset. Looie496 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the second comment I linked too, he says he'll continue to make similar changes, even though he's going against long-standing consensus; what would you call that? Also, I'm sure people don't like being called "groupies" or part of a "cabal" as Milkbreath referred to us. Deserted Cities 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the revert was right; but calling someone a vandal who is editing in good faith, albeit incorrectly, is any number of things, from incivility to newbie biting to just unnecessary. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line - yer both wrong, Milkbreath and Deserted Cities. Milkbreath, welcome to the Wikipedia project; if you wish to change long-standing consensus, be prepared to take it to a talk page and pitch a damn good argument. Realize that the status quo probably exists for a reason - that shouldn't deter you from trying to change a consensus you think is wrong, but charging in and changing it yourself - however commendable from a WP:BOLD aspect that may be - is not the best idea, and trying it after you were reverted is an even worse idea. Contact me on my talk page if you have questions or need some help. Deserted Cities, thank you for your vigilance in fighting vandalism and the like - but this was not vandalism, and calling it such never works out for anyone. I've seen the above situation dozens of times. Just take the tip, continue your good work, and we can all move on. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved tag removed, see thread at my talk page. I withdraw the offer for help; any other editor/admin can help him out if so inclined. Tan | 39 16:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me start again. I've been falsely accused of vandalism in the edit summary of a revert of a legitimate edit, and I suspect I'm being followed. What do I do about those two things? --Milkbreath (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:DHawker

DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver. S/he recently racked up a third block for edit-warring on the article. A few days into the block, DHawker is using 219.90.234.177 (talk) to evade the block and continue arguing the same tendentious point that s/he was blocked for ([61]). This is not the first time; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker, where DHawker was let off with a warning for using IPs to circumvent 3RR. I'd like to request administrative review; I am obviously involved, but I feel action is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the possibility that someone else could mimic this editor's arguments to get them blocked for a relatively long time, I've just blocked the IP address used for a week. Feel free to drop me a note if anything else develops. If this editor really is having issues abiding by a block, I expect other issues will crop up soon enough. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is trying to keep DHawker silenced, and in reality they are both back and forth with their reverting of each other. DHawker is not an aggressive editor and isn't vandalizing anything. He makes a lot of valid arguments and its for that reason he is being silenced. Feels like friggen kindergarten. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the block evasion was the posting of a single comment that mastcell simply deleted (Which is also against our policies, blocked or not). Please review the discussion for which he has been blocked for and see for yourself how threatening DHawker is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly welcome additional input at Talk:Colloidal silver. The above "dialog" is actually par for the course there. I seem to be in the minority with my view that blocks are blocks, and not optional suggestions to be circumvented at will, so more eyes might be useful. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be confused about what Floydian is saying, but it was my understanding that the removal of edits made by someone evading a block is generally approved by policy, not against policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That edit is certainly consistent with DHawker's style. The IP GeoLocates to Adelaide, as does this one, where the user acknowleges a (presumably accidentally - I think that was before my tenure at that page) logged out edit. Should I file a SPI? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, and find out that this user is just someone who feels that this article is treated unfairly (As are many of the fringe theory articles, which are often stonewalled by a group of experienced editors that attack anyone with a different point of view, and then ban them as soon as the possibility arises). What a warm welcoming message we send out at wikipedia now. "You don't agree with our view, then shut up or get out!"

Despite the accusations against him of being an account dedicated to edit warring, he has fairly discussed his edits on the talk page of the article. He has provided completely valid research and several references to backup his revisions, and the reverts by other users have all fallen back on a single reference which they use to undo all revisions that shine some light on the reality. The revisions have often ignored the point and picked out an insignificant error in order to justify the revision (For example, see this rediculous revision and the following revision which I made because Aunt Entropy's revision was completely uncalled for). This is not a vandalous user, and should not be treated as such. Period. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker is a single purpose editor and has a record of editwarring to promote a fringe view. Now he/she appears to be guilty of block evasion. I'd say the user needs either a long term block or preferably a ban from editing alternative medicine topics and should be encouraged to edit/improve other non-fringe articles. Vsmith (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring to try to force the citation of the non-PubMed journal Scientific Research and Essay (journal website) and now block evasion, all in order to push a fringe point of view, are not suggestive of a constructive editor. I'd certainly support a topic ban. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the ban also. This sort of editing is not even borderline. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering this is not the first time, I'm moving towards an indef block, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker - same behavior and the same article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pubmed isn't what makes a journal reliable or not, the way the research is conducted determines reliability, so just pushing that on it makes it clear where your bias lay. This is of course, as opposed to the study that bought a product off the internet, tested it, and then concluded that the results from that apply to every instance of colloidal silver (ooooh. Reliable, pubmed says so). I'm sorry, but when it comes to fringe theories, editors are dicks. Especially since, being concluded as a fringe theory, all the admins jump straight to the "if you see it as anything but fringe, you are just promoting it" argument. At best, a ban from the article is warranted. DHawker is not causing issues on the talk page, and his input is valid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@2/0: No need to file an SPI report. Note that DHawker signed the edit. I suppose it is possible that someone went to Adelaide, Australia and posted in exactly DHawker's style, pushing one of DHawker's talking points, solely to get DHawker in trouble on Wikipedia... but William of Ockham would roll over in his grave at that explanation.

@Floydian: This isn't the place to argue sources, but virtually every meaningful and remotely valid medical journal is indexed on MEDLINE. People generally don't want to publish good stuff in non-indexed journals, because other researchers won't find it and won't cite their work or build on it. MEDLINE indexing is not a guarantee of quality - a lot of crappy journals are indexed - but the absence of MEDLINE indexing suggests strongly that we shouldn't assign too much weight to the source.

@Everyone: I would be fine with a ban for DHawker from the article; I can put up with the repetitious agenda-driven talk page abuse as par for the course on these sorts of articles, so if the edit-warring were taken off the table, that would be sufficient from my perspective. MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm sealing my own doom with this but here goes. I explain all my edits in talk and most of the edits I've made in the last 12 months have been accepted. I've even removed the anecdotal stuff that some other people try to include. But Mastcell simply believes "Colloidal silver is a scam and it doesn't work". Those are his own words in Talk so its been a constant battle against his openly stated POV. He wants the article to reflect his POV. He wants me banned and he pounced as soon as he saw an opportunity to get rid of me. DHawker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.108.3 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to Mastcell. His actual words on Colloidal Silver talk were "Here, I'll put colloidal silver into perspective with other systemic antibiotics: it doesn't work". DHawker

And to Tim Vickers and DGG. I never edit-warred to include the reference as you said above. I cited the reference once. (It had already been inserted by someone else elsewhere in the article). It was removed by David Eppstein and that was the end of it. I never mentioned it again. I fear theres a bit of a feeding frenzy developing here. DHawker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.108.3 (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you review a block for me?

Resolved

 – block endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

99.228.164.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

99.228. apparently likes Pakistan. 99.228. apparently doesn't think much of India. Virtually all of his edits since June '08 reflect this.

He's been blocked several times in the past for edits which 'big up' Pakistan whilst diminishing India (sometimes making POV-pushing edits under the guise of 'grammar' 'wording' fixes, etc.), changing sourced data and replacing talkpage comments he disputes with POV screeds. I've been dimly aware of him for some time now, after warning him a while back against altering other people's talkpage comments on an article I had watchlisted. I noticed today from recent talkpage comments that he's still 'at it'.

So, I've blocked him for 6 months. His talkpage history shows a long record of blanked warnings from numerous users which have gone completely unheeded.

For the record, I have no particular opinions WRT India-Pakistan relations but I would appreciate a review of this block from a few pairs of uninvolved eyes. I feel that it's pretty much inevitable that I'm probably going to get accused of being the guy who's trying to stop the guy who speaks The Truth from speaking The Truth here.

Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we normally don't block IPs for that long, but in this case this has been shown to be a very long term lease on the IP, so its probably okay. However if it is shown he can release and grab a new one, this one should probably have the block reduced.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Its the IP's fourth block for pulling these shenanigans.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the banned users Siddiqui/Nadirali or Szhaider. All are on the 99.220s 99.230s in the same Canadian city YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. Normally, blocking an IP this long isn't a good idea. In this case, however, it is clear that one person is, and has been, using this IP to be disruptive for a very long time. Given the clear evidence that the IP is only being used by one person, the block seems fine. --Jayron32 01:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, block is justified. The address has a history, and this is their fourth time being blocked. –blurpeace ^(talk) 04:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing problem with Indian or Pakistani editors trying to embiggen their own country at the expense of the other. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Australian Place TfD

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

A rather contentious TfD for {{Infobox Australian Place}} was closed by its own nominator today, as No consensus. Despite a caution which says quote unambiguously (and partly in red):

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hesperian (talk · contribs) changed the closure notice (erroneously, but fixed by Mattinbgn) to keep.

I was trying to withdraw nomination with a speedy keep. "No consensus to delete" I thought was formal for saying keep. I have a right to withdraw my nomination. Reporting me here shows a disregard for my attempted withdrawal. You shoul dhave consulted me and made me aware that I had not withdrawn properly. It did not need you lot and Protonk to overide but I tried to la to rest yesterday with my attempted withdrawal. I reserve my right to withdraw my nomination, I just got my wires corssed yesterday with how to do so and it was misinterpreted. With having Protonk's closure overiding my bad attempt to withdraw initially makes it look like I didn't try to lay the conflict to rest myself. I had actually removed my comments from the discussion to to avoid further conflict and I could see it was not helping the situation and to indicate that I respected their concerns and wanted them to see I meant good faith. This ANI report and continued trouble is really very unnecessary.. Himalayan 10:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While he may or may not have a point about the outcome, I believe he is clearly at fault to do that, not least as an involved editor (as am I), so reverted him per WP:BRD, inviting him, in my edit summary, to use due process if not happy. Instead, he has reverted again. I believe that disputant parties after a TfD should use due process, not edit war, so have brought the matter here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "erroneously, but fixed by Mattinbgn", actually the error is Matt's. He converted the original nominator's closure from "no consensus to delete" to "no consensus to keep", thinking that he was correcting me. Hesperian 02:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is it important that the TfD be closed as keep or no consensus? I'm just asking this because I'm tempted to re-close it as keep with a warning that participants don't get to close debates and other editors don't necessarily get to remedy that by refactoring others' comments. However if it isn't really important how it gets closed, we could just trout the users involved and let things be. That is, if this isn't part of a larger fracas. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Hesperian raised the same issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Biased TfD closure by nominator: requesting re-closure. And yes, the type of close is important as the close was clearly a case of attempting to flatter the position of the nominator. Andy Mabbett has a declared position on deprecating IAP some time in the future and a "no consensus" close furthers that position much more than the more accurate "keep" close. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• While I voted delete and am generally in favour of deleting or merging redundant infoboxes, I invite you to provide evidence that I have "a declared position on deprecating IAP some time in the future", or that that is relevant to my comments or actions here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The first part isn't important to me. I could care less what might or might not flatter someone's position. The second part concerns me. Would this be solved to the content of everyone involved if an uninvolved administrator simply reclosed the TfD without going to DRV and all that mess? Protonk (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• [EC again!] Anyone re-closing should note that the TfD did not run its full course, but yes; my real concern is to discourage editors from reworking closed TfDs to suit their ends, whatever they are. I don't believe that keep or no consensus makes any difference, should the matter be discussed in the future. "Consensus can change" being key. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes; that is precisely what I asked for at WP:AN. Hesperian 02:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• [EC] I wouldn't like to say how important it is, but I do know that the issue has been very contentious, with a lot of accusations of bad faith and ad hominem abuse, spilling onto VP and project pages. I did view the early closure as a conciliatory gesture from the nominator to "the other side", but perhaps I'm too closely involved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy is right about one thing: the entire discussion has been very contentious. There has been a lot of ill feeling and mistrust on both sides. And to cap it off, the nominator removed most of their comments, leaving other people's replies as incomprehensible nonsequiturs and generally falsifying the record of the discussion; and then inappropriately closed their own nomination, which was clearly being thrashed, as "no consensus". I undid the removal of commentary, and converted the closure to a "keep". Andy having disputed my actions, I took it to WP:AN. I don't think the accusation that I have acted inappropriately here is sustainable.

The nature of the close is important because many on one side of the discussion have a sense that the other side has been sneaky and underhanded in the way they have carried out their agenda, and the "no consensus" close by the nominator fits in with that.

Hesperian 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No you've got it wrong. I removed only my own comments initially from the discussion nobody elses to actually avoid further conflict and I could see it was not helping the situation and to indicate that I respected their concerns and wanted them to see I meant good faith. I only removed by own comments not for disruption but quite the opposite to try to resurrect the situation as the conflict was going nowhere and I wanted to end it. Himalayan 10:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Andy having disputed my actions, I took it to WP:AN.;": No, you reverted again, as shown in the diffs above, then went to WP:AN. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't dispute it. Lest you give anyone the impression that I have attempted to deceive on this point, I suggest you go read my WP:AN post, which predates this discussion, and which ends with "Andy Mabbett undid me. I undid Andy Mabbett. It's getting messy. Could a uninvolved third party please review and re-close." Hesperian 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I closed the discussion at AN. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

. Working on the close right now. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that someone uninvolved should close this TfD. An involved editor should never close, even for uncontroversial or unambiguous closes. I would have done so as an uninvolved and neutral established editor, but it's my sense that a WP:NAC on this would just potentially make it more ambiguous and subject to more reverts. An uninvolved admin closure would be best for due process and also for less drama, per precedent and common sense, even if not necessarily required by policy. — Becksguy (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the debate as keep here. Please read that close comment before continuing to prosecute this debate. It is my hope that this issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution chain, not through the more common method of waiting and re-nominating later. I will echo becksguy's comment above that involved editors should only very rarely close debates and should never take that chance to establish some strategic advantage for later closes. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the time and effort you put into that. Hesperian 03:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I realize that the close was very early, but given the effectively withdrawn nomination and the ancillary issues with the discussion itself, we are better off leaving the debate closed rather than reopening it. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The close is in general a fair summary of the discussion and thank you for taking on the task of the close. However, I do take some exception to your comment: "The general motivation behind the nomination--that parochial templates ought to be merged into or built from standardized underlying templates--is a laudable one. Fewer, better coded templates would be better than more specialized templates." That was the very question in point in the discussion. I am not convinced that this is the case and certainly the proponents of IS did not even try to make this case at first, deeming it to be self-evident. I would be interested to know why you feel this is the case, either here, or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Standardisation on Infobox settlement or on my talk page. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I may leave a comment there tomorrow. My main purpose in leaving that comment was to reveal as best as possible my bias on the subject. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Your new closing comment looks very well thought out to me. I originally noted it as "withdrawn by nominator" when I removed the TFD tag from the template, and added the 'tfdend' on the talk page. I have appended this to 'keep (withdrawn by nominator)'. As it has been noted before, it probably doesn't matter. I was glad to see the nomination withdrawn given the heated direction the discussion was moving. I would say this particular thread can be marked as resolved (in my opinion). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I left a comment on the VP discussion. I would also recommend that this thread be resolved if the involved participants feel happy (or as happy as they could reasonably be). Protonk (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay by me; thanks again. Hesperian 04:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The matter as it involves the closing of the TfD seems to have been dealt with to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks for taking the time to take a look at the matter and for your comments at the pump. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Part 2

Mattinbgn appears to have spoken too soon. Himalayan Explorer, the TfD nominator has reverted the closure and added his own comments.[62] I reverted his revert but then, he reverted me.[63]. I'm tempted to revert again but I suspect I'll just be reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you overwrote what I had actually tried to withdraw my nomination initially. I've retained Protonk's evaluation as it is a useful summary but the fact remains that it was a self withdrawal but wasn't done properly. The current version acknowledges it was a self-withdrawal by the nominator and the evaluation is given underneath by Protonk which is how I think it should be. I tried my best to appease the situation byt trying to withdraw my own nomination but the overide by Protonk and Hesperian had now made it look as if I didn't try to end the conflict myself which is completely wrrong. I just got my wires crossed with how to withdraw and somehow ended up closing rathe rthan stating withdrawal. I have a right to withdraw my own nomination. The reason why it is important that I withdrew my own nomination but so show people that I was very keen to end the conflict and ill feeling. I have aonly removed comments which since have overidden what I had originally tried to do, withdraw my nomination with a resounsing keep I've acknowledged that the right thing to do was to discuss with WP:AU, please see my posts to Orderinchaos. I've apologised for not respecting more of your concerns earlier, but at least I had the ability to apologise and try to resurrect the situation. I tried to close the nomination by myself yesertday to avoid a prolonged heated discussiion and the very reaosn I withdrew all my comments was precisely because a lot of them wer enot heloping the situation and detracted from my good faith intentions which I'm now discussing rationally with Orderinchaos. I have a right to withdraw my own nomination which is what I actually tried to do initially. The actions since has inflmaed what I had tried to put to rest myself yesterday and I was overidden on a closed debate that I started and I had ended. You just misinterpreted my closure. What I emant to say with Nomination withdrawn. Resounding strong keep I tried hard to appease the situation yesterday and end the conflict but this has further stirred up trouble unnecessarily. I actually wasn't aware with how many people were happy or connected with the template otherwise I would have spoken here first. Again I have apologised for not consulting you first but please assume good faith. This ongoing ill feeling is not helping anybody, despite the fact I respected your concerns by swiftly trying to withdraw my nomination. I don't know what I have to say for you to understand I actually mean well and would actually simply like to see good quality maps in your articles and actually try to help improve things rather than degrade them. Orderinchaos can see that actually I would like to move on discuss things constructively as I should have done initially and I've acknowledged this, why can't you? Please just accept that I withdrew my nomination with an obvious strong keep in the debate and would now like to work and discuss things with you without conflict. The template was swiftly kept, now we should discuss what should have been discussed before the antagonizing TFD. Himalayan 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Himalayan Explorer and also warned him/her about this disruption on their talk page. I am now going to mark this thread as resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Withdrawing nominations

Is it not acceptable for somebody who nominates an article or template for deletion to self-withdraw their nomination? Check out Line 122 and Line 172 of this. I clearly withdrew the nomination yesterday. I did so yesterday on an Australian place template yesterday but I got my wires corssed with how to do so so. Then I log in today and find not only my closure has been overidden but it has been stamped out and comments I myself had made which I rmeoved to try to reduce the conflict over the situation were restored and it was closed by Protonk. Since MSGD has reverted all attempts I have made to mark it as a self withdrawal which I had done before I myself was overidden which I had infact tried to do and has dismissed me as some sort of disruptive vandal. If anybody else here tried to withdraw a nomination themsevles as final and later find out somebody has completely disrespected that and overwridden it would they find this acceptable? When a user clearly makes a good faith attempt to self close a nomination shouldn't this be acknoweldged? I believed all that needed doing was to prompt me that I had incorrectly closed the nom as a close rather than an actual withdraw and it should have been reworded to indicate a withdrawal not completely overridden. Himalayan 11:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether, for example, there have been delete !votes. If it seems plausible that it might be deleted, self withdrawals are sometimes reverted. Seems to be closed now. — neuro^(talk) 11:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I don't know the context, didn't partake in that discussion, but normally withdrawals are only permitted in a situation where someone else hasn't also recommended delete. Once someone else does that, it removes your ability to withdraw as there are other editors advocating that course of action. Withdrawal is usually only used in situations where the nominator missed some sources, or misunderstood a policy, etc--Crossmr (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, but it makes it look now like I didn't at least try to appease the situation. The situation indicated a resounding strong keep so I attempted to self withdraw my nomination yesterday and retracted my own comments which didn't really help addresswhat my real concerns were and would only cause further conflict, but this was misinterpreted. I'm not happy with this, worse still is the closing parties inability to inform me or discuss with me my initial closing error and to overide me. I wonder how many other people here would be happy with having their attempts to close a debate they started with a withdrawal being overidden.. Complete lack of good faithh over the entire situation. Himalayan 11:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out Line 122 and 172 of this.

My withdrawal was surely good enough, did this really need to be stamped out and reported to ANI??

I ended the withdrawal by saying this, "I am withdrawing this. It looks like consensus could be reached if adequate changes were made to the Australian Place infobox, namely the adding of a simple pushpin locator map and coordinates rather than having to resort to x and y pins which editors more accustomed to standard templates find difficult to use and a possible reshuffling of the order of the parameters. So perhaps this discussion could be carried on on the template's talk page or the Aussie noticeboard but in a more rational way to decide how to improve the existing template and address the concerns which prompted this nomination.". Basically I fully endorsed what people were saying and indicated my withdrawal but this somehow not good enough? I'd have been happy to indicate strong keep but somehow it was misjudged. Very bizarre, I cannot understand the thinking of why you felt that was a neccessary action to originally report me above and then my attempt to correct it disruption... Himalayan 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"My withdrawal was surely good enough, did this really need to be stamped out and reported to ANI??" -- I'm confused, didn't you report this to ANI? — neuro^(talk) 11:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, check up the ANI page, I was reported here last night for actually self withdrawing my nomination which was intended as an act of goodwill and to end the dispute and dsicuss things rationally from now on, see what I actually wrote. For some astounding reason it was miscontrued as further ill feeling and I was reported here. Then when I tried to restore what I had initially intended, to simply marked the TFD as self-withdrawn I get me edits reverted and overidden again and dismissed as causing disruption, It seems a pretty unfair series of events. Himalayan 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an argument against withdrawal: It implies that you are the owner of the article. Once an article is nominated for deletion, the wikipedia community has the right to decide what to do with it, just as the community has the right to nominate the article for deletion - because the article belongs to the community, not to an individual. This is different from requesting adminship and then withdrawing, or filing a complaint and then withdrawing, as those are individual initiatives. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps. But if the outcome is already evident, it just saves needless work. For the record, the articles don't 'belong to the community' legally, they belong to the contributors to that particular article. — neuro^(talk) 12:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I am 100% certain I've seen hundreds of people withdrawing their own AFD nominations. I am also 100% certain that the nominator, if the nomination is clearly going to be a resounding snowball keep reserves thr right to acknowledge their nomination mistake and cancel the nomination. I've sene it happen countless times over AFDs. This is completely double standard and a very bizarre approach to a situation I'd felt I'd already solved by keeping the template. I can guarantee that self-withdrawals are accepted on here but because some people misinterpreted my clear attempt to appease the situation and end the debate myself I get overidden? Himalayan 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Neurolysis may be right, but that runs counter to the assertion that what you enter in an article is subject to "merciless editing", meaning that its original author does not own it. As far as withdrawing, what's the hurry? Why did you nominate it in the first place? Why not just let the process run its course? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, as one (the only other one?) to have cast a delete vote in that TfD, I don't see a problem with withdrawing the nom. I still feel that a specially designed infobox is overkill, and that the users who voted keep did not address the point of the TfD and lost themselves in patriotic argumentation over common sense, but the discussion was probably already dead before I cast my vote. So no, I certainly won't hold it against Himalayan that he withdrew it. Dahn (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to actually help the Australian articles and add a proper pushpin map to articles like Alice Springs you see in 95% of place articles on here. But I found I couldn't add one to the template making editing them difficult so I thought it might be easier to convert to a standard infobox settlement which you can easily add a pushpin map to without having to find x and y pins. I genuinely thought the infobox was redundant. However it turned out that most of the Aussie editors wanted the template speedily kept so I withdrew my nomination to save a further conflict, yet I had this overidden and dismissed in bad faith. Himalayan 12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with withdrawing a nom if it's pretty clear it's going to be kept, and you are convinced by the keep !votes. Saves time, saves needless effort of a closing admin and saves the chance of starting a dispute in some cases. We are allowed to withdraw FACs, after all. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the reason for overiding my withdrawal was because of one or two delete votes, then it should have been allowed to resume and not closed it prematurely or overidden me with another close. As it stands nominations typically should last a week to give a fair turn out. This was closed within a few hours because 99% of people who voted strong keep were those with a self-interest in the template turned up soon after it being reported to protest. Hardly a fair turnout but I just wanted to end the hostility. I feel I have been mistreated amongst all this as people always assumed bad faith, even when I tried to end the conflict myself. If you look into those who actually requested speedy keep you'll find they are all AU wikipedians who turned up to protest, with virtually no neutral comments on both templates from other parties. Technically, if my own withdrawal was not acceptable, this TFD should still be open to give a more fairer turn out after the initial protest. This site at times can be very unfair. Formal TFDs and AFDs without withdrawal should last much longer than a few hours that this did especially taking into account the vast majority of those who voted. Therefore the closure procedure which has taken place since is completely against guidelines as you do not close nominations within a few hours if the majority of the votes are those self-interested in the template unless it is a self withdrawal. Himalayan 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody answer these questions:

• Is an editor permitted to withdraw their own nomination if a high number of votes indicate a certain outcome?
• If a nomination is not withdrawn, should AFDs or TFDs be formally closed within literally a few hours by another editor, especially if the vast majority of the votes dictating the given outcome are by a distinct group who have turned up to protest and influence the way the discussion has gone?
• Is it not true that unless an editor withdraws their own nomination, that formal AFDs and TFDs should last a full week to give a fairer turn out, especially if a deletion has been subject to a mass protest?

What has taken place here is a violation of normal procedures. Am I the only one who can see that this is unfair? Himalayan 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no solid answer. It is case-by-case. — neuro^(talk) 12:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what Himalaya is complaining about. He wanted an item deleted, so why is he now so anxious to have it kept? On the other hand, between with Chamal said, and the "delete" voter withdrawing his delete vote, what's the hangup on letting him withdraw the nomination? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you were trying to do the right thing. The concern, however, was that while it is fine to withdraw a nomination, you not only withdrew it, but also closed the debate with a summary of "no consensus". Even if you were right, making that call as the nominator puts you in a bad position, and it did look more like a clear keep to me. While no consensus defaults to keep anyway, a no consensus makes it easier to re-nom the template later, which is a problem given that I doubt that this issue is over. As this was a contentious issue, the better move would be to have withdrawn your nomination and let someone else decide how to close it, especially as others had voted delete already. However, irrespective of that, this is a minor issue now. Perhaps it would be best just to walk away from the TfD and focus on other things for a bit? - Bilby (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually tried to change it to a speedy keep. I thought "no consensus to delete2 was a formal way of saying "Keep". However my attempt to appease the situation was overidden. My intention was to withdraw the nomination and is the only situation where such a swift closure is accpetable. As it is closure by another party when the outcome is clearly influenced by self interest of the template is deinfately not a fair closure. I have a right to withdraw my on nomination which is what I tried to doa dn would hav been happy to mark it with speedy keep, I obviously didn't make myself clear. You should not have overridden me but you shoul dhave informed me of me error and given me a chance to mark it as withdrawn. As it stands now you have a quick closure by another party over a TFD which should be lasting a full week if you take into the way the decision was clearly affected by the initial protest storm. If my withdrawal was unacceptable this TFD tehcnically should stil be continuiing to give a fair turn out. Himalayan 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're really not helping your case by arguing this. No one was blocked, there were a couple of warnings and a bit of confusion. It would be wise just to step back and take a breath, as this would be a minor, or even a non-issue, if it was left alone. To clarify, though, in case it helps: no consensus and speedy keep are not the same. Speedy keep says that, when we looked at it, there was no case to answer, so there's no point in continuing the debate. No consensus says that the two sides couldn't come to any agreement, so we'll let it stay, but this may need revisiting. As a result, articles where no consensus is found can be re-nominated soon afterwards, but keep and speedy keep tend not to be, and only if enough time has passed so that there is a reasonable chance that consensus has changed. As far as I can tell, you acted completely in good faith, tried to do the right things, but made a couple of errors that were fixed when the TfD was re-closed by a neutral party. Now that they've been fixed, the sensible thing would be to let it go. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You actually don't "get" to close a nomination because you have withdrawn it. speedy keep allows anyone (including the nominator) to speedily close a discussion as keep when the nom has withdrawn and there are no outstanding good faith delete votes. Both need to be true. I've made the same mistake in the past, as have many other people. In closing the TfD I realized (and commented about here) that it was very early, but I figured that the nature of the complaints and the discussion here made further debate for the sake of debate meaningless. That said, the debate is over. If you have a problem with the wording of the close or you feel that the close should have been yours to make, then your avenue of recourse is deletion review. My strong suggestion is that you let this go and work with template editors to come to a compromise solution over migration and standardization. Protonk (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Letting it go and trying to work with editors to come to a compromise solution over migration and standardization was precisely what I thought I had done last night by withdrawing my nomination. I am reacting over recent events which saw me reported here for trying to do exactly this and further ignited a closed situation. A little good faith from you all maybe? I don't think it was necessary to stamp over me like you did, just modify it as a withdrawal, end of problem. If you had simply accepted or modified by withdrawal as a keep last night and forgotten about it I would not be here today. Himalayan 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why I chose to reclose the debate is spelled out in the section above. Protonk (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia unacceptable behavior at The Soviet Story

Russavia has become increasingly combative regarding responsible portrayal of the Soviet legacy and now has finally gone over the top with comments such as this: "Propagandic Republic of Latvia's F.A [Foreign Affairs Minister" and edit comments threatening "fighting to the death". This is way over the line and based on this heinous behavior I suggest administrators consider, at a minimum, a permanent topic ban for Russavia for any article involving Russia/the USSR and the Baltics/Eastern Europe. I abhor these sorts of proceedings, but this cannot be tolerated. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And we have "cry me a river" derisive deletion on Russavia's talk page of my protest. I rest my case, this is abhorrent behavior. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo Vecrumba's call for, at the very least, a permanent topic ban. He has a history of serious incivility that is clearly spinning out of control. A promise to continue "fighting to the death" is a textbook violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND; given that and the WP:CIV and WP:NPA issues, I'd say the user has exhausted the community's patience by now. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I second Vecrumba's call. Russavia abusively called me a "disruptive ass" because of a copyvio concern I had over one of his images he uploaded. --Martintg (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Combative? Because I dare demand that ALL POV be covered, and covered inline with what sources say? So basically "Russavia has become increasingly combative regarding responsible portrayal of the Soviet legacy" means that Russavia doesn't allow you to dictate what will or won't appear in articles, particularly if it doesn't agree with your own POV, much to your derision. And how is my comment about the Latvian Foreign Minister any different to what you say about other figures? There is no difference. And in regards to Martintg, what happens on Commons has no bearing on here. But your actions at File:Brothers in misfortune.jpg were of the same type - no sooner had I introduced that photo into The Soviet Story in order to provide a visual for criticism of the documentary, and you attempted to speedy it..no sooner had I uploaded it to commons as it is clearly PD-Russia-2008 (if one knew about copyrights they would have known that) and you tried to speedy it there too - instead of taking it to discussion. And my "fight you to the death" comment, it was clearly meant as humour -- see the :D right after it? Get a life you all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if my comment about the Propagandistic comments from the Latvian Foreign Minister is combative, will I see a call for complete topic banning for those who profess their belief on talk pages that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile? You all know such things have been said, but I see no call for banning of those people from the above. So yeah, cry me a river with your clear attempt to gang up on a supposed content opponent. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what policy requires that all POVs be covered in an article? And what policy gives any user the right to demand anything? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the diffs which show that Russavia's editing on Eastern European and Soviet topics creates WP:BATTLEGROUNDs and is characterized by incivility, statements such as "I will fight you to the death" also displays serious problems with WP:OWN. Additionally, the last two comments written by Russavia above clearly show that s/he doesn't think there's anything wrong with this kind of behavior - there's no apology, no admission that s/he has gone over the line and the tone is calculated to amp the temperature (per Battleground). The lame excuse that "I was just joking" ... of course if that's the case then all sorts of bad behavior can be excused, as long as an editor soon afterward claims that they were "just joking". Personal attacks? I was just joking! Incivility? Get a sense of humour! Etc. Note also that Russavia's claim that s/he just wants to have "ALL POV be covered" basically refers to inclusion of WP:FRINGE POV. Given this users block record (for edit warring and harassment of other editors) a topic ban would be a very mild slap on the wrist indeed.radek (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also that now the user is edit warring on another SU/EE article and has violated 3RR there [64] (s/he spared us the incivility this time) (report filed at 3RR [65]). This is of course a different issue then the one here but does illustrate that this user's bad behavior isn't confined to one incident (in case that wasn't obvious from the block log).radek (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As someone who has had only limited (and relatively positive) personal contacts with Russavia, I have been taken aback by some of the diffs provided here. To me it looks like the user has a history of some fairly persistent incivility and a tendency to make things personal. I don't know anything about the background to the dispute and how at fault other editors may be. But as a (I hope) relatively neutral observer of Russavia's behaviour here, I would endorse the imposition of a time-limited topic ban. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Russavia has done a lot of good work in organizing Russian content. However, I'm sorry to say that where it concerns:
  1. representation on WP of the Soviet legacy in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, and
  2. official Russia's treatment and representation of that legacy

that Russavia has demonstrated they can no longer contribute constructively. The virulence Russavia has demonstrated cannot be tolerated or excused in any way. I can only see a permanent topic ban as a solution here. That Russavia's defense is that editors aren't banned for calling Putin a sexual predator molesting children confirms Russavia's destructive siege mentality. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction

In his edit notice at [66], Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote that the content at issue was "hardly undue and i willl fight you to the death on this :D." This constitutes battleground-like behaviour as prohibited by WP:BATTLE and specifically WP:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Russavia has a history of disruption in this topic area as demonstrated by his block log. In his comments above, he has not shown understanding or regret, and I find that his claim that the comment was meant to be humorous because the supposed smiley ":D" was appended to it is not credible. Under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, therefore, I hereby topic-ban Russavia from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months. I will consider imposing an indefinite block in the event of any violations.  Sandstein  13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, not that it needs it. Diffs are.. disturbing from such a longstanding member of the community. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support this topic ban, per my earlier comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Gamaliel has threatened to censor my talk page and has been very uncivil

Resolved

 – Sock sent to the wikipedia laundry

Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A short while ago, I added a quote to my user page labeled "Funniest Quote I have read in a year" (the quote being from a fellow Wikipedia user on a talk page in which he said "Fortunately for us as editors, we have Wikipedia policy, and need not get bogged down by our personal feelings.") Originally, I had the editor's name after the quote indicating he had said it. After administrator Gamaliel suggested it would only serve to antagonize the editor, particularly since the editor and I had been in editing disputes previously, I removed the user's name from the quote and further changed "Funniest Quote I have read in a year" to "Favorite Quote." This exchange then took place:

I have removed the arguably offensive, yet sincerely descriptive, word "funny" from the preamble to the quote, and have further removed the source of the quote's name. Thank you for your concern.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least it's a step in the right direction. Thank you for taking it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Realizing that the latter remark was a very "smart" (as in smart-aleck) thing to say, and realizing that I had gone above and beyond what was necessary (I could have just gotten rid of the "Funniest" label, or removed the user's name as the source of the quote), I decided that I would keep the "funniest" language but remove the user's name as the source of the quote. Then, the following exchange took place (from my talk page):

Actually, it is arguably much much more than principles of "civility" would require. The only thing that was arguably uncivil about it was my labeling it a "funny" quote (which it is.....hilariously funny). Presumably, I could leave the quote up there with its source as long as I removed the funny language. The person who said it has no privacy interest in what he has posted on a public board. So, in response to your snippy comment above, it is not a "step in the right direction," it is an overwhelmingly nice gesture to another who arguably has done nothing to receive it. I find it strange that you and him edit all the same pages and you feel it necessary to come to my page and express your sensitive feelings about my posting his quote on my user page. Very strange indeed.

You haven't begun to see snippy yet. There is no privacy issue, the issue is civility, and that quote serves no conceivable purpose but to antagonize a user you are currently in conflict with. If you feel he has not followed policy in his dealings with you, complain to me or another administrator or to a relevant noticeboard. This sort of silly retaliation is not called for, and if he requests it, I will remove the quote. Gamaliel (talk) [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]02:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"You haven't begun to see snippy yet?" You are being very antagonistic and uncivil. Please stop. The quote is no longer attributable to any user. Therefore, removing the quote from my user page would be a clear abuse of your power. Again, please try and keep civil. If you continue to be disruptive and antagonistic, I will be forced to contact other administrators. Thank you for your cooperation.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As indicated above, I have removed the user's name from the source of the quote. Therefore, there should be absolutely no issue involved with this. Yet administrator Gamaliel has continued to harass me and threaten to censor my user talk page by removing the quote. I would like someone to please stop him from harassing me, and, if possible, get him to apologize for his uncivil behavior and disruption of my day. On a side note, I actually do like the quote and am not trying to antagonize anyone with it (it's awfully hard to antagonize someone with a quote when you're not naming them as the source).Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If someone were do something like that, I would be offended for the most part. I find it borderline personal attacking, since, regardless, you are trying to bring down the credibility/honor/reputation/(fill in the box) of the editor who said it. You should remove it from your page. –túrian^patois 03:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How can you bring down someone's reputation if you don't attribute a quote to him?Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When people come across it, they will not know who said it.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive at the least....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I can at least see the argument that it’s disruptive if it’s attributed to someone, but how in the world can the following quote – unattributed to anyone – be disruptive or capable of bringing anyone’s reputation down? “Fortunately for us as editors, we have Wikipedia policy, and need not get bogged down by our personal feelings." Could someone please answer that?Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel said "if he requests it, I will remove the quote". Seems fair enough to leave it at that and move on? Rich Farmbrough, 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

My problem with that is that it allows someone else to dictate what is on my user page even if there is nothing with what is on it at the present time. You will note that it is fairly common for Wikipedia editors to include quotes from other editors on their user pages (unattributed to a particular user, of course, as is this one). Anyhow, I'm going to bed and will continue to litigate the cause of action tomorrow. Good night.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Short of banning the admin forever and desecrating his user page what would you like done? Obviously the consensus is that you have made a borderline attack. It is disrupting process here on what is not a pressing issue, the admin neither blocked you or disabled talk page comments. In short get over it, remove the offending quote and move on it is not life ending. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested reading....WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The username Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? seems pretty disruptive in and of itself. It screams POV warrior. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager a sockpuppet too..User talk:Fight the bias Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it says "resolved", since there are still issues. One is his false assumption that it's "his" user page. Another is his inflammatory userbox calling for the impeachment of the President, probably on the legalistic grounds that he doesn't like the President. And despite suspicions of sockpuppetry, he's not blocked. All in due time, I suppose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I see to have been involved with both of them. Small world. Abce2|TalkSign 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Both of them"? How do you tell one right-wing flamer from another? They pretty much all drink from the same Kool-Aid. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did try explaining things to the "fighting" one, but I never thought it would lead to this. Abce2|TalkSign 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the username, this sounds like another User:Biaswarrior account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably that's "the fighting one" that the editor above slyly alluded to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to the Investigation TY. [[67]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that the Opie has been determined to be a sock of an indef-blocked user, can someone remove that ridiculous userbox about impeaching Obama? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's impair his abilities to be annoying. Hey, is anyone else feeling hungry? HalfShadow 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Once someone gets around to indef-ing him, that should clear off the user page, so it will be a non-issue. I was thinking I might construct an illustration of a large plant with the picture of every President on it who's raised any hackles - which is most of them - hanging like fruits. I'll call it an Impeach Tree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be located in Atlanta. Edison (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Djjesse123 still causing the same problems

I reported Djjesse123 (talk · contribs) here last week for multiple improper image uploads (uploading copyrighted DVD covers with no licence, no source, no permission and no fair use rationale). The editor has been warned multiple times for this, and also for continually adding unsourced information (about unverified future films) to various articles, especially the Steven Seagal article. Today, in spite of multiple previous warnings to stop, he has uploaded File:Blood and Bone.jpg without any of the necessary licenses, sources or fair use rationales, and has also added more unsourced information to articles (and been warned once again). The editor has been completely silent and refuses to respond to queries, warnings and pleas on his talk page to engage in discussion. He/she continues to engage in the same behavior they have been warned about multiple times. Warnings and attempts to engage in discussion are obviously useless and this account should be blocked as they are not contributing positively or engaging in discussion. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: He also uses the IP 24.26.78.133 (talk · contribs) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Djjesse (talk · contribs) is a probable sock also. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Is this mic on? *tap tap*... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet War in Afghanistan

Resolved

 – Quack quack quack quack quack. 236 socks and underlying IPs/ranges blocked at SPI. Nothing more to do here. Tim Song (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon my request, a recent admin exerted effort in temporarily protecting the Soviet war in Afghanistan article, but a user (apparently, this user appears to log on using a vast array of different names as exemplified by his recent edits) continues to repeatedly spam and/or make the same unwarranted edits. [68]; [69];[70]; [71]; [72]; [73]; [74]; [75]. Scythian1 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to link it? All I see is the edit for the reversion above and no SPI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Investigation link...[[76]] sorry wasn't quite complete with it yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The duck quacks loudly at 11:11pm PST. I'm going to indef the rampaging horde of socks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok i have them all added....I think/hope Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BankiSun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Groober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) may be involved as well. I have added a checkuser request to the SPI. I have not blocked those two - their account creation times and interests match the problem period for the sock farm, but they also have edited a bunch of other unrelated stuff. They could be uninvolved, or they could be the actual root account of this vandalism / edit abuse spree. Behavioral suspicious but I'm not going to block on the little those two did so far on the article. But it cries out for a CU check... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow up - CU confirmed 236 (!) socks operating... Zzzap. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I need your help. ASAP

Resolved

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#User:D climacus Rollback rights|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562 § User:D climacus Rollback rights]]

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

D climacus (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

I been on here for around a month now. A few users think I'm Eddie Segoura (User:EddieSegoura) a Sockpuppet. See this one Comment.

I want a CheckUser to clear my name because I am not that user. I'm Not avoiding a community ban.

I don’t want to be blocked for something I didn’t do. The reason I know so much on here is because, I been reading the WP:POLICY and the WP:NAS. And, the Admin Dashboard Template is on my User Page.--David | ^Talk 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not, and will not, be performed for 'name clearing'. — neuro^(talk) 07:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, what Neurolysis said. Checkuser can't prove a negative, and thus is useless for "Prove my innocence" checks. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just made a Sockpuppet investigation on myself. To clear my User Name so I don’t get blocked. Go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D climacus.--David | ^Talk 08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed the part where it was told Checkuser is not for proving your innocence. That request will be declined.--Atlan (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's been declined already.--Atlan (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is Eddie Segoura, but there's no doubt no point in checkusering the account because he's been socking consistently for four years and knows perfectly well how to get around the CU. He has even boasted to me in emails that he has access to hundreds of IPs. And one of his previous socks, NewYork Dreams, came back on Checkuser as 'unrelated', only for it to become very obvious with behavioural evidence and for Eddie to later admit that it was actually him. The Checkuser at the time told me that if it was Eddie, he had learned to cover his tracks very well. That's why, for a long time now, as Eddie, as well as with socks, he's been saying pretty much the same thing about organising checks to prove his innocence, here for example. This account is a very, very obvious sock and I have absolutely no doubt it is Eddie. Two weeks ago I told David (also a name that Eddie has used in the past) that I believed he was Eddie Segoura, and instead of responding to me, and at least denying it, as most innocent people would do, he immediately archived my post without addressing my suspicions. [77] I have absolutely no doubt who this user is and I have extended a huge amount of good faith to him in the past even so far as trying to help and advise him privately, only to have him play games and waste my and other users' time with more and more socks, impersonations of living actors and other such crap. It's not happening again, Eddie. I've already started collecting diffs and if you keep causing disputes with people and wasting peoples' valuable time with your games, I will be more than happy to ensure that this latest sock is blocked. Sarah 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah, that based on behavioral evidence this is almost certainly Eddie.--Atlan (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, most definitely. Would support a block. — neuro^(talk) 09:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would support blocking as well. Sarah 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 09:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He asked for help at 7:40, and he got it in just a couple of hours. Not bad turnaround for a "Plaxico". :) Although maybe a better metaphor would be a "Nixon", as in "I am not a crook." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"I am not a sock", rather. — neuro^(talk) 11:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lasne

Resolved

 – AfD (finally) listed properly on today's log. Don't be hasty... Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - this AfD has been open for two weeks now, with no relisting or anything like that. Can an admin please take a look at this? Many thanks, GiantSnowman 11:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It was never properly listed on the daily AFD log. I am listing it now on today's log. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks. But will that mean it remains open for ANOTHER 7 days then? GiantSnowman 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a need to delete this quickly...? It could use some more input, IMO - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, there's no need for a quick closure - but it's already been open for two weeks and consensus looks to have been reached, in my opinion. GiantSnowman 11:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there is some harm inleaving it in place it's better to leave it for a while. This to give the people who patrol AfD a chance to chime in. It might get WP:SNOW'd if the votes keeps going like they have, or if no one feels like adding anything, but for now leaving it avoids complaints about proceedural errors later on. Taemyr (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandal on Catherine II of Russia

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here. Tim Song (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For some reason a vandal has over some time persisted in adding the false information that the queen died from having sexual intercourse with a horse. The vandal is an IP-user but the adresses all differ greatly. I wonder if there is any way to find out who it is and impose sanctions on he/she/it? Protecting the article is not an option as the vandalism occurs only in-between long intervals.

Diffs:

1. 11 May 2009 - User:158.136.3.10
2. 25 August 2009 - User:66.66.89.37
3. 8 September 2009 - User:60.54.172.34

--Saddhiyama (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily the same person. There's some more on the internet about the nonsense, for example: [78] [79]. You warned the most recent IP and that should do it. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes a bit more sense (despite the subject). I will just carry on reverting the vandalism the oldfashioned way then. At least it is nice to know that it is not some monomanic loony with a good IP-jumper. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not much we can do here. Not nearly often enough for semi. And the IPs are scattered on the globe (one's from Malaysia, one's from VA, and the third is from NH). Just revert when/if it happens again. Someone should check out the recent edits of Special:Contributions/158.136.3.10 for accuracy, though. There's some recent vandalism/test edits (which I just reverted) that calls the remaining recent edits into question. Tim Song (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We should be carefull about dubbing this as vandalism, since it's a quite widespread myth with several people who believe it. Hence it's quite possible that it's a good faith addition.

Also, while we should not report that mode of death as a fact, the rumor is notable enough that is should be treated. As a source see eg [80]. Taemyr (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By adding that rumor to the article in any way, shape or form, you help perpetuate it. That kind of thing is not wikipedia's purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started the content discussion at Talk:Catherine II of Russia Taemyr (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Bobmack89x

I posted a message similar to this at WP:AIV and was advised to bring the matter here.

Bobmack89x (talk · contribs) - At first I thought Bobmack89x was a well-meaning but over-enthusiastic new user, but I have come to view many of his edits as vandalism. I acknowledge that some of his edits are useful, but he is a chronic overlinker who builds unreadably long lists of blue-linked items and oversized see-also sections of irrelevant links. As an example, between 22 May and 25 August he made about 120 edits to Federal crime. The article grew by 125%, from 3789 bytes to 8505, with virtually all the growth in a single sentence listing examples of federal crimes that ended up at about 500 words, and a see-also section that grew to nearly 80 entries (diff for the time period and the resulting poor article here).

User has been left talk page messages and warnings by 10 or 12 different editors, some for not citing his additions, some for MOS violations, but most for overlinking. Most messages included links to the relevant policies and guidelines. User seems to ignore all messages and warnings (except for deleting a few), and as far as I can tell has never responded to any. He has had two 4th warnings but continues adding excessive blue links to Federal crime, something he continued to do after the article was trimmed and he was warned on 25 August. Following are talk-page contacts by various different editors, on the subject of overlinking only: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88].

User seems to enjoy editing articles about criminal organizations and adding uncited crimes. For example, thus far he has made 75 edits to Russian Mafia; diff for a consecutive run of 22 edits to the article here; all 22 are uncited and all lack edit summaries. He seems to pick crimes at random from some dictionary or master list. The long list of purported crimes in the Mara Salvatrucha infobox is another example of the result.

Summing up, although this user has been advised by several editors to slow down and give more thought to his edits, he shows few signs of doing so. On balance, his edits are disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia. A block is called for. CliffC (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Im just trying to help. Bobmack89x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmack89x (talk • contribs)

Yes, we understand that--but as your talk page will illustrate, the edits you're making are not within Wikipedia policy, and thus are NOT as helpful as you intend for them to be. Please read over the remarks that have been placed on your talk page by other editors, and review the bad edits you made. Another edit such as these, where you add long lists of specifics to articles on general topics, will result in a block. Also, please sign your comments to talk pages with four tildes (~ <--that's a tilde) so that your username and time-stamp will appear with your comments. Thanks. GJC 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note not a single edit summary and never a talk page edit, as far as I could see. Syrthiss (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I went through his talk page history carefully, he reverted warnings but didn't reply to any. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing by user Alexikoua

Above mentioned user User:Alexikoua is canvassing regarding the voting on this issue: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_6#Template:Northern_Epirus

Here are the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factuarius&diff=prev&oldid=312330642 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megistias&diff=prev&oldid=312345802

--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, is Alexikoua accusing a long standing Admin of being a sock in the first diff there? Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Notified both J Milburn and Alexikoua. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua accuses not only admins of many things, but many other users of wiki of many other things.--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• This canvassing is also going on off-wiki. See this thread, but be aware that it may be deleted shortly (seems it is the second thread, the first one having been deleted). A checkuser would probably be useful. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note the post "Me and I group of friends have tried to secure the article but they we need your contribution", suggesting that there is already an element of meatpuppetry going on... J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

About this off-wiki [[89]] activity, I am for God's sake NOT involved in this kind of extremist action.

• This 'skolixx' user has joined topixx 5 hours ago [[90]], seems his only intention was to inform in an disturbing way about the template deletion. I wonder who would do that in such an obvious way? Seems like an amateur bait job to me.
• What's really erroneous is that this link has been recently updated, after it was initially -20:41, 8 September 2009 - mentioned in admins noticeboard , with a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos, leader of the Greek extremist group Hrysi Avgi, which OFF COURSE I HAVE NOTHING TO DO (reasonably thinking why should I do that? upgrading the link with that picture).
• The level of English is far too poor and my contribution in wikipedia proves exactly the opposite.

As for the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, ([[91]] I wrote about 'a multiply times blocked user', who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he -I_Pakapshem- proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia. I really regret, since situation is a bit out of control, but reasonably thinking, why should I add such kind of information off wiki? Sorry for the capitals and really sorry for involving J Milburn (the sentence proves that I'm not refering to him) but I really feel sad when being involved in that kind of activity which does not represent me and what I beliefs.

My contribution history proves that I'm not involved on the kind of activity which makes me sickAlexikoua (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, actually, another one bad-faith report by user:I_Pakapshem, ([[92]] he already has a record of fruitless report in past). It sounds erroneous that someone accuses 'canvassing' while the same time launching irc activity in order to pick up supporters. What's really wierd is that the results of his initiative were sometimes controversial for him ([[93]], Someone in 'irc:wikipedia' had a great desire for propaganda today. +an 'Incan name' reference seems to be also a result of these attempts).

His contibution, which is, for the first time he appeared in wiki untill now, limited to specific nationalist topics, just full of reverts and empty argument:

• after breaking a block record: 6 times in 43 days (June 9-July 21), due to endless wp:3rr, wp:npa, wp:civility isues, seems that this was not enough, he continued to show a dangerous pattern of continual battleground behavior [[94]] until he received a 1 revert limit.
• characteristically, when last blocked, and being insistent that the block was totally 'unfair', his talk page was locked too, [[95]].
• Why such a user should be trusted? It's more than obvious that this pattern of activity is still in full motion. I wouldn't be surprused if it was he that made up this childish bait job, according to his knowledge of Greek as well as his endless efforts to promote a nationalistic agenda [[96]] according to his contribution history.Alexikoua (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• We have 3 contributors who said delete and may be possible socks, and 6 contributors who said keep are 90% socks/meats. Let's focus on that. And we have a possible canvassing case.
• There was later found also this [97]. I tried to translate it by using a greeklish to greek converter and then google translate. The main meaning is obvious, but a detailed translation is needed. This seems to be a message previous to this [98]. I personally do not want to blame anyone for anything, but this sudden influx of ip editors at approximately the same time, is suspicious.--Alarichus (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Until now, all 5/6 new or ip contributors who voted "keep", have been to found to be located in the same area except one. All of them are located in Greece. I cannot give any information about the last one(guidelines) but you can guess I believe. Regarding the 3 ip or new users who said "delete", one of them is located in Kosovo and one in Macedonia. --Alarichus (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Alarichus:This thread says, in an extreme propagandistic style:

'Can I not write the text in Greek letters? Some Albanians in wikipedia want to delete part of Greek Epirus, but we have to keep it. Until now some guys I know helped us. When we manage to gather in great numbers I will tell you what to do. (noone knows who's watching).'

Hope this one will be soon checked. Since the baid style mentality is more than obvious. I_Pakashem's ghost activity seems to be his only solution lately.Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• That probably explains the arrival of 5-6 ip users from Greece with no previous contributions(I'll do some more checks, and hopefully I'll find more). I did some investigation regarding this [99]. It seems that no user mentioned the TfD, in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-help and no user with the username I Pakapshem joined the channels between -10:00, 00:00, until 19:46 when this message was posted. That enhances the possibilities of finding the one who caused all these issues. However, again let's not blame anyone for anything yet. I'll see if I can find more on this. Unfortunately I cannot check the irc logs to get more detailed info. But what I could find is good enough. --Alarichus (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• So although Pakapshem did not join irc, in the dates mentioned, someone thought he did and caused this. The question is WHO?.

I prefer writing good articles, than playing hide and seek in ANI, so hopefully we'll get to the end of this soon. There are 4 possibilities. I will elaborate on them later. --Alarichus (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever tried to check with a similar nick? Since he has a past record I dont believe he is too innocent in that kind of activity. All posibilites may be possible, joined with similar nick or irrelevant nick. Who knows what he discusses in private conversations right? (any i.p. check in irc possible?). Even a diferrent channel in freenode sounds likely since he was of great need for 'delete' votes. His level of activity is obvious in attepting to wp:gaming the system in every opportunity. Did he became suddenly innocent recently? I dont think so.

The off-wiki childish camvassing attempt, which is obviously a rediculous bait style is for sure for lauphing. Hope that irc-topix ghost will be checked and revealed soon.Alexikoua (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am a telecommunications student, and know how to search for such things. I am 100% sure he did not join with any nick, or canvass in irc. Most logs are public so you can check for yourself. Alexikoua, according to the evidence so far you are the only one who may have done it(canvassing, meatpuppeting), maybe with some involvement from Factuarius. Chris G and I, told you yesterday that those 2 messages you sent may be easily regarded as canvassing. And once I told you that I Pakapshem was the one initially concerned about the template, you started thinking that he would be canvassing on irc for votes. Then lots of ips(most with no edits at all) show up, backing you up. All from Greece. And one saying that I Pakapshem was canvassing in irc, but as I told you, he didnt even join the irc. But you thought that he did, and so did the ip. Then we have this skolixx in topix saying that he had been helped by some friends earlier[100](dates match with the 5-6 ips from Greece, and especially Athens), asking for more help. And I don't buy the fact his english was "poor", some of his sentences have been deliberately distorted to seem "poor". Afterwards there was found that he wrote also in greek. To me it would seem normal for someone who was warned about canvassing on-wiki, to stop and continue canvassing off-wiki. All hours match against you. There is definitely no involvement from Cplakidas, Aigest, Athenean, Michael IX the White. There is some involvement (regarding on-wiki canvassing) from Megistias, Factuarius. When your case is over, I will check if those 2 ips from Kosovo and Macedonia are related to I Pakapshem. --Alarichus (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that 2 notices cannot be considered canvassing. Usually (if not always), canvassing exceedes two people and is mass notification. Also, there is 0 proof that that "skolixx" is Alexikoua, and we can't accuse him of being just because there is a suspected "case"! Can you please bring forward as evidence in this the way that you found out that forum? --Michael X the White (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The definite point(except on-wiki canvassing) is that the ip contributor said that I Pakapshem had been trying to convince him to vote delete yesterday. But I Pakapshem didn't login with this nickname or another, and no one even mentioned such an issue(!!). So the ip contributor was lying. Alexikoua thought from the beginning of this that I Pakapshem was trying to convince us all to back him up by using irc. So we have a new ip contributor trying to back up the belief of Alexikoua by lying. It's clear that they are definitely connected. Combine that with "skolixx", and you get canvassing and meatpuppeting. On the bright side of this issue, most of you weren't involved. --Alarichus (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pakapshem's sick attempt

I'm really pissed off since this continuous reverter made up this sick attempt against me. Actually the topix thread is signed by a user named: worm (in Greek skollix). Who could really sign with such a name? So Pakashem really believes I'm a worm and sings it that way? and I deserve this pic? What else have I to say? His 'zero' encyclopedic contribution in 3 months with continous nationalist advocating and massiv reverting makes me wonder why he is still here, accusing and personal attacking. Suppose his ghost activity in irc is also active in off-wiki too, but not for too longAlexikoua (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That skolixx said: "Some Albanians in wikipedia are trying to delete a piece about greek epirus, but we can reverse this if we gather in great numbers." ( loipon sth wikipedia kati albanoi pane na diagrapsoun ena kommati gia thn ellhnikh hpeiro, alla mporoume na to antistrepsoume an mazeytoume arketoi) Well, if this is not a non-Greek who wrote this, my curiosity is too great to wait to know what kind of a Greek could use the phrase "about Greek Epirus", where Greek is used to make the ditinction, as if the rest of Epirus was not Greek. It is an extremely strange way to describe Northern Epirus and it is the first time I meet it. I really do not think Alexikoua wrote this. I mean, this hardly sounds Greek.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are on the border of incivility. Take it easy. There are even companies which have that name [101] and as I saw even greek nationalists use it for themselves. Seriously, guys I have see a LOT on non-english wikipedias(de). This kind of behaviour is just worsening the situation. Michael I really cannot understand your argument. If you think a part of another country belongs to you, you do use your own national denonym for it, don't you? --Alarichus (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rapid linking using User:Nickj/Can We Link It

I'm perhaps more concerned about the tool in the long run, but we do have a user, Katharineamy (talk · contribs) using it very rapidly (more than 1 edit a minute) and receiving criticism. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Editor notified. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got diverted. I've notified Nickj as well. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Wasn't trying to chastise. Just figured I would do it if you hadn't and I would note here so that other folks didn't duplicate the effort. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In the tool's defence, I'd like to note that it can suggest useful piped links that might not be known about by a user linking manually. As for my own mistakes, I'll be rejecting suggestions to link dates, as requested, and making sure to check links I'm not sure about. Katharineamy (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, looking at Katharineamy's past history:

• She's been asked several times previously to please stop her bot-like linking behavior (for instance: here, here, here, and here, and that's not counting my requests here and here). She'll say something like "I won't link dates anymore," but that's completely unresponsive to the actual problem behavior itself.
• She's also been asked to use edit summaries (here and here) which she appears to have completely ignored, except for those times when they're filled in for her automatically.
• There have been concerns raised about her use of rollback.
• It's disconcerting that out of her current 64,861 edits, only 48 are to the talk pages of other editors (as can be seen here) including newbie-biting gems like this one.
• I'm not an admin so I can't check her deleted contributions, but she seems to have received a number of messages regarding deletion of articles and categories she has created, including some copyvio notices.

Overall, if there's agreement that a bot should be doing this kind of rapid linking (which I'd be against, but that's another issue), then bring on the bot. But if a bot shouldn't be doing this kind of linking, then it doesn't make any sense for an editor to be doing it. And currently, it doesn't appear that Katharineamy has any idea why people are annoyed at her edits, or that she has any plans to stop the rapid-fire changes.

When I take into account all the other problems that people have run across in her editing, well, I'd really like to see some acknowledgement from her that there is a problem. — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked all the links suggested for 10 random articles. None of them were good. Many were from names in fiction articles to real people with those names, which is never correct. Some others were to wrong names. Some were to non-significant dates. Others were to miscellaneous places mentioned in an article but without any significance in the context. I found none i would have added. I think this tool needs to be sharply restricted unless it can be rewritten. (I had not known about it, but its use would account for many strange redirects I;'ve been seeing lately) A useful place for it would be articles having no links whatsoever. As it's not on Wikipedia, we cannot block the tool directly, but we can deal with the user. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dori:

• I have not completely ignored the requests about use of edit summaries. Please go back beyond the auto-filled ones and see for yourself.
• The use of rollback problem was over a year ago, my explanation was accepted by the admin in question, and nothing has been raised to me since.
• No article I have created has, to my knowledge, been deleted. Categories have, but usually those were either book by author or album by artist categories that subsequently became empty. Also, I have never committed copyvio. There may be articles I edited that were found to be copyvio, but not ones I created.

I'd appreciate it if you would not make false accusations to help your case. I accept that some of my past linking was problematic, and that is going to change. Katharineamy (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If I had made any false accusations, I would absolutely retract them. However, as you and others can see, I made a point of adding plenty of {{diff}}s so that anyone can decide for themselves the nature of your editing. As to your other points:

• Edit summaries: How far back do I have to look to find where you've used edit summaries? Out of the last 250, for instance, I've found zero.
• Rollback: I was just going by what the editor in question had put on your talk page—which is why I linked to it. In general, it's a bad idea for someone with as few edits as you have to user talk space to be using rollback at all.
• AFD: again, as I said above, I'm not an admin, so I can't see deleted articles or their history. But just based on your talk page, I see automatic AFD & copyvio notifications of: Institute of Revenues, Rating, Category:Novels by Rich Shapero, Category:DÅÅTH albums, Category:New Zealander singer-songwriters, Kuroda, Nagashige, Davao Light, and Beaconsfield Mine.

I have to agree with DGG, above, who said of your edit additions: "None of them were good." Okay, you say "that is going to change"—but what is going to change? Simply promising to no longer link dates isn't the answer. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Most of those 250 are automated ones, but there are several where for whatever reason I added links without the tool, and used an edit summary. The ones more recently without summaries are where I was just fixing syntax issues or sometimes unlinking a mistake, but I'll be sure to note those too in future.
• For rollback, I was granted it by an admin and the majority of my uses are on anonymous vandalism. As I say, no one has raised an issue with me regarding that in more than a year.
• I did mention that there were some novel and song/album categories that were deleted, and the Novels by Rich Shapero category was actually initially voted as a keep. New Zealander singer-songwriters was simply renamed as a matter of adjectival form. As for the others, I can't find any reference to Kuroda, Nagashige on my talk page and I can't remember what happened with that one, but the other three happened because the tool couldn't cope with the & sign and created half-titled copies of the Wikipedia articles I was trying to edit. I'm aware of that glitch now and it won't happen again. It also wasn't exactly copyvio, since the only copying done was of text already on the site.
• I wasn't aware that linking place names in an article that mentions them was wrong. Now that I am, it'll go along with the linking of dates. Also, as of last night I'm not accepting any links that aren't obviously correct without checking them. I apologise for not starting to do so the moment you commented, but to be honest the tone of your initial contact put my back up a little. I would like to say that I wasn't just blindly accepting anything the tool offered - for example, it seems determined that "you lose" should be piped to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory! However, I'm now double-checking everything that might be wrong. Katharineamy (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I am also an user of this tool, and I've found it very valuable for the dead-end page patrol. I've watched some of Katharineamy's edits (because I've touched some of the articles myself), and she's adding some links that I wouldn't (generic terms especially - I do add placenames), but a lot of additions are ones I agree with. The thousands of articles at Wikipedia:Dead-end pages need some tender care. (My own style is to use CanWeLinkIt first and then do an editing pass adding links that I understand but CWLI doesn't have - which means I do dozens where Katharineamy does hundreds. I think we should all appreciate each others' efforts.) --Alvestrand (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking admins didn't assume good faith

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. Tim Song (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:91.130.91.76

I was blocked for sockpuppeting and the user Tomjacobm was blocked for 48 hours for nothing. I tried everything to convince these admins by telling them, that I didn't want to harm anybody. That didn't work out well. So i do assume, that these Admins didn't assume good faith and they should punished for this incredible behaviour. May main "fault" was to revert a sentence in "National Film Awards", which was reverted by another user. My IP was changed for reasons which lie at ISP. This is my IP now.--91.130.91.26 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you refering to Fisher Queen? Looks like she was offering good advice. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified the two blocking admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I refer to all admins, who were involved except the initial blocking admin. I think, he or she was innocent.--91.130.91.26 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees with you. Abce2|TalkSign 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP appears to be engaged in an edit war and making veiled threats, so bringing the dispute here might be a "Plaxico" waiting to happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That is funny as hell bugs! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You sure do love (or the other one, I don't know) Plaxico, doc. — neuro^(talk) 17:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He's a good metaphor, but the real one is going to prison, so the humor factor is becoming questionable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The worse things that happen to him, the more appropriate the metaphor gets. I wouldn't stop yet. ~ mazca ^talk 17:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[102] So, blatant incivility and flaming. Block? A little insignificant (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you block mazca? --91.130.91.26 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For what? He's not talking about you, he's talking about the real Plaxico Burress. Maybe you're unfamiliar with his story and why it's a good metaphor in some circumstances. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about Plaxico and I don't care about him and your "metaphors". I just don't think, I should go to prison. --91.130.91.26 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because, amazingly, there is no reason to block them. I would, however, suggest you stopped with the personal attacks, or someone might say the same thing with your IP in place of 'Mazca'. — neuro^(talk) 17:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Infact I got already a notice of "A little insignificant" in this regard. Time to buy glasses? --91.130.91.26 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil, or you will be blocked.Abce2|TalkSign 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean, this is a civilized discussion? Fine. --91.130.91.26 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was until you came in. Wait, nevermind. — neuro^(talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not feed anyone, okay?Abce2|TalkSign 17:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nobody to feed. The user isn't a troll, they're just uncivil. I'm just biding time until someone archives this nonsensical section. — neuro^(talk) 17:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really mean you've got to be uncival back. Abce2|TalkSign 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This section should be marked "resolved", as there is nothing for the admins to do (unless they feel like blocking the IP for personal attacks). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

McJakeqcool - back again

See here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool for previous report at the end of July. Since then, McJakeqcool has, despite advice from numerous people, continued to make inappropriate edits to list articles [103] [104][105](1 of 2 edits)[106][107](1 of 5 edits)[108](1 of over 30 edits)[109](1 of 12 edits)...and so it goes. Now, having got tired of that, he has gone back to creating stub articles about non notable computer games [110][111], something he has previously been asked many times not to do. It is impossible to find sources for these games, and he has been continuously advised not to create stubs but to gather them up into one article which might have some chance of notability. He has announced on his userpage [112] that this is his new project - could someone stop him before he once again generates 20 or so stub articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made mistakes. So has everyone with an advanced career on Wikipedia. However, making mistakes is one thing. Ignoring first advice and then practically orders to change one's ways is very much another thing entirely. The best word I can use to describe this user, who I tried to help under my previous name of Otumba, is oblivious. I have seen no satisfactory acknowledgement of the community's concerns. I do not believe the editor is engaging in disruptive activities out of negative feelings. I do truly believe his heart is in the right place, and I do believe he thinks what he is doing is for the good of Wikipedia. But, as Elen described, what he is doing is disruptive. A block is probably the best thing. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional: user was blocked for 31 hours a relatively short while ago for disruption. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked as a result of the previous ANI. Someone has whizzed the two stubs, not sure who. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The tone of many of his comments give me pause. This user has been here a along time but seems to have a truly poor grasp of editing articles, among other things. I think an admin or two needs to take a serious look at what is going on with this user.--Crossmr (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the previous ANI discussion (see Elen of the Road's comments above for the link). To put it shortly, Mcjakeqcool has been given kind advice and suggestions, offers of being adopted, and many warnings on constructive ways to improve Wikipedia. He has ignored all of this and continues to do his own thing. I'm sure it grows tiring for the people who keep an eye on him. Something more permanent needs to be done about this editor. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Help, identity outed by editor

Resolved

 – Attempted outing oversighted; editor blocked for 72h by Tan and will be closely watched. Tim Song (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Foreign_Service&oldid=312598246 edit summary, another editor has tried to out me by placing my name and identfying information on a wiki summary. Clearly the editor is trying to out me. He is also edit warring, but not really my complaint. Can anyone help me out? Bevinbell (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Moved from WP:AN. Tim Song (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor blocked for 72 hours for violation of WP:OUTING, see here. Tan | 39 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Edit summary has been oversighted. Tim Song (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

I am proposing an indefinite block on Bf20204 (talk · contribs).

This user attempted to post personal information about another editor, while not having that users consent (as far as this report makes it seem).

WP:OUTING provides a good explanation as to why such actions are inappropriate, and states that it harms a user in the real world.

We don't know the accuracy of the information, but that's irrelevant. This was a clear breach of the community.

I propose an indefinite block at the very least, or even a site ban. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I already blocked them for 72 hours. What's with you and these sorts of proposals? We don't indef people every time they violate a policy. Tan | 39 18:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. The issue isn't merely that they violated policy, but the seriousness of this violation of such a serious policy. If I posted potential personal information about you without your consent (I don't know any of your personal information, don't worry), I would deserve exactly what I am proposing on the user above. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the parts of WP:OUTING or WP:BLOCK where it says this action "deserves" an indefinite block. You can safely assume that the attending admin will assess the situation and act in a manner they think is appropriate. At the very most, you can make a statement saying you think the appropriate response is an indefinite block. Throwing up an official proposal isn't necessary and really just serves to confuse matters - and I say this because I know this isn't the first time you've done something like this. I appreciate your earnestness, but please stop doing this. Tan | 39 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Every editor is theoretically salvageable. Perhaps a 3 day wake-up call as to what they did wrong will be fine. No need to indef every editor when they make a bad mistake. WP:OUTING does not tell us to "indef until they apologize", unlike say how WP:NLT effectively does. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action and edit summary deletion. I of course feel violated and desire an indefinate ban, but support whatever community action is warranted and normal when somebody does an outing. Can I respectfully request that he be watched closely when the 72 hour ban is lifted - his comments are quite personal and frankly I am concerned with his edit warring. I do not think I personally know the guy, but he was clever enough to figure out who I am and post the info. Bevinbell (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The OR problems alone warrant a close eye. If you see any issues, let us know. Tan | 39 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A close watch would be a very good idea. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance's continued disruption at Van Jones

Resolved

 – User has made a good faithed suggestion.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Reliefappearance has been showing a problematic attern of behaviour at Van Jones. He has continued to comment on users´ motives rather than on their edits [113], [114] , has engaged in personal attacks : [115] and clarified the attack here : [116] has deleted comments with out edit summaries, even hose that contributed to improvement of article [117], he has been warned about this behaviour : [118] ,[119] , [120], he has also suggested that his edits to the talk mage are motivated by a desire to stir things up [121], which is at the least counter productive. Please also see his 3rr violations and other more low level edit warring here: [122]. A small warning from an admin should do the trick, with serious reprecussions if his misbehaviour continues.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Die4Dixie's attitude toward this edit was "...looks good", I think this is at best a POV-vs-POV situation. I guess my attitude is that an editor who chooses a name like "Die4Dixie" forfeits the right to ask other editors to AGF, especially when the editing pattern so closely matches what the user name would predict. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie, There is no justification for your unilateral declaration that you are somehow absolved from the normal requirements of civility just because of a username. These are exactly the situations where the injunction to assume good faith on the part of other editors is most valuable. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please at least ake a cursory glance at the diffs and be a little less ad hominem about a name. It has been throught 2 inappropriate username "investigations". The first edit did look good. His POV is not the problem; but rather, the behaviour that he exibits. As you will see, my edits to the article have stood for enough time to show the non controversial nature of them BTW , comments a t ANI do nt exempt you from WP:NPA.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This good faith edit [123] as I explained here [124] is what sparked Die4Dixie's intense interest in me personally. After realizing that this editor is unresponsive to discussion (the user blatantly stated in the initial post to my talk page that he/she was not interested in discussion, and threatened me with a ban [125]) I've asked the user to please leave me alone. Twice now. This user also fomented problems between me and another editor (AgnosticPreachersKid) who I also had extreme difficulty reasoning with.[126][127] If anyone is being "disruptive" it is Die4Dixie. WP:HARASS As far as I'm concerned this issue is resolved yet Die4Dixie refuses to accept that and move on.

Reliefappearance (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please supply diffs fo your baseless claims. I was not interested in discussions on your talk page about your misbehaviour, only that you correct it. Which you have not done. Still. And that is still all that I wantyou to do. I am not required to discuss your inappropriate behaviour with you continually. You are required to correct it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

See above comment please. I have nothing else to say to you. Please leave me alone (third request).[128][129] Note: I actually did not know what ANI was when I posted that, I had to look it up.

Reliefappearance (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

After I restored comments that were removed by Reliefappearance, s/he accused me of being a rude, stubborn troll and a WP "fanatic" (Is the last one a bad thing? Talk amongst yourselves.). My crimes? Apparently, telling someone who openly admits to starting POV disputes (i.e. "stirring up the debate") that s/he needs to stop = APK is a meanie. IMHO, Reliefappearance and ObserverNY (same thing happened when I tried reasoning with ObserverNY) are causing unnecessary problems on various talk pages. They need heart-to-heart discussions on what will eventually happen if the disruption and incivility continues. APK that's not my name 20:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice editorial. Now please leave me alone. As far as I'm concerned the issue was resolved hours ago but Die4Dixie went to your talk page and he left you a message to come here and join forces with him to try and bring me down[130]. ObserverNY and I (and others, I am by far NOT a major contributor to the article) have made rock solid edits to the Van Jones article through vigorous debate and consensus and it never resorted to a war on Administrator's Notice Board. Are you really trying to improve Wikipedia or are you just looking for a fight? I refuse to let people tear me down without defending myself and you and Die4Dixie are clearly exploiting that. WP:HARASS

Reliefappearance (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked that he comment if he felt it would be appropriate, as he has had more patience with your misbehaviour than I. Perfectly correct. The answer is not for you to feel victimized and persecuted; but rather, that you correct your abberent behavour. Editors are not required to ingore disruptions to the project because an editor says " leave me alone". Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the policies that you are inanely spoutng viz. WP:HARASS and make sure you are not twisting them to say something other thanwhat they do, infact, say.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Incredible.

Reliefappearance (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reliefappearance, the person I've apparently "joined forces with", ironically, someone I've never even talked to, had to leave me a message (per the instructions at the top of this page: "As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion.") A link to my talk page was included in his comment, so here I am. There is no conspiracy. APK that's not my name 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Reliefappearance both in terms of content, and in the concerns about some other editors' potential biases. If you post a celebratory shout out on your talk page that a certain person got fired over a political controversy, then your POV may reasonably be questioned should you edit that person's bio article and talk page in a one-sided way to make them look bad. Further, despite the unfortunate choice of words, "stirring up" a debate is perfectly legitimate if one interprets it as encouraging people to embark on a healthy discussion about the article. I don't this as any obvious admission of trolling. As a content position there is a fundamental difference of understanding regarding the notability of the article subject and the political controversy surrounding him that is at the very least informed by people's off-wiki biases. Amazingly, with all the rapid edits and heated talk page discussion, the article itself is not in terrible shape and is steadily improving. So we can look at this entirely as a civility question. Though it hasn't happened yet, I can imagine things degenerating from here. I think everyone needs to turn it down a notch, and Reliefappearance needs to turn it down two notches. Die4Dixie is spot on that we have to cool it here. Take a deep breath, everyone, and continue... An administrative warning and potential block would not be unwarranted for anyone on either side of this who won't pay heed. The article talk page is for talking about article improvements, and people's individual talk pages and the project's metapages are for talking about editing problems and behavior -- but better to ignore behavior and focus on the article. Die4Dixie, with whom I have shared countless content disagreements, is a sterling example of why one should assume good faith and be civil - he is a thoughtful, considerate, editor. Believing that someone else's content position is informed by different politics than one's own is no reason to launch accusations and get personal. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why APK is dragging my name into this. I don't believe I've had any unresolved problems with either Reliefappearance OR Die4Dixie. Yet APK felt compelled to insert him/herself into a conversation on my talk page between myself and another editor, JohnHistory, again, someone I was having a nice back and forth with. APK's interference drew the attention of an admin who then banned me for 24h! Now Die4Dixie stuck up for me.(see above)Earlier, I felt I agreed with Die4Dixie's assessment of Reliefappearance, but now, I only see silliness. Are we all 12 years old who need WikiNannies? Why can't these Wikiadmins and whiney editors LEAVE US ALONE unless a complaint is filed based on a specific charge like WP:3RR? ObserverNY (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Note: see above discussion for further background). My "interference" was informing ObserverNY, who just came off a 24hr block, that removing comments from another user's talk page is not allowed. Even though I was offering assistance elsewhere, for which he thanked me, the "interference" now makes me one of the bad guys who needs to have sex. APK that's not my name 21:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing events, APK. You notified me of an inadvertent deletion on another editor's talk page which RESULTED in an admin (Connolley) coming in and imposing a 24 hr. block which I just came off of. However, I am very glad you informed me that you did get laid yesterday. Which still doesn't explain your need to drag my name into an ANI dispute between Die4Dixie and Reliefappearance. ObserverNY (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Honestly, I decided this before this thread on AIN, but I unfortunately had to come in and respond. I have decided to take a cool down per Wikidemon's suggestion. I will cool down for a full day, then review the Van Jones after. I apologize to APK for accusing him and Die4Dixie of ganging up on me, I did not realize you had to notify people when you mention them on AIN.

Reliefappearance (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your idea, and I accept your apology. If there is anything that I can do for you, please let me know. This can be closed.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalker reverting me

So I've acquired some new wikistalkers due to nominating their borderline notable articles for deletion. One keeps reverting me for some strange reason.

• Mathieas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

--Otterathome (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please show the administrators some diffs so they can act on your case? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's pretty obvious. Mathieas only has a handful of edits.--Atlan (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: Mathieas notified. Tim Song (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to figure out why on Earth the results of previous AfD's would be removed from an article's talkpage? Makes perfect sense to add them back. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really see any behavior that I would classify as stalking. Just a few reverts on Vincent Caso. Besides, they've only made 16 edits over the past 3 days.--Atlan (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You'll have a good idea why Otterathome deleted the results of the previous AfD discussions from Talk:Jackson_Davis if you peruse those AfD discussions. There was/is a Wikiquette alert made regarding Otterathome in connection with his activity on related web series articles as well which provides more detail. Mr. Otterathome has also called me a wikistalker, presumably because I've also followed his recent trail of destruction and unexplained article-blankings and redirects in this area. In the case of the 3rd AfD for Jackson Davis by Otterathome, which was made very shortly after the 2nd AfD (also by Otterathome) failed, many neutral editors questioned the singular effort to try to delete the article. In the case of Vincent Caso, it appears Mathieas reverted a redirect created by Otterathome, which had now led to an AfD, and which seems a better course of action that just a unilateral blanking and redirect. Bleech. Drama. I presume this notice is just another escalation of that drama by Otterathome.--Milowent (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Why do you keep saying that Otter deleted discussions when he didn't?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
          • He's referring, I think, to the removal of the results of AfD discussions on Talk:Jackson_Davis here and here not to the deletion discussion themselves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Again, what did he remove? I see three oldaldfull entries before the edit, and one oldafdmulti containing 3 decisions after the edit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
              • The oldafdmulti is a newer edit, Malcolmx15 is correct that i was referencing his deletion of any reference to the AfDs on the talk page.--Milowent (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
                • … which, as SarekOfVulcan points out, did not actually happen. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I resent the accusation that I am stalking otterathome. The only reason I know he exists is because he keeps trying to delete articles I check on a regular basis and use for research. I frequently link to wikipedia when writing articles. Otterathome removed the results of an afd discussion, which he initiated. The admin who closed the discussion went to the effort of stating that it should be a substantial amount of time before the article is renominated for deletion, this is due to the fact that otterathome renominated the article within 6 or 7 days of it passing another afd discussion which he started. I believe that the information that the article should not be renominated for a substantial period of time is valuable and useful. Mathieas (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• … which isn't actually relevant to the diffs at hand. Is all this fuss simply because you, Milowent, and Malcolmxl5 don't understand what the {{oldafdmulti}} template does? Please go and read its documentation. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, you could actually inform yourself about the situation and then judge, rather than taking a snapshot complaint of an already wikiquette-alerted user and drawing conclusions. Otterathome has been running an aggressive crusade to annihilate that article, going to AfD, deletion review, and then AfD again, all within a month, in total disregard of very recent previous decisions. Now he's trying to hide his campaign in an out of sight, out of mind manner, by making the subtle, but effective change of having previous AfDs hidden in a default-collapsed block, rather than open in plain sight.
    It's a subtle change, but given the history of Otter's overzealous attacks on the page, it speaks volumes.
    Due to Otter's behavior, the closing admin of the latest AfD has very clearly said "Advise that it should be a lengthy time before a 4th AfD is even considered.". And instead of accepting that decision, Otter is now back, trying to hide the only obvious link to that statement. Gives a whole new light to it, doesn't it?
    
    In addition, this complaint is invalid purely on an editing level anyway. Otter made a change. Mathieas reverted it. That is standard operating procedure on Wikipedia, and it was Otter's personal decision to start an edit war by reverting the revert rather than following WP:CYCLE and starting a discussion on the talk page (on which the two already were anyway).
    WP:CONS clearly and unambiguously says "Edit wars, such as repeatedly inserting the same text when other editors are rejecting it, lead to page protection and suspension of your ability to edit rather than improvements to the article." Otter changed something. Mathieas rejected the change, and reverted. Otter added it back. Otter is the one in violation of policies here, not Mathieas. In fact, WP:CONS even gives out the following warning: "If the reason for an edit is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material." - Otter's reason: "template cleanup". Mathieas's reason: "Useful information: Editors should know that this page should not be nominated for deletion for some time". Once again, the one following WP:CONS is Mathieas, not Otter.
    People reverting stuff on Wikipedia is not worth of an incident report. If anything, Otter foregoing a discussion and trying to force his version through is.
    This could've been settled through a simple discussion on the talk page. This is a simple content dispute over which template to use, and it was Otter's decision to say "fuck a discussion, let's screw this guy" and report Mathieas instead.
    
    In the process of only this little exchange, Otter violated the consensus policy, the editing policy, the policy on assuming good faith, and the policy on civility. And as if all of that wasn't enough, his dismissive tone in this report as well as the report itself are both more violations of WP:CIVIL.
    And yet, he is the one filing an incident report. WP:IRONY.
    Mathieas did a Good Faith revert of an edit he took issue with. It's not his fault Otter was not willing to discuss it. Mathieas did nothing wrong.
    ~ Renegade - 80.171.81.1 (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. There is no basis for accusing Mathieas of being a wikistalker. Otterathome has continuously nominated pages for deletion in a similar topic, one in which Mathieas obviously has an interest. It is, therefore, not shocking that he would be putting those pages on his watchlist and would therefore be aware when Otter was nominating them for deletion, etc. Otter is clearly not WP:AGF and a full post on his behavior will be posted by myself (and probably commented on by others involved) shortly. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP trolling me

There is an anon IP 69.159.##.### (such as 69.159.13.242) that has been trolling me, blindly reverting my edits over something trivial or non-important. I believe that this is User:AverageGuy, whom I feel has often placed fact tags here and there without justification. Is it possible to block the IP range or at least force them to register ? GoldDragon (talk) GoldDragon (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any diffs? Also, whether a range block is viable will depend on how wide the range is. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Here are the diffs: [131][132][133][134][135] GoldDragon (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That does not appear to be trolling; those edits are mostly reasonable. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre, related articles and socks

By coincidence I just noticed this request] at the NPOV board for a close look at this particular article. I had just spent the last few minutes looking at related articles where pov editing is taking place. Wichita massacre is being edited by Birdbath 10 (talk · contribs) and Smithicrnm (talk · contribs). Related articles are being edited by Ptho (talk · contribs) and WVBN8 (talk · contribs) -- all four of these accounts are making similar edits to similar articles, none of them have made more than 5 edits -- they look like throwaway sock accounts. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm off to bed by the way. I know I should notify them, but I've been up since well before the birds and given their edits... Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, have the birds been editing again? I thought I had closed the window. My bad :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see Birdbath 10 is blocked as a sock of Johnnyturk888 (talk · contribs); these editors all seem to have similar agendas, the edits made by both Birdbath 10 and Smithicrnm to media blackout were pretty much identical; and the two newer editors are reverting to each others' versions. This looks like some sockpuppetry - anyone hear quacking? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me, quack quack -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 06:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked them all, but as they are clearly throwaway accounts I expect the editor back. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Can someone please unprotect List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009? There was recently a unanimous RfC consensus at the article's talk page to merge List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War into the article, but nobody can do it because of the protection. It's worth mentioning that the article itself is currently a redirect to Timeline of the Gaza War, a situation that will obviously end once the other article is merged into it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the right place, go to WP:RFPP. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

actually, considering what has been our history on this topic, I don't think it unwise to mention proposed actions about articles on this subject here. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP vandal continues after final warning

IP User:72.94.80.43 has repeatedly posted false info on List of DirecTV channels after several warnings to stop. I looked at their history at it also posts often on List of Dish Network channels and List of Verizon FiOS channels as well as some children's channel articles. They always change PBS, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel listings on the lineups so I'm guessing the user is a minor. All of the correct channel lineups can be found at each service's website and they have no source for the lineups changing. Please block them. AIV refused to act thinking they were "good faith edits". Clearly they are NOT, just immature edits by a child. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted the IP to this discussion. Please remember, as a courtesy, to notify users when you report them here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to put user so you sent it the wrong person. I'll notify them. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually sent it to the talk page for the "article" 72.94.80.43. Haha!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess that can be speedy deleted if it hasn't already. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quack?

Resolved

 – Quack indeed. Accounts indef'd by User:Blueboy96, articles salted by User:Orangemike and User:Blueboy96. Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mhassan abdollahi (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked on 16 August as an advertisement-only account,^[136] for creating and recreating MONA Consultants. Two days later, a user named M. Abdollahi (talk · contribs) registered^[137] and started creating such articles as MONA Consultants and MONA-Consultants. Something should probably be done with this, no? After this, the MONA-Consultants page has once again been recreated, this time by Armanab (talk · contribs). Jafeluv (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK indeed. No checkuser would be needed here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The two unblocked accounts should be immediately blocked for block evasion. The article this person keeps trying to create is about a non-notable entity and is purely promotional. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've indef'd both users and salted MONA Consultants--was about to salt MONA-Consultants as well, but someone already took that liberty. Blueboy96 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IP personal attacks & WP:BLP violations

I don't want to personally address this because this IP has turned his attention to attacking editors that have reverted his talk page posts and hope someone else will please revert/remove his personal attack upon me from the IP talk page and also address the overriding issue of his attack posts on actor article talk pages. IP 75.128.20.15 has posted a barely changed rant about actor salaries to Talk:Brad Pitt [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145], then moved to Talk:Angelina Jolie [146] [147], then on to Talk:Reese Witherspoon [148] [149]. When the IP was warned about such postings, he responded by posting on talk pages, basically accusing myself and another editor of working for these actors to keep their salaries secret. See User talk:ThinkBlue postings [150] [151] [152] and my talk page posting [153] and postings on his own talk page [154]. This died down for a few days, then the IP returned to again post the rant, this time on Talk:Nicolas Cage [155], at which time I posted a final warning about the posts [156]. Today, he posted this rant on his talk page, which included a link to image shack with a screenshot of my contributions page and his added allegations that I work for various persons as a publicity agent [157]. I am contacting image shack about removing the screenshot, but I would appreciate administrator intervention at this point based on the personal attacks made againt myself and User:ThinkBlue, the many WP:BLP violations which were all addressed by removing the rants and the attempt at outing with the content about me personally on the IP talk page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted the remaining unreverted soapboxing and revoked the editor's editing privileges for a period that is double the length of time that this has been continuing up until now. Checking the contributions history shows nothing but soapboxing and harrassment of other editors, with no actual contributions towards this project's goals, since 2009-08-11. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Forwarded the attempted outing to oversight. Evil saltine (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple offenses by User:Otterathome

Hi, an issue about User:Otterathome was recently raised over at WQA, but was closed as stale. I commented on the talk page of the user who was involved in marking it as such, and s/he replied suggesting RfC/U or if it was becoming a serious problem, ANI or ArbComm. After reading the limitations of RfC/U and the fact that the problem is continuing to escalate, I believe the issue needs to be addressed here. Below is the copy of the WQA alert, and at the bottom I have added some recent updates.

He has continued on his tendantious editing by nominating another web star, Vincent Caso for deletion (see AfD). He has also tried to impose his views on a quality scale rating assessment for Jessica Lee Rose diff1 diff 2, despite comments explaining how he was mistaken in his assessment of the policy by other users (see what existed on the talk page in this discussion as a whole here. He has also made baseless accusations of two users as "Wikistalkers" (see here for User:Milowent and here and here for User:Mathieas (as well as the section above on this page). These accusations are completely baseless because the edits he is making that are being "followed" by these users are deletion nominations all within the same category (web series), which obviously these two users have an interest in, so it is completely within reason to assume the pages would be on their respective watchlists. Calling them Wikistalkers is uncivil and fails WP:AGF.

Thank you for your time. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Being the original submitter of the WQA, I support this motion. The problem in this particular case is, besides the obvious lack of civility and assumption of good faith on Otter's part, the amount of zeal which with he follows this. He just doesn't stop. It took two AfDs and an DRV to get him off the Jackson Davis article, and, as seen above, he's already lurking on the page again, hiding the previous decision, waiting to make his next move. He ties up editors. Instead of letting people sit down and improve the pages in question in peace, everyone has been spending their time in deletion discussions for over a month now, because he keeps nominating and re-nominating and re-nominating pages in that section of content, trying to discredit anyone who opposes him and disregarding consensus.

The editors interested in a topic are the ones most likely to take the time and care to improve an article. And instead of tagging problematic articles and letting the community fix them, he fanatically goes for deletion, tying up all interested editors for a week, generating a vicious circle in which he complains about the article being lacking, tying up the editors in the deletion discussion rather than letting them improve pages, and then going to nominate the next page, which no one has touched in a week because everyone was busy with the deletion discussion and the nominated page, tying up the editors there until the AfD is concluded, only to nominate the next page, which no one has touched in two weeks because everyone was busy with the two previous AfDs and nominated pages, etc., etc.

If he just gave the editors involved a little breathing space, and focused on supporting the improvement of the pages in question, rather than deleting them, there would be much less of an issue. (As pointed out in the WQA, "merge" is a word I have yet to see him use or even acknowledge in an AfD. For him, an AfD seems to be about deletion and deletion only, despite the clear wording of WP:AFD.) The Jackson Davis article is a perfect example - in the single month from Otter's first nomination to the end of his second nomination, the article has improved dramatically. It's possible. Definitely. If one lets the editors do their work. Instead, Otter goes out and tries to annihilate the section. That not only goes directly against the spirit of Wikipedia itself, but actually directly against both the editing- as well as the deletion policy, which both favor addition and improvement over overzealous deletion.

All we want is a fair chance and breathing space to actually improve those pages, rather than constantly having to check our backs to see which pages Otter tries to delete this week. (Most recent one was Mesh Flinders, one of the Creators of LG15, ended yesterday with keep, so I have no doubt the next nomination is in the works.)

Independent of this being a case where someone just needs to let go and get over it, it is also extremely detrimental of Wikipedia's coverage of web series, not just at the moment, but for months and years to come, and, ultimately, also raises the question of how neutral Otter really is on this topic.

Nominating something once is one thing. Nominating the same pages over and over again, all of the same franchise, reeks of a personal vendetta.

In addition, there is the case of him downright bossing users around with an faux-admin attitude, as seen in the example already quoted in the WQA - no matter his stance, no matter his right to nominate articles, he is not in the position to appear on a talk page and tell users "I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which.".

~ Renegade - 80.171.81.1 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

it can be perfectly possible that in good faith an editor might thing that that coverage of a show is considerably overhyped, and that all the peripheral articles on it ought to be deleted or merged back to the main article. I often defend splits when the shows are notable enough, but it' can be a reasonable disagreement. If someone nominates all the articles at once, we usually reject the multiple nomination because they are likely to be of unequal importance (e.g. the major as well as the minor characters). Doing them in small groups on at a time is a reasonable approach. But looking a the AfDs, it does seem to be here somewhat of an unreasonable crusade. The proper course is to keep watch and hope that sufficient rejections of his view will eventually make an impact. Obvious, further immediate nominations of some of the recently kept articles would indicate a cause for action, because at some point it does get to be disruptive. I don't think we c=have reason to do anything yet, As for watching articles, the way Wikipedia works, yes, we all do have to do it. This is not a place t o reasonably expect stability. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just a show though. He's now nom'd an actor from a different webshow, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vincent_Caso. From the outside, there does seem to be a pattern suggesting the guy at least needs guidance, maybe more. He'has a real bad habit of skirting the line on WP:CIVIL and likes to flirt with WP:POINT. As an example, in the Nom for Caso, he outright calls User:Mathieas a Wikistalker and straight up says that he Nominated the article for deletion simply because Mathieas Reverted him. Why did Mathieas revert him? [[158]] Otter unilaterally changed the page to a redirect to The Guild with the edit summary "not notable outside of guild". Mathieas reverted("reverting a unilateral deletion see talk") and left a note on the talk page, the first edit to the talk page in fact, and otter re-reverted("Undid revision 312102892 by Mathieas (talk) not a deletion") to the redirected version, Mathieas reverted again ("Seems like it to me"). Otter then nom'd for deletion. Otter STILL has not made any edits to the talk page of the article in question. The unilateral reversion redirection was Otter's first ever edit to the article. He has since added a bio notability template and two fact tags, more than 24 hours after he nominated the article for deletion.

That's the problem, he's not making any attempt to work with anyone else or to give anyone else a chance to answer his criticisms of the articles he goes after. He seems to pick a subject he doesn't like and then tries by any means necessary to get rid of it. He's very selective about policies as well, only quoting the ones, or the parts of ones, that support his argument. IE: repeatedly asserting WP:NOTAGAIN at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jackson_Davis_(3rd_nomination) when people gave 'it's only been 16 days since the previous nom and 7 since the DRV ended' as a reason for 'keep'. The repeated Assertion being "Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN". He was trying to stand on "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." while ignoring "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." And ended up being the only non-keep in the AFD.

Maybe he's honestly trying to help, I don't know. But from what I can see he's building up a pattern of confrontation rather than cooperation, everywhere he goes. Right down to being banned from editing his own userpage and a previous 3RR block. He does at least sometimes seem to learn from his past losses though...at least enough to skirt the line instead of crossing it. WP:PBAGDSWCBY comes to mind. Doesn't hurt that I just read it today, but up to this point, it seems to fit in Otter's case. Not quite bad enough to get outright banned, but absolutely disruptive. He seems like he's on a crusade, and has absolutely no interest in what anyone else has to say about it. He wants it gone, and anyone that doesn't is an enemy and clearly wrong. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia has become a major issue on Wikipedia and this case seems to fit nicely into that discussion. In this particular case, confirmation bias seems to be the driving force for at least some of the users actions. While I am sure most of the Wikipedia admins will vigorously defend the "Wikipedia process" there comes a time when a user demonstrate a mental state that is not conducive to the effective growth and development of Wikipedia. A great deal of subjectivity comes into play when interpreting and applying Wikipedia policies and when a user chooses to do so they can manipulate the system to orchestrate systematic attacks on one or a group of specific pages. How should Wikipedia respond? Yes it is true that in the Wikipedia process you have to fight for something or it will simply dye away. That has both good and bad effects on Wikipedia but when done well the results speak for them self. However, in this case we have one user who is clearly being disruptive and is clearly offending many users. If Wikipedia wants to have "web series" covered then the admins need to make it clear that this type of behavior is not what is meant by vigorous debate and that the user is simply wasting valuable time by over aggressively trying to use Wikipedia polices in a way that unfairly favor their private agenda. When common sense if being violated clearly there is a problem. Now is the time to take clear action towards a resolution to that problem by making it clear that a line has been crossed by this user and it is not appreciated.--Modelmotion (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I miss WQA. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to create AfD's on the same articles again and again ad nauseum. If the community decides that it stays, well, we all know it stays. TV shows or other similar "culture" are cyclical, and 2 years from now, an AfD may actually be successful. Trying to ram one through, hoping you'll catch people off guard is an abuse of the process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Wiki Technical issue manifest on Moons of Uranus article page.

Resolved

Something is seriously weird going on with article page for Moons of Uranus. First off it was originally not showing the contents of this edit:

19:05, 8 September 2009 Alastair Rae (talk | contribs) m (33,189 bytes)

I went in and reverted the last three changes this version:

04:17, 3 September 2009 CielProfond (talk | contribs) (33,189 bytes)

I made my Undo edit at approximately 04:13. This time the live page now showed the edit but the history did not show my activity.

As a test, I edited the page again and inserted the text "Test Edit" into the end of the article (shown in the history as this edit):

04:23, 9 September 2009 BcRIPster (talk | contribs) (33,200 bytes)

The new text updated on the page and this specific edit showed in the history (the history skips the record of my 04:13 activity). I then Undid that edit and again everything functioned correctly. Someone should look into this as it could be symptomatic of an exploit or data corruption/integrity problem. BcRIPster (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it is as big as you are making it out to be. I just purged the page, so everything should be fine now (sometimes the server takes some time to catch up with the edits). –túrian^patois 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. The History is not showing atleast 1 edit made to the page. The edit I made at 04:13 is not recorded in the history or in my contributions. BcRIPster (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you made the edit then? Did you use something such as Twinkle? –túrian^patois 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely positive I made the edit to the page (I may be off by +/- a minute on the time). I don't use any special tools. I just edited from the "edit this page" tab. I made a total of three edits to this page: 04:13, 04:23 and 04:30. The first edit neither shows on the page history or in my contributions, but all three edits physically showed on the article page as I made them. BcRIPster (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds highly unlikely. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that short of a database failure, I can't imagine how that would happen. — neuro^(talk) 05:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The cache was not purged to display Alastair Rae's revert; and BcRIPster made a null edit. See [159]. That's all. Tim Song (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What Tim said (I was just gonna say the same thing). I was pretty confused the first time that happened to me too. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, great, that makes sense. Didn't think to check for differences. :) — neuro^(talk) 06:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here but wouldn't a null edit still show in the edit history or in my activity history? I mean, I hit save and there is no record of the save. BcRIPster (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) No, a dummy edit will show up, but not a null edit. See Help:Dummy edit. Tim Song (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. This was very confusing. I'm sorry for the alarm. BcRIPster (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)