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

Incivility by User:TechnoFaye

I have previously created a thread here but was referred to WP:WQA. However the thread to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:TechnoFaye has not been taken seriously. It is not the first time, WQA has numerous problems and at present is not adequately equipped to handle civility problems. I am aware of the policy on forum shopping but I have felt it necessary that this issue be handled at ANI, because there are many more experienced editors here. My main complaint is that TechnoFaye keeps on saying "Blacks are stupid". I find these comments offensive, and have tried to ignore them and put them in context. But because she keeps repeating them, I felt it necessary to get outside input. Some of the quotes include

• So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?. [1]
• My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied 'even if it is true.'[2]
• "It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid".[3]
• What do you think of the theory that the IQ difference is due to everyone else believing that blacks are stupid[4]
• No, it means it's extremely unlikely that one exists, because it would have to be something powerful enough to make a whole race of people stupid, yet hidden and secret enough that no one ever thought of it[5]

These comments have been occurring over a period of at least one month. According to the user's Block log, the user has prior blocks for incivility. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would echo the comments made at WQA; these edits are not incivility. Also, it seems to me that you're putting words in her mouth when you say she "keeps on saying 'Blacks are stupid'.". An uninhibited exchange of ideas is usually a good idea during a mediation. I encourage you to disagree politely with her comments, but not characterize them as uncivil. I'd recommend no action here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, TechnoFaye is not having words put into her mouth. To quote from her MySpace blog on the topic of the Race and intelligence mediation: "Why is "they're stupid" an okay explanation for everybody else's low IQ score, but blacks' score of "retarded" is due to some mysterious, unknown reason other than that they're retarded?" and "negroes are so abysmally stupid."[6]Her blog is v NSFW Repeated racism does fall under WP:CIVIL as far as I'm concerned. If she can't reign herself in to refrain from making bigoted and inflammatory language, she should be indef blocked (regardless of her autism). Fences&Windows 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. It seems to me that either a deliberate misunderstanding of what she is saying is being used against her and/or the quotes are being used massively out of context. I can't see any racism or bigotry, at least not from TechnoFaye. What I do see are kneejerk reactions to non-politically correct statements of unpopular realisations. Personally I see her autism as a perfect way to be unencumbered with the pervasive and ever-present PC bollocks screwing up this project. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is that her tale of a crazy-bum-woman-living-in-the-forest to suburban-sex-slave-who-wants-to be-raped transformation story on her blog was one of the more disturbing things I have seen in a while. I couldn't get past that to actually look into the on-wiki dispute. In fact now I think I'll sign off for a while and go take a long walk. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Whereas all I see on that page is someone wanting to do exactly what they want to do with their own life... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If one says "blacks are stupid" once, it may be said in context, it may be literature or a creative way to discuss something. I would be willing to overlook a one-off statement. But to repeat the same statement 6 or 7 times is no longer creative or an uninhibited exchange of ideas, its more like taking advantage of the fact that nobody is complaining. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

@Fred: Not to wander too far off topic here, but I never suggested she was not free to make those choices, just that I personally found it very disturbing, and frankly indicative of deep-seated mental health issues that cannot be explained by autism alone. But of course none of this is actually relevant to her on-wiki actions with regard to possible racist comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't believe her comments are racist. They can appear so when listed like they are above, but that is of course Muntuwandi's intention to strengthen his/her case. As usual it's politically incorrect to refer to possible deficiencies in ethnic minorities and as ever there is always someone wanting to appear to be a crusading liberal. If anyone is causing disruption it's Muntuwandi with his/her forum shopping. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To set the record straight, the complaint here is specifically about incivility. Unless there has been a major paradigm shift that I missed, but according to my understanding it is generally uncivil to refer to any individual or ethnic group as stupid. WP:CIVILITY specifically states:

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: 1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;

Without Wikipedia's civility policy, we would not be able to discuss difficult, controversial or politically incorrect subjects. The complaint is not about the subject matter, that remains an independent matter altogether. If we were editing an article about how to bake cookies and an editor persistently stated that an individual or ethnic group were stupid, I would still bring it up as an incivility issue, because it distracts from editing the article and creates an "uncivil environment". I have noticed a few editors want to blame the messenger for bringing this up, but I have done so not to score political points. I would like to know if it is now acceptable in wikipedia discussions to refer to any ethnic group as being "stupid". Wapondaponda (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda: just as an aside - the nature of this article means that we have to treat civility issues with circumspection. a few editors on the page (Faye included) stray over the line into personal attacks on other editors, and that needs to be dealt with, but Faye's racial comments aren't so much incivility as a deeply held belief that there is a biological/genetic/racial basis of some sort to intelligence. I'm pretty sure she's guilty of syntehsis from published materials on this point, but I don't think she's trying to be uncivil or racist as much as she's trying to be (what she views as) accurate. she has an extreme view, and a fairly ham-handed way of presenting her opinions which comes off a lot worse-sounding than it actually is. I'm less worried about the implicit racism than about the implicit synthesis, but I haven't yet got her to see that. --Ludwigs2 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Faye had not been alerted to this thread. I have notified her (Wapondaponda, here's a trout slap for you) and I have given her notice that she will be blocked if she continues to make derogatory comments about groups of people. This is not about "political correctness", this is about Faye being deliberately offensive. Arguing that the average IQ of black populations is lower than that of other populations and discussing why that might be is OK. Saying that "black people are stupid" is not OK. Fred, do you see the difference? One is acceptable scholarly discourse, the other is derogatory and inflammatory. Fences&Windows 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I understand the difference, I'm also able to read at a sufficiently advanced level to understand that she didn't actually say that "black people are stupid". She asked a question about a theory, someone else's theory, she did not say that she held with that theory or even accuse anyone, let alone Blacks, of being stupid. All people seem to be doing is seeing those 3 little words "blacks are stupid" and instantly go into paroxysms of spluttering and the equivalent of "you can't say that these days". The point is that some people DO think blacks are stupid, some of them even scientists who aren't being racist. Therefore it's, in my humble opinion, fine to ask the question she asked, It isn't fine to say that she thinks they are, it isn't fine to accuse any particular person of stupidity, but in this world there are a lot of stupid people, some of them do happen to be black. Similarly an awful lot are caucsian/asian/chinese/manchunian/blonde/freckled/female/lactose intolerant. In her defence her autism is going to be a distinct disadvantage due to the social filters not functioning properly, after all it is a communication disorder and I believe she should be given more latitude than normal. It's not her fault she doesn't have that little voice over her shoulder warning her "don't say it quite like that". It would also be helpful if there wasn't so many knees moving through 90 degrees from the faux liberals. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My error, I apologize for that, I did inform her of the thread at WQA where the user did respond and I posted a link from WQA to this thread. But I should have specifically informed the user about this thread. I agree with Fences and windows that there is a difference between scholarly discussion of group differences and referring to certain groups in a derogatory manner. I think latitude has been given, these comments have taken place over a period of 5 weeks so this not a knee-jerk reaction. Regardless of the user's condition she is aware that she makes offensive statements. Obviously one needs a thick skin when editing controversial articles, but even with thick skinned editing, the above comments are quite unhelpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A little off topic... but has anyone else noticed that User:TechnoFaye's user page displays what appears to be a giant naked photograph of her? I'm aware of WP:NOTCENSORED but as far as I'm aware user page content is supposed to be at least marginally related to Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I scratched my head over that too. I figured it's relatively tasteful, and wasn't overtly violating any policies, so it got filed in the 'too trivial to worry about' category. --Ludwigs2 09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<- TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) claims to have taken this picture [7] herself File:Bpesta.jpg. This is clearly not the case and is a copyvio. Why did she lie? Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Faye has (as should be evident, and as she herself admits) some form of mild autism (or perhaps some other minor developmental disorder - I'm not sure if her claims of autism stem from self-diagnosis). I have been trying to be tolerant of that, and guide her towards some more socially acceptable modes of interaction, with limited success. however, because of this thread (and Mathsci's complaints below) I am putting the mediation discussion on a strict civility program; I am going to start insisting on 3-day breaks from the discussion for any editor who cannot refrain from making disparaging comments about other editors. I'm going to try a firm hand for a little while on the page, and see if we can capitalize on the progress we'e made and break through the points of stubbornness that are currently plaguing the page. If you ask me, we can close/table this discussion for a week and see what progress a new approach can make. --Ludwigs2 09:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think she's likely a fantasist, that's not really relevant except in that it informs judgment of her on-wiki behaviour. Which is ... eccentric. I think there is a need for a mentor of some kind. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of mediation on Race and intelligence

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence
• Race and intelligence

I looked at the main page to which TechnoFaye contributes and there seems to be a much deeper problem. Mediation started in November on this topic, initially under the supervision of Reubzz (talk · contribs), who shortly afterwards disappeared and had no prior experience at all as a mediator. The mediator was changed to Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) and then Wordsmith (talk · contribs). At present mediation is unsupervised - a completely chaotic free-for-all. At the very beginning of mediation last year, there were sensible statements and discussions. That does not seem to be the case now. Various users involved in the mediation are no longer present (eg myself, on wikibreak in Cambridge, and Ramdrake (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited wikipedia for 2 months). Currently the page does not seem to be serving any useful purpose. It seems to be frequented largely by WP:SPAs and a coterie of highly problematic users, with some exceptions (eg Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)). TechnoFaye's contributions and directing of the mediation page do not seem to be particularly helpful, nor her choice of language. The page is in no way a mediation page any more. Please could administrators or mediators explain what is going on and attempt to restore some order? There is no record on the page as to who is moderating at present (surely not Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)?). Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how this kind of poorly written synthesis[8] by an anonymous IP from Brussels

• Race_and_intelligence#Ten_argument_supporting_the_existence_of_race_differences_in_IQ_scores_between_whites_and_blacks.5B71.5D

from a single questionable source (Richard Lynn) made its way into the article Race and intelligence. I'm afraid this kind of writing reminds me of what can be read on far right websites like Stormfront (website), except their English is better. It is some of the worst writing I have seen on wikipedia to date, ungrammatical, picked from one dubious source and sometimes making little or no sense. It shows that there is a major problem with the article and mediation. The article has never been in such an unbalanced and unreadable state before. SPAs, who now seem to dominate the article, have left this unencyclopedic and completely WP:UNDUE material in the article, still claiming there is some kind of neutral mediator in their recent edit summaries. That does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci - nice of you to ask me, but yes, I am still mediating there. I've been letting the page run a bit, for a number of reasons: (1) to save myself from burnout (it's a difficult crew) (2) to keep myself looking draconian (I have the urge to impose order severely at times, but I resist - don't see that as my position), and (3) to let some of the steam of the participants burn off. if you have a problem with my mediation style, you are free to use my talk page to discuss the matter with me, but I'd prefer that you don't go posting notices about me on ANI without notification. since you've brought it up, however, would you like to discuss the matter now? --Ludwigs2 07:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments make it quite clear that I had no idea who the mediator was. It is not announced on the page. Presumably, since I was inscribed early in the mediation, you should have sought my approval. Unfortunately I think there have been many long term problems with your own edits on wikipedia, which indicate that you are not a neutral party and completely unsuitable as a mediator. Your edits are wikilawyering par excellence - you've been doing so above. From the archived talk page, you appear to have hijacked the initial stages of mediation conducted under the two experienced mediators mentioned above. I suggest the mediation be terminated and the article returned to some previous state, so that it looks slightly less like illiterate right wing propaganda. No experienced mediator would have allowed this nonsense to stay in the article for two weeks. This is just disruption, Ludwigs2, and possibly worthy of a block of some kind. This should be discussed here by administrators and experienced mediators, not hidden away on your talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Just a reminder of what you as mediator allowed in the article for two weeks:

Ten argument supporting the existence of race differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks

• 1. The two races have evolved independently of one another and in different environments over a period of one hundred thousand years. When two populations evolve in isolation from one another during such period there are differences that appear in all areas where there are possibilities of genetic variation. The extreme environmentalist position, assuming there are no intellectual differences between races defy the general principle of biological evolution and can be seen as impossible.
• 2. The Africans obtain an I.Q quite similar in many different locations: this must be regarded as evidence of a strong genetic factor.
• 3. The high heritability found among twins in America, Europe, Japan and India shows that intelligence is largely determined by genetic factors.
• 4.The cranial volume differences between Caucasian and black show the existence of genetic factors, because the heritability of cranial volume is 0.9 and the correlation between intelligence and cranial volume is 0.4.

• 5. Many egalitarians have suggested that white racism could reduce the IQ of blacks, but there is no explanation that can explain how racism might reduce IQ, and then why the IQ of black Africans in Africa would he 67? If racism diminishes intelligence, it is curious that the Jews of America and England have an IQ of 108, then they have been exposed to racism for centuries. The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930.
• 6. Black children adopted by white parents get the same scores as predicting racial. There is still difference of 17 IQ points between whites and blacks raised in the same conditions. Being raised by white adoptive parents had no positive effect on the intelligence of blacks.
• 7. The IQ of hybrids is intermediate between the two parental breeds, as well as the cranial volume, which is also the intermediary between the two parental breeds.
• 8. It has been shown a significant difference between races in terms of reaction time. The reaction time is correlated with IQ, because both of them are eficiente signs of central nervous system. The average Caucasian react more quickly to a stimulus.
• 9. The more white admixture, the greater the average brain weight of an African high (genetic testing beyond the color of the skin).
• 10. Racial differences in cranial capacity are correlated with 76 musculoskeletal traits identified in standard works of evolutionary anatomy as systematically related to an increase in cranial capacity in hominids.

Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I offered to take over the mediation a good long while ago, when the last mediator quit in frustration: there was a sizable discussion about it, and the editors who participated in the discussion all agreed. I'm sorry you missed that discussion, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it now unless you want to reopen the issue on the mediation page.

I have been expecting the participants in the mediation to reach some consensus which would mean a major revision of the entire article, and I was aware that the participants were monitoring the article itself for changes. sorry this bit slipped in, but it would have been gone by now had the consensus been reached

In deference to you, I've gone ahead and announced a stronger approach on the mediation page, and will begin pursuing it tomorrow. beyond that, I am not concerned with your (thoroughly misguided) impressions of me. As I said, if you have a problem with me personally, take it up on my talk page (or through one of the numerous dispute resolution processes wikipedia has to offer). However, if you just want to talk shit about me, no one is interested. --Ludwigs2 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is in a hopeless state. I have no idea why you sought to mediate such a controversial article, given your own record on wikipedia. (It is not dissimilar to GoRight offering to act as Abd's mentor.) That you missed the above glaringly awful insertion, until I pointed it out now, is a clear sign that you don't have the qualities required to mediate. At least User:Reubzz left personal messages on talk pages and clearly edited the mediation pages to explain what was going on. You don't even seem to have bothered monitoring the article recently. Please stop treating wikipedia as some kind of game. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

again, this is a topic you should bring up on the mediation page. if you don't want me as mediator, I'm certainly not imposing myself on the situation, and a nice discussion of the matter there would resolve the issue. or is there some reason you keep wanting to harp on it here, where it won't do a darned bit of good?

with respect to your problematic passage - if you have good reason to remove it, remove it. you don't need a mediator for that, unless it becomes a matter of contention between you and another editor. as I said, it is not my place as mediator to make content decisions for you. --Ludwigs2 09:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Mathsci, we have you yourself not removed this section, since you seem to object to it? I am mediating this article, which limits my capacity to make editorial decisions (I'm not here to take sides in editorial disputes, but rather to try to develop some kind of consensus). as an interested editor, you should be the one monitoring the article for inappropriate material. --Ludwigs2 08:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In its present state I wouldn't touch the article - this was only one of the things wrong with it. I wrote above that it should be returned to a much earlier state. I see very little hope for it at the moment, given the current circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

if you are not going to touch the article, then shall I remove your name from the list of mediation participants?

The possibility of reverting the article to an earlier state was discussed in mediation, but there was no consensus on the matter, and I didn't want to impose a solution. the issue will be resolved as soon as we reach a consensus in mediation, since the entire page will be revised, or you can reopen that thread for further discussion if you like.

so, now, what is your reason for wanting this section removed? is it unsourced? no. is it a misrepresentation? I don't know, do you? is it clear synthesis? not that I can see, but I'm willing to be convinced (because I don't like the passage any more than you do). give me an argument for removing it and I will remove it; don't expect me as mediator to remove material that (superficially, at least) seems to conform to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ludwigs2 09:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I only add citations and sources to that article, and very seldom. I am aware, however, of the academic literature. I'll leave you to figure out on your own what is wrong with the above passage and why it blatantly violates several of wikipedia's core policies. As a clue, here is an article edit I made yesterday.[9] Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

well, thanks for the hint, but I have no idea what it means. are you making some comment about referencing or complaining that the statistics in the section is bad? can race be modeled using hermite polynomials? and what does this have to do with core policies? --Ludwigs2 09:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking questions like that, you seem clueless about editing wikipedia. The statements are improperly sourced from a single source. Statements like "The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930" need some kind of inline citation and exact quotation. Controversial statements, that are improperly sourced, are not normally permitted on wikipedia. Likewise the statement about the average African IQ. Honestly, Ludwigs2, your statements about editing articles are singularly clueless. With less than 1,500 article edits to your name, that doesn't seem very surprising. Your replies at the moment are verging on "trolling". Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some of Mathsci's observations, some oversight by experienced editors may be necessary. I get the feeling that this mediation is taking place tucked away in a hidden corner of wikipedia and without the support of the broader community. It would be also useful if some experienced editors could evaluate whether the mediation in its current state has the potential of being fruitful. If it has no potential, then maybe as Mathsci suggested, it would be best to have it terminated. If there is still hope, then some supervision would be necessary to ensure that the mediation process and its results are consistent with the views of the broader community. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Mathsci:If that's your belief, then again, I don't know why you haven't removed the passage. someone else went ahead and did it, and so the problem is obviated, but still...

@ Wapondaponda: again, I'm not doing this for love or money. if you don't want me to mediate, bring it up on the mediation talk page as a matter for discussion. I'm not interested in being supervised (though I'm happy to take any advice anyone has to offer). if you want another mediator to take over, find one and suggest them

Now, let's close this discussion (which is not an ANI matter in any sense of the word) and reopen it on the mediation talk page if you so desire

To be precise the material was removed [10], then reverted [11], then removed again [12]. Hardly straightforward. If I hadn't pointed it out, this nonsense would still be in the article. How I edit has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. When mediation started I made a careful statement about what should happen to the article, which had consensus. Your own actions as self-appointed "mediator" have not helped in the slightest. I only see complete disarray. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I have not made any comments concerning you being a mediator. My concern is with the process in general. With the persistent incivility, I have just gotten the feeling that the mediation is on autopilot, and nobody cares. Currently Slrubenstein is probably the only experienced editor participating in the mediation. I would be happier if there were more experienced editors who are not effectively WP:SPAs looking at the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<- I have to agree with Muntuwandi here. Slrubenstein is one of the few experienced editors remaining in the discussions. My own feeling is that an administrator experienced in mediation, such as Shell Kinney or WJBscribe, should be consulted about the current anomolous situation. Since Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is relatively inexperienced both as an editor and a mediator, he should certainly not be trying to suppress discussion, which involves his role amongst other things. Mathsci (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There also seems to be an inaccessible part of the talk archives result from this edit.[13] That is now in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 0. It contained the opening statements amongst other things. I have no idea how that can be corrected. Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

okie dokie. feel free to continue this discussion and let me know if I'm needed. for my part, I will ignore this thread (and and any results it produces) and wait for you to open a discussion of the topic on the mediation page, where it belongs. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record: Ludwigs did not "appoint himself" mediator. We held a discussion about Ludwigs taking over the role of mediator, and all of the then-active editors (myself, Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, Aprock, Alun, Mikemikev, Captain Occam, TechnoFaye) agreed to it. I think Ludwigs is doing just fine given the circumstances, and I don't think the hyper-criticism taking place here is helping anything. --Aryaman (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig is not doing an unreasonable job, although he certainly has a hands off approach, and seems to be aligned with a specific faction of editors. This hasn't been a huge problem, but it does creep out from time to time. A.Prock (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the mediator is not impartial, but aligned with one of the factions involved in the mediation, and he allows stuff to go into the article without check (just curious - is it stuff that's favored by the faction he's aligned with?), but all that is just peachy with you and he's doing a bang-up job, all considered? Is that the gist of what you've just said?

Who's in charge of that zoo? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two things you ought to keep in mind about this. The first is that assuming Aprock’s opinion here is the same one he’s expressed on the mediation talk page, his opinion is that Ludwig is biased against his side, not in favor of it. So if Ludwig’s possible bias against Aprock’s position isn’t enough to bother Aprock, that should mean it probably isn’t enough to matter significantly.

And the other thing to keep in mind is that both of the “factions” involved in this article have claimed that Ludwig is biased against them. If you look at some of TechnoFaye’s posts on the mediation talk page, you’ll see that she’s accused Ludwig of being biased against her position at least as often as Aprock has accused him of the same thing in his own case, even though within the context of this debate, TechnoFaye’s and Aprock’s positions are pretty much exact opposites of one another. Ludwig gets accused of being biased against both positions about as frequently as one another, and which it is depends on the position of the person making the accusation—everyone always claims he’s biased against them, not in favor of them.

I don’t think it’s possible for Ludwig to be simultaneously biased against both of the two groups that are debating over this article. What looks more likely to me is that both of these groups are unhappy with having to compromise, so Ludwig’s unwillingness to concede to all of the demands from either side is being mistaken for bias. And that’s a problem with some of the users involved in the article, not with Ludwig.

Personally, I’ve found Ludwig’s hands-off style of mediation to be bothersome on occasion (such as when he didn’t intervene in situations where we’d asked him to, or where he’d told us he was going to), but bias is one problem that I don’t think he has. I’m also expecting the inaction problem that I mentioned to improve now that he’s promised to become more actively involved in the mediation. I think that Ludwig’s ability to continue mediating the article at all says a lot about his ability in this respect, considering that two mediators with considerably more experience (Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith), working together, gave up on this after spending less time on it than Ludwig has. Based on what happened with Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith, I suspect that almost any two mediators placed in Ludwig’s position probably would have given up long before this. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Ludwigs2 has longstanding problems on wikipedia. In the past on Race and intelligence, there have been a series of problematic editors. Fourdee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by Jimbo; MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked; Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a long-time problematic editor who with Zero g (talk · contribs), was taken under Elonka's wing. Ludwigs2 was one of the few users who claimed that Jagz should return to editing (he used to make good edits to scouting articles, as Rlevse pointed out). Ludwigs2 is currently having a feud with BullRangifer/Fyslee and has a history of pushing fringe science ideas on altmed articles. His cavalier attitude to the nonsense that was inserted into R&I underlines why he is totally unsuitable as a mediator in a controversial article where the mainstream academic viewpoint has to be made crystal clear. His reaction to this material seemed to be an attempt to game the system rather than assume the reponsibilities of a mediator: he immediately personalised the discussion in a kind of wikilawyering way, asking why I didn't like the material and why I had not removed it; at no stage did he recognize it for the blatant violation of multiple wikipedia policies that it evidently is. It might be that he has been sympathetic to users pushing a certain point of view, like Captain Occam and Varoon Arya. Irrespective of this, however, his past and present activities on-wiki disqualify him from acting as a mediator. There seems to be no good reason for continuing mediation in these circumstances. It started off fine, once events had moved past the brief guest appearance of would-be mediator Reubzz (talk · contribs), but is now in a total mess. Those pushing minoritarian points of view might possibly benefit from this mess, but the article certainly won't. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, mediattion is not about control of a page, it is about resolving disputes among editors. So far, mediation has focused on resolving disputes among a list of editors who have been regular or active contributors to the page; the mediator has focused on disputes among these individuals, and has not focused on the article itself. I have no problem with this - I think the plan is IF we can all agree on the overal structure and contents of the article, at that point the entire article will be redrafted. Again, I have no problem with this.

Ludwigs2 is mediating because no one else would. I think that the mediationis taking a long time and could use a more forceful mediator, but given the questions about Ludwigs2's sympathies, i can understand why he has not been very forceful. Mathsci, are you volunteering to take over mediation? Is there someone else who is qualified, acceptable to parties, and willing?

I will tell you my major complaint about the mediation and the mediator. Several people who signed on as parties to the mediation - Wobble, Ramdrake, and Futurebird, among others - have not participated for some time. This in my mind realy delegitimizes the mediation, because it is no longer a mediation between editors who are in conflict, it is becoming a discussion board for editors who all agree with one another (Varoon Arya, Captain Occan, Mikemikev, Technofaye, to a lesser degree DJ). I am not saying that these people should in any way be silenced or their views deprecated. I am saying that when the people who have most been in conflict with the parties I just named ar not actively participating in the mediation, then it is no longer a mediation, it is no longer a form of dispute resolution - it is turning into a wikiproject run by Varoon Arya and Captain Occam and friends.

I do not want Varoon Arya and Captain Occam to leave - they are important parties to the mediation. But if this is to be an honest form of conflict resolution, then the parties n conflict with Varoon Arya and Captain Occam have to participate too.

I do not know why Futurebird, Ranmdrake, and Wobble are not active. There may be other editors who have contributed to the article and who have been in conflict with Varoon Arya or Captain Occam, who have not been actively participating in the mediation. (Maybe including MathSci??) I think one of the tasks of the mediator is to ensure that an environment that makes parties feel that their participatin in the mediation is worth it, be maintained. Rather than question the mediators motives or agenda, I ask him simply to contact those partices to the mediation who seem to have disappeared; find out why they are no longer active; if any of their reasons have to do with the dynamics on the mediation page, then I think themediator has a responsibility to change the dynamics so that all parties feel that the mediation is making progress and that their participation is worth it. Ludwigs2, you could start by communicationg with Futurebird, Ramdrake, Wobble, I suggest off-wiki - to learn their perceptions and views and discuss what kinds of changes could bring them 9and others) back, and then consider whether such changes really would help the mediation.

But when half the parties to mediation have disappeared, I take it as a sign that there is a major problem with the diation. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And while the mediator is concentrating on the parties and ignoring the article, we're presenting very egegious misinformation to the public. The mediation process must take a reasonable amount of time, it can't go on for so long that the project's quality control suffers. WP:FRINGE needs to be applied to this topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein. Thanks for commenting here. You bring up several important points. I think it is absolutely essential that mediation concentrates on the article not on the behaviour of contributors. It is also very worrying that the editors you mention have left the article during mediation (I would add T34CH): this does not help in reaching consensus, particularly if most of the participants that are left favour a minoritarian point of view. My own feeling is that an extremely experienced senior mediator is required for this kind of controversial article: someone who has contributed significantly to mainstream articles and several other mediation cases. However, since two such mediators have abandoned mediation, finding such a mediator does not seem very realistic. Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

move to close by Ludwigs2

Allow me to point out that User:Mathsci and user:Beyond My Ken have hijacked this thread entirely to make bizarre and uncivl attacks on me and my character. let's point out some basic facts:

1. The thread was originally about user:TechnoFaye, but that discussion seems to have disappeared
2. The consideration of whether I should stay or step down from mediation belongs on the mediation page. I'm happy to do so if that's the consensus, and will not do so if the consensus there is that I should remain
3. The issue of whether the mediation has failed and should be closed belongs on the mediation page
4. The issue of the state of the article itself is irrelevant: I'm not an admin, I'm not the page watchdog, and I am trying to maintain a neutral position in any disputes.
5. The issue of whether I have a particular bias, while relevant, belongs on the mediation page with respect to point 1. I don't personally believe I've displayed anything like a bias on the page (and have made an effort to keep my viewpoints, where and when I have them, strictly private).

I have had disputes with both of these editors before, and apparently they are holding a pretty strong grudge against me, but that is not an excuse for them to go off spitting and screaming whenever they see my name mentioned in any context. If they have some actionable claim to make against me, let them make it in a proper place and context. If they don't, to hell with them both.

ANI is not the correct place for a pair of editors to indulge in overt idiocy of this sort.

I'd like an admin to formally close this discussion as a witchhunt, please, otherwise I will be obliged to open a new section on this page asking for sanctions against these editors under wp:NPA, and this situation will get progressively more unpleasant. --Ludwigs2 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no response. with that in mind, I will once again archive the above section as non-ANI material. Fair warning: any editor who wants to unarchive it should first provide a detailed explanation of why this is an issue needing ANI attention, in this section, or I will ask to have you blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing. --Ludwigs2 (adding belated sig)

It's unlikely that such a demand would have any effect other than to get you blocked for WP:OWN and WP:DE. 24 hours is the usual minimum time allowed for people to make comments, not five. People here come from every time zone on the planet. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. indeed. I can only say that Ludwigs2 is quite mistaken and again, by his intemperate and exaggerated response, illustrates his unsuitability for any role in supervising other users' edits on wikipedia. Since Ludwigs2 is now using intemperate words like "idiocy", here is a reminder of the opening statement in mediation, incorrectly archived in Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence/Archive_0. "I by and large agree with Slrubenstein's statement, particularly that the focus of the article should become stable and that the article talk page should not become a forum for open-ended debate. The article at present does not cover all of the recent major academic contributions to this debate and should make every attempt to do so in an even-handed way. The hereditarian point of view should be carefully outlined, but without giving a false impression of its degree of acceptance. As Slr has written the "open letter" in the WSJ by a self-selected and like-minded group of academics should not receive WP:UNDUE weight, if other distinguished academics have expressed disagreement (as is the case). At present there has not been a systematic attempt to ensure that the broad spectrum of mainstream academic opinion has been properly represented. One problem is that the very narrow topic of a possible correlation between race, whatever that means, and intelligence, whatever that means, has not been widely studied in academia. This makes it hard to write an article on it for an encyclopedia, since many aspects will remain inconclusive because they either have not been sufficiently studied or have not been deemed worthy to be studied. Scrupulous attention should be paid to not ignoring or dismissing important sources, particularly those by eminent academics. Perhaps the most important point is that all key sources should first be carefully identified. These should be carefully summarised in the article, without prejudice. If only a handful of academics favour a particular viewpoint, i.e. it is a minoritarian viewpoint, that should be made clear. There does not seem to be any evidence that "Race and Intelligence" is a major topic of research, discussion or debate in the majority of academic departments specializing in psychometrics or related disciplines. We should be extremely cautious not to approach the writing of this article with that viewpoint. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is not assisting in any way in helping the article to become stable as I described in November. Quite the contrary - there has been a proliferation of minoritarian viewpoints. The threats, bullying language and unsupported insults that Ludwigs2 has now resorted to are inadmissible. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Other users - please do not edit my comments. That is a blockable offense. Mathsci (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

The evidence presented by Mathsci above indicates that Ludwigs2 lacks the necessary experience to mediate such a contentious case, and some questions have been raised about his impartiality. I think we should thank Ludwigs for trying to help, but ask that he step aside and allow someone with more experience, especially in judging and weighing academic sources, to take over. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. Two mediators with considerably more experience than Ludwig, Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith, have already attempted to mediate this article and given up after approximately a month. Whatever you think about Ludwig’s lack of experience, he’s been able to accomplish more in terms of reaching consensus than these two experienced mediators were able to accomplish working together. We now have a list of resolved points that all of the editors actively involved in the mediation have reached consensus about, and we’re also very close to reaching consensus about the article’s overall structure. And this isn’t just because certain perspectives about this topic aren’t being represented in the mediation case: even :though Alun and Ramdrake have stopped participating in the mediation, their perspective about this does not differ significantly from the perspective of Slrubenstein, Aprock and Muntuwandi, who have been included in the consensus we’ve reached about the items I mentioned.

Experience evidently isn’t the only thing that matters here, since a pair of experienced mediators were able to accomplish virtually nothing with this article, while Ludwig has enabled us to reach consensus on a fair amount. If Ludwig is replaced with another mediator based on this criterion, it will most likely be a repeat of what we experienced while Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith were mediating it.

Mathsci was part of the mediation for this article early on, but for some reason he dropped out of it shortly after it began. Since he hasn’t been able to influence the direction it’s taken beyond that point, some of what the rest of us have decided since then evidently differs from what he would have preferred. If he had continued to participate in the mediation over the past four months, this might not have happened. But it has, and that’s really what this discussion is about, apart from the personal conflicts Mathsci is bringing up that he’s had with Ludwig in the past. If Mathsci is dissatisfied with the direction this article’s mediation has taken, the proper place to bring it up would be in the mediation itself. He’s been signed into it for months; he’s just been choosing to not participate in it, and now he’s bringing up his resulting disagreements with it at AN/I instead.

I agree that this discussion doesn’t belong at AN/I. Where it belongs is on the mediation talk page, and if Mathsci were to bring up his issues there in the same way as everyone who has expectations for this article, then Ludwig would probably listen to them in the same way that he’s listened to the same thing from everyone else there. You’ll notice that everyone commenting in this thread who’s actively involved in the mediation, regardless of the position they take, approves of the job Ludwig has been doing with this. All of us who are actually subjected to his authority think he’s using it in an acceptable manner, and the only person who thinks otherwise is someone who’s been voluntarily choosing not to participate in the mediation since before Ludwig was in charge of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This series of comments beginning with Mathsci's interjection represents exactly the kind of "accusations and side-discussions within a discussion" which are supposed to be avoided on this page. I request that an administrator put a halt to this "discussion" and instruct Mathsci to discuss this issue with Ludwigs, either on his talkpage or on the mediation discussion page. --Aryaman (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with this proposal. Mediation has gone on now too long (five months) without much to show for it, except a much worse article, and seems in disarray. It could be that Ludwigs2's participation benefits the above two editors, who appear to favour a minoritarian point of view : Race and intelligence is one of the principal articles they concentrate on in mainspace. The unchecked comments of TechnoFaye about the intelligence of population groups on the mediation page are just another symptom of the fact that the mediation process is in disarray. This is an appropriate public place to discuss this point, not in some hidden-away corner of wikipedia. Again, the problem is with the mediator and his editing history. Mathsci (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci has not tried to discuss these concerns of his in the mediation, where this kind of criticism can be properly addressed. Instead he is using AN/I as a platform to give air to his sudden lack of good faith in the goals of the mediation, to defame editors he apparently does not like and to seek support for torpedoing a mediation he chose to stop participating in some time ago. He was not pushed out of the mediation, and his views/suggestions/comments were not marginalized or disregarded. These charges of incompetency on the part of Ludwigs are unsubstantiated, and Mathsci summarily ignores all the progress which has been made during the mediation under Ludwigs' supervision. Again, I request that an administrator put an end to this "proposal" and direct interested parties to either the mediation discussion page or to Ludwigs' talkpage. --Aryaman (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, the mediation process has run aground. That seems to be what Slrubenstein is also saying. The process is delegitimized when a large group of editors abandon the mediation process, leaving mostly those representing a minoritarian point of view. The mediation pages are not the appropriate place to discuss this - they are a hidden little corner of wikipedia, currently for the most part frequented by like minded editors. FYI, my absence is explained by a wikibreak, a reduction in editing due to the teaching of a graduate course in Cambridge - that happens each year. Although Ludwigs2 offered to be mediator in good faith, from my point of view he does not have sufficient editing/mediation experience or impartiality to act as a mediator on such a complex article. Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The mediation process can only "run aground", as Mathsci puts it, when disgruntled editors leave the mediation (and possibly start reproachful threads on AN/I) instead of discussing their concerns in the mediation. There is no reason to assume Mathsci's concerns would not be properly addressed in the context of the mediation. In fact, Ludwigs has invited Mathsci to return to the mediation and make mention of his concerns. If Mathsci wants the mediation to make what he sees as "improvements", it is incumbent upon him to help improve it through his active participation. At any rate, I (still) see no need for external administrator involvement at this time. --Aryaman (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you would find that a more skilled and experienced mediator would have avoided the drift away and would also (importantly) have helped to deliver markedly better content by now. This article certainly does not show the benefit of what should have been a process of intense focus and rigorous re-examination. Far from it. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the participants in the mediation have edited the article since the inception of the mediation process other than to revert contentious edits made by external parties. We decided as a group to refrain from editing the article until we were able to agree upon an outline for our first major revision (the current topic of discussion), which is likely to begin sometime this coming week. It has taken a great deal of discussion to develop an outline with which everyone agrees, but we all acknowledge that this is a key factor in the hoped-for stability of the future article.

As far as I know, Ramdrake suffers from serious health issues which prevent his being able to contribute for extended periods of time - something for which Ludwigs can in no way be held responsible. Other editors indicated early on that they would not be participating, either out of a lack of interest or a lack of time. Again, this has nothing to do with Ludwigs' qualifications as mediator.

The reasoning behind this proposal is specious and the proposal itself is entirely uncalled for. --Aryaman (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mathsci apparently had believed that the article mediation was going to result in a consensus that suited him. He has not been participating in the mediation and is instead now trying to derail the mediation by complaining to administrators. While his mathematical abilities are impressive, he has a history of problematic interactions with other editors on Wikipedia. I can understand why Wikipedia administrators are loathe to risk alienating Mathsci given his contributions to certain articles such as the ones on mathematics (that only other mathematicians can fully appreciate). Ludwigs2 seems to have been doing a reasonably good job and those involved in mediation should be glad he hasn't abandoned the mediation like three other mediators have already done. Perhaps the complaints against Ludwigs2 (which Captain Occam anticipated happening in February) are an attempt by Mathsci to redirect the mediation in a direction that he had originally anticipated it would go. Why would Mathsci choose to first raise his objections on this page instead of on the mediation page? As far as any changes to the article itself since the mediation began, a note at the top of the article states,

"This article is currently being discussed in mediation. Please check with the mediator or other mediation participants before making any significant revisions, as the outcome of that discussion may involve major restructuring of the article." --74.178.247.39 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments above, the first edits by this anonymous IP, make hardly any sense. My editing history shows that I have only edited mainstream articles on wikipedia - my edits on this particular article having been restricted to sources and citations. I have created articles in several parts of the arts and sciences - in mathematics, French culture, the history of art, classical music and biography. I am not an WP:SPA. I think I have enough experience, possibly more than the commentators above, to say when attempts at mediation have collapsed. Occasionally my professional academic life prevents me from regularly contributing to wikipedia at certain times of the year. That seems quite normal. Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Based on the the following observations. Undercurrent of hostility The initial mediators, Wordsmith and Xavexgoem, who I gather have some experience with mediation procedures, felt mediation was not worth pursuing. Xavexgoem specifically stated prior to leaving: "I'm having one helluva time figuring out where to go from here. The straw-poll established nothing, and I'm surprised to see the level of anger among some of you. I still have the suspicion that there's an undercurrent here that I'm not aware of. It's fairly obvious to think of what that would be. Anyone care to fill me in?"[14] I agree that the current atmosphere is not suitable for a productive mediation point. The incivility by User:TechnoFaye is also additional evidence of an environment not conducive to Mediation. This incivility has either been viewed as acceptable or may even have been tacitly supported. A few editors may have devoted most, if not all of their wiki-time to this dispute, and this may go 4 months back to before the mediation commenced. Though there is no policy against such, it is obviously not the most productive form of editing. Due to these observations, I propose the following.

1. Suspend the mediation process
2. Revert Race and intelligence to a stable pre-Mediation version. This is because when we signed on to the article, we agreed not to edit the article, and many of us have complied over the 4 months.
3. Protect the article Race and intelligence for a month. There maybe editors who are itching to eidit war. Protection would allow a cooling down period, and would give editors and opportunity to reflect and asses what better ways exist to resolve this dispute.
4. revisit the mediation in 1 month.

• These comments by Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) seem sensible. Mathsci (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. I may have more to say about this later, but for now I’d like to point out that the article hasn’t existed in a stable state since late 2006 and early 2007. Lack of significant changes shouldn’t be mistaken for stability, because in this case the only reason for the lack of changes is because all of the editors who attempted to change anything became mired in endless discussions on the talk page about topics like the meaning of “race”, which made it impossible to obtain consensus for changing anything. Actual stability would involve the article being supported by consensus, rather than being uneditable because there’s never any consensus for either the article’s current state or any proposed changes.

Resolving these questions is one of the purposes of mediation for this article. Most of them have been resolved by this point, which will hopefully result in the article soon becoming stable again for the first time in three years. If for some reason that ends up being impossible, I suppose reverting the article to the state it had before this became a problem would still be an improvement over the current version. However, reverting to any version more recent than that would not be any more stable than the article’s current state.

Incidentally, is anyone going to respond to Varoon Arya’s point about accusations and side-discussions within a discussion being explicitly disallowed here? This thread was about possible incivility from TechnoFaye, and according to the policies for AN/I, everything we’ve been discussing that isn’t about that doesn’t belong here. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this discussion doesn't show a certain amount of escalation that we should try to show is not necessary. If Mathsci has concerns with a mediation, then it seems these should be heard on the mediation page. Presumably then others can weigh in, and maybe solve the problem right there. If any editors wish to end a mediation, or even reject a particular mediator, isn't that their option to begin with? Requiring editors to come here, or requiring mediators to justify themselves here, don't either seem good for mediation generally. Mackan79 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been said already, Mackan79, the mediation process has been delegitimized by the fact that many editors who had initially signed up for mediation (Ramdrake, futurebird, T34CH, Wobble) had stopped participating, leaving mostly those representing a minoritarian point of view and similarly minded newcomers. Aside from any other problems, the acting mediator had apparently not taken that into account. There were other anomalies (all the opening statements were buried away in a hidden talk archive). In circumstances like that I can't see that at any reasonable discussion of the process could take place on the mediation page; which is why I brought it here for wider input from the community, The edits of TechnoFaye acted as a kind of warning flare. I thank Xavexgoem for closing the case. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing the case sounds fine to me, certainly. Mediation is supposed to be entirely voluntary, and if someone who has been involved has such strong concerns it is hard to imagine it going forward. However, I also find this discussion a bit troubling. Consider perhaps your initial suggestion, that maybe Ludwig was doing such a bad job that he should even be blocked. Does a mediator deserve that? Presumably we shouldn't have to block a mediator just to end a mediation. It should be simple, I hope you agree. My thought is that it should be in everyone's interests to make sure concerns are addressed without things going so far into mutual recriminations. Mackan79 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing the case

I haven't read most of the thread, but I see a lot of politics. No mediation process is compatible with that, certainly not the mediation cabal. Currently, the case is so advanced that relisting it as new would be extremely taxing on the participants and the mediator (informal) that would pick it up. It's worth noting that this case went through four mediators: first Reubzz, who was run off[15]; then Wordsmith -- I can't speak for him -- then me, out of frustration. Then Ludwigs, who did get acceptance for taking over the mediation (that's why I left it open). I'm closing the case now. How editors choose to work with each other after that is entirely up to them. I'm not optimistic; show me something new. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Reubzz showed a lot of promise. That was extremely unfortunate.

I am very concerned you would close this without reading it. We're really on the point of a solution, and this is a last ditch attempt by a dubious coterie of POV pushers, including Mathsci, to derail a neutral implementation. I believe, Xavegoem, that as someone who 'gave up' (in your own words), you are unsuitable to make this decision. mikemikev (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, Xavexgoem is chairman of the Mediation Committee. I agree with him about Reubzz; it's a pity he couldn't have started on a less contentious mediation case. I have no idea why Mikemikev, an editor with very little experience in editing wikipedia outside this area, calls me a POV-pusher: that is a wildly inaccurate misrepresentation of both my editing record and the opening statement in mediation reproduced above. Mikemikev could get blocked if he continues making unsupportable personal attacks like that. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored the closure of mediation by Xavexgoem. He has left messages at several users' pages. [16], [17],[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. He is acting as if mediation has not formally been closed. He describes Xavexgoem, the chairman of the mediation committee, as a "third party" [25] He is engaging in disruptive wikilawyering. Not for the first time. Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• As Xavexgoem states, they "haven't read most of the thread", "the case is so advanced that relisting it as new would be extremely taxing on the participants and the mediator", and that several mediators have already quit. If mediator Rebuzz was run off, it was primarily because of complaints by Mathsci. Yet, Xavexgoem seems to be bowing to the complaints of a couple of squeaky wheels and attempting to close mediation without discussion on the mediation page, despite the fact that mediation was on the verge of leading to a rewrite of the article. Why scuttle mediation at a time when it was finally getting ready to bear fruit? --74.178.247.70 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reopened the case, yes. it's voluntary process, and there has been no discussion on the talk page about closure, and precious little deliberation about it here. what we have is one single mediation participant (Mathsci) who has not contributed anything to the mediation page in months, deciding to to play wiki-politics here instead of discussing the issues there. That is his prerogative, I suppose, but I don't see that it really matters.

Xavexgoem, if you would like to discuss closing the case peremptorily, I've opened a thread on the Mediation Cabal talk page for that purpose. But as far as I a can see, if the mediation participants themselves do not want a closure and that matter has not been discussed on the mediation page at all, then there is no grounds for any action by non-participants. --Ludwigs2 11:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

MedCom has nothing to do with this; this is MedCab. I won't argue against consensus, so you can keep the case. Just don't needlessly drag it on. (I'd also like to say that Ludwigs has been doing a fine job, despite MathSci's and Guy's appraisals calling into question). Xavexgoem (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And I'm sorry. sigh.

• I reverted Ludwigs' reversion and left him a note. I think Xavexgoem is on the money, it's extremely unlikely that Ludwigs will be able to steer this to any kind of resolution at this point not least because at least some participants appear to be unwilling to accept him as mediator any more. It's not the first time a mediation attempt has failed, it's not a black mark or anything, but this one is probably in need of some new approach. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Aaaaand, predictably, he reverted again while I was typing this note. So, we have someone who is determined to try to keep a stalled mediation going forever in the face of opposition from some of the parties. Will that produce better content? Um, probably not. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  Allow me to repeat the same points, once again:

  • There is no consensus here at ANI to close the mediation
  • There is no consensus at the mediation page to close the mediation
  • There is no discussion at the mediation page to close the mediation
  • Every other participant in the mediation who has shown up here is arguing against closure
  • There is only you and Mathsci suddenly appearing out of nowhere like avenging angels (though I have no idea what it is you are avenging)

  Now, if you want to open a discussion in the mediation about closing the mediation, please do so - if that is the consensus, then that will be fine. but please do not try to impose your will by edit-warring the case closed.--Ludwigs2 17:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• The mediation is stalled due to this disruptive ANI thread. --98.82.13.18 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that anyone who wants to close the mediation should register that opinion on the mediation page, where it could be discussed. Assuming it is a good faith request from someone interested in the article, I don't see how the mediation could go forward. It is a little peculiar if Mathsci wants to close it, but does not want to participate in editing the article, which isn't to say that is reasonable or unreasoanble. In that case perhaps someone who Mathsci has expressed faith in, such as Slrubenstein, could offer a meaningful thought on whether the mediation should be scrapped. I don't think it would take consensus to scrap the mediation, probably at most a single person who is interested in editing the article and rejects the mediation. Unfortunately it's hard to tell whether there is any meaningful communication taking place. Mackan79 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a numerical count of votes on the mediation pages is helpful. 4 out of the original 10 who subscribed to mediation in November 2009 are no longer involved; none of them have been pushing the minoritarian point of view. I agree that Slrubenstein is one of the few editors whose views on mediation would be valuable (this is not the first time that mediation has occurred on the article). I have edited the article only to add sources and citations, but help more on the talk page with this (eg I pointed out the contributions of Richard Nesbitt and requested that the section on racial stereotypes be removed). Like cold fusion, Race and intelligence is not a properly encyclopedic article and probably never can be; however, scrupulous attention to the quality of sources can at least keep it under control. In other words the same core criteria for editing wikipedia articles should be used as on any mainstream article.

Let's put it this way. The group of editors now left in mediation, with the exception of a small number including Slrubenstein and Aprock, all favour the minoritarian point of view. No meaningful consensus can be achieved in those circumstances. Since Ludwigs2 was a would-be participant in mediation and would-be editor of the article, he is more than aware that is what has happened. In those circumstances there is no legitimacy in continuing mediation. Ludwigs2 is a problematic editor, apparently now determined to keep his role as mediator, even after most of the editors who initially subscribed to mediation have abandoned it. One of my worries with most of the editors favouring the minoritarian point of view is that most of them have hardly any experience in editing normal mainstream articles. Some could be described as WP:SPAs, with an interest in articles such as Race and crime, eugenics and dysgenics. Possibly some want readers of wikipedia to be able to see some form of unqualified statement on wikipedia that some races are genetically more intelligent than others; this seems to be what for example TechnoFaye has been writing. That is the problem that has beleaguered the article since Slrubenstein or I started watching it four or more years ago (in his case longer). Ludwigs2's continued presence is simply facilitating the editing of these SPAs. This nod to fringe science was exactly the problem with Ludwigs2's edits to altmed articles and part of the reason he is currently involved in a feud with User:BullRangifer, formerly User:Fyslee. It would appear that Ludwigs2 has some kind of agenda on wikipedia and lacks the neutrality of Wordsmith or Xavexgeom. Certainly Ludwigs2's pushing for banned user User:Jagz to continue editing Race and intelligence on wikipedia a while back was hardly a good sign. There is no sign that he has changed. Nor was it a good idea for someone with an interest in editing the article, and therefore probably having an idea what content he wanted removed or added to the article and ideas on overall balance, to then suddenly switch to mediator. His dealings with Fyslee show that he is a problematic editor. On a contentious article, that and his poor mainspace edit count disqualify him as a mediator. If mediation is driving editors away from an article, that is the time to stop it. There was already an error in trying to have Reubzz (talk · contribs) as mediator, when he had no experience on wikipedia at all (barely 2 weeks). Now we have a fourth round of the mediation process which seems to be driving mainstream established editors away from the article. That is a serious problem. If Slrubenstein and Aprock are uneasy about being among the sole editors to represent the mainstream academic viewpoint in the article - which by the way is the core purpose of wikipedia - something has gone very badly wrong here. Ludwigs2 and others seem to want this unfortunate state of affairs to continue. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Reubbz was and would have been fine. I will protect his name without exception. We all start somewhere, and if after 2 weeks he decides he wants to be a mediator -- a kind of peacemaker -- that is (was) a good thing. We learn quick. Picking up a big case is ambitious, and we would have all had his back. My first case was an Israeli/Palestinian case. My second case was a 9/11 conspiracy theory case. They didn't work out, but not because of my abilities. They didn't work out because the situations were plainly not suited to mediation. This may be one of the articles - and now that I'm hearing suspicions that supremacy is indeed one of the biases (another reason I left the case -- the ambiguity was too great, and my beliefs too strong), I really do think it would be hard to close this as successful. But Ludwigs2 has done a good job by the standards, far and above the standards folks are lowering him to. We're giving him and the case 2 more weeks. The success or failure of this case is not contingent upon him, since it's the parties to the disputes' job to actually put into place NPA, CIVIL, NPOV, etc. Not his or any other mediator. All he can do is suggest, after all. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This helps me understand the issue, at least, although I'm still not totally clear on what makes Ludwig problematic. I don't know if he has a PhD in dispute resolution, or if Wikipedia's mediation system generally operates on a purely professional level. It seems to me that it operates (like one might expect from volunteers) on a join-in-if-you-think-you-can-help basis. If the mediation is pushing away other editors that's a concern. My thought would nevertheless be, if one believes in mediation generally, that the mediation team should get a first crack at the problem. A side benefit is that this would clarify what outsiders on a board like this might need to look at if things nevertheless don't work out. Incidentally, the "ten arguments" material you presented here obviously does look awful. I just looked, though, and it seems to have been an anon IP that briefly got it into the article.[26] The account that re-added it has been blocked. I don't know if this was mentioned above, but at least that doesn't seem to have resulted from any part of the mediation, one hopes. Mackan79 (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment

I would just like to note that I've been browsing the edit filter logs, as I often do, and noticed that someone tried to remove the "list of 10" from the article but was stopped from doing so by a bug in the edit filter. This particular filter would not have stopped most registered editors from deleting the text, but it did stop an IP. —Soap— 14:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The community has imposed an interaction ban on Mbz1, Gilisa and Factsontheground as logged at WP:RESTRICT#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Whether there is consensus to impose further community sanctions, such as topic bans, on any editors mentioned in this thread is doubtful because most comments with respect to this were made by apparently involved editors. The thread is now closed as unhelpful, but any uninvolved administrator remains free to impose any required sanctions using their own discretion according to WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Factsontheground has been the subject of scrutiny and controversy the last couple of days.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#User Factsontheground using his talk page as a forum and to launch personal attacks should be reopened. Factsontheground has come back from the 24hr block inciting more issues with a user page[27] in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC (as mentioned here). I understand she is frustrated. She has reason to be to some extent. There have been more allegations against her made since she has returned and of course the revisiting of past transgressions. This isn't about those though. Is her user page disruptive? Does it stir up the battlefield mentality already seen in a contentious topic area? Can it be blanked and the user asked again to stop?Cptnono (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

She imply that those who oppose her edits are rasicts (see Anti-Arabism and Wikipedia section on her user page). I think it's disruptive.--Gilisa (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, SarekOfVulcan has already warned her about using her Wikipedia page to make comments about the supposed racism of other Wikipedia users. I concur with the enforcement of WP:UP#POLEMIC. SGGH ^ping! 13:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Infact she was blocked for 24 hours recently for PA against editors (I'm among those) as well as removing two comments by two different editors (me for one) from article's talk page. Then she used her talk page in violation of WP:UPNOT [28] and her talk page was blocked as well.--Gilisa (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, have a look at the changes she made to her userpage since this discussion started. Clearly a disruption only disruptive account, and i propose we just RBI it. Seeing the recent complaints and ANI reports in such a short timespan I do not suspected that anything positive will come from user in the long run, unless behavioral changes are made. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to enforce another block if we agree it is needed. She has removed the content having noted this thread, though. Same length as before? SGGH ^ping! 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that I would like to see her blocked, but blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. If the threat of it alone was enough to encourage a better understanding then it would not be appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet given past conduct it might very well be preventative. SGGH ^ping! 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

She has also just given this to Excirial and docked some more warnings from her talk (though she has the right to remove anything from her talk if she so wishes, but I suspect her motives for doing so.) SGGH ^ping! 13:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed in two discussions I was involved today she violate several of WP guidelines regarding the use of TP and attidue toward other users. As can be seen here [29] (clear PA-but I wasn't involved directly in this issue so maybe it's not relevant) and here [30] were I asked her to stop using the talk page for soap boxing and as a forum, but she only hush me in incivil manner. The problem is that she keep seeing herself as victim (as specifically can be understood from her UP) and unwilling to take any responsability for what she do. And it continue like that for a long time with everyday bring something new. So far she was only warned time and again or was treated softly. I don't have the time needed to that and I already spent much time in issues she was involved with, but I think that her relevant history should be reviewed and finally appropriate measurements to be taken.P.s. She just blanked her page at 13:20 [31], nevertheless, she was still editing its meaning shortly before [32]--Gilisa (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this rule. Now I am. I removed the content that was bothering people. This can be marked resolved.

Secondly, on the topic of polemics, Mbz1 is using her talk page to attack myself and others. She has a picture of dogs chasing a girl subtitled "Me and the hounds"; she continually calls me and other editors "Wikihounds". Factsontheground (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As can be understood from the links given in the opening, you were specifically noticed by Cptnono that you are in violation with wikipedia guidelines -but yet until ANI was submitted you choosed not to remove it from your user page. I can't see how Mbz1 is relevant in your defence, to put it mildly. Looking into your previous edits and your correspondence with other editors, it is quite clear that you are familiar with WP gidelines including these concerning with TPs-but even if you didn't know this specific one -you was warned by Cptnono and two days ago your TP was blocked for the very same thing.--Gilisa (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Permanent Ban. This very belligerent user spends a disproportionate amount of wiki-time on drama. It's most likely not his fault, but everyone else's, but this project would be better off without all the disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. She blaned the page after people complained about it. She has just come off a block where people taunted her on her talk page, one of whom was blocked for his edits. stop the witchunting and wikidrama. Go bac to editing an encyclopedia. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support No signs of improvment for her are seen in the near future. So far she was treated way too softly. Some examples from the last 2-3 days are given here. Here you can see she stalked after user Breein1007[33] and reverted 6 of his edits in 6 different articles in less than 10 minutes. Here she did it again to Plot Spoiler[34] (5 reverts in 5 different article in less than 50 minutes). She is aware of WP:HOUN and this is a pattern. It's only the tip of the iceberg even if we refer only the last week-realy, I just don't have the time to run after her history now. --Gilisa (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)Oppose very strongly. This editor has already been treated much more harshly than other editors, for a relatively minor infringement. She has indeed been harassed and abused, including attacks on her user talk page when she was banned from replying -- attacks for which another editor has been blocked. I can understand FoG feeling aggrieved, and here sense of unequal treatment. This complaint reeks of a witchhunt, and should never have been submitted. RolandR (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Marking this as resolved as the original problem is solved by Facts blanking of their userpage. There is absolutely no way this will can be stretched to a ban. This has already turned pile-on & general airing of grievences so lets just quit with the drama now. Misarxist (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Misarxist, I fail to see where the drama is and how self blanking her screen, after ANI was submitted and after ignoring warning, solve the problem-which is, as described, much larger.--Gilisa (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreolved:Misarxist, I see no admin tag on your UP. Please leave it for an admin to come over it. That's the all meaning of this board.--Gilisa (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, put the stick down and back away from the horse. Factsontheground (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the Administrators' noticeboard. Editors without admin authority have no right to add this tag here. --Gilisa (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not true at all. An admin is just an editor with extra tools. They don't have unique authority to mark discussions resolved. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This ANI is call for admin intervention and not matter how you turn it, you had no right to put the tag. Certainly not less than an hour from case opening.--Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, plain and simple. And I didn't place the tag, someone else did. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, This is becoming rather ridiculous and vengeful. The user has deleted all the messages that were deemed inappropriate, so calling for a "permanent ban" is simply outrageous. Yazan (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully. People are being needlessly vindictive here. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no admin either, but I agree with Misarxist that talk of a permanent ban is very premature here, and that the discussion had degenerated. The initial complaint does seem to have been resolved. I'm sure there are other conduct issues to deal with, but I wonder if ANI is really the best forum to discuss them in. Factsontheground does not seem to be running amuck right at the moment, so I don't see a great need to rush to judgement. --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Avenue, premature, certainly very premature, are not the right words here. If you review her editing history you hardly can get to any other conclusion than that significan sanctions are needed.--Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{ec} *Comment The user has just come off a short block apparently just as disruptive as ever; certainly not taking it with grace. In fact, the hounding still continues with this diff [35], the personal attacks here [36], and the unwillingness to accept a verdict and learn from it here and here. I think [quite] a bit more cooling off time is required, with clear warnings about any continued harassment, and/or personal attacks on other editors and administrators. Agree that it is immature to seek a permaban at this time, but some real time off might well be appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no need to take such drastic measures yet - there is no vandalism which needs to be handled at once, so there is no direct need for measures. Just one thing: Fact, this kind of edit is known as canvassing. Best not to do it. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose Is this "Dump on Factsontheground Week"? Mbz1 gets off scot-free for her abusive behavior, and there's talk about perma-banning Factsontheground?!? People, you need to pull your heads out of your hindquarters. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

MBz was blocked just 4 days ago, so I don't know where you get this "Mbz1 gets off scot-free" disinformation from. Other users' actions are irrelevant and do not excuse this user's grossly inappropriate behavior. And it would have behooved you to at least mention that your comment was solicited by the user in question, in violation of WP:CANVASS. All in all, not a great contribution from an administrator. We have higher standard here. My Canada (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Mbz1 was blocked for one day for behavior that is at least as disruptive, and since this is the same noticeboard where her behavior was discussed, yes, it is relevant.

(2) Do you see the comment above mine? The one that says I was canvassed? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) MBz was blocked for a day 4 days ago, for another day the week before that, and once more a month earlier, by none other than you. That's 3 blocks totaling 72 hours in less than 2 months, so she's clearly not getting off scot free. You obviously know that, as you were one of the blockers, yet you still posted a falsehood ("Mbz1 gets off scot-free for her abusive behavior"). Please, at a minimum, strike out that comment. An apology would not be out of place, either. And no, the fact that other users are misbhaving, and being reported on this noticeboard (which is where all such behavior is reproted) is not relevant to the issue at hand. Open a thread about MBz1 if you think her actions arein need of admin attention.

(2) No, I didn't see it, nor would most people, unless they bothered to actually go and click on that link. And having someone else call out the actions that led to your misbehaviour does not excuse your lack of disclosure. The fact that you did not disclose you were canvassed with a request to "put in a good word", and then proceeded to do just that is really beneath contempt. I am pondering if an Admin RfC is in order. I'll collect some more deatils and perhaps pursue that route. My Canada (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If my "misbehaviour" is "really beneath contempt", please feel free to bring it up in its own section on this page or start an RfC/U. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Malik Shabazz. I keep seeing these discussions about Factsontheground pop up here and in pretty much every case, there is no real clear right and wrong. And it's starting to reek of a gangup of people who have had disputes with Factsontheground against her. I do not support a block, but would support a decision barring these various editors (Factsonthegrund, Mbz1, and the others who keep filing these reports) from interacting with each other. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Multixfer, may I please ask you to be so kind and to provide few differences to confirm that I "keep filing these reports"? And If by any chance you would not be able to find that conformation, may I please ask you to be so kind and retract your words? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this stupid fight. I did not accuse you of "filing these reports", I clarified that by specifying "others", whilst separating that portion from you with commas. I stand by my statement that everyone involved has significant culpability in this foolishness and that the community would be best served by barring them all from interacting with each other. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess it is just a normal reaction of one, who states something with no evidences, as you just did, dear Multixfer. Okay. For the record: I have not filed any single report to AN/I for any user involved in I/P conflict articles editing. And you know what, I agree to be topic-banned on I/P conflict articles indefinitely, and in effect immediately as long as factsontheground would have the same editing restrictions because it is the only way of " barring" us from interactions. My proposal is absolutely serious. Please do consider this. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as far too draconian for the alleged transgressions. Let's note that the only support comes from some of the hardened quarters of the I-P topic area battleground, re-mark this as resolved, and get back to business. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it is unwise to oblige editors by punishing another for behaviour that they are largely responsible for provoking. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support some sort of topic ban on the user, not a permaban. The community should show its displeasure at revenge-type behavior and stalking other users. The fact that those other users get provoked into responding in an uncivil manner (if that is the case) is no justification for ignoring the type of behavior illustrated above. Stellarkid (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited topic ban from I-P articles. Let's see some useful contributions from the editor in other areas of wikipedia. My Canada (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited topic ban from I-P articles per my comments below.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a permaban as things will not likely improve. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support because enough is indeed enough. Broccoli (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that all involved parties need to reconsider the way they interact with each other and their willingness to seek punitive sanctions, but user:factsontheground has not deserved to be singled out in this fashion. Unomi (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Facts has more than adequately demonstrated that she is a destructive editor.

(1) Most recently, she has served a proxy for the banner editor Orijentolog, reinserting his/her edit’s without explanation: [37], [38], [39].

(2) Constantly edit warring. This is completely unconstructive. On the page of Martin Kramer, for example, Facts wantonly violated WP:BLP over and over again: [40], [41]

(3) Lastly, as more than abundantly observed, Facts is incapable of maintaining any sort of basic civility. She constantly violates both WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith in her accusations that other editors are racist and have an agenda and even worse, that there is a some sort of conspiracy on Wikipedia to persecute self-identified pro-Palestinian editors. As noted below, she also has stalked Mbz1 out of pure spite. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Plot Spoiler. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support because enough is indeed enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban on I/P conflict articles for user:mbz1 and user:factsontheground proposal

The two users factsontheground and me were discussed at this very board quite a few times already. Our editing style creates constant disruption to others. We both were accused in personal attacks and incivility, and we both were blocked in the last week. I believe we both should be topic-banned on I/P conflict editing for at least three months for the sake of the project, for saving other editors time and for saving space at AN/I

• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose --Mbz1 you can take a break whenever you want. user:factsontheground may require a bit more of a hint. Please relax a little!  :) Stellarkid (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Stellar, I am very relaxed. I will not be upset by topic ban at all. You know why? Because I have so many different interests around wikipedia and commons that I would never be bored, on the other hand FOTG is practicaly a WP:SPA.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban on Mbz1 Support topic ban on Factsontheground: Please note that Mbz1 is not the subject of this ANI and her overall behavior don't justify topic ban. FOTG behavior on the other hand, certainly does.--Gilisa (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So you want to sacrifice a pawn for a queen? I don't think so.

Just. Stop. It.

I haven't done anything wrong. I blanked my user page. There is nothing to discuss. This issue is resolved. Factsontheground (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This "I havn't done anything wrong" you refrain on is one of the main problems.--Gilisa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• • For the attention of the community: The following are only few edits of our "queen" that were reverted in the last few days: [42];[43];[44]; [45]. If the "queen" is proxy editing for banned user user:Orijentolog, the topic ban is well over due.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for accusing Factsontheground of proxy-editing, or is that just another insult thrown at her? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I said "if". The edits I reffer to was not reverted by me, but by other editor. BTW while we are at the subject. Did factsontheground have any basis in accusing me in using socks at the article discussion page, or it was just another insult thrown at me, and where were you, when factsontheground did not even let me to remove those PA from the aricle disussion page? Any more questions?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wheelbarrow. Since you don't have any reason to assert that Factsontheground is proxy-editing, you're just engaging in more of your insults. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I don't know regarding the proxies issue but it change nothing on FOTG overall behavior, which is bvery disruptive. To remind, Mbz1 is not the subject of this ANI.--Gilisa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, I bet Shabazz knows that, but with all his fairness he brings me up everywhere he can. I was not even going comment on the thread at all, if it was not for the comment by administrator Shabazz, who as always brought me up. As a matter of fact I was rather surprised by his statement because just the other day he explained to the user [46] waht WP:NOTTHEM means. Looks like Shabazz responding to canvasing got a litlle bit confused as usual :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I love you too. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that, you've told me that already few weeks ago. Remember? I guess you do not, confusion you know...:) Malik, please stop bringing me up every time you need to deffend your friend, and I will love you too :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - this is a discussion that screams out for an admin to archive, there is nothing happening here but gutter-sniping all around. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

_{No, it doesn't--Gilisa (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}

As one of the instigators of this mess, forgive me if I don't put much stock in your opinion. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiparty block - What next

All 3 primary participants in this have variously stepped across multiple lines in our user behavior policy over the last 24 hrs. They've all had prior warnings and are all aware of the policies; as it's escalating again, I have blocked all of Gilisa, Mbz1, and Factsontheground for 12 hours to push the sniping away long enough to start a proper longer term solution serious discussion here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is community consensus to impose the interaction ban on Factsontheground, Mbz1 and Gilisa as proposed by Georgewilliamherbert below. I will log this at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.  Sandstein  13:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I am proposing the following interaction ban:

Editors User:Mbz1 and User:Gilisa are collectively and individually banned from interacting with editor User:Factsontheground, and Factsontheground is reciprocally banned from interacting with Mbz1 and Gilisa.

This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.

If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

This would be logged at the edit restrictions page if enacted by community etc.

Clarification (requested below) - this restriction would be indefinite, until the community choses to revoke it, not fixed duration. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, that should reduce drama at source and remove any ambiguity about who's the guilty party. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with caveat. I believe these editors have been interaction banned for short periods before, and while it seemed to help cool things down, I also seem to remember one or more (minor) violations of those interaction bans. I support an interaction ban, but I'd like to see it given some teeth, and strongly enforced. ← George ^talk 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: It isn't clear what you mean by "This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other." Mutual participation is likely to lead to two editors modifying one another's contributions, isn't it? How, then, could two editors mutually edit an article and stay away from one another? Could you clarify? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If they non-constructively modify each others contributions, particularly reverting, then they're in violation and will be blocked. If the community believes that there's no chance that they could possibly be mature enough to handle avoiding that, that they'll necessarily violate it, then the topic bans (and I'd extend it to all of them - they're all at fault to some degree) should be enacted separately alongside this. I want to pose the two questions separately, not in one unified solution, as we have had luck in the past with interaction banning other editors without topic banning them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: just to clarify, are you proposing that this interaction ban be permanent? I gather so, from your comments on their talk pages, but I think it would be good to specify this above. --Avenue (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - I propose indefinite duration, until the community choses to review and revoke. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- Avenue (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- samj _in^out 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a measure to prevent disruption yet attempt to preserve those edits that are constructive to topics, such as they are. SGGH ^ping! 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Reluctant support. I think a permanent interaction ban may not be necessary. I would prefer one that is reviewed after 9 months, say (and expires if not reviewed), but something needs to be done, and this is the best solution proposed yet. -- Avenue (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Given the amount of time and energy this trio has been sucking up, this seems more than reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• What a mess this group has been generating. Support this proposal. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Unomi (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This is the second interaction ban that would be imposed on Mbz1, within the last week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Another way to look at it is that Mbz1 would be banned from interacting with two other editors, and so would Factsontheground, so they'd be even. Keeping score (however you count it) doesn't seem that helpful to me, though. --Avenue (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll make myself more plain, seeing you've misread my comment as "keeping score" (perhaps as a result of inadvertantly ignoring the last 4 words in my comment). This appears to be a recent issue with Mbz1 and perhaps had the user been more ready to take a temporary break, it might not have been necessary to impose blocks, and interaction bans (within the space of a week) on the user. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as solution most likely to gain broad consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Enough time and effort has been wasted over this silliness. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment and request for uninvolved closing admin - Protocol is that the opening admin is not supposed to close and enact community bans, however, as the proposing admin, I believe we have approximately unanimous support and this has been up for a couple of days now, so it's long enough. I would like to request that this be closed and enacted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Topic bans

Question - do we want to topic-ban any or all of these editors from the conflict area, Israeli/Palestinean topics? Proposed as a question, not a proposed edit restriction (at this time). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my comment above, I'd say yes with regards to FactsOnTheGround, yes with regards to Mbz1. I have no first hand experience with gilisa to say anything about him one way or the other. My Canada (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There was another user that I was involved with at ANI who was topic banned from the same topic, for editing on Israeli Zimbabwe relations or something like that. I'll just check its not the same person. SGGH ^ping! 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that was User:Gilabrand with whom FOTG appears to be familiar. I think I ran into Mbz when dealing with him too. Not sure if this is called connected, someone more familiar with User:Gilabrand might want to check. SGGH ^ping! 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Gilabrand is a woman, not a man. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

my bad. SGGH ^ping! 22:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose No topic ban for any of them, at present. The problem is not primarily POV editing, but edit-warring. There really is no reason to prevent any of them from contributing to articles in this area, so long as they do so within the normal rules of Wikipedia conduct. RolandR (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to a topic ban at this time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- samj _in^out 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed for now too, per RolandR. --Avenue (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support I support an indefinite topic ban on any Israel/Palestine related topics for Mbz1. I've witnessed enough over the last few weeks to know her political agenda is certainly not for the good of Wikipedia. She should stick to photography. Vexorg (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would support a topic ban for facts, but not mbz1. I admit to a bias. I believe that mbz1 is the wronged party and I don't see any "justice" in simply throwing up one's arms and saying, "Well we can't decide who's at fault so ban them all." That isn't justice, that is laziness. If you aren't willing to investigate and evaluate the facts in this case (no pun intended) then I don't think you should vote or comment here. I think the interaction ban is a good idea, and one can avoid a topic ban simply by saying whoever was at such-and-such an article first can edit it... the next one to show up can't. Stellarkid (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that is very much unclear that mbz1 is the wronged party in this, no one seems able or willing to present evidence to this effect. Unomi (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts has been stalking Mbz1 purely out of spite. See this childish attack [47] on a featured picture candidate vote. Note that this was the first time Facts commented on a featured picture and of course it doesn't even have any relation to the I-P conflict! This edit clearly shows Facts inappropriate, malicious behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's interaction ban proposal should prevent that type of conduct being a problem, hopefully. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are agreeing that the misbehavior is that of Facts, and yet you are willing to impose a topic ban on the other user (wronged party) as well? No one is presenting evidence of that because the topic is supposed to be Facts and his misbehavior. How exactly would Mbz1 have invited opposition to her photographs? Misunderstanding, my apologies. Stellarkid (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Last comment on this ANI and in my defence: Just wanted to ask Georgewilliamherbert when exactly I was officialy and specifically warnned by admin on I-P issues? The last time ANI was submitted against me, which is also the first, (excluding one I-P relatively recent wikialert case which was resolved with nothing) was about half year ago over edit warring on a totaly different and unrelated artilce. I can't see how from this ANI my name was raised to topic ban and interaction ban. What, because I made too many comments? I realy have no intend to comment on this page again-just asking for an answer. If this comment violating any policy of WP that I'm not aware of, please remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Factsonground. She has more than adequately demonstrated that she is a destructive editor and on topics related to the I-P, she is unable to maintain any pretense of neutrality or civility. At minimum, it is appropriate that she be banned from this subject. Evidence below:

(1) Most recently, she has served a proxy for the banner editor Orijentolog, reinserting his/her edit’s without explanation: [48], [49], [50].

(2) Constantly edit warring. This is completely unconstructive. On the page of Martin Kramer, for example, Facts wantonly violated WP:BLP over and over again: [51], [52]

(3) Lastly, as more than abundantly observed, Facts is incapable of maintaining any sort of basic civility. She constantly violates both WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith in her accusations that other editors are racist and have an agenda and even worse, that there is a some sort of conspiracy on Wikipedia to persecute self-identified pro-Palestinian editors. As noted below, she also has stalked Mbz1 out of pure spite. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - POV editor who uses every trick in the book to push her agenda and then sics her buddies to gang up on anyone who opposes her. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Far too much of the !voting in this discussion seems to be from POV warriors backing people on their side of the I/P debate and callign for blocks or topic bands for those on the other. "Geewhiz" for example is User:Gilabrand who not so long ago cluttered the Israeli art student scam article with anti-Palestinian propaganda. The original article had POV problems, but this does suggest that Gila is approaching anything related to Facts, the article's creator, with a battleground attitude. Rather than any precipitate action prompted by the baying and partisan crowd here, it would be better to have things done in a more considered way.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your question, the article was created by Factsontheground as a POV nightmare, and it had to be completely re-written and moved to a new name to solve the problems with it. Here's a comparison of her version with the post-AfD version:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&action=historysubmit&diff=350260171&oldid=348721554

There's almost nothing left of what she wrote. And even then Factsontheground edit-warred over it, e.g.: [53] [54] Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to convince me that there were problems with that article. I was the person who put it up for deletion in the first place. However, when one user violates her topic ban by demanding that another user be topic-banned and when there is such a strong correlation between how people !vote on the proposed bans and where they stand on the I/P debate, then this says that the issue needs to be considered in a careful manner by admins who are prepared to investigate the history thoroughly rather than by looking at who can bring most supporters to AN/I.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Agreed for the most part that there is some taking sides going on. I believe topic bans can be avoided for all three. They know they are on a thin line now. I have seen Mbz1 and Gilsa say too much when sitting back and watching would keep it a little cooler. Both neither strikes me as malicious in their intent here. And I don;t consider them the wronging parties in several of these recent disputes. Regarding Factsontheground, she has repeatedly been a handful and still has some inappropriate stuff on her talk page User talk:Factsontheground#Wikipedia is openly racist against Palestinians but some guidance from a few people chiming in on her talk page could keep her straight. Unless she really is retiring, then it doesn't matter. As someone who would like her off the project, I couldn't whole heartedly be for it without a last final really mean it this time warning. Admittedly, part of this is based on seeing two other editors getting blocked but who knows what this last day off cooling off from FotG could bring.Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn proposal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On a personal note I've promised myself and others to stay away from unfairness of AN/I, where admins are too busy or too involved to get to the bottom of the conflict, and some regulars like to add the fuel to the fire. I should have followed WP:BAIT, but I did not. I did not initiate the thread at AN/I. As a matter of fact I have never ever initiated any thread at AN/I about any editor involved in I/P conflict editing. I was not going to comment here at all, but, when not just one, but three different users mentioned me [55]; [56]; [57] I took the bait. I guess I am too weak to ignore those kind of edits, and I need administrative help to stay away from this place please.Here's my new proposal.<bt> Ban user:Mbz1 from ever again contributing to AN/I with no exceptions.If she ever violates the ban, block her indefinitely from editing Wikipedia without further notice Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Comment "...feature notice"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose you are proposing to ban yourself from ANI to stop you from coming here? I would think this an overreaction. Firstly, Wikipedia users have the right to come to ANI to give their side when a thread is raised against them, secondly, I am sure you are capable of not coming to ANI if you really don't choose to (Wikipedia is not as important as realife - there must be an essay or policy on that somewhere!) Thirdly, I think you might be reacting without taking time to think this over. SGGH ping! 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Stop Grandstanding - Now you're really being disruptive. You're playing some kind of WP:IDINTHEARTHAT game. I never said you intiated an AN/I discussion, I said other people had and I clarified that above. You conveniently chose to not understand. Whether or not you initiated a discussion here has nothing to do with your participating in the overall disputes. You're playing up this idea that you're somehow a victim here and everyone is just attacking you and baiting you. I have not baited you and do not appreciate you trying to use me as a pawn in this game of yours. This subdiscussion should be archived, however I'll leave it to an admin because if I do it it will be unarchived and will incite more drama from certain quarters. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn I see you'd be bored without me ;) Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Strong Support - It's clear Mbz1 is not only on Wikipedia to promote a political cause but is also a serial disruptive attention seeker. For weeks now it's been 'The Mbz1 Show' - Can't people see MBz1 is playing childish games with Wikipedia here and is completely wasting the time of the administrators who have to wade through reams and reamsof this crap. No we wouldn't be 'bored' without you we'd be glad to see the back of you Vexorg (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say this is a tad extreme. I would say wikigive'emrope applies here. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of consensus

Are we getting to a consensus then? Appears to be some support for interaction ban, little for a topic ban, and I'm disregarding Mbz1's entry above as grandstanding. SGGH ^ping! 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cptnono's comment above that there seem to be sides taken here and no real(objective) looking into the problems that the user:Factsontheground has precipitated. This is not an "all sides are equally guilty" situation and I feel that a mere interaction ban does not lay blame where it ought. I believe that at least a short topic ban should be imposed on User:Factsontheground so that she feels admonished for her harassing behavior with respect to User:Mbz1 and her personal attacks on others. Such a ban is not appropriate for Mbz1 as she has mainly reacted to this provocation. An interaction ban to follow, with "ownership" (for lack of a better word) to the editor who can prove she was at the article first. Agree that the above constitutes "grandstanding" and should be ignored. Stellarkid (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The big problem you have Stellarkid is that everyone knows your unquestioning support for MBz1 and your ridiculous and tediously repetitive claim that Mbz1 is the one being picked on. And why are you asking for a topic ban as a punishment for some claim of harassment of Mbz1. That doesn't make sense and it's clear you want a topic ban on User:Factsontheground becuase her edits conflict with you and Mbz1's political crusade on Wikipedia. And Mbz1's childish grandstanding above should not be ignored. It's a significant expose of her attention seeking and disruptiveness on Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your attempt at pretending to fairness was exposed at the AfD for the article written by Mbz1. Your vote was a strong delete, and in attempting to push your POV, you claimed that Mbz1 was a sockpuppet of an anon IP. You were mistaken, and as far as I know never apologized for that "error" but instead rationalized it. You made false negative claims about someone and had to be encouraged to strike it [58]. My support for Mbz1 is not unquestioning, but your reaction here is highly predictable. Personally I would have been ashamed of making such a comment without proof of it, and would not have shown myself here, trying to insinuate motives into other people (me, for one) and continuing your negative and personal campaigning against Mbz1 and others here who not share your view. Stellarkid (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question, SGGH, yes, I think there is a consensus that the three editors should be banned from interacting with one another. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I also believe such an interaction ban would be a good tool going forwards, we have now had 3 ANI's with largely the same pool of editors involved in a matter of as many weeks. I would also suggest, time permitting, that SGGH or another uninvolved admin follows the edits of the discussed editors. Unomi (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and who is the common editor on these ANI's ?? Mbz1 Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So just to confirm at the moment that User:Mbz1 and User:Gilisa (Group 1) are banned from engaging in interaction with User:Factsontheground (Group 2). Interaction is defined as any comments of any nature on talk pages of one group by members of another group, and comments at any other Wikipedia main space by one group designed to bait/engage/disruptively discuss another the other group, the significance of which will be subjectively determined by uninvolved admin(s).

1. How long? Until it is determined by community that the threat of disruption by the lifting of the ban has disappated?
2. Are we including ANI in the list of places these users cannot do the above? I would, personally.

Agreement? SGGH ^ping! 10:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares about my opinion here, but disagree. Breein1007, Cptnono, Gilabrand ("Geewhiz") and No More Mr Nice Guy -- all users who attack and harass me constantly -- should also be included in the interaction ban, otherwise I can assure you that the drama is just going to continue. Factsontheground (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really sure you want to drag me into this? Shall I post a list of places you followed me around to and reverted my edits without even an edit summary? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand already has a topic ban that gets broken repeatedly. If people continue to harrass you and you don't respond/are unable to without violating this proposed ban, it's easier to see who to deal with (i.e., them.) And no, My Nice Guy, we don't want anyone else dragged into this. Let's sort it out here and now without going back in circles. Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Please let me know on my talk page if I need to come here and defend myself from the kind of nonsense you see below. I don't follow this page too closely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. I haven't followed you around anywhere. I have ~800 pages on my watchlist. But keep being paranoid, it's amusing. Anyway I'll just add this to my list of your unfounded personal attacks on me (1 2). Frankly, I'm surprised you have the time to attack me too, I thought you were too busy attacking Sean.Hoyland ([59], [60]) Factsontheground (talk)

I think one of the few ways we can get to the bottom of this is to get more previously uninvolved editors to contribute to the I/P area as a whole. I have very recently started doing just that and I hope that more editors will as well. Apart from that I agree with SGGH. Unomi (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's need to be some sort of temporary topic ban for Facts. This has been going on for too long and she must know that there are costs for such deleterious behavior against the Wikipedia community, as I have extensively noted above. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

SGGH, per usual practice, sanctions that don't mention a duration are indefinite (and the proposer already clarified this question); there's no consensus to deviate from that. The answer to the second question is in the specifically worded interaction ban proposal itself which is what has received support - no need to deviate from that wording either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and quickly I would mention: pre-existing "baits" on a group members' talk page should not be used as ammunition or cause to resume the debate once this is enacted. Let it flow under the bridge. SGGH ^ping! 17:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Factsonground. The diffs are telling, and we can do better without this disruption.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a consensus for an interaction ban and not a topic ban, what's the next step? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the next step might be to give factsontheground even more comprehensive lesson how to do canvasing in the right way :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't quite consensus for a topic ban on FoTG, but I wonder if there isn't an in between step between nothing and ban. Perhaps a mentor? I don't think letting this go is an option. Full disclosure: I have also had difficulties with FoTG, including her restoring edits from a banned user (despite their being clearly labeled as such). Thoughts? IronDuke 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To respond your question ID, there neither ever will be , nor do we need a consensus to topic ban any editor, who is involved in I/P conflict editing. Remember User:Gilabrand was banned by a sole administrator action, for the disrupting editing of the article that had nothing to do with I/P conflict. The only thing that is needed now is a fair, neutral administrator, who has plenty of time to go with all editors involved over factsontheground, mine and other involved editors conduct in different articles step by step. It will be a painful, time consuming process, but the project will benefit in the end. Topic ban for factsontheground is long over due. I do not mind the proposed interaction ban, but this will not solve the problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Factsonground after reviewing his recent non constructive edits. Marokwitz (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Factsonground. The diffs history on a number of her edits, plus the drawn out heated fighting at almost every page she edits (not to mention the problematic user page edits), are not conductive to growing and expanding a encyclopedia. She has been blocked several times, but nothing seems to be resolved, and in fact the "userpage" situation came about after a block for behavior had expired. In addition, the situation has become such that other editors are reluctant to edit/improve pages for fear of being drawn into a massive wikidrama. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, pals, but the consensus is that interaction bans and not topic bans are the solution here.

I'm disappointed in you, Iron Duke. We had a cordial conversation about the IP editing Munich (film) and I agreed to trust you that the IP was a sockpuppet and allow you to revert his edits, despite the fact that you didn't even tell me which editor the IP was supposedly a sockpuppet of.

In future if you are going to misrepresent my edits like this I won't take you on trust and you are going to have to go to WP:SPI and prove your suspicions about IPs just like everybody else. You can't go around reverting people just because you suspect them of something.

Anyway, I invite everyone interested in topic banning me to discuss the issue on my talk page. Factsontheground (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at FOTG...Comments like that tend to offend editors, or at least put them on the defense, and are not condusive to improving articles. Interaction bans seem to only be a band aid...since there is a reason why you keep getting into heated discussions with other editors. Some sort of topic ban (temp. or perm) might provide a cool down time or at least enable other editors to contribute to articles, without being worried about being drawn into wikidrama and ending up on the "interaction ban" list. Just my two cents. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Background something which keeps being forgotten is this round of what can only be described as bullying on the part of a few contributors stems from Gilabrand/Geewhiz pointedly inserting material from a hate site into an article and being called out on that by Facts[61]. Note also in that ANI it took a little while for the rather important bit about the hate site to sink in. This is the background for Facts' comments about "racism". It would be very helpfull if other 'uninvolved' editors could recognise that Cptnono, Gilisa and Mbz1 are simply engaged in defending a very seriously problematic editor (Gilabrand/Geewhiz) by attacking the editor who called bullshit on her. Misarxist (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Factsontheground Just to preface my reasoning, I was planning on staying away from this AN/I. I have had my share of problems with Factsontheground. Even after her latest troubles and spotlight on AN/I, she continues to edit war and leave comments on talk pages with a full-out battle mentality. Take a look at her recent contributions and you'll be able to see where I'm coming from. That said, I was not planning on participating in this discussion or leaving any input. However, after seeing the few comments Factsontheground has made most recently, I can't be silent anymore. After being warned and banned, it seems that the battle mentality has only grown stronger. It's as if Factsontheground is now fighting a personal crusade here. From documenting all the comments she feels have been personal attacks at her, to documenting her compelling list of reasoning as to why Wikipedia is racist against Palestinians, and now to her newest scheme, challenging anyone who supports a topic ban to come discuss it on her talk page, where she systematically lashes out against each person who dares speak their mind. Nsaum came into this with what can be fairly described as next to no special history with Factsontheground. He gave his opinion on this matter (which he obviously has every right to do) and provided a very clear and appropriate explanation based on edit style and problematic behaviour as to why he supports a topic ban. Factsontheground's response was to put on her battle cap and attempt to trivialize Nsaum's comments. This can all be seen on her talk page. Similar comments have come in this very AN/I. The comments are often painfully condescending and just begging for added drama (ie: "Sorry, pals..." a few paragraphs above). It's hard to see how just sanctioning Factsontheground with an interaction ban with 2 other editors is going to solve anything here. If anything, it will make Mbz1's and Gilisa's lives more calm. Great. But how does that help Wikipedia? It doesn't. Something has to be done to maintain what little order we had in the IP area on Wikipedia, and Factsontheground's editing style has been wrecking that order. It has gotten to the point where editors are refraining from entering meaningful discussions on talk pages because there is too much hostility and drama. That's all I have to say. If Factsontheground feels the need to come in here and spell out word by word why my opinion should be discarded, more power to her. I just want Wikipedia to be a place where editors can collaborate positively with one another and if it takes some harsh sanctions to teach editors a lesson and give them time to grow up, so be it. Breein1007 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Very interesting analysis about civility and disruptive editing coming from someone who just 2 nights ago accused Facts and (many other editors on her talk page) of using terrorist rhetoric (and got blocked for it I might add), while she was blocked and unable to respond. If this is not a partisan, vindictive witch hunt, then what is!
• I fully support an interaction ban between these three users, but I don't see FoG deserving a blanket ban, she has demonstrated abilities to be a constructive and effective editor, and I think this is just taking the drama way too far. Yazan (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see FOTG's response to my_advice and comments on her talk page here, as referenced by Breein1007 above. I have now responded to her there with this. I am now done with this issue and conversation; and above all else, I will not be baited into joining what is fast becoming some sort of circus. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that many of the users who here have supported a topic bann on Factsontheground like Breein1007, nsaum75, Epeefleche, Geewhiz (Gilabrand) are editors who have a long history of using their accounts for pro-Israeli pushing and anti-Arab edits. Its basically the same vote from them trying to get rid of one of the few editors, Factsontheground, who actually edits P/I conflict articles in a neutral way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's ridiculous. I can't speak for others, but as to me that's a ridiculous, baseless charge. Supremely so. SD--I would ask that you retract it. You're way out of line. It's especially odious that this untruth would be stated by Supreme, who himself has been topic-banned three times--I now understand why.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming a circus. If no one raises any serious objections we might as well begin the interaction ban immediately and close this thread, and then a topic ban can be discussed with the involved editors out of the way at a later time. SGGH ^ping! 10:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this thread should be closed, and the case on Arbitration enforcement should be opened. Everybody should be allowed to make statements there, and then uninvolved administrator should decide what user deserves what sanction. I have absolutely no objection for being banned to ever again communicate with factsontheground, but it will not solve the problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE would certainly be a more appropriate place than here for such a discussion. There an admin would allocate the time to investigate who are the cheerleaders for each side and who may be presenting evidence more neutrally.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course it's been noted, but it's not really that relevant. You need only to look at Factsontheground's assertions that all opposition to her edits are founded in anti-Palestinian racism; that is simply not true (or at least if it is a large number of us have multiple personalities, editing in alternate disputes from pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinain bias, according to the griefers). This is about conduct. Can the users work productively with others, or does their POV get in the way to such an extent that they are a net drain. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears to me that there is a consensus for a topic ban on Facts.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

- **Comment. And I would say there isn't. Decisions are determined by the quality of the arguments not by !votes. And most certainly not by !votes when the vast majority of participants in the thread are involved in the content dispute. The consensus among the few uninvolved contributors to the thread seems to be that the involved editors should shut up and let the thread die. SD is not the only person who has noticed a certain pattern to the voting. Of course, as a pro-Palestinian editor defending Facts, SD himself conforms to the pattern too just as much as the pro-Israeli editors he has listed. If people are after blood, then WP:AE is the place to go and an independent Admin which people deserve topic bans or similar. I can see more than one candidate on each side who may merit consideration for such action to be taken to help manage theit Battleground mentality. --Peter cohen (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose a topic ban, and there is certainly no consensus for one. The issues raised here relate to this user's conduct, rather than to the value of her edits. This can be addressed by the proposed interaction ban, which will both prevent her from antagonising other editors and prevent them from baiting or taunting her. (This ban should be extended to include comments in edit summaries). A topic ban would only be appropriate if the content of FotG's edits was consistently and seriously in breach of Wikipedia guidelines; which has not been established. RolandR (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Factsonground. She has more than adequately demonstrated that she is a destructive editor and on topics related to the I-P, she is unable to maintain any pretense of neutrality or civility. At minimum, it is appropriate that she be banned from this subject. Evidence below:

(1) Most recently, she has served a proxy for the banner editor Orijentolog, reinserting his/her edit’s without explanation: [62], [63], [64].

(2) Constantly edit warring. This is completely unconstructive. On the page of Martin Kramer, for example, Facts wantonly violated WP:BLP over and over again: [65], [66]

(3) Lastly, as more than abundantly observed, Facts is incapable of maintaining any sort of basic civility. She constantly violates both WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith in her accusations that other editors are racist and have an agenda and even worse, that there is a some sort of conspiracy on Wikipedia to persecute self-identified pro-Palestinian editors. As noted below, she also has stalked Mbz1 out of pure spite. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose a topic ban forFactsonground as per RolandR Vexorg (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

When editors start copying and pasting their comments from preceding sections, I think it's a sure indicator that the thread needs to be closed. Will somebody please notify the involved parties about the interaction ban, mark this resolved, and prepare it for archive? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean towards a topic ban with the continued inflammatory battlefield misquoting stuff on FotG's talk page. Realistically, it looks like the admins do not see it being necessary so that is fine. Someone could open an AE but that will devolve into the same pointing fingers circus as here. I think closing this would be fine but if the user screws up again the next step should be AE and there should be little question about pulling the trigger on a topic ban if the case is clear.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment but leaning on 'Support topic ban on Factsonground'. An interaction ban is not the consensus and merely sweeping the issue under the carpet. A random survey of this editor's 'contribution' history, and past investigation using edit counters, shows FoG to be a virtual single 'anti-Israel' purpose account. Granted that everyone has and is entitled to a POV, mature editors know to leave it on the talk page and edit wisely in the article. For most of us, editing here is a pleasant hobby, but when it entails the need to deal with FoG, the hobby loses its attraction. I have much less an issue with an opposing POV editor and much more an issue with the SPA and militancy of this one. There are several non-'pro-Israel' editors who have learnt to be fair and some have even gone on to becoming admins too, so this talk about Israel lobby conspiracy on WP is funny (if only all those editors mentioned were actually cohesive...). Anyway, FoG has recently shown a tiny bit of toning down her disruptive behaviour, but I would like her to prove she can be a productive editor by choosing other areas (not related to Israel articles) to prove the ability to contribute. A temporary topic ban and subsequent branching to other interests might show some sincerity by FoG to be a positive team player on WP rather than the 'anti'-only image she does not really bother to shake. --Shuki (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban forFactsonground Her article contributions are not the problem. Plus, clearly I see some users supporting a ban for political reasons. Sole Soul (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But there is consensus for an interaction ban, which will be put into effect. SGGH ^ping! 10:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• comment. FOTH exemplifies the perfect candidate for a topic ban. He simply can't edit the I-P topic without the emotions getting the better of him. While this ANI is winding down, he still continues with one of his problematic behaviors, for which we are all wasting out time with here debating his apologists. [67] [68] --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Brewcrewer is himself the perfect candidate for an I-P topic ban. As per usual, he appears on an article talk page simply to flame one of the editors, with nothing to contribute to the discussion and nothing to say about the article itself.

Since he is so eager to call for a topic ban, repeatedly pleading for one in this very thread, it is a good sign that he is due for one himself. I think the admins should give him what he wants. Factsontheground (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is you. Stop trying to game and layer (as usual) by bringing others into the discussion. --Shuki (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed w/ Shuki. There should be, at minimum, a temporary topic ban enforced on FoG. Given all of her inappropriate behavior, it would be absurd not to take any punitive action when we'll just end up back here in another month. Editors such as FoG need to know that there are penalties for behaving in a way that is detrimental to the entire Wiki community. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Case and point regarding FoG's behavior [69]: "The issue here is your nasty little clique of bullies who think you can kick out editors from Wikipedia just because you don't happen to like them." If even on the AN/I board she can't maintain any sort of decorum, do you think it is possible that it can be maintained on any other pages? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Can this thread be closed already?

This thread is a travesty.

I don't see how any of this is meant to help build an encyclopedia.

So I had some offensive content on my user page. I fixed it within minutes of being asked to. I don't know why this thread is still here, days later.

The behaviour of people in this thread is really ugly. Once there was a drop of blood in the water, it just turned into a feeding frenzy of anti-Palestinian POV warriors.

So can an admin implement the interaction ban, close the thread and let us move on with our lives already?

I don't like having to constantly check back and see what new insults people have cooked up about me.

Mbz1 is already pestering me again ([70]) so the interaction ban cannot start too soon.

I just want to build an encyclopedia. I am so sick of the drama and this clique of editors who think they can use the Wikipedia community to bully Palestinians into silence. Factsontheground (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Hungarian names of Romanian places

I'm raising this here as it's a bit outside my area of knowledge, and to try and centralise discussion. Three editors have contacted me over the last couple of days concerning an issue with articles about places in Romania which have a different name in Hungarian.

The first contact I had was from Umumu (talk · contribs), who wrote:- Hello

I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)

Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 2. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian: Romanian_Name; Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 3. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)

There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them

Thanks in advance for your answer. Umumu (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My reply on Umumu's talk page was:-

I'd say that if the location is in Romania, the Romanian name should occur first, with the Hungarian name second (option 1). Similar to how the name of the Dutch city of Leeuwarden is treated in that article. The city is in the Netherlands, so its Dutch name is given and is the article title. It is the capital of the province of Friesland, so its name in Stadtsfries (a dialect) and West Frisian (a recognised provincial language) are also given. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian later contacted me with this message:-

Hello, i am contacting you to try to resolve a certain problem with Hungarian names in Romania. In Romania official language is Romanian therefore names of the certain towns etc should be in Romanian and then in brackets in other language names. I think that is the standard wiki policy, please, correct me if i am wrong. Now some users are trying to change this, ex [here]. Can you please help me to solve this problem? Thank you in advance. iadrian (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't reply as for much of last evening I couldn't access any Wikipedia website due to getting an "unable to contact server" message until about 21:30 UTC. This morning, Rokarudi (talk · contribs) posted another message on my talk page.:-

I can only repeat myself. Please look at the compromise reached many years ago on this subject(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc)

It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.

Please also study the recent opinion on this issue of neutral and undoubtedly impartial editors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu

Please stop wikihounding and vandalizing hundreds of articles.

Kind regards:User:Rokarudi Rokarudi 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thus it would seem that there is a dispute about the inclusion or otherwise of the Hungarian name for a place in an article about a place in Romania. This has the potential to develop into an edit war, with the inevitable results of blocks, topic bans etc. In an effort to avert this, it seems that a centralised location for a discussion would be in order. If anyone feels that there is a better location, please feel free to copy this post over to the new venue. My personal view is that if the infobox has a space for an alternative name, then that name should be added, with the necessary annotation as to the language. Both should also be mentioned in the lede, per the example of Leeuwarden that I used in my original reply to Umumu. I will notify Umumu, Iadrian and Rokarudi of this post. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We never denied the necessity of including the Hungarian names too. It would be ridiculous to ask something like that for localities with absolute Hungarian majority

We just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

All three now notified. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this matter. I never said that Hungarian names should not be present, just not in the form Rokarudi is presenting it, as we can see the changes i made on some of the articles, i am just for respecting the standard naming polocy, since in Transilvania Hungarian language has no legal status and no form of autonomy we should use the standard form EX: Satu Mare (Hungarian: ------; etc)... like explained on WP:PLACE and here iadrian (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, form 1 Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) , as standard wiki policy implies. Yes, this example is OK. iadrian (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.". My opinion is that Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name) (Umumu (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

If there is more than one foreign language (non-Romanian) name, the order should be by size of minority, so if there's a large German minority than Hungarian, then the German name should come first, and vice versa. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what we think. But it looks messy to make such lead sections:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumoasa,_Harghita (Umumu (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Yes, in this case, the Hungarian minority, the first other language names should be in Hungarian and then in German , etc.. iadrian (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, with this example here, The villages should not have Hungarian names in this form. On the page about that particular village other language names can be present (Hungarian) but not in every instance this location is mentioned, since we should use the official names only when talking about that location/village. EX:

• Bârzava/Csíkborzsova
• Făgeţel/Bükklok
• Frumoasa/Szépvíz
• Nicoleşti/Csíkszentmiklós

iadrian (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What we speak about is not a simple discussuion on proper editing, but are facing:

1) Sockpuppetry by User:Iadrian yu, User:Dicocodino and User:Umumu as sockpupets of recently blocked editor Iaaasi, 2.) Act of large-scale vandalism, deleting long established and accepted content, 3.) Challenging accepted practices confirmed by a compromise in the very delicate subject of placenaming in Transylvania.

I must remind everyone, who is not very familiar, with the topic, that in 2007 there was a long discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc

The status quo ante discussion was this:

Romanian titles, Romanian and Hungarian names in the infobox (if ≥20), Romanian names in bold and Hungarian ones (for anywhere in Transylvania, even if <20%) in italics, and also German names if applicable.

In the compromise Hungarians resigned of trying to move article titles of places with Hungarian majority to the Hungarian name, while Romanian accepted that Hungarian placenames will be bolded whenever the Hungarian population >20%.

The established format was:

Odorheiu Secuiesc or Székelyudvarhely (Romanian: Odorheiu Secuiesc, Hungarian: Székelyudvarhely, German: Oderhellen) is…

--Rokarudi 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi i ask you again to be CIVIL and respect the WP:CIV. Don`t avoid the discusson by your accusations. The discusson you are talking about is no standard naming policy and the format you personally try to implement over the official wiki policy is against the rules. iadrian (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we talk about wikipedia rules, not about individual opinions expressed by specific editors 3 years ago. We ask only to apply wiki policies, namely WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Rokarudi, if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, then WP:SPI is the place to head to. I'll remind all parties, this is the Admin's Noticeboard. You can be sure that a number of admins are keeping a weather eye on this situation and those involved. I facilitated this discussion in order that consensus could be gained on the issue, and to keep the discussion in a centralised place. Those who hold the view which does not gain consensus would do well to acknowledge the fact and let the issue lie. Edit warring over this will lead to administrative action being taken. I'm sure all involved would rather that didn't happen if at all avoidable. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is really not proving sockpuppetry. What I know is this: there was an order how to represent these particular placenames for more than 3 years, and the above mentioned editors neglected it by systematically editing more than 100 articles according to their ideas against consensus. Under changing names, they go around wiki and try to get a favourable opinion from good faith editors . When they fail to do so, they go to the next one: First, User:Dicocodino failed to get what he wanted one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, Then User:Umumu was not given the expected answer here: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexiusHoratius#Question Now, User:Iadrian yu has put up the same question here (to delete bolded alternative names). --Rokarudi 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent this question to many admins and there was no expected answer. I asked them to choose which is the most appropriate format and I got 2 answers: one is the one you listed, and the second (from User:Mjroots) was that Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) is the best format)(Umumu (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Rokarudi, I don`t understand what that has to do with official wiki rules? If we take a look at that "order" you are talking about, there is also clear that the "order" is not like you are implementing it, also we can see that it is a clear violation of the WP:PLACE and First sentence usage. Rokarudi, i ask you again to be Civil and to stop with your attempts/accusations to discredit me. You don`t see me accusing you of anything even if you are avoiding this matter to discuss until now, i hope. I don`t see a point repeating myself anymore because you are ignoring me as you ignore the WP:PLACE policy. I have explained everything in my previous posts here. Stop inventing a custom policy for Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI isn't the right place for a centralized discussion of something like this. It's for user conduct issues. If there's not clear enough consensus on the naming issue, use a content RFC. This is basically a miniature Balkan-like nationalistic dispute. And the Romanian constitution certainly isn't the final arbiter of such questions, given that some parts of Romania are basically 100% Hungarian and would be happy to break away and join Hungary, and wouldn't consider the .ro government to speak for them. Under NPOV the question might only be resolvable with a careful study and weighing of all available sources. Gdánzig anyone? ;) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

UDMR(Hungarian party) is participating every Romanian government since the fall of communism. Their official attitude toward this is only some form of cultural autonomy, and after all they represent the Hungarians in Romania (6.6% of the population of Romania or 19.6% in Transylvania verify). Don`t start with that kind of unsubstantiated statements. You are saying that Romanian constitution has no power in parts of Romania? Parts of Vojvodina are basically 100% Hungarian populated and would be happy to break away and to join Hungary, and wouldn`t consider the .rs government to speak for them, and this changes what? We have Slovakia like this city where we have the same issue like in Romania. Why should in every autonomy in Europe, in Slovakia,Vojvodina and Croatia use normal naming policy WP:PLACE and only in Romania, where there is no autonomy or legal status of the Hungarian language bee any different? The Romanian constitution is the highest law of the R.of Romania and it is respected in every part of Romania, Hungarian populated or not. Under NPOV the question is to compare similar cases around the world where there is some kind of autonomy comparing to Romania where there is a clear law and no form of autonomy. Yes, it is a miniature Balkan-like dispute , started by Hungarians, by forcing Hungarian names in Romania. All available sources states that Hungarian names have no legal use or Hungarian language no legal status, and comparing to other parts of the world, i think this problem is more than crystal clear. Gdańsk is not a good example to this problem. "Gdańsk, formerly known by its German name Danzig " ? First names in Romania or Transylvania were the Romanian names, even in that format, in this case , that example has no connection with Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

66.127.52.47 The Romanian constitution is the supreme law in legal matters and is one of the most import deciding factors regarding this dispute. I am inclined to say that the constitution has priority over the biased opinion of an anonymous editor which shows contempt for the laws of an European state like yourself. The 2002 census clearly shows the ethnic balance in Transylvania and there is not a single settlement holding a 100% Hungarian majority. The Romanian citizens which you mentioned, those who would be happy to "break away" are violating Romanian law, the same law that guarantees them equal rights with the rest of the population and surprisingly enough they seem to be absent from the Romanian political scene. Besides, from the declarations of the leaders of the Hungarian and Szekler communities in Romania, there is only talk about some form of cultural autonomy, no independence and certainly no "union" with Hungary. Your views shamelessly promote Hungarian irredentism, and are in clear violation with international and Romanian law. I suggest you stop your attacks and improve your behavior or you will be reported. Accept the political realities of the 21st century and stop speaking in the name of the Hungarian community, which, as shown above has other priorities than those stated by yourself. And lastly, the movement for autonomy will slowly fade away as it doesn't possess the necessary ingredients for its success, mainly a lack of rights for the Hungarian community in Romania, a community which in actuality enjoys quite a few political and cultural liberties and has -also mentioned by Iadrian yu- formed a part of the ruling governmental coalition in most of the last 20 years. Amon Koth (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, if anyone knows of a better venue feel free to move the discussion. Edit warring is a user conduct issue. In this case, I feel that prevention is better than cure - i.e. if we can prevent an edit war breaking out then it is better for all than admins wielding banhammers. Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is better to discuss everything, even a matter clear like this. The discussion is in the right place, centralized and public.iadrian (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, I want to say that this is an artificial conflict and we can solve the problem by ourselves (me, Iadrian and you), without the involvment of anyone else

I don't see why you feel offended when Iadrian tries to insert the standard format, because the Hungarian name has the same visibility if it is in Italics or bolded

I think it is confusing and not fair to give the same proeminence to the Romanian and the Hungarian name, because the only official name is Romanian

For example in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; ; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi

Kind regards and i hope you will be cooperative (Umumu (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

This discussion is entirely unnecessary for several reasons, chief among them being the status of the Hungarian language in Romania. It is not an official language and Transylvania is not an autonomous region, therefore until the UDMR political party reach their declared goal of changing the Romanian constitution and making Hungarian a compulsory language for the Romanians living in Hungarian majority areas, the names of Romanian localities where minorities are substantial should follow the first variant: Romanian name (Minority name 1, Minority name 2 etc). This variant also respects the naming policy of Wikipedia. Amon Koth (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please find here picture gallery with bilingual placename signboards from Central-Europe:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IM3NlCcgHCA/ShDoCoMi4dI/AAAAAAAABl0/f25FN2dcECo/s400/bogr%C3%A1csmaj%C3%A1los+041.jpg (from Romania)
http://blog.poznanici.com/test/files/2009/10/c09tabla.jpg (from Serbia)
http://archiv.nyugatijelen.com/2002/2002%20november/nov.%207%20csutortok/f0511-06.jpg (edit war in real life, alternative name deleted)
http://archiv.magyarszo.com/arhiva/2005/11/19/images/52_szenttamas2.jpg /(Serbia)
http://blog.poznanici.com/test/files/2009/10/c09tabla.jpg (edit war in real life, alternative name deleted)
http://www.ketegyhaza.hu/site/images/stories/cikkek/tabla.jpg (from Hungary)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Oberwart_-_Fels%C5%91%C5%91r.JPG/250px-Oberwart_-_Fels%C5%91%C5%91r.JPG (from Austria)

From the above examples, the question arises: If the use of bilingual signboards for a specific city or village is authorized by the respective country, why should we impose restrictions on Wikipedia? By the way, I do not dispuite the right of User:Amon Koth speak out his political opinion but since he has not yet edited any single article, I would kindly advise him to practice on less controversial topics.User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, please assume good faith here. Amon Koth has as much right to contribute to this discussion as you do. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC
) Sorry, for the sarcasm. I do not mean to offense anyone. I think, with your help, we are on the good track to cool down differences with Iadrian and Umumu. Do not be afraid, it is not so serious between us. We simply like to dispute over and over again on the same topics, this is part of the game. By the way, Iaaasi (from the paralel sockpuppet case) and I were on good terms, we had a lot of good chats and joint work. He was unlucky and was blocked for 48 hours when he helped me editing Hungarian placenames. Since he is out, I have no one to discuss Daco-Romanian continuity. If Umumu likes this topic, he is welcome. Rokarudi 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wring with bilingual tablet names but we should mention that other language name on the tablets have only an informative meaning, nothing else, witch is expressed on Wikipedia in a form DefaultName (First name, Second name, etc..). iadrian (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, In Romania the use of bilingual/multilingual signboards for a settlement is compulsory where a minority is over 20%; the name of the settlement as it appears in the minority language is a purely informative one, it is not in any way an official one. Furthermore, there is nothing controversial about this issue other than your disruptive editing which ignores the Wiki rules and (probably the least of your concerns) the Romanian law regarding this matter. Amon Koth (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, It is not correct that bolding alternative names is against wikipedia rules. WP:Naming Concvention (geographic names) provides that "Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system; this page is intended to help editors agree on which name of a place is to appear as the title. Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese - are not bolded because they are distinguishable from running text anyway; transliterations are normally italicised. This is the general rule that was applied to Transylvania by a great number of Hungarian and Romanian editor sin the 2007 Odorhei Secuiesc discusssion, in which 14 editors voted and many more gave an opinion.

I do not think it would be a good idea to deviate from the aforementioned status quo.User:Rokarudi --Rokarudi 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First, i saw that discusson and that was 3 years ago, i don`t know the parties involved, looks like some of the members just gave up from the discusson and left the others to make a consensus , i don`t know, and i don`t want to speculate, as this matter is clear, i gave one example this city in my previous post and made some good points that any other place use standard naming policy Standard name(Other name,Other name. etc..) and only in Romania we should make an exception since the Hungarian minority makes 19.6% of the population in the geographical region of Transylvania? We have many other examples in Europe to follow concerning this matter (Catalonia, Basque Country,Vojvodina,Slovakia, etc..) and there is no reason to use a special rule just for Romania. You mention the [this section] that states "in the case of controversial names" - " Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese" , but here we have only one alternative name, Hungarian names and there is nothing controversial in Romania about names in the region of Transilvania. And it continue "If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. It will serve neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). Local official names are often listed first, out of alphabetical order." - This section you proveded [section] does not deal with the problem we have here. I think that the General guidelines should be folowed , Foreigh Language rule and First sentence rule that clearly address to the problem we are discussing. iadrian (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In Slovenia, see Lendava, in Austria, see Oberwart. in Hungaria, see Kétegyháza or even Gdansk. And also in Romania, there have been hundreds of places intactly this way for 2-3 years until you started deleting Hungarian names. In Europe at leat, as a genaral rule, in the infobox, you always have the alternate name. As to boldfacing, there is no universal practice and guidelines are not clear-cut. Moreover, in South-Tirol you do not have this problem, as the article title itself is in German, wherever local majority is German. The Basque name is a historic or cultural name, taking into account that the majority of Basque speak Spanish as their fisrt language, so placenaming is not so relevant User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Lendava as i can see follows the standard wiki naming policy, and that is OK. Oberwart example has that form since is the cultural capital of the small ethnic Hungarian minority in Burgenland, living in the Upper Őrség or Wart microregion. The cultural center of the Hungarian minority in Romania can have that format also, since it is very significant, but that is only one location, not hundreds, but i don`t know if even that is right since in Austria Hungarian is one of the official languages. The third example you provided Kétegyháza, i don`t know if we can take it into consideration since you made changes specifically for the sake of this argument. South Tirol and Basque land are high level autonomies. And i agree with the info boxes, there should be present alternative names. iadrian (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, Not also in Romania, since it is changed ignoring all rules. You can`t use as an a example the matter we are discussing about. Just for the record, i did`t erased Hungarian names, i just erased the Romanian_name OR Hungarian_name(romanian,hungarian) form -the "OR Hungarian_name" from the article and the Hungarian names of every location mentioned on that page that it is not the location the article represents. As i said before in explanations of my edits, Official names please/other language names can be present on that town\village article, not when ever that location is mentioned. For example, on the article about [Miercurea Ciuc] we mention location Ciba , that is written like this "Ciba (Hungarian: Csiba)" witch is wrong, since the article is about Miercurea Ciuc and can have other language names present in the standard form, but when mentioning other locations, we use ONLY the official names. On the page about location Ciba we can represent the Hungarian name also in the standard format, but not on other articles when ever we mention that particular location, when we are pointing to other locations we should use ONLY offical names. This is one example of that violation. Also this , another violation, Hungarian names should not be present in that form, we can verify that in every other conty seat in Europe for that. Only here, the Hungarian names are "forced" witout any valid reason or rule. I also want to mention that we should take a look in Slovakia since it is the most similar situation we have here. We can see that in Slovakia, in the same places,example1 example2, Hungarian names are not "forced" and it is respected the standard naming policy, and when pointing to other locations, counties, the official names are used, without other language names. In Romania we should respect the same rules, like it is respected all over Europe on wikipedia.iadrian (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

List of similar cases:
- In the French province Pyrénées-Orientales (Northern Catalonia), where Catalan is an official language, the format is Saint-Hippolyte (Catalan: Sant Hipòlit de la Salanca)
- in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region of Spain and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; ; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi
- in Transnitria, which is an autonomous region of Moldova, and Russian + Ukrainians = 60%, Moldovans = 30%. the Russian-Ukrainian name is presented in Italics, between parantheses: Popencu (Russian: Попенки, Popenki)
- in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where the majority is composed of indigenous Turkish Cypriots, the format is Kyrenia (Greek: Κερύνεια, Turkish: Girne) (Turkish name in Ialics, between parantheses) (Umumu (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

With the risk of repeating myself, this discussion is unnecessary. On one side there are users which have attempted to remove the alternative names altogether and keep only the official one. This is definitely not a viable option. On the opposite side are users like User:Rokarudi which have overridden Romanian law and Wiki rules and made the alternative name official along with the Romanian ones. I believe the validity of this variant of naming is clearly obvious. Now, on the middle ground there is the variant Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) recommended by the mediator Mjroots of this issue which not only respects the Wiki rules but also complies with Romanian law. Now I would like to ask what is so bewildering in this whole naming issue? I find it a little strange that Umumu, iadrian and User:Rokarudi have bothered to use as arguments examples of localities in other countries, especially when said localities were in an autonomous region. These examples are irrelevant, as the law of the country in which that specific locality lies has no saying matter in Romania, where Romanian law applies and there is no autonomous region and no other official language other than Romanian. The wiki rules in correlation with Romanian law have the final say in this matter. I would also like to draw the attention toward the user User:Rokarudi which insofar has not presented a single valid argument to sustain his point of view but nonetheless his disruptive edits have continued. He has also committed several grave errors including but not limited to:

1) Has personally edited articles and then presented them as evidence to sustain his POV as in the example of Kétegyháza; now I am pretty sure that by this action alone he/she has overstepped some boundaries.

2) He/she keeps referring to some compromise reached some time ago regarding this issue but does not dispute its validity considering it credible only because it was applied for a few years. The longevity of this compromise is irrelevant, it is in contradiction with Wiki rules and Romanian law, as I have already stated several times.

3) He/she keeps confusing the English Wiki with the Hungarian Wiki. I don't believe anybody will stop him/her from using the Hungarian names of the settlements in Romania on the Hungarian Wiki, however this is the English Wiki and the rules pointed outed several times by iadrian apply here.

I would like to ask again what is so unclear about this issue? Amon Koth (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian yu started an edit war on John Hunyadi article which is permanently taken care of by some editors who seem to be opposed to the idea of emphasizing a proven Romanian ethnicity. Iadrian yu was soon blocked for 55 hours. When he came back he said good-by to John Hunyadi aricle on its discussion page and looked for a new conflict zone. 20th March, he asked an opinion on multiple name use regarding Novi Sad on his talk page. He did not receive the answer that official name is above all. On the 23rd, he left me a message, what I think about the use of Hungarian names in Romanian pages and reccommended to have a look at his work at Sfantu Gheorghe. I answered I will check it out and come back with an answer. I chesked his work and I saw that violating consensus and overthrowing a 3 years delicate practice, within 24 hours he deleted mass of information from dozens of articles regarding settlements in Romania with a majority or significant minority of Hungarian population. This is per definitionem vandalism, so had to be reverted. Paralelly, Umumu and Dicocodino were putting up the same questions as to Hungarian names to other admins and editors. Then came you, exposing false information mischarectarizing my activity, like the above (the same was said by Umumu in his sockpuppet investigation): The fact is: 1.) The Kétegyháza (Hungary) article has had for 3 years bolded names for both Hungarian and Romanian placenames. I only gave equal treatment for the Romanian name and arranged the clumsy appearance, but the bolding was not changed. I simply restored the version which lived between 3 january 2007-31st August, 2009 instead of the funny looking last version. 2.) I constantly refer to a compromise as it has been the basis of a period of constructing editing. Which has been challenged by Iadrian yu and friends with zero or close to zero edits. I really do not support violation of consensus. 3.) No comment Sorry, but I do not want to be involved in wikilawyering nor mutual accusations, neither in violation of consensus. In delicate issues, the once reached consensus, even if partial, is very important otherwise, it is impossible to edit User:Rokarudi

I don`t see what does John Hunyadi article and my edit war i had there has anything to do with this ? I violated the 3RR and i goth punished and that`s it, i learned my lesson not to argue with nationalist, and that`s it, i haven`t made a singe edit on that article since the edit war ended. I asked for your opinion since i was not sure if there is some special rule for this matter, in the meanwhile i asked some administrators about this and they all confirmed Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) this format. In the meantime i also found 3 rules regarding this that states this CLEAR. Having in mind several administrator`s answers, other examples in simmilar areas in Europe and wiki rules i started to edit the article`s we are talking about. Rokarudi , you still haven`t made a single argument to prove your POV , also no wiki rule for your POV, while others have presented a number of examples of the standard naming policy, the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage and the Romanian constitution that addresses this matter. I think this discussion is over and since i sense that we can`t make a consensus i would kindly ask for the administrator to make a rulling on this matter. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, an alleged 3-years old agreement made between a few particular editors on a talk page can not override wikipedia rules which specify very clearly that Romanian_Name' (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) is the appropriate format. We must respect the guidelines. If we would insert everywhere custom formats, it will be chaos on wikipedia. We need to use the standard format (Umumu (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

The chaos already started since there are more than half of these articles(In Romania,Transilvania) in violation with all we mentioned so far. iadrian (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi , since the discussion is "drained out" and you are mainly the only person who opposed, i think we talked about every aspect of this problem. I am interested in your opinion, after this discussion and the facts that were presented. Do you agree with the standard naming policy? And with the use of the official names when it is pointed to another location, (not in bilingual form). Thank you.iadrian (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is drained out as no one is interested in discussing over and over again what was once settled. I hope you do not mean that User: Umumu and User:Amon Koth with their less than 10 edits (together) can validly overthrow the compromise reached in 2007 by established editors with tens of thousand of edits. Wikipedia is built on consensus and compromise. No one is entitled to start large-scale editing in a delicate matter without reaching consensus. And consensus means what was once reached regardless of the fact whether the editors who participated are currently active or not. My answer to your specific question re:

With respect to Transylvania, standard naming policy should be applied with the specific rules according to the 2007 Odorhei Secuiesc compromise, that is:

1.) With respect to Transylvanian settlements, or settlements in Romania if you prefer, the article title should always be the Romanian placename, if Hungarian population > 20%, the Hungarian placename should be boldfaced in the lead and put into the info box as well (always after / below the Romanian name), everywhere else in Transylvania, even if Hungarian population is < 20%, Hungarian (and German names, if applicable) should be in parenthesis. 2.) As to the way of mentioning Hungarian names in the body of the text, we do not have a specific compromise ( unlike: the Elonka-compromise with respect to Slovakia), so I personally always distinguish between different cases:

a.) Geographic names: as a general rule Romanian name should be used, but if the placename does not have an article, the Hungarian name may be mentioned at first occurrence, or otherwise if helps the reader in obtaining the relevant information. My problem with your deletion is that "communes" in Romanian consist of several villages. These villages usually do not have a separate article, so they are only mentioned in the article of the commune. As this is their single occurrence, the Hungarian name may be mentioned as encyclopedic information. It is useless to create a page for the sub-villages, when the 'commune' to which they belong is only a stub.

b.) In historical context and/or in case of biographies of clearly Hungarian / Romanian persons, we have to be careful which name to use. E.g. In case of biographies of clearly Romanian people from Transylvania, I would use Romanian placenames, regardless when they lived. reference may be made to the Hungarian historical name if the content recommends it (and vice versa). User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is drained because the matter is too clear to discuss it this much. The "compromis" from the 2007 was against wiki rules and it was ended by an abbandament of the topic more than a consesnus. That is invalid, and it is important to say that not me, you, or anybody else make this kind of rules, it is clearly regulated by WP:PLACE and i intend to respect it, as you should also.

1.) The article title should always be the Romanian nameplace with other language name in brackets. 2.) a) I agree, if that particular village does not have an article, the Hungarian name can be present in that form. Sorry, but i can`t stand and take a look on the "other" side while you violate 3 wiki rules and the Romanian constitution in Romania related articles. I am stunned by your continuous attitude toward this matter after this discusson. Al places in Europe use the standard naming policy, but by you, only in Romania we should do otherwise. As a sensed , there is no compromise, and you still did`t presented a single valid argument to prove your POV.. I would kindly ask the administrator to make a rulling in this matter since we can`t agree. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI opened

For information, Rokarudi has opened a SPI on Umumu. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Note User:Rokarudi opened this investigation because we were not sharing his POV. As it can be seen below, it was proved that the accuser is the one who was not respecting wiki policies (Umumu (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Time to close this

I see a lot of arguments about what Romanian law states. This is not Romania, this is Wikipedia. There are also arguments about an agreement reached by consensus three years ago. Consensus can change over time. It is pretty clear to me that per WP:PLACE guidelines the correct method is that the article is housed at the Romanian placename, with the Hungarian placename in the infobox and lede. Exceptions would be where the place is better known in English under a different name, such as Bucharest (Romanian: București). There seems to be consensus by all except Rokarudi that the above is how the issue should be dealt with. If any uninvolved editors disagree with my reading of consensus please say so, and explain why this is not the case. Other than that, I propose that the discussion be closed with the consensus outlined above being declared. Further disruptive editing can then be dealt with by admins if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For absolute clarity consensus is this, article title to be at the Romanian name, lede to state "xxxx (Hungarian: yyyy) is a (type of place) in Romania" (or similar wording) unless the English language name is better known. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

user:Zlykinskyja's conduct at AFD page

Misusing AFD page for personal attacks and unrelated personal "disputes" after several explanations and warnings. I think she has reached a limit that warrants a strong warning or even a short block if that is what it takes to stop the disruption. User is currently also discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts# user:Zlykinskyja. Repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages (conserning Murder of Meredith Kercher but stale right now. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I kindly tried to ask her to refrain from assuming bad faith, here, but she first shifted the topic here and, then, one minute later, she erased all, as can be seen here. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Zlykinskyja seems to be assuming bad faith in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delayed grief and is making a lot of accusations against Magnificent Clean-keeper for things like alleged "wikihounding". I raised concerns about Zlykinskyja's previous personal attacks on me in the Wikiquette discussion mentioned above. I am concerned that, in response, she seemed extremely reluctant to take responsibility for her actions and instead suggested that the remedy for the problem would be some sort of mediation. She received some good advice from independent editors, there, but does not seem to be taking note of it. However, I'm not an independent editor: I have disagreed with a lot of her edits in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and, as mentioned, have been on the receiving end of a lot her personal attacks. Bluewave (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This latest attack against me by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper comes after a few days ago when he and Salvio Giuliano agreed that they would start using "vinegar" against me after I failed to respond to their "honey". What this "honey" has actually been involves a long pattern of harassment and hostility against me by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper. He has recently engaged in trying to instigate incidents by WikiHounding me --following me to other articles. This is against Wikipedia policy. He has also made the threat to "get rough" with me. He used profanity against me, although he would know that most women would be offended by the "F" word. He refers to my comments as "B.S." or rants. Most annoyingly, he has engaged in a pattern of repeatedly deleting my work, over and over in a most unreasonable manner, trying to instigate an edit war. I feel that he should be sanctioned for harassing me and WikiHounding me. Under WikiHounding policies, it is considered harassment to follow someone to another article to interfere with another editor's enjoyment of editing. That he has certainly done to me on the Linda Carty article, and now in another manner on the new Delayed Grief article. I feel that he is trying to instigate and provoke disputes, intimidate me and bully me from participating in writing on this website. He has the support of some biased allies, including Bluewave and Salvio Giuliano, who support him in his efforts to cause difficulty for me in having my edits included on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I did report this on ANI several days ago, but the report was ignored. I hope that ANI will provide me with some assistance so that I can participate in Wikipedia without feeling intimidated by him and the allies who support such wrongful conduct. I have said that this started as a content dispute on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, but he is now trying to make it personal and extending things beyond that one article. He has made it clear for a while now that his intention is to get me banned or blocked as a form of intimidation in connection with the editing disputes on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And again, like she did at Wikiquette, she keeps on accusing me and other editors w/o any diff's to proof. What she is basically doing is making accusations to try to turn the sword against me (while doing quite the opposite at the Murder of Meredith Kercher's article). Although the latter seems somehow funny, It is not to me. I was hoping for some minor difference to her usual response but I guess I expected to much as she just replied with the same old unfounded accusations like she has it still saved in her mouse. I would like to remind everybody, that this thread that I started is about Zlykinskyja's behavior problems, not mine, and I told her on several occasions that if she has a complain against me she can file one at several available boards, including here at ANI but instead, her preference still lays in engaging in unfounded complains and incivility on her talk page (where she constantly deletes and changes headings although only the ones that doesn't suit her well) and elsewhere.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I did raise this issue at ANI a few days ago, as a comment in a complaint someone else filed against The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, but my issues apparently were overlooked. I am not someone who goes around filing complaints about people and trying to intimidate people, as he does. I have never filed an official complaint against anyone. But looking at the official ANI records, his name comes up as someone who seems to go after people a lot. Well, that isn't my style. I tried to raise the issue as a comment on ANI, but the information was overlooked, and then things with him only got worse. But I do think his conduct which is provoking my distress should be considered. If you look at the article deletion page he refers to, I was trying to raise the same issues I tried to raise previously on the ANI in the complaint that was promptly closed. His behavior is a problem, a BIG problem for me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you out. This was the "incident" that was closed rather quickly and for good reasons. If you have a complain, file it or leave it.

This was the ONLY incident I ever filed at here (and it was about you under your old user name).

I'm not aware of ANI other report I filed regarding you or any one else. Any diff's to proof me wrong? Guess not as always. So proof it or loose it.

And stop trying to make this thread about me and respond to your conduct which is in question here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• BTW. About the ANI thread you mentoned and commented on: If you jump on a wagon make sure it goes in your direction.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why does your name come up 28 times in the ANI records when I put your name in? You seem to have been in a lot of these types of disputes, even if someone else filed the complaint. Your name must be popping up a big number of times in the official records for a reason. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Put an admin's name in the search box and you'll get plenty of hits too. Can you please start making sense and respond to the thread or just stop commenting like this and waste editors time as their time is at least as valuable as yours (and they don't have a SPA-account [single-purpose account] like you) but don't complain about it as you constantly do?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[ He moved my Comment out of time sequence] So that is what you meant when you said you were going back to the "old type of editor that no one would want to see", and that you intend to "get rough" with me? You intend to very agressively go after me, swear at me, WikiHound me, post on my Talk page over and over even though I pleaded with you to leave me alone, over and over I asked you to please leave me alone. But you just won't do that. It is not acceptable conduct. As I told you, I am taking care of an extremely ill family member. I just can't put up with your horrible conduct towards me while I am under a lot of stress and have to put the care of a terminally ill person first and foremost. But you just continue on and on stalking me. I have asked you over and over and over and over to please leave me alone. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll not respond further to your accusations. Talk to my hand.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. Are you now saying that you are an administrator on Wikipedia? Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Talk page discussion in which he tried to provoke a distressed response from me by: 1) following me to a new article in which he had never been involved; 2) deleting a large number of my edits without justification; 3) then deleting more of my work without justification; 4) posting helpful hints on my Talk page without acknowledging that he had just deleted most of my work; 5) thereby prompting my distressed response to his continuing pattern of deleting my work, while he deceptively looks like he is just trying to post helpful suggestions on my Talk page; 6) then linking the incident that he intentionally schemed and provoked to a discussion page (about my supposed lack of civilty towards him) on the Wikette page, and falsely using the incident to claim continuing uncivility by me. This is just one example of the nonsense I have to put up with, and why it is unreasonable to demand that I continue to assume "good faith" when dealing with him. [71] Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comment (having had time to think carefully about why I'm contributing to this). My perception (just one person's point of view, of course) is as follows. Zlykinskyja's main interest in Wikipedia has been the Murder of Meredith Kercher and it is clear that she has passionate views about the subject. I think other editors actually respect this and have shown Z quite a lot of tolerance, though she probably wouldn't believe me. The article itself is quite controversial and Z herself has a history of making controversial and tendentious edits. A good example would be a recent case where there was some discussion, and an apparent consensus on the talk page, about a rewrite of a section of the article.[72] Although, Z did not contribute to the debate, she set about making some 20 edits to the text as soon as it was in place in the article. When her edits were reverted, she immediately started making personal attacks on the editors concerned, including labelling me as an "anti-Knox" editor.[73] So this is a good example of unwillingness to participate in creating a consensus, making controversial edits and then making personal attacks on people who disagree with Z. When I suggested that she raise her concerns on the talk page, so that they can be discussed, she responded by saying "take the material that I tried to include as my comment": in other words she tends to push the debate out of the talk page and into article space, where it turns into an edit war.[74] Magnificent Clean-keeper raised the issue of Z's conduct at the Wikiquette noticeboard. I thought that this might lead to some advice from an uninvolved editor and I raised my concerns there too. It did indeed lead to some good advice but there was a great reluctance by Z to accept that she is responsible for incivility that others find quite unpleasant. From Z's contributions to the AFD and recent edits to the Kercher article, I don't think she has taken on board the guidance that has been given. Hence, I think there is the need for someone who has the power of sanctions to examine the case. Bluewave (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave's comment discusses an incident which reflects the ongoing problems over the content of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. There has indeed been a big problem on the article in terms of having both sides of the story included, BLP respected, and NPOV achieved. This is why I had suggested mediation, but it seems that there has recently been an attempt to make things "personal" so that the conflict now looks like interpersonal disputes, when the underlying dispute has been over the content of the article. (I do not think that is the case with The Magnificent Clean-Keeper any longer though. I think he has an anger towards me that has become personal and that his intention now is to give me a very hard time and ultimately to get me banned or blocked.) In terms of the content dispute, the problem is that most of the editors edit in a consistent pattern that can be described as the "pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt" side of the story. In terms of the "other" side of the story, which can be described as "pro-Knox/anti-prosecution/pro-innocence" side, it is primarily just me. Another poster named Wikid77 sometimes edits on that side as well, but sometimes edits on the other side too. He does not seem to contribute on a regular basis any longer due to the disputes. Because it is often just me up against Bluewave, Salvio Giuliano, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and a few others on the other side of the case, I have been given a very difficult time and my work is often deleted or challenged and then deleted. But BOTH sides of the story need to be included in order for NPOV to be achieved and BLP to be respected. The defendants in the murder case are still "presumed innocent" until the judicial process is completed and their guilt or innocence finally determined, which will take a few years. In the meantime, both BLP and NPOV require that BOTH sides of the story be included--which means that information both as to their possible guilt and as to their possible innocence should be included. But most of the editors will allow only information tending to show their guilt to be included. So we have a struggle as to including both sides of the story, achieving NPOV and complying with BLP. But for Bluewave or any other editor to say that this dispute is all my fault is not truthful or sincere, since my struggles are to try to include the information which they do not want in the article--which shows the "other" side of the story. Without my lonely struggles to include the "other' side of the story, this article would read like Amanda Knox was a terrible person who sexually assaulted, stabbed, strangled, beat, stabbed and killed her roomate, when none of this has been finally determined. Knox stands innocent until proven guilty and she faces another trial in the Fall in which she could be acquitted. Large numbers of people in the U.S., including public officials and public figures, believe that she has been unjustly accused and never harmed her roommate. Until her guilt or innocence is finally determined, BOTH sides of the story, including the possibility of her innocence should be allowed in the article. It would be helpful if an administrator could help emphasize that NPOV and BLP require that these editors allow BOTH sides of the story in the article, and that they cannot reach a "consensus" to do otherwise. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not about the content of the article; it's about the way you behave towards all those who don't agree with you; that can be seen on the AFD page, but I can provide tons of diffs if needed. Please, try not to shift the topic, here. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from User:Wikid77 - I have been very busy on other articles (and fixing complex calculations in Template:Convert), but I noticed that User:Zlykinskyja has been warning people of WikiHounding activities. I did not realize, until today, that WP:Wikihounding (formerly called "wikistalking" until 27-Oct-2008) is part of WP:Harrassment and is a formal behavior problem that can quickly result in users being blocked. User:Zlykinskyja has been a part-time user, someone working on relatively few articles, and now working to improve articles on legal topics, such as the convicted Linda Carty. I think the claims of wikihounding are correct, and User:Zlykinskyja is in need of protection, at this point, at least in warning other users to not follow along, not hound, and not revert corrections to the next article being edited. Some users seem to have crossed the line, such as User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, by twice reverting major improvements/corrections to another hounded article ("Linda Carty"), perhaps at the suggestion of another user to target that article, as a form of collusion in hounding. I'm not sure that any of them knew about policy WP:Wikihounding, but User:Zlykinskyja certainly asked them to stop, multiple times, both on article talk-pages and on their user-talk pages. They can't pretend they haven't been warned. I realize evidence is needed to support my views, so I suggest the history of article "Linda Carty" (the British/American woman on death row in Texas). I finally took time to review the many improved edits made by User:Zlykinskyja, who corrected errors in that WP:BLP article (ranks #2 in Google, with 46,000 hits about Linda Carty), and then added sources, and then expanded the text. However, User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper decided to revert most of the improvements to article "Linda Carty", 2 times, and restored glaring errors, such as Linda Carty charged with "Capital Punishment" which, of course, is a punishment, not a criminal charge. Those erroneous reverts to "Linda Carty" were shocking:

• 1st revert re-adding errors (18:14, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349650340
• 2nd revert re-adding errors (19:47, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349666236

I was shocked about anyone wanting to de-correct a WP:BLP article, anyone wanting to re-introduce errors 2x, when User:Zlykinskyja had improved the notable article about this dual-citizen (of interest to both British & American readers) and had described her fate at Mountain View Unit (women's death row), on that very real hillside midway between Houston and Dallas, Texas. Why would someone risk scrambling and hacking such an article, twice, on Wikipedia? Articles about British-American citizens on death row should not be hacked and have errors re-added. So, if perhaps User:Zlykinskyja seems a little upset, please understand the prior massive rescue to a high-profile article on Wikipedia and having to correct problems 3 times, in total, to make Wikipedia seem a better source about such an important legal issue: the execution of a British citizen when capital punishment has been banned in the UK. I advise: tell other users to stop the wikihounding, stop reverting improvements to high-profile articles, and stop submitting frivolous ANI reports about User:Zlykinskyja. The future contributions of User:Zlykinskyja are incalculable to Wikipedia, and I've worked on many thousands of articles, so I think I know whereof I speak. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wikid77. I do feel that I can contribute a lot to Wikipedia in the long run, if only those pushing their own obvious agendas on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article--to present Amanda Knox as guilty of a violent sexual assault and murder--would stop trying to block my participation with these unfair and unethical tactics. These tactics of reporting me on trumped up charges, WikiHounding, intentional provocations, making threats, repeatedly deleting my work over and over and over, are really all aimed at one thing---preventing me from adding the "other side of the story" to the Kercher murder article. The aggressiveness that has been used to try to block and intimidate me from including the "other side of the story" has indeed been shameful. And it needs to come to a stop. Amanda Knox, a young student from Seattle, Washington, is a real person, a living person who is entitled to the protections afforded by the BLP policy on Wikipedia. Yet, there are a few editors who have gone to great lengths to block me from trying to provide some control on the article in terms of defamation. I have had to remove, modify or correct a great deal of information in the article that has been false and defamatory towards her and Raffaele Sollecito and in violation of BLP policy. I have tried to add information that tends to show that she is innocent until proven guilty in a final judicial proceeding, and that no final determination of guilt has yet been made. For this effort, a huge number of hours of my time has been taken up trying to stop these same editors from removing my corrections and edits. Yet, my editing has been in compliance with BLP policy, while some other editors are working against BLP policy. Now they have gone to the next step of aggression by trying these personal attacks to get me blocked or banned. It is not a coincidence that the edits of The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Salvio Giuliano, and Bluewave and a few others of their group have been virtually ALL tending to show Amanda Knox in as negative and GUILTY a light as possible, and they object to most all my edits adopting a more tolerant view of her---and now they are trying to say these disputes occur because of my "conduct." No, the overriding "conduct" in this situation is that a clique of editors is trying many tactics to block me from participating, so that they can write up Amanda Knox in the article to look as guilty as possible, and that article will be on display for the world to read as she goes for her second trial this Fall. This whole thing, in my opinion, is morally and ethically wrong, and could end up violating the rights of Amanda Knox to be free of defamation and adverse unfounded negative pre-trial publicity, and violates many Wikipedia policies including NPOV and BLP. There should be no such thing as a criminal Trial by Wikipedia. Amanda Knox remains innocent until her judicial proceedings are concluded and her guilt or innocence is finally determined. I respectfully request that these editors be admonished to cease trying to block my participation on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, and from WikiHounding me to any other article as further intimidation against my participation. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to bring this discussion back to the subject in hand...namely Zlykinskyja's conduct...I think some of her posts above illustrate very well the points that I was trying to make earlier.

• It appears that Z thinks she is on a mission to insert a particular point of view into the Meredith Kercher article: she says, for example, In terms [of editing] ... the ... "pro-Knox/anti-prosecution/pro-innocence" side, it is primarily just me.
• She assumes bad faith on the part of most other editors: most of the editors edit in a consistent pattern that can be described as the "pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt" side of the story.
• Whenever incivility is mentioned, she cites content disputes as the cause. This suggests that, based on her belief in the bad faith of other editors, she thinks she is justified in being uncivil.
• She assumes consensus will go against her and doesn't accept the need to engage in the consensus process [policies] require that these editors allow BOTH sides of the story in the article, and that they cannot reach a "consensus" to do otherwise.

All these things are driving other editors to despair. Bluewave (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% educated on this discussion, but Zlykinskyja, as far as your arguments, I think you might want to read WP:TLDR. Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary: this editor has been assuming bad faith on the part of other users ever since she started editing the MoMK article — a few examples out of many here she immediately assumes censorship, after her edit was reverted; "Now this is really disgusting. Someone, likely FormerIP, has gone and had this article locked so that only certain people can edit the article. That is truly disgusting. The locking of this article was NOT due to any vandalism. It was due to an attempt to block alternative viewpoints. This is the most extreme form of censorship."; claims of defamation; "The bullying and rudeness going on with this article has to stop."; claims of "Conspiring to Obstruct another Editor"; "The rules for this article are more: 1)if it makes Knox look good, it must be deleted; 2)if it makes Knox look bad, it stays."; "But wouldn't something like that be best to do all off-line so the Knox-haters can't trash it?"; "The anti-Knox editors should not be deleting, censoring and blocking contributions by pro-defense editors"; "Efforts by Anti-Knox Editors to Restrict Participation By Pro-defense Editors"; "They have the "consensus" and it does not include US. "They have the "consensus" and it does not include US."; "I guess rather than mediation, Magnificent Clean-Keeper would rather fight. It is all such a waste of time."; do I have to continue? BTW, sorry, if I have been verbose, here ;) — was blocked for sockpuppeting and legally threatened the admin who had blocked her [75], after wikilawyering. She thinks that all those who don't agree with her are wrong, trying to censor her or wikihounding her. The episode of alleged wikihounding took place a week or so ago, but she was lamenting our censorship way before then; she is apparently confusing the correct succession of events.

Here she clarifies her "agenda". Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that in response to my sincere statement on the extended content dispute over the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, the same editors who have been part of the improper effort to obstruct my efforts to participate to present the "other side of the story" in the article are now throwing the kitchen sink at me. This is part of their continuing effort to divert attention from the major problem with the article--their own efforts to allow only one side of the story in violation of the fundamental policies of NPOV and BLP. It will take me a while to do the proper research to respond to these additional accusations: I am still trying to learn how to do diffs, but will try to collect some to provide further information. I intend to return to provide a response as soon as I can reasonably do so, given illness in the family and other real world obligations. Thank you for your patience. I will just reply briefly now that there is nothing that I have ever said or done that excuses the WikiHounding that has occurred. WikiHounding is a form of harassment under Wikipedia policy, and trying to cast the person who was subjected to it as the wrongdoer can never be justified. It is not improper to object to WikiHounding, it is the effort to engage in WikiHounding that is wrongful. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So, now I am one of the baddies? It's not what you wrote three days ago "Salvio has not harassed me by repeatedly deleting my work on the Kercher article." Anyway, for me, this stops here. I will try to avoid you in the future and all will be well, hopefully. Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. She said that I'm the leader of the so called anti Knox crowd so I'm the vampire who bit every one and therefore I must be held responsible for everything ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated this discussion which had been archived (I hope I've done it right). The issue has not been resolved and I think the recent lack of activity was because Zlykinskyja asked for additional time to respond to the allegations. Bluewave (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I left a message on Zlykinskyja's talk page suggesting that she gives us an update on her response, as she asked for more time. I noted that she had made over 50 edits to Wikipedia since her last one here (and has made a lot more since then) and I hoped that this meant she had also had some time to work on her response. However, she didn't respond or reply to my message. I'm reluctant to enquire further, because it will probably be interpreted as wikihounding. Can someone independent please check what's going on? Otherwise this thread will keep disappearing into the archives. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: I believe you are well aware that I have been tied up as of late--first there have been continuing efforts by The Magnificent Clean-keeper to block me from going forward with my new proposed article on Delayed Grief, despite my complaints here that that effort is connected with WikiHounding in retaliation for the content dispute on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Second, your group or a member of your group has filed a new complaint against me at the NPOV Notice Board on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. That new complaint is at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Merdith_Kercher

I think that the new complaint at the NPOV Notice Board demonstrates what I have been saying all along--that there is huge underlying content dispute on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article which is the fundamental problem that needs to be resolved. I have noticed that on the NPOV Notice Board they say that large NPOV issues within an article should go to Mediation or a Request for Comment. I totally agree, and am now going forward with my own filing seeking help along those formal lines today on the basis that the participants on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article need formal guidance on how to comply with NPOV and BLP in such a complex and contentious story involving major international controversy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who has read this far down the thread, without losing the will to live: as a matter of fact I do have a group, but it's the kind that plays music and is not notable enough to feature here. I don't have "a group" on Wikipedia and I resent the allegation that I do. There is indeed a posting on the NPOV Notice Board relating to some further controversial editing that Zlykinskyja did on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, yesterday. However, I disagree that someone has "filed a new complaint against [Zlykinskyja]". It looks to me like they have filed a request for help with the content and it is only Zlykinskyja who is trying to make it personal. Bluewave (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, please stop assuming bad faith on my part. I have tried very hard to try to focus on the content dispute despite the many personal attacks against me on this thread and in other places, which is what Wikipedia policy emphasizes. According to Wikipedia policy, the focus should be on the content, not on the editors. I could have responded here with many examples of instances of how I have been treated very badly by the members of the group of editors involved in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article who post with an opposing point of view to my view concerning the murder. I chose instead to comply with Wikipedia policy of putting primary focus on the content and trying to avoid the focus on the personal. That is what I will continue to focus on as I bring the Murder of Meredith Kercher article forward today for formal Dispute Resolution. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who has read this far down the thread, without losing the will to live ROTFL. And, by the way, the request filed to get help sorting the POV issue out was not and is not against you personally. And please stop trying to shift the topic, here: it has nothing to do with any content disputes, but with the way you behave towards other editors. I really do hope some admin steps in and takes it over from here... You can call me Salvio (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: I could make an issue here of the very upsetting way that you behave towards me, but I have not done that. I have tried to focus on the main issue, which is constructing a well written article about a still unsolved murder mystery that complies with BLP and NPOV, despite all the controversy in three countries surrounding the Amanda Knox trial and case. To say that the controversy in the article is all due to me is disingenuous to say the least. The finger could be pointed at you and others as well. But the main issue, the content dispute, is well demonstrated by the NPOV dispute now underway at this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Merdith_Kercher It is the complex issue of how to handle the content in an article about a murder mystery that is not yet solved that needs to be addressed, and that I am working on now and expect to have a Mediation request filed by today. You can continue to do just what the Wikipedia policy says not to do---make the dispute about the editor--but the real unresolved issues about BLP and NPOV and the content will still impose turmoil in the article, and very much need to be resolved. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you still intent to back up your accusations (the ones you made here at least) as you promised and also respond to your own behavior as editor as this threat is actually about you?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(No admin comment yet: please do not archive.) Bluewave (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the ongoing dispute over NPOV and BLP in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article might want to watch a documentary on this murder case which will be on T.V. tonight, Sunday, March 28 on The Learning Channel, at 8 pm and 11 pm Eastern Time, 7 pm and 10 pm Central Time. The name of the documentary is "The Trials of Amanda Knox." I think the documentary will show that it is far from a settled "fact" that Amanda Knox sexually assaulted, strangled, beat, cut the throat, and murdered her roommate Meredith Kercher, and that this Wikipedia article needs to include more than just the "guilty" POV in order to achieve NPOV and comply with BLP policies. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up to this discussion and tonight's T.V. documentary, I would like to note that the primary focus of the documentary supported the essence of what I have been trying to say here about the content of the article. According to the documentary: "Knox's image itself became a central battleground" of the trial in Italy. She was called "Foxy-Knoxy, whose reputation threatened to overwhelm the case." "The question of which Amanda is the real one would become central to winning in the court of public opinion and in the court of law." "They created a new character called Foxy-Knoxy and convicted her." "There was a trial by media, so that the public could make up its own mind", prior to the trial. "Leaked information was a major part of the trial by media." According to Judge Heavey of Washington, "She was demonized in the media....There were a large number of leaks (by the prosecution) and the leaks were false." The demonization of Amanda Knox continues even now all over the Internet and in newspapers outside the U.S.. Such demonization should not be going on in Wikipedia, but that is precisely what is happening. There are attempts to block the other side of the story--the side claiming she is innocent. Information favorable to her is repeatedly deleted or obstructed. What is going on is simply wrong. Amanda Knox is entitled to her good name if she is innocent of this crime, and her guilt or innocence has not yet been finally determined. Until she is finally determined to be guilty or innocent, these efforts on Wikipedia to make her look as guilty as possible, or to block information that is favorable to her, are profoundly unfair, and not in compliance with NPOV and BLP policy. "Trial by Wikipedia" is just as wrong as "trial by tabloid" or "trial by media." Accordingly, the focus in this article needs to be on allowing BOTH sides of the story. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request that an administrator kindly close and archive this thread. I have submitted a request for informal Mediation, which is where this dispute belongs for ongoing supervision and dispute resolution. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for community input on User:GoRight

On February 7th, I made a conditional proposal[76] for GoRight's unblock after a lengthy WP:RFU request. He had previously been blocked by 2/0 for multiple breaches of policy which culminated in a de facto community ban.[77] I took responsibility for acting as an uninvolved third party to monitor GoRight's edits and provide guidance where necessary.

Presently, I'm less than happy with GoRight's progress in overcoming the behaviors which led to his indefinite block. Specifically, I'm seeing incidence of disruption,[78] harassment,[79][80][81][82] wikilawyering,[83] and failure to assume good faith.[84][85]

At this point, I would like to bring the issue for community review and input. Whenever I have blocked or unblocked in the past, my criteria has always come down to a certain formula: Does this editor's positive contributions outweigh his negative ones? I believe that everyone deserves second chances, and that's exactly why I offered to unblock GoRight after his RFU. However, at this point I'm having a very hard time justifying his continued presence. His helpful edits since the time of his unblock do not outweigh the additional time and effort that his less than helpful edits have posed on other editors. I would much rather see a change of editing patterns than another community ban, but at this time I feel that greater input is needed as that that dysfunctional editing pattern seems to be escalating rather than improving. Trusilver 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what I am expected to say here. I believe that all of my edits are defensible in that there is a story behind them but if the community agrees with Trusilver's assessment of them then the best course of action is to block or ban me. I will respond to direct questions otherwise this is all I really have to say. I appreciate Trusilver's assistance in the past and I accept that he is acting in the best interest of the community. --GoRight (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

History shows a recurrent pattern: (1) GoRight gets blocked; (2) GoRight promises to do better and gets unblocked; (3) GoRight behaves quite well for a while; (4) GoRight gradually lapses back to his former provocations, bad-faith assumptions, etc; (5) eventually GoRight crosses the line; return to (1). We are now in phase (4). Whether GoRight continues to steps (5)->(1) is up to him, though my understanding is that the terms of his unblock allow others to short-circuit the loop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of GoRight's edits are in talk and project space - this month alone disrupting existing disputes and filing frivolous ones, ignoring arbitrators, encouraging problematic editors, spraying talk pages with distracting requests, making thinly veiled threats, proposing sanctions against other editors, telling people to mind their own business while refusing to do so himself, ridiculing and annoying people, atrocious wikilawyering, etc. Those that aren't tend to be minor reverts of vandalism (and warnings for same). Indeed I've just scanned his contributions all the way back to the start of the year (over 1,500 edits) and was unable to find even a single substantive edit in main space.

While I would support restoring the community ban, I would equally support an MYOB sanction as suggested by TenOfAllTrades, likely modeled after Abd's editing restriction. This would be his third and final opportunity to prove himself by taking the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. -- samj _in^out 02:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just kind of stumbled across this discussion and checked a few things and want to make a statement. The pattern that Short Brigade points out is fact and in my estimation will probably continue. but I like the suggestion of Samj, and I would make sure GoRight understands this is his LAST option. I suggest the the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. Just an outsiders thought. Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with comments from Mlpearc. There's a lot of work that could use the help of editors like GoRight. Would GoRight be interested in working on non-admin maintenance tasks? What about creating requested articles or helping cleanup articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is a possibility for sure. Do you have some pointers to the types of things you mean by "non-admin maintenance tasks"? Creating requested articles may also be an option, but where does one go to find such requests? --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requested articles exists, but perhaps a more important task that needs doing would be [86]. If you worked on those articles (I probably should be taking my own advice), I am sure that the community would be very grateful. NW (Talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is tons of copy editing to do at Guild of Copy Editors; if you have good English skillz this is a place where wikignomes can thrive. Any help would be appreciated. Diannaa ^TALK 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Something also that I've been doing a little of, and not even scratching the surface, is checking school-related articles. These have a much higher than usual tendency for vandalism, and that vandalism very often gets by the recent change patrollers. Trusilver 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can help source Category:Unreferenced_BLPs, clean spam and cruft from Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. Hell, there is a lot of stuff at Category:Wikipedia_maintenance. Another option is commenting at deletion discussions, you can pick the one you like more: WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:IFD or WP:DRV. Or just visit articles at random until you find one that a) you like the subject and b) it's underdeveloped; you can then expand it at will. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support (with equal preference) site ban or SamJ's proposal to impose a similar Abd restriction on GoRight. Only a few hours before commenting here, GoRight demonstrated that he already knew what a wikignome is and was tendentiously arguing that his contributions have been improving the project when by contrast, many incidents and existing sanctions suggest otherwise. If this was an editor who genuinely doesn't know what wikignome is, I'd be piling on the advice/guidance above, without any support for an involuntary restriction. But the very meaning of "final warning" or "unblock conditions" appears to be becoming meaningless. I cannot ignore what Short Brigade Harvester Boris has described, or the diffs in SamJ's comment, or the fact that this situation is not improving with mere voluntary measures and advice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal for GoRight to consider The main problem seems to be that you have a very strong urge to get involved in subjects on which you have a very strong opinion (e.g. climate change) which you feel isn't covered neutrally on Wikipedia. But you have to understand that the way things are covered is almost always consistent with community consensus, and changing that is not an option. A better way to do something with your ideas in these matters is to write up an essay in general terms in which you explain what in your opinion is not going well on Wikipedia and then discuss that essay. Such activities are not disruptive. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree on Essay with Count Iblis ... working on essays is a productive path for GoRight to adopt. I proposed in the past that GoRight submit an essay to 2over0 as an unblock condition with demonstrated content production. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been intentionally mostly avoiding GoRight's edits after they were unblocked - why give myself the headache when the wonder of the wiki model is that we all provide checks on each other? The diffs above (and a little digging to be sure that the context is clear) indicate that they have not taken to heart the lengthy unblock discussions, past sanctions and formal and informal warnings, and advice from numerous editors. I am glad that other editors were willing to undertake this experiment, as I think GoRight genuinely cares about this project; I maintain that even editors with few edits to the mainspace can be very productive in generating quality articles. In the absence of a dramatic improvement in their approach to editing, however, I support a new indefinite block. Mandating that they go edit areas where they have not experienced conflict (viz. completely new areas of the project) could be a solution, but please please word the sanction extraordinarily carefully and clearly. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked, indeed urged, GoRight to avoid involvement in climate change articles during the early unblock period, but he has devoted most of his efforts to that field. Had I known that GoRight would also want to involve himself in the Abd fuss, I would also have counseled against that.

But GoRight is so clearly an intelligent and often insightful contributor that I cannot help but think that his skills would be wasted on wikignome work. He has some King Charles' heads, and he needs help with them. Some kind of behavioral ban would work well here, I'm sure.

2over0's original framework incorporated the following suggested limitations [87]

1. Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive.
2. Topic ban from climate change related articles for six months. This is not the maximum allowed under the community probation, but rather the minimum I see as likely to be useful to the project. I am sensitive to the concerns of systematic bias you raise in your most recent email, but this does not extend to a tolerance for disruption.
3. Some form of ban from all disputes and noticeboard threads in which you are not a named party or otherwise clearly and directly involved, with the possible the exceptions of ArbCom and RFC/U. This is also easily open to conflicting interpretations, and I would want additional input before settling on clear wording that carries the same meaning both to the two of us and to people unfamiliar with the background to the restriction. I also consider it important not to restrict legitimate pursuit of dispute resolution.

I thought 2over0 had hit the nail on the head at that point, and it's a matter for some regret to me that he had not the time to follow through. Perhaps we should reconsider this rather than going for something more draconian. --TS 20:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was less an issue of time than that I decided with some regret that if I had not by the point I gave up after three weeks of intense discussion been able to communicate to GoRight why and how their editing had been detrimental to the project, then I would not be able to. I freely admit that I am not the most socially ept editor in the bin, but neither am I alone in being able to convince GoRight to change their approach. If the community can fashion a workable system under which this project can continue to benefit from their contributions without suffering the all to common negatives, I would support that unreservedly. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support Tony's proposal above, and also suggest that some sort of Chinese wall be erected between him and Abd as they appear to feed each others' worst instincts. I just found this blog from GoRight, with an attendant troll from Thegoodlocust. I change my view: let him hang. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I read it. Is it really that bad? I'm convinced we should embrace our critics, not ban them. I must say, I don't like how GoRight uses the term "pro-AGW". Nobody is "pro" AGW. Can we please use accurate terms? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    *sigh* My off-wiki activities are not germane here. The "About" page on the site tells you all you need to know. I am unaware of any policy that I am violating by running an off-wiki blog, but if such a policy exists please bring it to my attention so that I can take appropriate corrective action. Another user, much more prominent that myself, similarly runs a blog as well where he likewise comments on the comings and goings here, amongst other things. His blog has been discussed many times and the result is always that there is no problem with him doing so.

    @Viriditas : To be specific, the blog is NOT critical of Wikipedia in general but the Climate Change pages and the editing environment there specifically, that is to the extent that it actually is "critical". Regarding "pro-AGW" do you have some alternative that you feel would be more appropriate. --GoRight (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    • I agree that GoRight's blog postings should not be used to sanction him on-wiki, regardless of how constructive or unconstructive those postings may be. If we go that direction there are many so-called "respected admins and content contributors" who could be held to account for far worse postings in other venues. As for "pro-AGW," think about what that literally means: if anything, it is GoRight and like-minded editors who are "pro-AGW." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Off-wiki actions should be held accountable on-wiki. If we loose "respected" admins and content contributors, so be it. -Atmoz (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Right, while we have little or no control of what happens off-wiki I see no problem with taking it into consideration when discussing on-wiki activities. While the discussion appears fairly benign, Guy obviously takes offense and it's hard to see how commentating on a running dispute via a one-way channel could be anything but disruptive (imagine if everyone was doing this). -- samj _in^out 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

        For the record, everyone is welcome to comment there ... including Guy. --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

    • Is it "that bad"? Depends on how you define "that bad". It's the usual conspiracy theory bullshit, it further stirs already muddy waters and as a result of reading around his writing off-wiki I now believe that his aim ere is to see his POV better represented, rather than to collaborate. Where he says his off-wiki activities are not relevant to Wikipedia, this is the precise opposite of what he's arguing in the case of the disruptive IP at AN. Obviously I find him tiresome, persistent and frustratingly tenacious in advocating what seems to me to be a politically motivated campaign to reduce the emphasis on the scientific consensus behind global warming, he's also given spectacularly bad advice to Abd who has quite enough problems of his own to be going on with, and he piles into any dispute where he perceives that science might be winning, the difference the blog post makes is that it persuades me that he's here for advocacy not out of genuine concern for the project. We have no shortage of tenacious advocates who cause a lot less friction than GoRight. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect 2over0's and Trusilver's opinions that the attempted rehabilitation has failed. At this point the most appropriate action might seem to be indefinite block (a de facto ban) with user talk rights, so as to permit the continuation of good faith discussion of GoRight's editing rights.

As GoRight has indicated that he doesn't welcome my input. I would also respect that and would not participate in discussion on his talk page unless invited by him.

I do not endorse Guy's opinion of GoRight's blog posting. Although I do not agree with it I do not think it betrays Wikipedia's principles. There are some websites that are well known troll-friendly venues, and I've been unstinting in my criticism of such activity both on and off Wikipedia, but I think GoRight's intent is altogether more wholesome. --TS 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not an admin, nor uninvolved, but I support a total ban of GoRight. He's a troll. He has always been a troll. He always will be a troll Has never once contributed anything positive to Wikipedia, except when he thinks he's going to get banned. Then he'll do some menial task until the shitstorm blows over, and then he'll continue on with the trolling. Repeat ad nauseam. -Atmoz (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Didn't GoRight have something to do with the recent CRU rename? Whether you agree with the rename or not, his participation in the original discussion could be perceived as positive. I think he deserves a strongly worded "last chance" with a line drawn in the sand. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You are thinking of this. The final discussion was unrelated but generally consistent with it. --GoRight (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• ~5,000 words were spent discussing 2 (changing 'hacking incident' to 'email controversy') and as an outsider applying the WP:DUCK test it's got POV pushing written all over it. Let's just agree to disagree that this should be "perceived as positive". -- samj _in^out 16:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  Unsolicited feedback. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• while (1 > 0); last_chance (GoRight); end Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• while (2 + 2 = 5); climate_change_articles; end Alex Harvey (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - almost everyone asking for a ban on this thread is involved either with Abd or climate change articles, both of which would place them in direct conflict with GoRight. ATren (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  ATren, be very careful, see here why "2) Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed." This is what I did to get in trouble. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• One does not have to go anywhere near Abd or climate change articles to end up "in direct conflict with GoRight"... visiting his talk page (or waiting for him to visit yours) is more than adequate. That's exactly the problem we're trying to solve - many of the areas GoRight works are existing debates (or turn into debates when he arrives) so we can either keep him from debates (MYOB sanction) or keep him from editing altogether (community ban). -- samj _in^out 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• I find it severely obvious that only people who have interacted with GoRight have an opinion on him. On the other hand, I find it interesting that you claim that every editor involved with Abd or climate change "automatically" is in direct conflict with GoRight. That does seem to indicate a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I find it very interesting that those wanting to ban GoRight have had some of their actions highlighted on the blog he started. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's interesting or in any way unexpected, for reasons that should be obvious. An argument that people he has mentioned on his blog are prohibited from commenting on his actions is -- well, let's call it curious, and leave it at that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a couple of the editors have also tried (and failed) to get websites deleted from wikipedia that were critical of them (e.g. encyclopedia dramatica). I think if these people can't laugh off criticism then they shouldn't be on the internet and certainly shouldn't be trying to ban people due to their own personal issues. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a red herring. GoRight's problematic behavior is on-wiki, and was already evident before the blog was started. Indeed the oldest posting on that blog was made either at the end of his last indefinite block from Wikipedia or at most a few hours afterwards. I also find the notion that Trusilver and 2over0 are posting about GoRight's problems in order to get back at him for the blog somewhat improbable. Let's concentrate on GoRight's actual problematic behavior, not his claims on an external site about the behavior of others. --TS 18:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What Tony said, plus most of this predates most of us even knowing the blog existed. Mind you, by the "logic" you used in respect of the "link" between me and Quiggin and Lambert, you and GoRight are practically married as a result of your posting comments there and you are therefore disqualified from participating in this debate. Sauce for the goose, as they say. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Guy is the one who brought it up, and he seems to have a habit of taking his off-wiki critcisms on wiki (e.g. [88]) and he isn't the only one advocating a ban (e.g. Atmoz) who have also been criticized on the blog. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to see how neutral you would be about a website that published an article about you written by someone who had taunted you about your sister's death and stating that your recently deceased father was a paedophile. I'd say describing it as "worthless" is comparatively mild, actually I think it's a cesspit and I can't wait for the day it runs out of cash, hopefully assisted down that route by a series of lawsuits for the egregious defamation they publish. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Thegoodlocust is also an active contributor and commentator "on the blog [GoRight] started", which apparently routinely criticises editors off-wiki. -- samj _in^out 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't a contributer which is why I decided to comment unlike the other people who are most obviously involved in a COI with regards to GoRight. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Broad consensus that a problem exists: suggest MYOB restriction

There seems to be broad consensus that GoRight's conduct remains problematic and the community would benefit from restrictions. While there is some sentiment that such restrictions should be regarded as the Last Chance Saloon, I don't think this would necessarily be productive because it might encourage some editors to try to trip him up. How about a simple Abd-style "Mind Your Own Business" restriction enforceable by blocks of escalating duration? --TS 19:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

MYOB wouldn't do anything about other problems such as attempts to provoke others. Further, since GoRight seems to be using Abd as his role model, any attempt hold him to account likely will be met with similar drawn-out and draining debate. I'm personally getting fed up riding this merry-go-round: at this point I'm willing simply to declare that GoRight is exempt from Wikipedia's behavioral standards and leave it at that. It would save all the block, unblock, reblock drama and the resulting megabytes of argumentation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to put him in a special category, why not just block him indef, that's pretty special. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

He was indeffed, but then he was unblocked with a "final warning". Now it's clear that the problem behavior continues, yet nobody has rolled up their sleeves to reblock. Instead, some users were advocating yet another final warning in the form of SamJ's proposal (which I was barely ready to support, but I thought ok - equal preference to a ban is at least generous). Now, it's become even more hilarious with one user suggesting we shouldn't impose final warnings because "it wouldn't be very productive". This resembles a debate about weeds. There are people who appreciate its problematic existence and try to cut its source (that is, at its roots) so that the rest of the garden doesn't become adversely affected by the weed. Yet, some people protest with "no, this weed is a plant in the garden, don't harm it, don't uproot it, its presence is productive, if you think it's causing problems, just trim the top off and it will solve everything". For those of us who have had experience with weeds, that sort of comment is frustratingly clueless or foolish, depending on who it comes from, because it's known that nothing will change until the weed is uprooted. Alas, the sad fate for the Wikipedia garden. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

People are not "weeds" nor do we treat them as outcasts. Your words are virtually identical to those of every dictator who tried to eliminate the opposition or tyrants who created scapegoats to blame for their problems. We should not dehumanize those who we view as at fault, but rather try to uplift them and give them our hand, even as they bite it. The old thinking that we are separate from everybody else, even our perceived enemies, is no longer valid. GoRight's faults are our own. This view is the only way back to the garden, where weeds and pests are an integral part of the discourse, a mosaic, a web of life. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your angle here, Viriditas. Comparing Ncmvocalist's frustration with a twice-indef banned user to the actions of a dictator trying to eliminate his opposition is taking an argument too far. Dayewalker (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've responded on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas seems to have continued to take his argument too far: "The blocking policies are a childish and immature response to a problem that will not go away. Virtual communities require a broad range of users to survive. When you narrow this pool to such an extent, the community will die...it should be easy...allowing problem users to enroll in a trainng program that will enhance their understanding of the site." Does anyone, other than myself, have four words in response to that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

More importantly and to the point, Wikipedia was not meant to be used as an MMORPG for noticeboard addicts and people with too much time on their hands who should be busy writing an encyclopedia or helping others write it. It's all about editors and readers and improving the relationship between the two. Too much time is wasted playing "noticeboard" and very little time is spent on improving editorial skills and retaining users. The threat of blocking and being blocked is about as effective as the prison system; In other words, it doesn't work at all. People come here because they want to contribute in some way. Everybody has a special skill or talent, and some bring real knowledge and expertise. That's what we need to tap into and develop; Everything else is pure fluff and a waste of valuable time. We don't need another little dictator who sees people as weeds ripe for the Roundup. Time to grow up. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And now you are making personal attacks, being uncivil, and soapboxing, which is in line with some of the misbehavior that has been brought up about you not that long ago. The community disagrees with your view about tendentious editing as it is counterproductive to either writing an encyclopedia, or helping others write it. Addressing tendentious editing has become no different to the weed comparison I brought up above, and it's a pretty understandable frustration. Nobody denies the fact that people come here wanting to contribute in some way; that they cannot do so constructively and use Wikipedia as a game, a battleground, and as something that does not comply with our core policies (be it NPOV, BLP, or others) is indeed the problem. That you (a) suggest I see people as weeds when I don't and (b) personally attack me by calling me a little dictator, when you'd already been told you were going too far, suggests that no amount of training (even by you) would satisfactorily improve the situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In the above, you explicitly compared editors to "weeds" who should be "uprooted". I responded by pointing out that this type of dehumanization was and is the preferred rhetoric of historical dictators and tyrants. Sadly, this aggressive POV is to blame for the disruption and disintegration of virtual communities and leads to their eventual downfall. I'm not sure, but it could be a symptom of hormones. If true, Wikipedia needs stable, mature people with real world experience making unemotional decisions about how to work with editors, not immature MMORPG addicts playing "noticeboard", and racking up blocks. We are dealing with real people, not blips on the screen. We all need to try harder to treat editors as real people, and deal with them on that level. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are, otherwise you wouldn't continue being uncivil. I compared Wikipedia to a garden and tendentious editing to the weeds that we find in the garden. I maintain that until the weeds are uprooted, there will be no satisfactory change in the long term - and this means removing the source of the problem. I'm sorry if you still feel "dehumanized" by such frustration. Even if I was to play along with your uncanny misinterpretation, that would still not warrant the uncivil comments (and personal attacks) that you've been making overall and the way you've tried to disrupt this thread. I request that someone prevents Viriditas from continuing to engage in such unseemly conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Note: Viriditas has been blocked for repeatedly engaging in the incivility above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth taking into account GoRight's interpretation of Abd's MYOB sanction (as clarified: "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you."). Here's the money quote: "Please note that the meanings of the words 'discussing any dispute' and/or 'comment about any conflict' are distinct and non-overlapping with the words 'participating in a dispute'". The moral of the story is that if the MYOB sanction is not 100% water tight then GoRight won't WP:HEAR it until we've all been dragged through clarification after clarification after clarification after clarification as we have with User:Abd (who has since declared that he'd rather retire than be forced to mind his own business). Sometimes the pursuit of justice just isn't worth the effort - there comes a point where we need to cut our losses.

Between this epic wikilawyering, the personal attack against User:William_M._Connolley a day or two ago and today's sporadic reshuffling of the municipal broadband article I'm leaning more and more towards restoring the indef block and leaving the onus on GoRight to explain (on his talk page) under what conditions he should be allowed to participate. -- samj _in^out 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You call that a personal attack? I've seen far worse - especially from the "victims" you are presenting. Besides, it is a valid point considering the whole Essjay business - some people will put forward their so-called academic credentials as a way to bend the wiki-winds in their favor. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a clear and recent violation of WP:NPA: criticising someone for displaying their academic credentials and cherry-picking quotes out of context is hardly WP:CIVIL - comment on the content, not the contributor. Essjay is irrelevant - there's no doubt that William_M._Connolley holds a doctorate, nor any imperative for other editors to take that into consideration. -- samj _in^out 11:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow that's how you read that? What specifically was GoRight's criticism - tell me his actual words that you find so offensive and not your interpretation. The fact of the matter is that WMC and Short Brigade (the other editor pushing for a ban) were criticizing people in actual sources for their PhDs - there was no criticism from GoRight that was just a lighthearted joke on his part. Anyway I could care less if WMC has a PhD, I have no idea if he does or not, his article doesn't have a source supporting that claim (last time I checked anyway), and it doesn't really matter since his PhD doesn't deal with the group of articles that he edits.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah nice try changing the subject there, but this is about GoRight's conduct, not WMC. GoRight is already on a last-last chance-- he shouldn't be running around causing trouble, he should be keeping his head down and avoiding controversy. Obviously this is impossible for him, thus, out the door he should go. Jtrainor (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear that my suggested sanction would not be appropriate. GoRight's propensity for wikilawyering and antagonistic engagement would not really be addressed. I believe there is currently sufficient consensus to support withdrawal of the "final chance" and implementation of a ban from Wikipedia. --TS 12:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated above, though if GoRight were subsequently able to construct and explain suitable editing restrictions on his talk page (so as to demonstrate his understanding of the spirit of MYOB restrictions rather than trying to WP:LAWYER around them) then I would be happy to give him a last, last, last chance to prove his potential with substantive edits in quiet areas. -- samj _in^out 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of Behavior of User:Mk5384

(copied in part from previous thread regarding unwanted comments on my user page -OberRanks (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

As the original poster of the dispute, there have been no further postings on my talk page, so that matter is resolved. The issue at the John Pershing article is under debate and a vote is in progress to determine the need for a nickname containing a racial slur in the infobox. Its an interesting debate and we are making good progress. Mk5384 has not been too disruptive there, as far as I can tell, and is welcome to continue to post opinions in the debate. I will advise all concerned, though, that there is a pattern to Mk5384 which might need an administrator to take a close look at. Basically, if someone disagrees with Mk5384, the user will post a notice to the talk page stating why he is right and they are wrong. If the user continues to disagree, the user will escalate the posts into more aggressive language. If the posts are removed or the user is asked to stop, then actual personal attacks will begin to be posted. Here is an example of a string of recent edits where Mk5384 left notes on users who either warned him he was violating policy or asked him to desist from bad practices: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. The "mother of all attack edits" was where Mk5384 made a statement on my talk page that I was lying about serving in the United States military [95] - not only a very serious charge but also a personal attack to call another user a liar without cause. On top of this, we have a string of statements that I have been removing sourced material from the John Pershing article when in fact I restored disputed material in order to have a consensus vote and, in fact, removed nothing [96]. A few things should happen here, I feel: an administrator should alert Mk5384 that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. You cannot hound and h arras other users on thier talk page if they disagree with you or point out you perhaps broke a policy like NPOV, CIV, or NPA. Second, it should be made clear that this is not a witch hunt and that Mk5384 is welcome to continue editing and participating in article discussions. Third, all concerned should state there are no bad feelings and that if this behavior stops, there will be no grudges or anything like that. -OberRanks (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is an ongoing issue, it is best taken up at WP:RFCU where community opinion and advice for Mk5384 can be solicited in a structured venue. –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tendency to go after anyone who crosses him in some way, as pointed out by OberRanks, certainly bears watching. He also states on his user page that he's a newbie, so maybe he hasn't got things all figured out yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a neutral admin stating to Mk5384 that the behavior is in fact unacceptable will go a long way. If it continues after that, then, yes, a RFC/User Conduct should be initiated. -OberRanks (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 has helpfully provided me with a first-hand example of the behaviour you highlight [97]. –xeno^talk 14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest a posting at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but what you have there is pretty much a smoking gun. As I said, an admin talking strongly to the user to desist the behavior is what is needed, I feel, perhaps also with a block (I hate to say it). -OberRanks (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A block? Mon Dieu!! Whatever will I do if I can't edit Wikipedia? I'll have nothing to fill my time, except white supremecist meetings, and my thrice daily ritual of masturbating to my over-size blow-up of General Pershing in black face and assless chaps. I've already told you, now that it has been proven that Wikipedia is, in fact, censored, I have no interest in participating. You can rewrite history and enjoy your whitewashed, vanilla versions to your hearts content. Block or no block, I won't be here.Mk5384 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the extremely crass nature of the above post, especially the subtle suggestion that users involved with the Pershing article are masturbating as well as the blatant racial remark about "black face", I do formally request that an administrator block Mk5384 for uncivil edits and disruptive editing. Mk5384 has posted angry, uncivil talk page remarks against no less than five users, including a very neutral an unbiased admin who simply protected the John Pershing article to prevent an edit war which MK5384 started. We now have have angry remarks here with racial and sexual overtones. A block is more than warranted I feel at this point as this user has more than demonstrated that they are unwilling to work with others and, despite the claim of leaving Wikipedia, may return to do future inappropriate and harassing edits. -OberRanks (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... that was sarcasm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though it may have been sarcasm, those were racial and sexual comments directed at other Wikipedia users and should not in any way be condoned, even in jest or in a mere simple fit of anger. The user, in my view, is very lucky to not have been blocked or even banned. Had the user directed those on a talk page towards another specific person, we would be looking at a much more serious affair; as it stands, it simply appears to be a mere rant on the ANI against "the system" so it can probably be overlooked for now. -OberRanks (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Frequently in sarcasm one over-exaggerates the perceived arguments of the other side, in an attempt to deflate those arguments by showing their ridiculousness. It's sort of like a reductio ad absurdum. In this case by drastically overinflating the viewpoints that he or she feels are being erroneously attributed to them, Mk5384 is saying "If I was the person you're painting me to be, this is what I would be like, but I'm not that awful person at all."

Of course, such a tactic is lost if your audience is unable to recognize sarcasm, and takes the cartoonish statements literally. In such a case, it makes one wonder what else is perhaps being misunderstood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much point for a block at this point. They have claimed they're leaving and won't be back. The user has been somewhat disruptive but not to an extreme extent that suggests a block is necessary just in case they come back. If they come back and continue their poor behaviour then sure block away. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been suggested the user might be a sock. Hard telling for sure, especially as to who he would be a sock of. More info would be needed before an SPI could be filed. But if some other editor turns up, taking the same approach, that could open the SPI door. If not, then everything is peachy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really seeing any red flags for sockdom here. Seems to be a normal instance of touching the third rail on a hot button topic. Considering the subject matter we're a bit lucky that no user blocks have been needed. It's better when an editor realizes they've been starting to see red and pulls back without admin intervention. Let's give this person breathing space and dignity. Durova⁴¹² 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My main concern was knowledge of advanced Wikipedia procedures with "apparently" only 8-12 weeks of editing since January. But, I agree, there are no huge red flags. The main issue to watch is the re-emergence of a second account expressing the same views and tendencies after this one "retired"; that would be a clear sockpuppet issue. -OberRanks (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

After seeing what was written there, I feel compelled to take one last stab at this. As Beyond My Ken points out, that was sarcasm in its most extreme form, brought about by frustration in its most extreme form. Since OberRanks took that edit literally, I'll assume good faith, and entertain the possibility that he honestly thought that I was continuously adding the word "nigger" to the John Pershing article because I'm some horrible racist. I was, of course, adding it because that was his nickname for the majority of his military career. I haven't any idea what would give anyone the idea that my account is a sock, and as far as my having "advanced knoweledge of Wikipedia", I have constantly sought (and needed) the help of others. Perhaps I did cross the line with some of my posts, but again, it was brought on by frustration. Perhaps I should have AGF'd and realized that the editors who were against me thought that I was trying to put that word into the article to be an asshole. ( Which, of course, is not true.) So I will apoligise if I have truly offended anyone, and will reiterate that my insistence on having that word in the article was solely in the interest of historical accuracy. With that having been said, if, after the smoke clears, the censored version is the one that is allowed to stand, I will, in fact, no longer be a participant in this encyclopedia. But, in any case, I am no racist, and I wish to make that clear.Mk5384 (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that he has un-"retired", he has promised to continue edit-warring as soon as the page's protection expires. I'm guessing that is not sarcasm. (See below) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about edit warring. You have mistaken protection of the page for endorsement of you version. The admin. stated clearly that it was protected only to stop an edit war,and he had no opinion on it. I have promised only to return sourced, extensively explained information to the article. And if you disagree, then you can remove it. And then we can go to mediation and finally settle this.Mk5384 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After having been talked out of "retirement" which followed failing to get his way on the Black Jack Pershing article, that user has now "promised" to resume disruption [edit-warring] once that page's protection expires:[98] Can something be done about this? [I have notified the user already about this posting.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read both posts that I put on the talk page. I apologised for crossing the line with my heated edits. I stated my case clearly, and politely. I offered an olive branch to all concerned (see my post in another section above). The olive branch was ignored. I did indeed, say that I will be returning both names immediately upon unprotection. I stated why I will be doing this. I said nothing about disruption. The administrator who protected the page has stated that he or she has no opinion on the matter, and does not endorse the current version over the other. The protection was simply to stop an edit war. The information was properly cited, and I gave extensive reasons why I intend to return it. I also suggested mediation. Baseball Bugs' case does not hold water.Mk5384 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement that Mk5384 will "return both names immediately upon unprotection" does indeed sound like a promise to ignore the consensus building on the talk page and resume edit warring. Apparently the "spark" that set this off was my edit here, with a statement that I had "ignored the olive branch" [99]. At the time, I did not even realize Mk5384 had "returned" and I was responding to statements made by other users. This user has shown time and time again a refusal to work with others, angry statements agaist those who disagree, and the unresolved issue of the comments made under this thread. -OberRanks (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he has asserted again here that he fully intends as soon as the protection is lifted that he is going to reinsert the disputed content that started the edit war, whether or not there is a consensus to do so. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The dif points to:"Perhaps this should just proceed to mediation, because I'm not going anywhere, and I'm not backing down."

Mk, I must tell you that this has already generated more input than most RfC's I have seen. If you are unwilling to participate in forming and unwilling to accept ("I'm not backing down") consensus in Wikipedia, why are you here? WP runs on wp:consensus as WP uses the word. If one wants one's content in an article, one must convince the interested editors to support it. After reading the arguments and a comment at talk:Nigger Jack, I am unsure about the issue, but the none of the editors with strongly held opinion on inclusion have responded with information to back up the argument.

The offtopic sections on the article talk page focusing on Mk5384 IMO are distracting and don't belong there at all... they will simply make it harder to reach consensus and should be redacted. The focus needs to be on the article.- Sinneed 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 is now also removing comments of other users from the John Pershing talkpage. That is a very serious affair, in my opinion. -OberRanks (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Has done it twice now. -OberRanks (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had reverted his deletion, and he deleted it again. So he is now edit-warring on the talk page. He's practically begging for a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And even with diffs to back up the removals, Mk5384 approaching the warning admin and said this [100] and this. -OberRanks (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed Durova's comment by accident. I got an "edit conflict" message whilst I was attempting to post something, and didn't understand it. It has now been explained to me, and I know what to do if that situation should arise again. Given the fact that I have not one incident of vandalism in my history, I find it appaling the way I was attacked here. As I have said, this is turning into a witch hunt.Mk5384 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

At least on this I think he could be correct, I have seen this occasionally happen before, that one editor attempts to post when multiple editors are also attempting to post and it can occur that this happens, a glitch in the system. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and Mk5384 is saying it was an edit conflict. Based on his past editing history, I'd be willing to believe him and have pointed him towards the Edit Conflict Help page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Then he needs to try his post again (or any post at all) and if "edit conflict" pops up, he needs to read all the instructions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, check my history. I have never, ever vandalised Wikipedia. My last post before that was apologising to OberRanks for not AGF'ing; why in the world would I follow that up by removing a comment from Durova? This needs to be resolved. I stand by what I said about intending to return the info to the article. But I absolutely did not remove anything.Mk5384 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While you are here perhaps you would like to retract you intention to reinsert the disputed content the moment the article is unlocked and make a commitment to accept the outcome of discussion and consensus that arises on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you "stand by what I said about intending to return the info to the article" then you are repeating (yet again) an intent to resume edit warring, returning disputed material, and ignoring the consensus building on the talk page. And, if you do in fact engage in that kind of behavior in April, your edits will probably be reverted by no less than 3 to 4 users who have already posted here, you will be quickly marked as breaking WP:3RR and you will most likely be blocked from editing. At worse, the article would be protected again. I urge you to cease insisting that you will return this material against the consensus of others. -OberRanks (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus of others. The vote was 7 for and 8 against. Not even close to consensus. But, as I said, we can go to formal mediation.Mk5384 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not retract it. I will reiterate it. As I will reiterate the fact that I did not remove anything.Mk5384 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, you're not helping yourself. As we discussed on your talk page, you removed the comments by accident because you weren't sure how to handle an edit conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's for sure. Declarations of war won't help. That statement alone is good enough grounds for a block. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 left a note at user talk saying that it was an accidental edit conflict. If the time stamps check out (I haven't looked) then let's chalk this up to good faith. Informal mediation doesn't appear to be helping the underlying dispute, though. Bowing out with a recommendation this go to Medcom or Meccab. Durova⁴¹² 15:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked Mk5384 for 48h for disruption since the argumentation has continued past your comment above. He needs to realise that the rhetoric is not helping. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The user in question posted an unblock request then removed the original reason for blocking [101], placing in effect the unblock notice underneath the already resolved issue of the removing other comments from the article talk page which was deemed a computer error. I believe this may be deliberate so as to confuse the original issue of why this editor was blocked. I really do hate to keep slamming this editor, and I am trying to keep my own behavior here in check to avoid an appearance of impropriety. I simply feel this is unacceptable behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And now we have this. Further action may be needed. -OberRanks (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock and endeavored to make the facts apparent to any other admin reviewing the situation in the future. Hopefully he will just take the week off at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this [102] I have reblocked him for one week with talk page and email access disabled, and warned him that further socking will result in an indef block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a loose understanding that we don't lengthen blocks for individuals sounding off on their talk page. Restricting talk page access may be warranted, but I think setting the length to 72h (+24h to account for block evasion) would be in order. –xeno^talk 23:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks

On Baseball Bugs' talk page, OberRanks has said that I have promised to put material into an article again and again no matter what else anyone thinks about it. This is a lie. I simply stated that I would return the material that was sourced and explained to the article immediately upon unprotection. OberRanks has apparently mistaken the protection of the current version as administrative endorsement of that version. Whilst I have said, " I'm not going away, and I'm not backing down", I never once said anything about repeatedly reverting other editors, violating 3RR, or disobeying any other Wikipedia policy. OberRanks suggested to Baseball Bugs that numerous editors get together, revert me, and then report me for 3RR. He is canvassing, and requesting the assistance of other editors in conspiring against me.Mk5384 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This posting is in my opinion a "revenge post" for the numerous comments I, Bugs, and others have made towards a repeated pattern of disruptive editing. I do not feel my actions broke any policies, especially since this was a single posting on a single user page and not contacting multiple editors as Mk suggests. I don't think any further comments are needed. -OberRanks (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has now gone off the deep end, in my opinion as evident by this posting [103]. Administrator action is needed here and quickly. -OberRanks (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I hold to my view that he needs to be away from this place for a couple of days. He's already logged out, changed IP address and posted to my talk page, which is not a good sign, and he seems to expect instant responses to everything (which may be part of the problem). I don't think anything further need be done right now, I am a big boy and can take a fair bit of name-calling. I suggest those commenting above see if they can distil anything worthwhile from his comments so far - I don't really have an opinion as to whether his complaint is valid or not - and I will leave him some more advice on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What is enormously ironic about all of this, is that the original dispute which set off Mk to this destructive pattern, that of displaying somewhat offensive nicknames in the John Pershing article, may very well come to the conclusion that Mk desires. It does look more and more like we will have those nicknames displayed in a bio info box, but with appropriate reference notes explaining the context. I was at last won over to this way of thinking because yes it is cited and yes, Wikipedia is not censored. So, in the end, Mk may really acted this way for nothing since in the end the user gets what is wanted after all. -OberRanks (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked the article does include the term. That's one of the more bizarre aspects of the whole thing. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – IP blocked for a month - registered editor indeffed

I've just removed a legal threat. Since I'm involved in an on-going dispute (vandalism of my user space; threats on my talk page) with the anon-editor concerned, whom I have also referred to WP:3RR; I invite independent review and, if necessary, please revert me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I warned the IP about the legal threat. Feel free, anyone, to elevate to a block if he persists. –MuZemike 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking about a short rangeblock on that range for edit warring, but it looks like Black Kite semi-protected the article. –MuZemike 16:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, although whoever published the list may have breached the UK Data Protection Act (and then only 'may' - organisation member lists are a bit of a grey area, as the DPA data holder rules were never applied to lists of members or subscribers, to avoid deluging thousands of voluntary Secretaries for every kind of club and society with paperwork), no offence is committed by individuals repeating the leaked secrets. Also, I can find no evidence that Glover sued anyone (successfully or otherwise) over the allegation.

• And what made you think this was a good idea, Andy? Is being a member of the BNP really one of the most significant facts about this person? That article seems to be on a see-saw between hagiography and hatchet-job. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article Andrew Mabbett was created earlier today by User:Anticom1 (which self-identifies as 80.47.85.227) [104] and was speedy deleted as a G10 attack page by myself. Given that, the legal threat, and sundry other vandalism I have blocked the IP for a month (it's dynamic) and the account indefinitely. Black Kite 19:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A pound says this ends up at OTRS, though. And another pound says Angelicum7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same person. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm marking this unresolved, there is a user conduct issue. Andy Mabbett considers that [105] is an acceptable version of the article and reverted to this or similar more than once, then requested a revert to this version on Talk. His preferred version says:

Andrew Glover (born 1962) is a composer and an alleged British National Party member, born in Birmingham, England. He studied in Nottingham and gained his Doctorate in 1994 from Keele University after studying with Dr George Nicholson. He has been a Composition Tutor at Birmingham Conservatoire[1]. [header] In November 2008 Glover was named as a member of the far right British National Party, with an interview with him confirming his membership appearing in the national press [2]. He then denied any connection with the BNP in a later interview [3].

This sets the issue of BNP membership (which is perfectly legal if rather unpopular) as the dominant theme of the article. I am not convinced that Andy Mabbett understands why this is a problem. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the BNP issue likely falls under WP:UNDUE, but otherwise think that this is both a content dispute and a matter of AM being reminded of editorial guidelines. Has AM's reverting to their preferred versions been disruptive and drawn any warning that they have ignored? If not, then this is likely not a matter for admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to try to get Andy to understand this is welcome to try. My own past experience is that he will discount anything said by most people because it fails the Mabbett Reliability Test, i.e. it doesn't agree with Andy therefore it's wrong. You can count me as somewhat jaded on this, but I'm not alone in that as will be obvious to anyone who checks his not entirely glorious history. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I too am unconvinced if he understands the problem, but I'm not sure anything can be done right at the moment without more evidence of recent issues; seems like it's the 'wait and see' phase still. Hang in there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in the past with AM, but I think that process needs to be followed - explain, warn, and then seek admin intervention. Wasn't AM permitted to return to editing after some agreement was made; perhaps there is something there that can be used to persuade him to reread the guidelines (and follow them)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly. I know that every time I've seen him on the noticeboards he has given the impression of being utterly unable to accept anyone else's view of anything,but that could be sampling bias since only the contentious ones come here. I know he's been arbitrated in the past and I know he has an off-wiki reputation as a troll. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New sock of User:Sorrywrongnumber adding unreffed personal info to BLPs

This new editor (User:Stoopach) seems to be an obvious sock of Sorrywrongnumber (most recently known as User:B-Wuuu). They're editing the same articles, and editwarring to add unreferenced information concerning the subjects' personal lives to their BLP articles.

They also created a new article, Jeremy Cox (actor), which is the name that Sorrywrongnumber claimed was his on his User page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Also look at User:Aaaaafslkfjlkdaaaa who just attempted to delete this entry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Second deletion by User:Bbbbbfcbfasasas - clearly Sorrywrongnumber is out of control at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Already blpped. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

user:AAAAaaasaaaa, who removed speedy delete and other tags from the Jeremy Cox article, should also be blocked.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're fast! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's nice when socks telegraph who they are. Saves a lot of time and effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

user:DDDdddddddfaafsafs is next. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think James Kerwin and Chase Masterson should be fully protected for a while, and Jeremy Cox (actor) deleted and salted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

user:EEeeeeelyyyy. (We must have missed a "C" user somewhere). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly User:Ccccccccasjccc, though I would warn against jumpinbg to conclusions (the user hasnt edited yet, as far as I know; I just found them by browsing the new user log). —Soap— 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe all of these have been blocked except for User:DDDdddddddfaafsafs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

C and D now blocked as well. —DoRD (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A possible second "D" is User:Deeeeeddddeeeeee, created at about the same time (somewhat later), but hasn't edited yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User Kwami and "Cantonese"

Without a sign of consensus and with significant disputes, Kwamikagami (talk · contribs), an administrator who has been consistently an "involved party" for the past six months, suddenly moved the disputed "Cantonese (Yue)" page to "Yue Chinese". This is a unilateral move that took place suddenly and without any hint of consensus. There has been many prior calls for Kwami to refrain from moving the page himself because he is so heavily involved in the subject area. He has clearly not heeded these calls. I ask that a non-involved administrator move the page back to its former name, ASAP. Colipon+(Talk) 19:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion, closed now for several weeks, was "Yue Chinese" rather than the temporary straw-poll name, which was never intended to be permanent. By that I don't mean that Yue Chinese won the poll, which is not what decisions are based on (though it did, if narrowly), but that the points of the debate were on that side: Consensus that "Cantonese" should refer to Cantonese; common and technical convention when this distinction is made (either (a) Cantonese vs Canton dialect or Standard Cantonese, or (b) Yue vs Cantonese; again, WP consensus was for the latter when Standard Cantonese was moved to Cantonese); WP's Chinese naming conventions; and WP's dab conventions ("Cantonese (Yue)" being logically incorrect; "Yue (Cantonese)" would have been a correct use of that convention, but there was little desire for that name). kwami (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Kwami, there was no consensus for anything - the archives speak for themselves. Even if you are fully justified, which you are not, you should let an uninvolved party deal with it. It should not take an administrator to know these basic rules of the encyclopedia. And this has happened one too many times. Colipon+(Talk) 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the move, purely on the technical basis that there was not an apparent consensus and that the editor who actioned the previous move is an involved party. Please ensure an uninvolved admin reviews the discussion and determines consensus for any future move. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion closed weeks ago, and nothing's been done. Where do we go from here? kwami (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard was very clear on that: you ask a non-involved admin to review the discussion and determine if a consensus has been reached. You are a veteran administrator, kwami. I feel as though you should know these things before you did the page move. Each time one of these unilateral moves occur, I feel that respect for you from the community decreases. Adminship is a responsibility, not a privilege. Please respect the other parties that have been involved in the discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 06:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami has several times, unilaterally moved several pages around concerning various "Cantonese" articles, against previously established consensus, with only one or two editors agreeing with him, even though pages have had WP:RM discussions establishing names. (see the talk archives for Cantonese, Cantonese (Yue), and several other Cantonese articles) I think it is highly inappropriate for him to move any of the Cantonese articles, since he is an involved editor who knows that there are disputes in the naming of the article, yet ignores the years worth of discussions that he has been invloved with in the naming of the articles. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The years of discussion have arrived at "Cantonese" and "Yue Chinese", as you presumably know. kwami (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the consensus should be enacted by an uninvolved party. It ensures that instances such as these do not occur. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• AFAICT, Kwamikagami's admin actions (unilateral page moves) at Cantonese go as far back as December 2008. They are of great concern, as he is clearly an involved editor pushing some sort of agenda, and should not be involved in actions of this type. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Continued canvassing of AfD nominations

I was going to make a report at WP:SPI, but I have no current evidence of sockpuppetry. For now, it will be shown here. User:Lời chào và lời chào, User:Joker264, and User:SuperHappyPerson have been going around on WP:AFD and been both nominating articles for deletion and group-voting delete on nominations, right after each other most of the time. Furthermore, they almost always use the exact same wording in their delete votes. They all appear to be single purpose accounts that were created less than two weeks ago and have only been voting on AfD since their creation. Evidence of this can be seen here: [106], [107], [108]. Silverseren^C 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't even think there is circumstantial evidence of canvassing or meatpuppetry. I'm not seeing a problem here. The articles on which the three of them have !voted together are a small proportion of the number of AfDs that they have participated in individually. Its not alarming that AfD regulars will cross paths in a number of AfD debates. The patterns are also different: each user has a different style of edit summary for instance and they !vote keep on quite a few occasions. New accounts going straight to AfD is unusual, but not necessarily evidence of untoward behaviour. I would want substantially more evidence before supporting a SPI here: there is nothing disruptive happening and the circumstantial evidence is very thin. Finally, a lot of AfD regulars start out as rabid deletionists and mellow over time. Lets be careful not to bite potentially constructive contributors. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing does look a little fishy, though. SuperHappyPerson created his account in September 2009--then only sporadic edits until just a few days ago, and all on AfDs. Blueboy96 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's fishy. Many editors (myself included) have sporadic edits for months or years before ploughing into AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but SuperHappyPerson had only three edits in September '09, then nothing until recently. Blueboy96 22:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How does that matter? He made a few edits with a new account, went on his merry way, and then decided to edit again and wanted to contribute to AfDs... That is a AGF explanation that is a much more reasonable suspicion than an accusation of sockpuppetry.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks a lot like Dalejenkins, but we ran a checkuser on him a few weeks ago and these weren't caught, so it probably isn't him. The only user that could be him is the joker one, as he was created after the latest check. I'm willing to start up one to see if the joker is it if anyone thinks that it will be useful. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI's aren't for fishing. A new user should not be subjected to a SPI merely because he or she participates in a few AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I whacked a sock of Dale after he nominated an article that I created for deletion. I only found out after another editor notified me. He came on, used Wikilawyering, and I was suspicious. I added him to the active investigation, and the sock was blocked. Interestingly, the creator of that SPI was a sock of another user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but basically anyone who edits from the UKs biggest ISP is being whacked as a sock of Dale ... Black Kite 01:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We only knocked off about 7 socks, and these all participate in deletion discussions. He seems to have slowed down popping up again, so I'm hopeful that these ones aren't connected. Why they were linked to Dale at the SPI, I won't know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have opened an investigation here as vote evasion is clearly going on. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Joker64's first edits were to create an article, GTA-NeXt Network (coi there also) which was speedied by user:Bwilkins. Then he attacked Bwilkins on the 11th [109] suggesting that other articles such as Myspace be deleted, using the phrase 'double-edged sword'. Three days later, Superhappyperson, whose only edits before were in September, starts voting delete on articles for deletion, in one 6 minute burst voting on 9 articles. On the 26th Joker64, having made no other edits since his attack on BWilkins, starts voting on a number of articles giving no specific reason except lack of notability, no evidence he's checked to see, in one 6 minute burst voting on 9 articles. Also on the 26th L?i chào và l?i chào arrives, creates a userpage and then nominates 2 articles for deletion, if you look at these other editors suggest bad faith . We now have a clerk report saying "I'm positive that SuperHappyPerson is related, based upon the account name and MO. Lời chào và lời chào also displays a similar style to SuperHappyPerson, in that they include "*delete" in their edit summaries. Joker264 (talk · contribs) is pretty off from the typical MO, so I haven't endorsed to preform a check on them. Note that last time a check was preformed on Dalejenkins the range was too wide to effectively search for sleepers, so there's no reason to suppose that these accounts can't be related just because they didn't show up in the last check". I don't see these as new users, the AfDs I've looked are criticised as not being good faith AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't get what the clerk was trying to do there. Personally, I don't want to put a link between them and Supertart, I just want them all checked so this can be closed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Joker265 is probably someone else, but the other two are two of the twenty or so socks of User:Mynameisstanley that I just blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Flash mobs and editing in bad faith

There has been an article about Joseph Rowbottom that has existed for about nine months. Rowbottoms were spontaneous gatherings where some mayhem ensued. I added this to the article on flash mobs, User:Mkdw and I traded reversions. Mkdw just upped the ante by nominating the first article for speedy deletion. I really don't want to escalate this any further. Philly jawn (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

/sigh, I saw this coming as I made a discussion for it at Talk:Flash mob. Firstly, I investigated the article Joseph Rowbottom after a reference was added to Flash mob. The person, and seemingly the 'term', are references to rioting at the University of Philadelphia. This does not coincide with the social gathering and performance art that is described as flash mobs. Also, after reading the article Joseph Rowbottom I found it was an orphan article and none of the sources asserted notability, and its sources were mainly university newspaper articles citing not really the term but a reference to the alumni. User:Philly jawn has called me out of bad faith and taken exception to these actions, but I do stand by them and was willing to discuss them. As far as being summoned here, nothing has been done to really warrant it, but I'm willing to participate in any admin moderated discussion. Mkdw^talk 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... I suppose now it does as the editor continues to remove the A7 and maintenance tags after being instructed on the proper method of contesting tags and A7's. It appears the editor, obviously has some connection to Philadelphia, has a conflict of interest as they are now trying to barter with the article negotiating to leave Flash mob alone if I remove my A7's. Mkdw^talk 03:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mkdw is driving and edit war and is very close to 3RR. Philly jawn (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• In an act of retribution, Mkdw just put a warning on my talk page ... after putting the speedy tag back on the article. Would someone please intervene? Philly jawn (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider it a warranted warning considering you have removed the maintenance tags three times with out attempting to resolve their concerns and titling the edit summaries as bad faith tags... Mkdw^talk 03:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of going through an AfD, Mkdw has pushed this dispute because of the addition of the material to the flash mob article. It was in fact somewhat relevant. Mkdw wasn't really interested in discussing it. The rowbottom article was not in fact an orphan and it did have references when I took those tags off, Mkdw added them back on. I just reported Mkdw for edit warring. Philly jawn (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

At the time those tags were added, the only page that linked to it were its own redirects. This editor has since been adding its link to other articles and has then come back here claiming it wasn't an orphan article. Mkdw^talk 03:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• It always had the references. Yes, when I took the orphan tag off, I had added links, but that's what I said. Philly jawn (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I have a proposal. Both of you, for the next week you are not to comment on each other or make any edits in respect of Rowbottom. You should both leave the AfD to run its course and allow the community to form a judgement. Once the AfD is settled you can then discuss on the article talk pages whether the content merits inclusion there. The alternative is probably less to your liking since I think this is a very silly fight and needs to stop, if necessarily forcibly. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why we're here at the AN/I when I went to Talk:Flash mob#Rowbottom openly willing to discuss this but was immediately summoned here. Considering User:Philly jawn removed the A7 from Joseph Rowbottom three times rather than letting the process run or use {{hang on}}, and that I restored the A7 is outside the WP:3RR and if Philly hadn't been a more established editor would be seen as persistent vandalism. Personally, I can't see any enforceable action that could be taken. At least none that wouldn't be uncontroversial as really this was a premature reporting. At this point, the request for the A7 was declined by an admin, which is all part of the process and has now gone to AfD. I welcome any discussion as to the merits or demerits of whether the topic will stick on Wikipedia. The results of such will determine its inclusion on its corresponding pages. Mkdw^talk 08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I don't really care that much. You've AfD'd the article, sit back and let process run. Then we can talk about it. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mkdw was completely driving an edit war, and was being vindictive. An enlightened editor would have opened the discussion first, before slapping the speedy on the article. This kind of behavior needs to be noted, especially since the {{speedy}} was in bad faith and an editor not trying to be a bully would have found a better way. It's outrageous to slap a speedy tag on an established article and not talk abou it first. There are a lot of other manners to deal with an article one doesn't like. You'll see that the article in question has been transformed by an enlightened editor. Philly jawn (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Closing statement. User:Father Goose did a fantastic job revamping the article and I have withdrawn my nomination. As for administrative actions taken here and at WP:AN3, the findings at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mkdw_reported_by_User:Philly_jawn_.28Result:_no_action.29 concluded that I was falsely and unwarrantably reported. The admin even suggests that User:Philly jawn may have been in the wrong. For myself I find this wrapped up and a situation to walk away from. Mkdw^talk 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Kudos to Father Goose. Mkdw ... "falsely and unwarrantably reported"? Hardly, but if it helps you to believe that ... what was actually said, "The listed diffs do not exceed WP:3RR, the edit war is presumably over now that the article is at AfD" Your actions have shown a lack of civility, and had you shown even a modicum of class and been more cooperative this would not have gone as far as it has. Next time, don't try to be a bully. Signing off. Philly jawn (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I made the attempt to discuss it at Talk:Flash mob#Rowbottom and you never even replied nor made an attempt on my talk page and immediately reported me here and at WP:AN3. Call me a bully, but at least I tried to talk it out with you than running here to see if I could get you banned. Mkdw^talk 07:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User disregarding consensus and guidelines, forcing edits through

User:Magicianbink has been continually forcing his edits through on the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 article and other video games in the same series. Me and several other editors have opposed his edits which consist solely of adding lists of music used in the game(s), and his responses so far have been: Personal attacks[110], forcing his edits through[111](by his own admission), and just circumventing the consensus, which is against adding the listcruft he wants to add. We have explained why the information is inappropriate, which guidelines apply, we have tried explaining how he could go about it in another way, the general response is: The rules support what HE is saying. So, the next logical step is bringing it here. Eik Corell (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

- Hello this is magicianbink, I have tried on numerous occasions to work with both Eik Corell and Falcon9x5 to find a way that i can update the article and provide information that is relevant to the the Tony Hawks Pro skater series, while i understand the a basic list of songs Isn't conducive to a good article i have explained my intentions of improving that format, which has only been met with further negativity. As a person who has followed the series and have used these articles for reference i can safely say that the consensus has in the past leaned toward content edited in a somewhat similar fashion to my own, and those editors have also been met by pressure and bullying by users that by my own experience have no inclination to compromise. I understand there are rules but there are also exceptions to these rules otherwise why would there be any debate at all or the need for any means of consensus if these rules were so set in stone Magicianbink (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like to point out that Magicianbink hasn't tried to "find a way" to update the article, and has essentially ignored the four separate times I've tried to give advice on how to include the music[112][113][114][115], three separate times on the alternate ways he can work on the list without leaving it half finished on the article itself[116][117][118], and has instead repeatedly reinserted the list (which I and Eik above feel is gamecruft, listcruft etc) without modification. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Misuse by User:Baa

I hate doing this but I have to report this user. He has used rollback correctly, but also uses it incorrectly. He misuses it too much. I post my warning to him here which explains where i found his misuse, but if you look at his history there is more.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback is a privilege NOT a right. You have been misusing it by using it to revert edits that are clearly not vandalism. I stumbled upon you revert on My Gym Partner's a Monkey to IP user 68.19.165.98 & 72.198.204.240 which were not vandalism. They just added a fact that the show was showing again, which it is. I was just going to warn you about this, but then I looked at your history and I was deeply disappointed in what I saw. You made two inappropriate reverts on Cartoon Network, one to List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes, The Powerpuff Girls and others. I'm going to have to report you to have your rollback revoked. This is too much. Your report will be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to illustrate your report so that we all aren't required to search through their contributions. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the ones that I found.

[119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127]

As you can see, I only went back up to March 19.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the ones you point out there, each of those diffs I perceive as being vandalism by being either disruptive or wholly inaccurate and usually prolonged over several edits where I need to rollback most of their recent edits for being wilful addition of opinion or factually inaccurate content across several articles. I'll admit that I do on occasion misuse rollback if only in order to shorten the amount of clicks I make but that sort of thing is minimal so I'd like to see better examples of my blatant and wanton misuse. baa! _radda 13:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out WP:VANDAL. Adding content, even if wrong headed or plain wrong, is not vandalism. Many forms of disruptive editing (POV pushing, hypernationalism, inserting unsourced BLP information) is NOT vandalism, and rollback should not be used.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you thought it was vandalism why didn't you warn the user (I'm glad you didn't since it wasn't). If you think it's vandalism you warn the user. If you aren't willing to warn a user about an edit that's a good sign that its not vandalism.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your rollback, Baa. I don't think you mean harm but the fact is you admit you sometimes misuse rollback intentionally and you don't seem to understand that rollback is only provided as an anti-vandalism tool, not to reduce the number of clicks you need to make when reverting for editorial or content reasons. Misusing rollback can damage the project and scare off good faith newbie editors who don't understand why you're reverting them. If you're reverting good faith but poor quality edits, they should get an explanation for the revert so they know what they're doing wrong and can improve. You can use undo etc for now and once you've demonstrated you understand the appropriate way to use automated tools and will only use them appropriately regardless of whether it requires an extra click or not, you can request the tool be returned to you. Sarah 05:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AfD nominating restrictions for User:Delicious carbuncle

I'm proposing that User:Delicious carbuncle be restricted from nominating Gay porn actors for WP:AFD. All the recent ones i've found, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elena_Shportun, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Stone, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lea_De_Mae, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Volny, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay exorcism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio. In almost all the cases, Delicious carbuncle is the only one who supports delete, and the articles are easily kept. The nominations seem WP:POINTY to me and not enough WP:BEFORE is done before the nomination. There seems to be issues between User:Ash and him/her at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films CTJF83 chat 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is unusually off-target, even for this interminable sideshow. Three of the six AFD nominations presented as "evidence" have nothing to do with gay pornography; the other three targeted articles which, at the time of nomination, neither included legitimate assertions of notability nor significantly cited reliable sources (and usually were unsourced). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• RFC/U is the appropriate venue for this, as is the dispute with Ash. Limitations on the right of individual uses to raise xFD discussions has, I believe, been something that ANI is very wary of touching and I'm also curious why you notfied Benjiboi of this proposal when they do not appear to be affected by the proposal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In fact, After raising this, you notified DC, and then Ash, benjiboi and Bearian, two of who have expressed strong opposition to DCs nominations and I'm sure I have seen Bearian disapproving of some of DCs nominations in AFD discussions. I'm very curious why you chose to notify 3 users who you might have expected to support your position? Have you read WP:CANVASS recently? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I've notified regulars of WP:LGBT who commented on the AfDs. Clearly if they've been commenting on the AfDs then they'll have first hand experience with the situation. You should AGF. Who else would you like me to notify? CTJF83 chat 08:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Ahem, you chose 3 users with cleat views on DCs nominations. You either need to leave a neutral note on the wikiproject talk page, notify everyone who commented on the AFDs or only notify DC. Otherwise I really cannot see this was anything other then canvassing, inadvertant or not, your choices demonstrate a clear preference for who you were inviting to comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Notifying every person clearly isn't "limited posting" CTJF83 chat 08:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm curious why you are arguing the toss rather then accepting you just inadvertantly screwed up? It was clearly not intentional but its a shame you seem unwilling to learn from your mistake. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
            • I've removed the notice from benjiboi and Bearian, and left the other 2, as they are the main 2 involved in the dispute, and I'll put a notice on WT:LGBT when it is decided that I need to start a RFC/U CTJF83 chat 08:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz, considering your vigorous defense of Delicious carbuncle and Wikipedia Review on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ash/analysis_(2nd_nomination) you are an involved party. Perhaps you would do everyone the courtesy of making that clear before complaining about anyone else? Ash (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Ash, I was unaware of Spartaz one-sidedness on the issue CTJF83 chat 09:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved in this discussion at all and agree totally with Spartaz points. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) Stones and glass houses anyone? I have made a handfull of edits to wikipedia review in the last 2 years and I did not defend it at the MFD. What I did do was ask you and benjiboi to stop making unevidenced allegations and reminded you of a recent arbitration case that covered the circumstances exactly. That is hardly partisan and neither is responding to a canvassing note that popped up on my watchlist. If I hadn't had to warn you and benjiboi neither of your pages would have been on my watchlist. On the same subject are you going to leave a similar warning to Ctjf83, given that they recently begged you to resume editing? Surely their raising of this thread was also partisan or does it only count when someone else does it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What does me telling a good editor to come back have to do with anything? CTJF83 chat 09:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also up until Ash pointed out the MfD, I was unaware of that discussion. CTJF83 chat 09:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That MFD is just one of the many bits and pieces that make up this intractable dispute and I'm not suggesting for a moment that you had seen it or that it was the slightst bit relevant to this proposal anyway. It does show, however, why this needs to go to RFC/U as ANI is the wrong place for insightful and thoughful commentary on complicated and convoluted disputes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And no-one is suggesting that you should go of half-cocked, but, until you are ready to raise the RFC, there is also no justification for anyone to try and advance the dispute by other means - especially by raising it everywhere and anywhere without seeking formal DR. (Not suggesting this is you Benjiboi and I thought your response to my warning on your talkpage was well balanced and understood both sides of the issue). I can see how Ash feels sensitive about wikipedia review but a good example of how refusing to take formal DR is also uncollegiate and disruptive is the way that anyone who has a wikipedia account is being characterised as as being partisan against Ash. Its not only a little paranoid but fails to reflect the diversity of opinion on that site and is a massive ABF as well. Ironically I would have never picked up on the canvassing if I hadn't had your talkpage on my watchlist after leaving you that warning. I don't think I'm taking any sides when I say this needs to go to DR sooner rather then later unless everyone involved in this dispute is willing to stop shouting "abuse" at the other side and muddyingh the water everytime there is a discussion. Life would be much more relaxed and less stressful if everyone could do this and, I don't think I'm being unreasonable, to say that it is absolutely unacceptable to keep accusing the other side of wrongdoing while steadfastly refusing to undertake formal DR. This is extremely disruptive and I'm sure I'm not the only one getting very tired of the way this dispute keeps running on and on and on and on and on.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Formal DR was being sought, the MFD was for an evidence/draft page that would be then converted to the RFCU page. This personal offsite targeting of Ash therefore disrupted a part of formal DR process. As soon as this page was created Delicious carbuncle disrupted it, made threats to escalate if their 15 minute, then 1 hour timeline to delete were not met, they forum-shopped and then MFD'd twice. When the 2nd MfD wasn't getting obviously deleted the offsite Wikipedia Review harassment of Ash started. Throughout this entire ordeal it's pretty easy to see Delicious carbuncle's actions have led the way for admin board threads and one dramatic episode after the next. The RFCU should easily bear this out and demonstrate that Ash, myself and the anon IP are but the latest three editors in Delicious carbuncle's crosshairs. If any editors has a string of uncivil interactions all essentially saying editor x is harassing me there is reasonable concern that editor x indeed has some communication issues if nothing else. Unfortunately it seems there are more serious issues at hand and although other editors didn't want to escalate Delicious carbuncle has worked to do so repeatedly. This indeed needs the attention of the wider community. As JzG|Guy suggests below Delicious carbuncle may be trying to make a point but when making a point is itself disruptive, and I would say needlessly so, then the issue becomes the disruptive behaviours. If you feel all gay porn should be eliminated then simply state so civilly without targeting other editors, without needless and prolonged admin board threads which everyone ignores so you prop it up with multiple subsections and inviting other editors to comment. No, sorry , Delicious carbuncle has continuously chosen the path of most aggression and disruption. How it should be sorted is yet to be determined. -- Banjeboi 12:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I'm not in the mood for your confabulations today. I think it is well-known that Greg Kohs owns and runs Wikipedia Review, not me. If you think I'm a Kohs sockpuppet, just say so. Otherwise, please stop trying to associate me with that site and your latest conspiracy theory. Ash asked for the fabled RFC/U to be deleted, but I requested that they file it instead. It is now blanked but still there so that you can file it. If you don't, it will likely be deleted when the MfD ends. Please file it. I don't plan on saying anything else in this thread because it is just a waste of everyone's time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Deliicious carbucle please don't allege I'm lying or otherwise put words in my mouth. I've repeatedly asked you to leave me alone, stop wikibullying me and repeat that request here unambiguously. It's you gay cabal theory, your behaviours and your deletion of all content gay porn that is the issue here. I feel you should be put on a civility ban, an admin board board ban and frankly a topic ban from LGBT content broadly construed but at least starting with all gay porn content as you routinely game Wikipedia's rules. This seems to be good sport at Wikipedia Review and other offsite arenas but if you wish to insinuate that you don't participate and discuss me, my editing, Ash, their editing etc then please just state that outright. Don't bluster how you are so offended at being associated with a controversial website, If you like engaging on Wikipedia Review at least admit it. You seem eager to out who you think i am why don't you be upfront about who you are and what you do for a loving and all your possible COIs? My concern has been on your poor behaviours towards myself and others but if you want to cast shame publicly on others than your comrades on Wikipedia Review should be eager to do the same for you right? Why exactly are you so focussed on gay porn and LGBT-focussed editors? You can certainly see how these questions are generally unproductive yet you continually take this exact same tact toward those who you seem you seem to disapprove. -- Banjeboi 13:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread shows that the "BADSITES meme" is still alive despite all Guy and friends might do to call it a "dead horse", but it's the first I've heard that Greg Kohs allegedly owns WR; that's news to everybody on that site. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dan, as far as I can tell nobody even mentioned links. I can't imagine why you even bother with this crap, you only have 15 mainspace edits this year and 36 edits total including the comment, you've basically left the project. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the extended meme-complex surrounding the "BADSITES" concept, including all sorts of demonization of criticism sites, the blaming of all the troubles of Wikipedia on them, and using participation in them as a nasty accusation to levy against somebody one is in a dispute with, rather than the narrow concept of whether one ought to link to the sites in question. As for my own participation, yes, I kind of got bored with editing quite a while ago, stuck around mostly for the drama, but eventually got bored with the drama too; for a while I found WR more amusing than WP since, as Billy Joel said, "the sinners are much more fun", but by now that's mostly a snoozefest for me too. I keep a slight eye on both sites in the hopes of occasionally stumbling on something up my alley to jump into, and do occasionally make minor constructive WP edits on topics of interest. Meanwhile, for random recreational surfing to follow links to interesting stuff, I find nothing beats TV Tropes; unlike some other wikis, it hasn't done its best to turn "serious" and purge anything fun from it. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is going to fly, DC appears to be acting in good faith albeit with a somewhat elephantine lack of tact. I think there is a serious problem which applies to all porn "biographies" which is that the subjects have close to zero mainstream coverage, the porn industry's internal sources are all unreliable - they never break out of the kayfabe and you can't believe a word they say on biographical matters - and for most of them a typical career will spawn hundreds of straight-to-web films that have a total budget less than one day's shooting of a proper film. My personal view is that we should nuke from orbit any biography that does not have at least one substantial, biographical mainstream source. I think DC is of the same mind, and it seems he's chosen to act on that by examining porn biographies, virtually all of which will fail the test of non-trivial independent reliable mainstream sources. Now I know that some editors think that AVN and the like are reliable, but that is arguable: AVN may well be reliable in terms of listings and the like but I would not trust it any more than any other porn source for biographical detail or indeed for assertions of significance, since it is essentially an industry magazine with an internal promotional agenda.

Rather than arguing the toss it would be much better to invite all interested parties, including DC, to a group RfC to refine the notability guideline to ensure that only those articles which have unambiguously reliable sourcing are retained. And yes, that does (and should) mean losing a number of "biographies" teased out of press releases and other such fluff, this applies just as much to other areas as well. Someone recently pointed out that being considered significant by people within a particular walled garden does not mean that something is significant in the real world. An actor who wins an Oscar or a Golden Globe is very likely to be a household name; an actor could win every single AVN award for which they are eligible for ten years on the trot and most of the world would still never have heard of them, and it's entirely plausible that no reputable biographical coverage would exist for such a person. It's not really our job to fix that, but it does seem to be what some people are trying to do. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another case of protectors of a walled garden trying to get rid of an editor who is dealing with the problem with smears. Probably what's needed is an arbcom not on delicious carbuncle but on Wikproject:Pornmarketing. Much of what Guy rights up above is correct. The self-promotional tools of the porn industry have been elevated to the status of "reliable source" notwithstanding that, as Guy points out, the information they contain is as accurate as the "official" biography's of professional wrestlers and the spiels of carnival barkers.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of bad faith. You have who is doing the smearing exactly backwards and have taken part yourself. You may also want to understand what a walled garden is on Wikipedia. -- Banjeboi 12:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a leap to suggest that all porn bio sources are suspect and all your other statements, well, they are interesting at least. Kayfabe? You're suggesting these actors don't know they're just acting? Or that those who write about porn think it's all real? In any case I think more evidence to show the extent of Delicious carbuncle's efforts in this area would be helpful as this issue has come up, often at their hands, on admin boards at least a dozen times in the last few months. They also want to apply special rules - much as you have suggested - just for this one subject area when generally the same rules apply to all articles and all BLPs are held to a higher standard. I do concur that this thread likely won't have much traction, although I agree in parts, as it's not presented well enough to be persuasive. Delicious carbuncle shows alarmingly poor judgement in at least this subject area and uses the most aggressive tactics to force their view. Namely parading one dramafest after the next to admin board when a civil talkpage thread would achieve the same results and ignoring WP:Before and simply nomming for AfD even after many failed attempts. Back to the notability issues in this one area - the concept that someone could be a major winner of gay porn awards yet virtually unknown to the majority of folks who don't follow the industry? That's pretty much true for every industry and would apply to a majority of all BLPs. I have virtually no knowledge of kayakers or sushi chefs or many professions but if a BLP is getting the major industry awards that would seem to be recognition from those within the industry that they are indeed amongst the most notable. If you were to suggest that the entire industry is non-notable, which is a bit laughable for the gay porn one at least, you may have a point that being notable within the industry is meaningless. In any case this thread likely can be closed as although I agree in part with the concept this is only a part of the problem and this too can be derailed by offsite campaigning at Wikipedia Review. -- Banjeboi 12:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Porn performers invent names, histories and inflated vital statistics and these are repeated as gospel. Individual porn performers are very rarely even mentioned outside of the walled garden of porn so we have no cross-check on these semi-fictional biographical details. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

When does this theatre production close, or is it an indefinite run?

It would be great if Benjiboi or Ash (or Ctjf83 or the anonymous IP troll currently trolling on 38.109.88.180]) would go ahead and file the RFC/U that has been threatened and delayed for months now. I have encouraged them to do so rather than make widespread unsubstantiated (and increasingly bizarre) allegations all over the place. Benjiboi appears to be in no hurry to file an RFC/U, yet is happy to make sweeping personal attacks against me with absolutely no evidence. After I asked for Ash's "neutral analysis" page to be deleted under WP:UP#NOT, they claimed they were preparing an RFC/U and appeared to start preparing one. Although there was no policy or guideline suggesting it, Ash decided to delay filing that RFC/U until an ANI thread concerning their misuse of citations and a WQA thread filing by the anon IP were concluded. When both of those went stale and were archived, did Ash file the RFC/U? No, that was when Ash decided that their safety and the safety of their family was in jeopardy and went into semi-retirement, without specifying the nature of the threat, whether the threat was on- or off-wiki, and the person or persons making the threat. Yet their user page now states that they "shall continue to be available for supporting any remaining dispute resolution processes". So why not simply file the RFC/U if they are prepared to be involved in one filed by another editor?

I'm tired of this nonsense. Gay porn BLPS and the editors involved (including me) will end up at ARBCOM eventually, because it seems to be too touchy a subject for most admins to deal with. The sooner it gets there the better as far as I am concerned. Once the serious issues in this topic area have been addressed, I will happily move on to something else, but I doubt that will happen without either a whole bunch more drama or a modicum of adult behaviour. I would much prefer the latter, but past experience shows me that some editors would rather be dragged kicking and screaming to RFCs that I will have to file myself, where they can do their best to use examples of my "elephantine lack of tact" to distract attention from their own activities. If that's how it has to be, then so be it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be your goal and I think Arbcom would be an excellent place to address your behaviours towards other editors. As to the FRCU you have thwarted that process by threatening the draft page and trying to get it deleted multiple times so your RFCU will have to wait until Ash's oversight requests can be addressed. It's sad this has been derailed by personal attacks on them but sadly this is also unsurprising. -- Banjeboi 12:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also please do not call editors trolls, this is a personal attack for which you've been warned several times. -- Banjeboi 12:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File an RFC or pass go and directly file an arbcom case. Either that, or shut up about it. As for the "grabby awards" the "escort (two-dollar word for "hooker") of the year award sourcing" the myspace pages of porn stars, no, they're entirely unreliable in the real world. Laughably so. There's nothing "touchy" about Gay porn articles, anymore so than the other porn articles. It's just that you have an involvement with the porn industry benji and vociferously defend those egregious little articles, so when gay porn is under the microscope you notice and react. Most of the straight porn is as craptastic on wikipedia of course, but at least one doesn't have to deal with the implications of homophobia, hate crimes and the rest of that kind of shrill bleating when dealing with it.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFCU was in process which Delicious carbucle thwarted at every step. Please dial down the rest of your nonsense unless you care to share with everyone your contact information identity, profession and all possible COIs, etc? My "involvement" with the porn industry is not the issue here although if Arbcom perceives any COI they are welcome to ask. MySpace BTW can be a reliable source even on a BLP but certainly should be handled on a case by case basis. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure this is, as DC and Bali Ultimate say, in the "put up or shut up" stage? File the RFC/U or cut the crap. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFCU was in process which Delicious carbucle thwarted at every step, thank you for !voting. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless Delicious Carbuncle's "thwarting" physically prevents every one of you guys from pressing "Save page" in the appropriate place, the RFC/U could be filed right now. File it or shut up about it. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. File it or drop it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. The only thwarting of any sort I can see is you choose to come here to file a complaint and then wasted a lot of time debating when people told you from the get go 'just file the RFC/U'. I'm often guilty of getting into long-winded pointless arguments myself, but at least I don't complain that it was the other parties fault that I wasn't able to do something more productive Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC/U was created on March 10, not "months ago" as Dc maintains, and within a week, Dc was AfDing it. It was NEVER resolved to actually BE deleted by consensus or opinion, but was willingly deleted after repeated bullying and harassing by aggressive editors. So let me ask a fair question: should the RFC/U be posted incompletely with blanks to be filled in (which, of course, would lead to an easy dismissal)? Or should multiple involved editors work on it separately offline and be forced to coordinate efforts "behind the scenes", only to be accused of off-site ganging later? Or perhaps allow the TENTATIVE, unsearchable, preparatory RFC/U to be placed fairly on a userpage without intimidation or threats or name-calling until it is ready? Take your pick, and state how WikiPolicy says to proceed. (PS- Stop calling me a troll, Dc, or follow the dispute resolution process to end what you maintain is such poor behavior on my part.) 38.109.88.180 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

PS- Just an easygoing question for Dc: are you saying you'll participate willingly in an Arbcom? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to privately work on whatever you want to offline. But the unsubstantiated attacks have to stop. If you file an arbcom or whatever you'll need diffs as evidence. If you continue to make these allegations without diffs, your position will be judged by arbcom and likely acted upon. For instance: In your latest post IP you allege "bullying and harassing" "threats" "intimidation" "name-calling" with, yet again, no evidence whatsoever. I'm surprised DC has been so patient. Stop with the personal attacks until you can provide evidence. Is that so hard for you and your pals? If all you have is insinuations of some kind of off wikipedia "campaign" and we've had talk of "hate crimes" "homophobia" vague references to "attacks" that have Ash fearing for his "safety" (or "security"; he's used both terms) from Ash. How many diffs have been provided by the lot of you to back up those rather serious allegations? Zero. So enough already with the bullshit. It just looks like a childish attempt at poisoning the well. Come forward with evidence when and if you have it, at an RFC/U, at Arbcom, really wherever the fuck you like. Until you have evidence (see wp:diff for what's meant here) put a sock in it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not ever weighed in on the issue of "hate crimes" or "off-wiki campaigning" or even "homophobia". I defy you to find ONE mention by me of my opinion about those allegations against Dc. I'm not interested in them, and you won't find anything in that vein. What I AM interested in (including ALL DIFFS you requested), can be found at my archived yet unresolved WQA...which include behaviors which have actually intensified since my filing of it and despite the warning to Dc's talk page for such simple behaviors to cease by a third, uninvolved party. To be honest, I wish Dc would stop being "so patient with me" and would IMMEDIATELY begin participating in the dispute resolution process, instead of simply brushing my efforts at civility aside while continuing bullying, intimidating, and name-calling (again, diffs in the WQA). Stop putting words in my mouth. Stop putting deformed variants of my fair questions IN my mouth. Stop thinking that everyone who wants his poor editing behavior wants it to end for exactly the same reason, and stop thinking that his poor editing behavior is limited to one simple pattern (which, if you include the opinions of the many parties involved, it seems not). And stop with the foul, crude, childlike, uncalled for language. And if you want, you're welcome to begin your OWN DR process with me for any of my edits...if you can find any diffs to provide. Otherwise, over and out. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For fucks sake: You don't understand "dispute resolution." The WQA that you filed was not acted upon. So nothing egregious was found there. If i understand what DC wants, in your specific case IP, is for you to stop flinging around unsupported allegations. That's essentially as i understand it his problem with Ash and Benji. As for his "poor editing behavior," well, that seems to just mean that "he disagrees with you on inclusion standards." Nothing could be more appropriate than nominating what he believes to be inappropriate content for deletion. I mean, you can keep fucking saying "poor editing behavior" and it means nothing without fucking diffs. In as much as i have a dispute with you, it's annoyance that you continue to attack someone else without any evidence (or any clear purpose i can divine beyond attempting to poison the well). I don't need to enter "dispute resolution" to point out that's inappropriate behavior and expect that you'll stop. You, specifically IP have written, right on this page of "bullying and harassing" "threats" "intimidation" and "name-calling" (beyond him calling you a troll, which is pretty weak sauce when placed against allegations of "bullying and harassment," there has been no "name-calling") with nary a diff to support these frankly absurd allegations ("bullying?" Really. Did he threaten to beat you up if you don't give him your lunch money?).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Way to AGF and CIV, there, Bali. For the record, you didn't address three main facts that I've pointed out:

(1) I haven't made the same allegations as other editors, and the allegations I've made have not been addressed. A WQA being archived doesn't mean there was no validity to it...and, indeed, action was taken on it...an action which Dc chose to ignore.

(2) Except for one occasion, Dc and I have not disagreed on "inclusion standards" (and that was on the formatting of a talk page). (And I've even agreed with his decisions on inclusion standards, on occasion, if you'll note.) In fact, our disagreements are (in the simplest terms) on his continued refusal to conform to the 5P's while dealing with other editors. S/he BITES, refuses to abide by a TRUCE, name-calls (out of nowhere), demands account information which just does not exist, doesn't AGF, and GRIEFs.

(3)If you or any other editor has a problem with the way I edit, begin formal dispute resolution. And provide diffs, much as I did in the WQA (which, it seems, you haven't even taken a whiff of.)

I'm not going to engage you anymore, since you're clearly not interested in listening. Start formal DR towards my edits if you don't like 'em. I believe they'll stand up to your foul mouth any day. Ta, sweetie. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Provocative prose does not work here because you fail to understand what has repeatedly been explained to you: Here, any claim without evidence is totally ignored (that is, if no evidence is produced after a request). Before you start posting random diffs hoping to confuse, bear in mind that evidence that does not support the claims means there will be an even smaller chance of success in your mission. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that pointing out how a thread has been dragged off-topic was "provocative prose". I pointed out where Dc made a 2-week wait for an Rfc to be filed into a "six-month" drama and how none of the things I'm being accused of saying have been said by me. My mission is only to have my edits respected (or at least ignored) by Dc rather than have them disparaged for no reason. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A number of uninvolve editors have suggested "put up or shut up", and I think they're right. I think the suggestion to file the RfC/U is a good one. Or better, take it directly to ArbCom, that way all the editors involved will be examined. That may not work out quite the way some might hope though. ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Which brings us right back to a simple question: Just an easygoing question for Dc: are you saying you'll participate willingly in an Arbcom? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Threat by jbolden1517

Jbolden1517 recently threatened me in the midst of a mediation case. [128] He's since deleted the post without being prompted to do so and I am therefore not asking for administrative action. However, I felt that I should note the issue here in the event that he continues to threaten me. I take the matter rather seriously as I've not attempted to conceal my real-world identity. Eugene (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with your actions. I would suggest you save the URL for the diff where you added the above comment to ANI somewhere, so if a further ANI case needs to be made you have your initial action there to evidence. SGGH ^ping! 10:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also save the diff of your WP:AGF comment on his talk page for further evidence. We won't take any more action now as that would just turn embers into flames. SGGH ^ping! 10:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the original posting here, User:Jbolden1517 has simply re-posted a similar threat on Eugeneacurry's own talk page [129]. IRL threats are completely unacceptable here, and I have therefore blocked jbolden1517 until they can work in a more collegial manner. Black Kite 11:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Gloisen

Since I nominated Punggol Primary School for afd, the article's creator, User:Gloisen, has vandalized Wikipedia:Vandalism, nominated Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia for afd, and has put an afd tag on Punggol Secondary School and directed it to the afd for Punggol Primary School. Woogee (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And now they've nominated Lady GaGa for afd. Woogee (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not currently holding a bit or I would block them for you but AIV seems the quickest place to end this... Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But they haven't received a full complement of warnings. Till now. I just gave them a blp4 warning for not only nominating Barack Obama for afd, but adding BLP violations to the article. Woogee (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

According to their User page, they're a primary school student. Woogee (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And now they're blocked. Woogee (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Spamming of notable articles on AfD by User:Spacefarer

Resolved

 – I've closed them as speedy keep as the nominations were obviously disingenuous. I've also warned Spacefarer about making such nominations. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just ran across three AfD nominations, [130], [131], and [132], which are all clearly notable articles that have a high number of references, but have been nominated by User:Spacefarer, all with the rationale of "lack of notability". This seems like WP:POINT to me, along with a number of other policy disruptions. I'm just putting this up here to see what the correct course of action is. Silverseren^C 08:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Long term IP range vandalism problem from "Satan"

Considering the history of vandalism from this IP range has been tracked over the last 2 months, see Wikipedia:Abuse response/75.2xx.xxx.xxx, perhaps it's time for some considered action? As I have been forced to stop using my Wikipedia account for working on articles, I may not be following up on this particular problem in the future. Ash (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never done a range block, but according to [133], just looking at the 23 "newer" listings in that abuse response report, a range block of that magnitude could inadvertently affect a lot of people. (So many, I wonder if something is wrong. It says, and I quote, "(up to 4194304 users would be blocked)") The activity seems to be limited to one page. In accordance with WP:PP, since the article itself is open, I have semi-protected Talk:Church of Satan for two weeks, which can be extended if necessary. If somebody familiar with range blocks drops by and realizes that this isn't quite the magnitude my blockcalc results suggest, perhaps they can make short work of this and open the talk page for editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that all of the IPs in that list are either in the range 75.200.0.0 - 75.203.255.255 or 75.248.0.0 - 75.251.255.255. So I would hypothesize that Satan doesnt have access to the entire range 75.192.0.0 - 75.255.255.255, but only to two much smaller ranges that fall within it (and appear to be owned by the same ISP). I'm not an administrator, and wouldn't feel comfortable with even a small rangeblock if I were, but if someone does feel that a range block is appropriate I am pointing out that it wouldnt necessarily have to be a huge one. —Soap— 14:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. Blocking over 4 million people to protect that talk page seems a bit extreme. :) Perhaps an experienced rangeblock admin (or exorcist) will wander by who can determine if that rangeblock is more reasonable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Persistent implicit reverting

Last year I noticed administrators about arrogant bearing of Zen-in that was reverting systematically all my edits in various pages and finally he caused an edit war. Now, he begins doing the same in the Counter page trying to conceal his revertings by misleading and meaningless summaries in the subject line ("Corrected error in description", "Corrected grammar", "Repaired illogical sentence", "Syntax correction"...) Actually, he has reverted the current page to the state before my edits. Here is the history of these hidden reverting shown by the differences with the previous versions (the misleading comments are shown in round brackets):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=351577900&oldid=351519656 (Corrected error in description)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359224&oldid=352199087 (Corrected grammar, repaired illogical sentence)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359658&oldid=352359224 (?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=352359658 (syntax correction)

And this is the "difference" between the initial (before my edits) and the current state of the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=350904704

As you can see, the only "difference" is... the word "two"; the only Zen-in contribution to this page is one word?!?!?!? What does it mean? What is it?

I consider Zen-in actions as a kind of "internal vandalism" done by a Wikipedian. Such unreliable people do not deserve to be Wikipedians. Please, take the according precautions to prevent the coming edit war.

I have supplied all my edits with comprehensive comments written in the bottom subject line. But, if it is needed, I can first comment every my edit on the talk page and then to move it to the main page.

Circuit dreamer (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

new sockpuppet of banned user UCLAcdemic

User UCLAcdemic was banned in the last days, as well as some of his sockpuppets. Well, 67.188.204.114 is a new sockpuppet, which earlier today even vandalised my user page [134]. His other sockpuppet ip's include 74.50.125.97, 75.127.67.114 (both blocked). User:Gabagool/sig 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, the article in question is Islam in Denmark. His ranting can be found on its talk page, where it is obvious that the ip's are sockpuppets. He also proclaimed at the banning of his account that he were now to evade the ban by use of sockpuppets. User:Gabagool/sig 13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

67.188.204.114 blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 15:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:79.69.124.107: Vandalism and misuse of Wikipedia for political purposes

A new user (the type one could fear would be vulnerable to Al-Qaeda recruitment efforts) is misusing Wikipedia as a place to place hateful messages, links to YouTube, etc:

• 79.69.124.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I placed a welcome template and warnings on their talk page. They have replaced them.

Contributions

• 11:51, March 28, 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:79.69.124.107 ‎ (←Replaced content with ' the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit') (top) [rollback]

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit

• 11:50, March 28, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America: new section)

Added the following:

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit

• 11:47, March 28, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America)

Blanked whole page and placed this message:

Assyrian Nation Rubbish nation ..there are Arab no any more Assyrian...there is only Syrian Arabic republic ...the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America

• 23:15, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Al Qamishli is historically Syriac and Armenian, not kurdish)

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:15, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→remove "WikiProject Kurdistan")

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:13, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Qamishli belongs to Assyria)

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:10, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Help talk:Edit summary ‎ (→arab and assyrian killing kurdish people: new section)

arab and assyrian killing kurdish people

this clip will show how arab and assyrian ar killing kurdish civilian .these is the true of arab and assyrian people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

• 23:05, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Name)

killing krdish peoplethese it is the true of arab and assyrian and how they killing kurdish people people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

• 23:02, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Al Qamishli is an Aramean city)

these is the true of arab and assyrian people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

This user is up to no good. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now notified the user of this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Err, WP:AIV? Unomi (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just vandalism. There are admins here who can take care of the problem, including the vandalism. It's to block the user. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem on Race and Intelligence mediation

because of the spurious ANI proceedings initiated by Mathsci, here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Criticism_of_mediation_on_Race_and_intelligence, I now have had user:JzG close the mediation case without cause or discussion. I've reverted and left him a note on the matter, but if it happens again I am stuck, because I do not want to get in an edit war over the matter. I do not know precisely how to deal with an admin who would unilaterally close a mediation, against consensus (as there is no consensus to close the mediation in the thread above on even an attempt at establishing consensus in the mediation itself), and without any discussion anywhere on the matter.

I've had enough of this, and I would appreciate some administrative action on this matter now before it spins farther out of control. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

my mistake - I just now noticed that JzG and Guy are the same user, so he did indeed participate in the above discussion. however, the rest of what I said still stands. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, "spurious?" I don't think so. But yes, your mistake: you have been getting admin action, Xavexgoem and I are both admins. Oddly, the two admins involved are the ones whose actions you reverted and then asked for admin intervention. Ironic, no? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

spurious, yes. Closing the mediation is a matter that Mathsci could have quickly and easily handled on the mediation talk page. Instead, he chose to hijack a thread on a different subject and turn it into a vindictive attack on me for no particularly good or useful reason. I don't share his taste for drama-trauma, and I'm sorry if you do. However, all I am asking is that you respect what seems to be the actual mediation consensus that we should push ahead with it a while longer. I don't quite see what the problem is with allowing that, and I'd be happy to have you explain.

And just so you know, my attitude on admins is that they are just editors with a decent amount of experience and some extra powers. getting a sysop bit set does not make one smarter, wiser, more noble, or more correct than any other editor, and if an admin starts behaving as though that's what the sysop bit does, s/he should have it taken away immediately. I respect you for your experience, Guy, and normally I would listen to your advice. But when it comes to consensus decisions you get to argue your case in a proper discussion just like the rest of us more proletarian editors. or am I wrong? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a fairly well-known fact that any issue brought to the admin boards can and often will turn round into an investigation of wider issues - especially in the not infrequent episodes of foot-shooting we see. Mathsci raised, in my view, valid points which you chose to try to deny. If you think admins are nothing special (which is true) then why are you soliciting admin action here? We don't usually take sides just because someone says we should. You have admin attention in the other thread, you've chosen to revert the actions of those admins and then come here asking for admin action to stop the admin action, which is bordering on surreal. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

to answer your first question: you'll notice that I am not objecting to Mathsci's concerns about whether the mediation should be closed, or that I might not be the best person to handle it. that is certainly something that should be discussed, if that's the way he feels, and I would be happy to discuss it. However:

1. There is nothing in that discussion that currently requires administrator intervention. The idea should have been shifted to the mediation talk page and carried out there, and we would have quickly come to some kind of resolution about it.
2. Mathsci never attempted to discuss the issue, he simply launched into an extensive diatribe in which he dragged out every thing he thinks I've done wrong since the first day I joined wikipedia, and kept harping on it endlessly. It was rude, uncivil, and totally uncalled for in any context, much less this one. I'm actually shocked that an administrator (such as yourself) didn't rein him in and insist that he adopt a more civil, productive tone; If someone had, we would have quickly come to some kind of resolution.

In short, Mathsci chose to ignore a number of quiet, simple, civil ways in which he could have expressed his concerns and resolved the issue, and reached instead for a protracted personal attack against me which quickly went beyond any mediation issues into pure nastiness, with no hope or possibility of a civil ending. I hope he got some pleasure out of it, because I can't see what other value taking that particular approach has.

To answer your other question, I came here because you seemed to be acting in bad faith, and I don't have the special powers of an admin to keep you in check. I was (frankly) worried that you were going to tendentiously edit war the mediation into closure against consensus, and then use your admin powers to block me if I tried to prevent you. with that in mind I came here looking for someone uninvolved who could match the special powers you have been given, and hopefully give myself a little breathing room. thankfully it turned out I was wrong, but you can see why I might be concerned about that kind of bad behavior, given the comments you've made about me here and in the thread above. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

BlackJack here has unleashed a torrent of abuse at me which includes numerous personal attacks, can he please be blocked. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

His comments seem pretty fair to be honest. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why calling somebody a cretin, coward and scum is fair? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to someone who has conducted via several IP addresses a campaign of invective, including numerous personal attacks, that is designed to provoke; and given that you have called me "bitter, twisted" and a "compulsive liar", it is hardly surprising that I have reacted as I did. By the way, RaseaC, I apologise for losing my temper but being called a liar is extreme provocation.

I would also like to draw admin's attention to this person (88.111.55.202) launching an edit war in Marylebone Cricket Club and Variations in first-class cricket statistics by removing source information and ignoring a reasonable request to discuss the proposed changes on the talk pages first. He carried on a similar edit war yesterday on an AfD page by persistently reverting to an irrelevant point. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In every conversation I've had with you, you've lied time and again therefore calling you a compulsive liar is a pretty fair description. Being called scum is also extremely provocation but did I start chucking insults at you? The external links I've removed are spam that were added by the site's owners, the website is entirely unreliable. I would like to draw an admin's attention to the fact BlackJack was indefinitely blocked until 12 days ago, having been given a second chance any normal person would be on their best behaviour not to repeat the experience. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

88.111.55.202 is just the latest in a long line of dynamic addresses used by this person to attack me over some apparent grievance of which I have no knowledge. Yesterday he was using 88.111.63.26 to wage an edit war in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Blackmore. Other IPs he has used include:

• 88.111.48.107
• 88.111.39.197
• 88.111.60.218
• 85.210.127.158
• 85.210.83.167
• 88.109.8.46
• 88.110.56.81
• 85.210.135.210

I believe he has a WP account but he will not use that when he is acting as a vandal. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the reliability of the website in question, I suggest that members of WP:CRIC decide on that, which is why I requested a discussion on the article's talk page. Since no one in WP:CRIC has objected to the site previously, I see no reason why it should suddenly be a problem now. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did this discussion take place? The only discussions on WT:CRIC I can find are all uncertain [135], quite negative [136] and very negative [137] about the source. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. The second one was way back in 2007 and was clearly a misunderstanding about copyright. The first was an honest question by SGGH. The third was a routine piece of trolling by User:Richard Daft. There has not been a formal discussion: I said that no one in WP:CRIC (except a known troll) has objected to the site being used and some have even quoted it in their edits. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As for him "not chucking insults at me", how about this one? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So accusing three well-respected WP:CRIC members of being sockpuppets without any evidence are the actions of a fair and reasonable person? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake as I thought one of them was you, having been given incorrect information by a well-meaning colleague. I have apologised to all three people and two of them have graciously accepted while the third is not active today. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a formal complaint about the activities of the person currently active as 88.111.63.26. He has previously been warned by admins on this page and WP:AN and he has alienated just about every member of WP:CRIC by his vindictive conduct. I recoomend a 24-hour block of the current IP and the establishment of a precedent to block any IP he uses in future. He is using the site to wage a war but he will not admit his reasons. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to take a step back mate, you've alienated just as many members of WP:CRIC as I have. How exactly do my actions merit a blocking? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, WP:ANI is no place to continue a dispute, it is where people go to have problems taken care of. I advise both users to disengage, step back and breathe. Stop posting on each others talk pages, and stop posting here. An uninvolved administrator (which I am happy to state I am not) will come along and see if there is anything to be acted upon. You could both end up defending your own position so strongly that you end up with admin attention on you even if you are the victimised party. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I will withdraw and I have nothing further to say. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty International (Hong Kong)

Until a few days ago, Amnesty International (Hong Kong) was a redirect to Amnesty International. In the last few days, several editors with suspiciously similar User names, as well as a large number of IP editors, have begun a campaign to write an article on the subject. This article is an absoloute mess. Upper case headings, sourcing almost exclusively to amnesty international itself, extremely pro-AI POV, bad English, etc. I tried a redirect back but that got reverted, I tried discussing it with the editor who was the most active at the time and got nowhere, I tried adding rewrite and sourcing tags to the top of the page, but I'm getting nowhere. What would the next step be? I don't disagree with there being an article on the subject if the local branch is, somehow, notable enough in its own right, but right now, this article is not the way we should be going. Woogee (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RESCUE members may be able to assist here. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin email phishing

Archiving per WP:DENY. NW (Talk) 17:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Now resolved, Arbcom does not need further copies of the emails. Thanks all. Risker (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just received this email: “ Dear Islander, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters ” It's strange, a) because they actually think I'd give them my account, and b) 'cause I'm not actually dormant - much less active than I used to be, but not dormant. Anyway, this isn't so much a plea for help or anything, just an FYI - apologies if I should have posted elsewhere. TalkIslander 14:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Quite a concern if any admin ever took that seriously. Did the email come from an account? If so,, which one? SGGH ping! 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC) There is a similar report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#admin phishing attempt. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC) The email came from User:WFFighter and he is already blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC) It should be investigated if WFFighter's account was created by Scibaby. Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Also blocked WikiFreedomFyta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 4 others (check my log - I'm not exactly active) for the same reason. The user names aren't exactly subtle.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I have a feeling it might either be a bot, or someone with too much time on their hands. I also got this exact message this morning. nat.utoronto 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Well, now this guy made User:Moresubtle. I guess that's more subtle... (X! · talk)  · @742  ·  16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I also received the message from WikiFFighters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ~MDD4696 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got the same e-mail as well, from WikiFFyta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Blocked 6 more. Then I get a message, probably from WFF: [138] (X! · talk)  · @734  ·  16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Add me to the list of people who received this. I immediately thought it looks like a phishing scam. I don't recall ever being contacted by these people before, and although I scaled down my involvement in Wikipedia by about 99% about 18 months ago (for various reasons), I still log in on occasion and so calling my account inactive is incorrect. I did a Google search and saw some bot got this same message, too. Another bit of fishiness is if this an actual movement, why would they wait "nearly a year" before following up? 23skidoo (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Me too. I blocked him immediately. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And this is why I only use my email account for site identification purposes. HalfShadow 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just received one of these emails too, from User:Moresubtle namely. --Angelo (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Goldfishhunting (talk · contribs) This is another one. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just got one from WikiFreedomFaccount. I don't issue blocks; could another admin please do so if the account isn't already blocked? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I feel special. Searchingfortuna (talk · contribs) sent me one. I'm tempted to mention a random word, see if they create a username based on it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got one from Goldfishhunting22222 (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Got one from (and subsequently zapped) UsernameinspiredbyBloodRedSandman (talk · contribs). Heh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I whacked Goodthingsplanned (talk · contribs). DMacks (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) OK, so now he's just enjoying the attention, or he's truly jobless... ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just got one from Nevergonnastopever. What confuses me is, don't you have to be a verified user to send emails? These accounts were made minutes before the emails were sent. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) nope, any account can--Jac16888Talk 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Doesn't have to be autoconfirmed as long as you have your email address verified. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got one from WikiFreedomFighteraccount (talk · contribs). This concerns me a great deal. – Quadell (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) We might need a CU or a range block. SGGH ping! 17:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got one from Nothingtodowithwff (talk · contribs). Could we have a checkuser identify and block the underlying IP range, please? Horologium (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Yes please, I've also had one from Goodthingsplanned. Maybe everyone is getting one. That would make sense. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I just got one from the same account. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC) So everyone knows, the Arbitration Committee is aware of this - we've been forwarded three emails so far - and I've looked into this with checkuser. Unfortunately, these accounts are coming from a range too large to block, and in many cases too busy for checkuser to be effective in finding any unblocked accounts - although the timeline of events shown in this thread leads me to believe that there aren't any sleepers to look for, anyway (cf the BloodRedSandMan account). Sorry, all. Please don't give out your passwords - I would assume those of you blocking these accounts won't, but at the rate these emails are going out, they're bound to find someone willing to do so. Please don't add to that number. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I've had one now, I don't wish to continue giving ammunition however the account (which I have indef'd) was called "100moretogo" which suggests they have some and are counting (though I doubt it). Sad. SGGH ping! 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) This isn't the first time that someone has tried this stunt. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Very strange phishing email Just received the following email: “ Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" on the English Wikipedia to user "Masem". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. ” Searching gives nothing for "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" or "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters". Very very curious. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Same e-mail here, reporting the email address to google as a phishing email. --Michael Greiner 18:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I just received the same message from "Nevergonnastopever." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Email requesting my Wikipedia password I just received an email that said what you see below. It requests my password that I use for logging in to my Wikipedia user account. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" on the English Wikipedia to user "Michael Hardy". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. I got this too, from User:Saynotoarbcomclique. I indeffed the account; a CU is probably in order to catch other socks. Ucucha 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Got the same thing myself just now, except this one came from User:Adnimsarestupid. Hopefully no-one is stupid enough to actually do this... Tabercil (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#admin_phishing_attempt Equazcion (talk) 18:37, 28 Mar 2010 (UTC) I got one from User:Nevergonnastopever. Yes, a CU might help. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC) This thread was archived prematurely, as I just got an email from User:Epicwin4me. It was already blocked, but a CU would be advisable to avoid even more wasted time. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got one too! I'm special! Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC) ArbCom is aware of this (having been alerted by over half a dozen admins so far), and are looking into any possible action that checkusers could take. NW (Talk) 18:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Given phishing like this is generally illegal, might it help to have these emails forwarded to the offending user's ISP? Resolute 18:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Please forward these emails to ArbCom for tracking purposes. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I'm monitoring the User creation log for any suspicious looking usernames, and I'll forward any that I see to somebody on IRC. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Not much point; emailed every single admin with emailuser enabled now :D 86.181.40.68 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Hersfold, which address should we use? I don't think you want us all to send them to the mailing list; it'll get clogged up very quickly... Horologium (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Is it any wonder that between AN and AN/I we have five threads on this topic since they getting collapsed with a pointer toward WP:DENY? Perhaps rather than prematurely archiving all of the threads, we could have one, well named thread open where admins who have been contacted can look for and receive information for what they need to do. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just send the emails to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org and let them deal with it. A lot of admins got it, and it seems it went by A-Z order (I was one of the last to get an email). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Also received one, I will forward. Useight (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks to those who have forwarded their emails - at this point we've gotten the info we need, so we probably don't need any more. Thanks much! Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, just sent mine then came here. User (UsernameinspiredbyBloodRedSandman) already indefed I was happy to see. Why do they bother? This is so hamfisted and useless—as if any admin or experienced user would actually give their login details.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Email I just received this email. Not sure what if anything to do with other than ignore it.RJFJR (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Bringerofmuchlulzeth" on the English Wikipedia to user "RJFJR". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. See the "Email requesting my Wikipedia password" or "Very strange phishing email" or "Wikipedia Freedom Fighters" threads above. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I just saw it. I was removing my post when I got an edit conflict with your reply. (Sorry, should have checked first rather than post first.) RJFJR (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC) A quick google search shows that a run like this happened last may. Wikipedia Review thread --Michael Greiner 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Request for my inactive account. Just saw this in my mailbox. Dear KnowledgeOfSelf, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters Just thought I'd give ya a heads up KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Aye, we've all had one ... look up ^^^^ Black Kite 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC) See WP:ANI#Admin email phishing. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 01:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do if you receive one of these emails

• Please don't forward the e-mails to the arbitration committee mailing list. We already have enough samples and any more will not be helpful. If someone could track down all the discussions about this and redirect towards a single location, telling people what to do and retracting the previous messages to forward the e-mails to arb-l, that would be appreciated. I hear that there was also a message on IRC asking for the e-mails to be forwarded to the arbitration committee - if that could be retracted as well (or however that is done over there) that would be good as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• So what should we do? Just ignore it? I'm half-tempted to send this luser a fake password for my Wikipedia account, then disable my email link & take a month-long WikiBreak. (That would give him something to do with all of that spare time.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just ignor it, and indeff the sender if not already done. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:English Bobby

User:English Bobby a self confessed member of the English Defence League [139], who sole contribution to wikipedia appears to be a crusade to change English to British or initiate ethnic conflict on Turkish subjects[140]. Whenever his changes are reverted he will usually leave an insulting message on your talk page[141].

Given personal problems right now, I really don't need this. Bringing to AN/I for community consideration. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well he's certainly radical, but that's nothing dispute resolution can't resolve. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple interaction, like explaining how to cite an edit, elicits more of the same. If you're offering I'm gratefully accepting. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

[142] Even the simplest interaction is dimissed with the comment "troll". Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor point, supporter does not equal member. Though the rhetoric about the UAF is very much the usual far right BNP/EDL stuff you will see on their blogs - Not that this precludes one from working on wikipedia. The problem period is the one following the union of the crowns but before the formal acts of Union, where Bobby insists upon the De Jure distinction which is not acctually helpful (and not always accurate), as often forces would come from across the Kingdoms and in this period politicians and senior members crossed easily between the two (Just look at the Falkland for whom the islands are named, scottish gentleman who found success in the unified court in England). I am unsure what admin action is needed though, when he goes off reverting him isn't a problem. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive abuse and disruption requires concerted cleanup

The Modus Operandi

• Wallflowers98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

• Long term abuse report

The lta page explains this user pretty well, but I'll post a short summary here:

This user is a prolific vandal with hundreds of socks. I don't know if they have more, or even slightly less, than DY71... however, they are worse than DY71. All DY71 does is add his opinion to articles. WF98 adds copyright violations to the download site 4shared. Two edit filters have been developed to combat his massive abuse. These filters are 278 and 306. This user has technical knowledge, and has been able to evade the filters that have been put in place to stop him, therefore, all details regarding the construction of these filters must remain confidential, and must not be shared, except with users who are trusted in regards to this sort of thing.

278 was created to stop the use of links, but as the user found he finally couldn't beat it, he's begun using things like Tinyurl, thus the creation of 306.

Myself and Shirik (talk · contribs) have been working on developing these filters, but the amount of abuse.. the amount of disruption... it's like if the wiki was constantly on defcon 1(or is it 0?).

.. To the point, per the above, we need some help.

Now, WF98 has a very specific MO. Create an account, post copyright violations, abandon account, create new account, repeat.

This isn't the only give-away, however. Since he doesn't bother to create a user page, or user talk page, these pages will virtually always be redlinked. Not only that, but he marks all of his edits as minor. To anyone who wishes to help, I suggest you install the navigation popups user script, as it will allow you to see how many contribs a user has. His accounts typically have less than 10 contribs each.

Now, per the abuse page, it is mostly agreed upon that, since 4shared has no regard for copyright, all diffs containing said links must be oversighted.

The Cleanup

Due to the nature of this disruption, I obviously cannot post any links to articles. Admins, and trusted users who know how to, check the abuse logs for some of his caught edits. Now, WF likes to stick to specific articles, so his disruption could go back months.. maybe even years into a hit article's history.

To this end, a user created a tool for tagging, and bagging. This tool tags the userpage with a blocked sock template, and reports the sock to AIV. As this tool could be used disruptively, it has a whitelist. To request use of this tool, leave a message on my talk page and I'll talk to the user who developed the tool and give you access.

I don't know how many admins know this, but all WF socks should be blocked on sight with extreme prejudice. This has mostly been agreed upon at AIV.

All diffs which get past 306 are to be reported to Shirik, so that he may modify the filter accordingly. Take note, the newest diffs will likely contain links to url shrinker sights. If either of the filters get a hit, investigate the page history, as it is likely the user found a way past the filter.

All diffs, such as old ones, or new ones, are to be reported to oversight with the LTA page linked above linked. They are not to be posted at this thread, or any thread, on wikipedia. Nor are they to be posted in a channel on irc, only in pm, on irc, with oversight or shirik.

Lastly, if you are participating, please link your name in the below section, in the relevant sub-section with {{user}}.

The following signature is so that you all know who made this thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly are you bothering to tag these accounts? If these are throwaway ones, they should just be indef'd immediately and ignored. Would anyone have any objection to me batch deleting the categories per WP:DENY? NW (Talk) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that he edits music, software, and movie articles, of all kinds. When he finds a link with a copyvio, he'll go to the relevant article and post it. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY is irrelevant in this case. The user doesn't care about attention. If they did they would rant on their talk pages. Tagging the sockpuppets is needed, as it lets us know which articles he edits, and and which articles need cleanups.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the oversighters with what I found so far, a gargantuan list of over 170 diffs. That's all the effort that I can muster for now... I'll probably do more later tonight while it's still the weekend. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Time frame

I just thought of this section, but to the point, I do not know how long this is going to take to clean up. Possibly a year or more due to the level of disruption from this vandal. Therefore, I propose, and ask, that this effort be moved to maybe, a separate page, with a link from this section, no timestamp, until everything is done and over with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Support - Obviously, as writer.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Participants

Oversight

Admins

Add (filter manager) after the template to avoid confusing with the below section

Edit filter managers

1. Shirik (talk · contribs)(I'm only adding this as we've both been working on this for awhile)

Trusted users

1. Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)(for obvious reasons, I've been working on this case for awhile, helping Shirik and reporting socks)

Improper DYK hook for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a crosspost from Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Poor hook for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

There is a hook on the main page for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories that reads:

... that although U.S. President Barack Obama is Christian, high-ranked al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri has falsely claimed that Obama secretly "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews"?

I don't believe that such a hook should have been approved. This hook violates the neutrality criteria required by DYK which states focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. I would also like to point out that the article Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories does not state that al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri claims are false. Am I the only one who is dissatisfied with such a hook?Smallman12q (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is the venue for this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about html coloring

I keep running into table coloring that look like rainbow, and tv shows that seem bent on differentiating different characters (good guys in powder blue and bad guys in black, etc). What is our stance on this? I think its distracting and un-encyclopedic. Thoughts? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue to discuss this, probably better at WP:VPP. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:44, 28 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Err, as I understand it, Village Pump is for discussing NEW ideas or basic griping. I am doing neither. I am seeking a policy/guideline on how we address excessive html coloration. Let's try this again

Wikipedia:Accessibility specifically the section WP:COLOR i s what you are after. Gnangarra 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Gnangarra. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Russell Smith (prisoner activist) - multiple issues

I've twice reverted an IP that is adding unsourced content to Russell Smith (prisoner activist). Looking through the IPs other contributions, it seems likely that the IP is a sockpuppet of User:Russelldansmith, who is blocked for legal threats. Although the person behind these accounts may be the subject of the article, it is possible that they are not. Much of that article is unsourced and contains some fairly interesting claims regarding mental illness and extraterrestrials. It is understandable that editors may be more forgiving if they believe the editor adding these claims is the subject of the BLP, but without confirmation that the editor is that person, I find the article in need of some serious trimming. WP:BLP should apply no matter who adds the information.

I'm apparently not know for my tact - is there anyone who would like to handle this with all due delicacy? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

TV3 Winchester

TV3 Winchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had a laundry-list of non-notable individuals (i.e. all weblinks not Wikilinks), one of which contained the fact that one individual, about whom we're unlikely ever to have an article, was dismissed over pornography charges. Someone, probably the individual, removed that; Neutralhomer chose to reinsert it and ask me to block the user and his IP. I reviewed the content and removed the laundry lists, which seems to me to be the best solution, but Neutralhomer reverted. The article currently has no independent sources, the only sources were to do with this event. I call WP:LAUNDRY, WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP. Neutralhomer diagrees. Time someone else had a look. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but let's take a look at why I orignally called (what the hell was I thinking?) JzG into look at the page. I had (and still have) a slight problem with some vandalism coming from an IP and now a signed in account. User:64.252.119.50 removed the same reference 1, 2 times over the past 3 days. Today, User:Cameraman8867 removed the same reference again. It is obviously they are the same person and I asked JzG to kindly block both of them. Instead, he destroys the TV3 Winchester page to make, what he perceives, a BLP problem (even though it is sourced) go away. The lists of reporters and anchors appear on all television stations. So, enacting changes on one MUST effect all others and I don't think this is what this is about. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I was not notified of this thread by JzG, I found it on my watchlist. Kind of a violation of the ANI policy in yellow on each ANI page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is, however numerous people miss it and we must assume good faith in that it slipped the nominators mind, so it shouldn't be used as a point of argument. SGGH ^ping! 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NH you can't add that child pornography thing there like that blind without any explanation to what happened and is he notable to have his own article and if so the content should be there and if not then the content should not be linked to in this list. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

*buries head in hands* Seriously, on which planet was that a good idea? It doesn't matter if it's sourced, the person themselves is non-notable; the only time we'd ever need to use such information on Wikipedia is if the person is notable enough to have their own article. I've removed the reference to O'Connor; the rest of the list is trivia but I don't suppose it's doing any harm. Black Kite 23:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The story was in the local television news (a station for which he worked) and the local newspaper media. So it isn't like this is just being thrown at him out of nowhere. It can be referenced repeatedly, but then it would get a little cluttered. I think the two referenced show clearly the story and back to the statement up. BLP shouldn't be about sweeping the bad stuff under the rug, especially when it is referenced. He did the crime, likely will do the time, was reported about in the papers and on TV, it isn't something that can be swept under the rug now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this what this is all about, this creation of a TV employee list of not notable people, a back door attempt to include this controversial content about a not notable person? Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So, we are going to allow someone to vandalize Wikipedia....and get their way? To reuse a sentence...."Seriously, on which planet was that a good idea?"...cause it isn't. This is clearly a case of doing all that the adminship can to make something go away. To hell with BLP. Are we to whitewash every article about any living person to make it all warm and fuzzy? If it can be referenced and backed up, too bad to that person, they are getting their big day in the sun on Wikipedia with the dirty laundry already out in the air. It isn't Wikipedia's job to clean that laundry.

To answer Off2riorob...no, it isn't. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about a living person. It's an article about a company they used to work at. To give an example, imagine if I took the article about my home city and added a list of every person from there that had been convicted of child porn charges ... do you see the problem? If O'Connor was notable - then fine. Put him back in the list if you wish, but lose the additional info.OK, I see that's been done. Good. Marking resolved. Black Kite 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But the reason he isn't at the station (which is why he is on the list to begin with) is because of those charges. I readded him to the list without the information, but it seems lopsided. We are essentially whitewashing things here on Wikipedia, when anyone can go to Google and type in "Ryan O'Connor" and "TV3 Winchester" and come up with the story about his arrest and hearings. We just aren't publishing it cause of some BLP or WP:N policy...but what it seems like is whitewashing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to go to Google and do that, then that's fine. But we aren't a tabloid newspaper. If the fact that O'Connor was fired because of this case was an important fact that needed to be mentioned in the main article then we could discuss whether it was necessary per WP:UNDUE. But as it isn't, we don't need it. Remember that WP:NOT#NEWS is policy, and that's all this is, really. Black Kite 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If you want it in the main article, then I am perfectly fine with that. I just don't think we should remove it entirely and call it a day. That isn't policy, that is whitewashing and cleaning dirty laundry. If you want me to move it to the main article, give me the green light and it is done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No - I said that if the fact that O'Connor was fired because of this case was an important fact that needed to be mentioned in the main article... - but it clearly isn't. It isn't majorly relevant to the station themselves and doesn't belong in the article. I am going to sleep now, but I'd strongly suggest that you don't re-insert this information. Black Kite 23:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Being that it represented the station in a bad light and some of the actions might have happened at the station (investigation still ongoing there), I think it does. But you know what, I am getting a migraine. We can hash this out tomorrow after I get home from work. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that what it said about him does not match what the source said. Specifically the reason for his termination. something lame from CBW 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, when I brought this here I thought it was a simple matter of possibly needing to handle a BLP subject. I am now beginning to suspect that Neutralhomer wants to include this list of non-notable individuals just so that this factoid can be included. Lists of individuals who are not notable enough to have articles are not really worth having, IMO - it's just a laundry list of generic presenters. We can safely leave that to the station's own website. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Main Page images

This is the third day in a row that images have been placed on the main page and unprotected. It will only be a matter of time before a vandal figures out that admins are getting lazy with regard to main page images and that they can exploit them to get goatse.cx images on the main page. Admins need to start taking more care. β^_command 00:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:BEANS. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Its only beans if we let it become that. Vandals know about this and have used it in the past as an exploit. There are steps in place that identify and alert when such images are on the main page to avoid bad PR, but I would prefer not to have to rely on those. β^_command 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Beta took care not to mention this in public, until it was fixed. We now need to make sure it doesn't happen again. No beans involved.  Chzz  ►  01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Making Change Street Newspaper wants to be unblocked

She's willing to change her username but it seems as if the underlying IP is blocked. Can an admin review her talk page and make a decision? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ducky socks

Are these obvious enough for anyone or do we need an SPI?

• 70.83.96.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Babkockdood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Matgam1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For quite some time there has been a user or a couple users who have been trying to turn PlayStation Portable homebrew into a fanboy site rather than an encyclopedic article with excessive detail on firmwares and no sources. Matgam1 first added it then apparently got logged out and edited from the IP. After being reverted, the ip tried to insert it again. Couple days later the ip is back and after a few edits a couple minutes later the changes are being made from babkockdood. I'm torn between calling them ducky and filing an SPI just to make sure there aren't any other related accounts waiting to repeat the edits.--Crossmr (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the recent edits are enough to warrant page protection, regardless of the status of those accounts. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Its actually been quite awhile since anyone has tried to push that info back onto the page, about a year and a half. Not sure what's prompted the latest go at it. But if you think it warrants protection go ahead, probably if the socks are blocked it would have the same effect.--Crossmr (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI just in case anyone thinks its necessary.--Crossmr (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary "Article for deletion" notice: article Controversial command decisions, World War II

Nick-D has arbitrarily posted an AFD notice re article Controversial Command Decisions, World War II without first entering into or participating in any exchange of views on relevant discussion page. Nick-D has also attempted back-door lobbying of support for his campaign against me by making false claims about my editing, on at least one related user talk page, and without notification to me. Communicat (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the user did notify you of the AfD, and he is not required to enter in discussion before hand because an AfD is the discussion. As for "back door lobbying", I'll have a look at his contributions but if you provided diffs it would go quicker. SGGH ^ping! 08:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)