Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Abductive long term disruption

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

This part of the discussion seems to be finished and we've moved on from it

Abductive just showed up on something on my edit list and edit warred his way to a block. While it is his first block, I took a look and for an account that isn't even a year old he's had a major amount of disruption. An SPI was opened on him last year. It was closed without action. However, he did admit to using multiple accounts to mass nominate AfDs/prod articles. This created at least a couple AN/I threads and a substantial bit of disruption as most of these nominations were apparently bad. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abductive/Archive. In regards to the socking, Abductive also has on his user page the claim that he's been here for over 3 years. One account was made last July, one last May. Which means there is quite likely at least one more account out there he didn't admit to using. Since he's using the current account disruptively, it is likely a disruptive sock. I don't know that I could file an SPI though since I don't have the foggiest who the other account might be. Issue two is the edit warring. He was just blocked for edit warring on Asian fetish. Making odd claims about how you can't name the author of a study unless he has an article himself. First claiming it was WP:UNDUE then claiming it was vanity, and then claiming I must have a COI because I wasn't buying his bizarre arguments, a bad faith assumption and insult, frankly. He was blocked for 31 hours, but after a quick check I found out that this isn't his first edit war. He was warned back in July of last year about edit warring. [1] and seemed to show a better understanding for how 3RR worked than someone who'd only been here a couple months and had never been warned about it before. Only a month ago he was involved in a big edit war on an article [2] which was stopped with page protection. He also engaged in an edit war back in October [3] and when he wasn't getting his way he again resorted to making personal attacks. This resulted in another page protection. So in less than a year, he's engaged in 3 or 4 edit wars, helped to get 2 pages locked, and disruptively mass nominated/prodded a ton of articles. With this behaviour and the claim about how long he's been on wikipedia I feel like this might be a returned blocked/banned user. At the least I feel he should be restricted to 1RR on any article given his propensity for edit warring, but I also think a greater look needs to be taken at the SP issues, unfortunately I don't think SPI would be remotely useful as I don't think it keeps year old IP data.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I have no comment as yet on the substance of the complaint, however, I find it odd that the block for edit warring came almost 7 hours after the last revert, though there is no question that the 3RR was violated. I think it might be an idea to have this conversation when Abductive is able to speak directly in his defence, but in fairness, you have notified him of the thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) He was reported to the 3RR noticeboard as is the normal process. The only reason his editing stopped was that I disengaged and have for now, let him have his way. I've also informed him that if he wants to make a statement it will be copied over. There is a history of edit warring and insults that goes well beyond the current situation.--Crossmr (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Can you evidence the history of edit warring and insults with multiple diffs please. Please can you explain why you do not appear to have addressed your concerns about socking with Abductive? Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC) That is already there. Click through. If you'd like the exact diff where he insulted someone last time, [4]. That edit war was stopped by a page protection before it went completely out of hand you can see the full ANI discussion above. As for the SP issues, those were already raised with him and that was all he disclosed, but that doesn't seem to be honest given his claim on his userpage.--Crossmr (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC) The first diff does not show a violation of the 3RR, the second appears to have been two reverts and the third also appears not to have been a 3RR violation. This out of a total of 12,000 edits in 18 months. I suggest you need something a little stronger then this and please can you show a diff where YOU addressed the sock allegation directly with Abductive before raising it here? I do agree that Abductive could do with improving their civility from time to time. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with Spartaz, though at least this editor's insult made me chuckle, which I always say "if your going to be uncivil at least make it funny" so I'd like to see him be a bit more creative if there's a next time. Is there any risk if Abductive is unblocked long enough so he can actually contribute to his defence here at AN/I? Yea, transcribing his responses over here isnt much of an ability to defend himself or contact others who may be able to help him in his defence, or directly confront his accusers in a meaningful way (and hopefully insult-free). Personally I say let him be and unblock him.Camelbinky (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC) There is no requirement that he be unblocked and AN/I has a long history of transcribing statements from blocked users if the need is there. Encouraging uncivil behaviour isn't exactly a compelling position.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) May 2009-Now is not 18 months. That is 11 months. In that time, he's socked and been disruptive. he admitted that. I'm now pointing out that the extent of what he admitted to isn't the complete picture. I'm under no obligation to discuss it with him further when bringing it here as the part of a bigger package. The first diff shows he was warned about 3RR and seemed to show an understanding of it (without being linked to it) beyond what a user 2 months into editing wikipedia should show. Its evidence that this is probably not his first account. One doesn't need to violate 3RR to be edit warring. I never said he violated 3RR that many times just that he'd been involved in 3 or 4 edit wars, 2 of which resulted in page protection, and 2 of which resulted in him insulting other users when he couldn't get his way. The first was in reference to this [5] where he was basically fighting with another editor to try and get some tag (any tag) onto the article. Which is similar to what happened now. He was trying to remove content for some reason, any reason and when it was apparent he didn't have consensus he just edit warred and insulted until blocked. The second edit has 4. Edit warring isn't just reverting, it is undoing another person's edits. He has his first edit where he removed several entries that another user removed, that is 1, then he has 2 reverts, that is 3. Then he changes a bunch of stuff later on that wisdom power changed. That is 4 separate series of edits undoing other peoples work. If you really need a 3RR violation, there you go. [6], [7], [8], [9] 4 times undoing anothers work in less than 24 hours. In the last one, he gets to 3 and the page is protected before it can go further. There was only 19 minutes between his last revert and the page locking. The other editor he was fighting with wasn't watching the page like a hawk and reverting immediately. He was obviously edit warring if the admin felt the need to protect the page.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Of course I deny these allegations. "Almost" violated 3RR? That means I didn't. With these other claimss, find me anybody with as many edits as I have who hasn't rubbed somebody the wrong way. As for the dispute that did get me blocked, it was pure 3RR, not a violation of WP:CIVIL, nor was it about the usual politics, religion, spam or ethnic stuff that graces ANI daily. User:Crossmr has a major WP:OWNERSHIP problem with the Asian fetish article, whereas I'm just trying to whip it into better shape. A thankless task--the article has been through 6 AfDs and has attracted some serious sockpuppeteers. Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I just demonstrated where you violated 3RR last month. Do you deny undoing peoples edits those 4 times? Your contribs are a matter of public record. The first article didn't see you violate 3RR but you were edit warring to put "something" on the page, you just didn't know what but were editing it back and forth anyway instead properly considering what should go on the page or discussing it on the talk page. In the last one you only avoided a 3RR violation because the page was locked. Accusing someone of a COI without evidence is an assumption of bad faith and uncivil. The only ownership problem with the article is demonstratively you and hippo43 who have both been blocked for edit warring over it. You are too quick to push your version making sniping comments rather than engage in meaningful discussion. You seem to have zero concept of WP:BRD and would much rather fight over it than actually discuss it. You have a history of it that extends almost back to your account creation. Coupled with your admitted sock puppeting, your account has basically been disruptive for its entire history. You've also failed to comment on the account issues. Your user page claims you've been here over 3 years, both accounts you've had were only made last year. Are you still using another account?--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I know nothing of his history so won't comment, but I fully support Abductive on the recent issue at Asian fetish, and I'm concerned by Crossmr's focus on the individual, not the issue. Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content, aggressively and high-handedly reverted to his preferred version of a long-contentious article. Similarly he has referred to edit warring in my past (in this discussion and elsewhere) presumably trying to undermine me as a contributor, rather than deal directly with the content dispute, and has criticised me above without notifying me. If this all leads to wider scrutiny of this article, so much the better. --hippo43 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I categorically disagree with Hippo43's characterization of Crossmr's actions. Crossmr has been dispassionate and professional concerning his interaction with Abductive, who obviously has a history of disrupting other pages in unacceptable ways. And Crossmr has repeatedly (the requests would be approaching about 50 times or so by now) requested that both Hippo43 and Abductive give specific information to back up their claims and demands. They have not done that. And this is entertaining: "Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content." Wow. That is simply not true. Please refer to the discussion page for the proof. In fact, both Crossmr and myself have repeatedly and extensively made efforts to discuss the issues in a democratic fashion on the discussion page. Crossmr's "focus on the individual" is of course related to the fact that Abductive has insisted pressing positions that frankly make little sense; Crossmr, to his credit, has kept his composure. In the end, both Hippo43 and Abductive have incessantly insisted that they have the right to completely change the makeup of a very controversial section that has represented the status quo for years. However, the burden to provide proof for the need for that change is imminent, and the burden belongs to them — not anyone else. The problem is that they cannot provide that proof. So because they will not simply acknowledge this and provide a lettered response concerning proof that has been requested, they just keep making the same statements that do not represent arguments, or content that makes their case, but only the vague pretense of such. And it wastes everyone's time in the process. Computer1200 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Just for clarification. You support someone edit warring to push their position? This thread is about abductive's behaviour that goes well beyond this particular article. If you want to discuss the particulars of the article feel free to go to the talk page. you'll see ample consensus seeking in all the various sections titled "proposal" all started by me.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I've asked abductive if he has anything further to add [10] but since he's continued editing (and warring on the article in addition to contributing to the consensus discussion) and hasn't responded I guess he doesn't. He clearly violated 3RR this time, he violated it last month. In october he got a page locked by his actions and last summer he was warned over fighting on a page. In addition to that he admitted socking last summer to mass nominate/prod articles (the vast majority of which didn't stand). For me, that's far too much disruption. In addition I've asked him directly about the account issues and he's carried on editing without commenting on that. If there is some legitimate reason for his changing accounts and not wanting to reveal the old one, that is fine, but the fact that one sock was already brought out of the drawer is a problem.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I would like to note that with regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive, that was a clear username change there. Secondly, that was a bad-faith SPI report made my serial sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, who was at the time harassing him and User:DreamGuy. –MuZemike 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Don't shoot the messenger. He still used more than one account to mass prod/nominate a ton of articles which didn't stick. Neither account goes beyond May 2009, so the account(s) that he's used between November 10, 2006 and May 2009 are unknown. We don't know if he's still using them or not since we don't know which ones they are(were). If there is a legitimate reason for him changing accoutns he's free to email an admin or arbcom and report the change and they could comment here and say it is fine. However, due to the initial disruptive behaviour and the continued disruptive behaviour it doesn't really seem like it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I wasn't trying to (and apologies if I felt like I was), but I wanted to make that clear that Abductive and DreamGuy were clearly being baited and harassed by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer during that time. As far as the other account is concerned, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195#Wholesale deprodding by new account and [11] (the latter is repeated in that SPI case). –MuZemike 02:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC) After debunking one of his bizarre claims in the current dispute [12] where he continually claimed there wasn't a single other article on wikipedia that included researcher's names, he's gone through to make a ton of pointy and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits. He's also shown absolutely zero understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and continues to disrupt across multiple articles. I provided him with 2 google searches which showed tons of wikipedia articles using the phrase "study conduct/done by". His response was to run to those articles as fast as he could and remove as many mentions of that as he could. [13], [14], [15], [16], etc you can see his contrib history for today with a full list of all the articles he's tried to do this to. He knows there is no consensus for this change, I've asked him several times to cite a policy or guideline for it and he can't. Each time it is a new excuse as to why a researcher's name can't be on an article, but I think one tells us a lot. I have seen (and man, is it pathetic) junior professors post their mention in a Wikipedia article on their doors This would seem to indicate some personal interest/bias in the situation. [17] especially since he's utterly failed to properly cite any policy which says researchers names shouldn't appear in the article and they should only appear in the footnotes. He's reverted the Asian fetish article twice again today despite the on-going discussion to try and reach consensus on the article.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Somebody tell this user he doesn't own articles, and that he shouldn't wikihound. He really isn't getting it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC) This your defense for making pointy battleground edits across multiple articles? You might want to look in the mirror. You have no consensus for your edits. You have been asked repeatedly to provide a policy or citation for your position and can't do it. You can't cite a single passage on wikipedia that says researchers shouldn't be named in articles and rather than discuss it you continue to edit war over it. As we can clearly see here [18], and [19]. What you're not getting is that your opinion isn't the only one and if you want to change the status quo, you need to gain consensus. You've been told to read WP:BRD but at this point I don't know if you're just not capable or what the problem is. You were bold, you were reverted. You should engage in discussion. Instead you continue to revert and push it on to may other articles knowing your opinion is opposed. This is further evidence of your on-going and long term disruptive behaviour. We're still waiting for you to explain what happened with your account between Nov 10, 2006 and now.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC) That is how you characterize it. As I make edits to remove just the inline mentions of non-notable researchers who are already credited in the refs, you follow me around reverting me and say that I'm making a battleground? I don't have to engage in discussion with you on articles that aren't on your watchlist. As you yourself have demonstrated, if only ~2000 articles out of 3 million use the "in a study conducted by" language, then using such language is not the norm. I have already discovered that most such usage "in a study conducted by" is followed by "UNESCO", "an NGO" and so forth, not the names of non-notable scientists who most likely edited the pages themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Yes you are. You knew before you made those edits that your position was contested. You knew after I reverted 2 of them, that the position was contested. But you continued to make the edits and you continued to revert instead of enter discussion. You knew I was watching those 2 articles, because I reverted you. You ignored the community standard WP:BRD and continue to edit war your way across wikipedia to try and push your point of view. As I've already pointed out the absence of that sentence on an article doesn't prove the community disagrees with its usage. Your claim was no articles used it, you were wrong. Now in an attempt to correct that you're going to try and edit as many articles as you can to remove it. You've been asked to stop and discuss it and you've refused. This is your disruptive behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) If mentioning the people who discovered a fact was used inline for every fact throughout Wikipedia, it would take me 3,262,608 x about 15 minutes per article, or 93 years of solid editing to remove them all. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Yet again your failed logic. Absence of a piece of text in an article isn't proof of consensus from the community. Still waiting for that citation, or do you want to continue to try and distract rather than actually proving this mystical consensus you claim? Your claim was about naming researchers, not everyone who ever discovered a fact. You see, each time the story changes because you have nothing to support your position except your unending willingness to continue to edit war instead of discuss it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I really don't think so. Studies are by researchers, yet inline language in Wikipedia articles naming the researchers who conducted the studies is vanishingly rare, especially if the researchers don't have a Wikipedia article. By contrast, naming researchers in references is policy. This suggests consensus, perhaps unwritten or even unthinking, that one shouldn't give non-notable people so much "play" in articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) What policy? Please cite the policy that indicates researchers are only to be named in the footnotes. Still waiting. Another story change, we're going to need a play book here soon to keep up all the various lines you've tried to use to claim this shouldn't happen without actually providing a citation. Let's not forget that 3 of the 4 researchers you claimed were non-notable that started your latest disruptive edit warring over actually meet our notability requirements. You'd know if you'd have actually checked. I wonder how many others you've removed meet the guidelines or did you bother to check before removing their names?--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC) As I have told you many times, it's WP:UNDUE, in particular WP:UNDUE#Characterizing opinions of people's work. And you are characterizing my contructive edits to articles you only found by checking my contribs as disruptive and edit warring. You are completely mistaken about the notability of the researchers. Finally, I did not remove them from the article(s), just formatted them into refs (if they weren't already in the refs). Haven't you noticed that no admin has taken your side? Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) And as I've told you that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Have you actually read what you just linked to? Your claim was that policy stated they should be listed in the footnotes. Where is that in the text you've just linked to? It isn't there. Your second link has absolutely no bearing on this situation at all. it is talking about aesthetic opinion. You're not removing names that have anything to do with aesthetic opinion. But it shows how little you seem to understand the policy you're clinging to like a life-raft. You are removing the names of researchers who conducted research. Some of whom are notable. Like 3 from the article you got blocked for edit warring over. And [20] why don't you check out Flávio Henrique Caetano you'll find plenty of google news, books and scholar hits for him. Its unfortunately not english, and I don't know how common that name is but it comes up enough to be at least worth checking out. Especially before claiming he isn't notable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC) and here he is finally admitting he has no consensus for his actions [21]. If he had the consensus he claimed he did, he'd know where it is and wouldn't need to look for it. He's basically been making up argument after argument on things that have no real relationship to the issues and edit warring on multiple articles over it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Crossmr is the one making things up. I have been repeating the same argument, using different words, a variety of statistics, examples and links, in a vain attempt to get this user to see my point of view. As can be seen, of the four people arguing on the talk page, 2 hold one position and 2 hold another. Everything else is just Wikihounding and tenditious editing on Crossmr's part. Abductive (reasoning) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC) That isn't what you just claimed was it? Everyone can see your edit. Or do you want to continue to try and lie? To tell the truth, I have not looked for a proper "citation" for the consensus I claim, what part of that is made up? Still waiting on the name of the other accounts by the way. Your argument has been all over the place. You've refused to gain consensus and even after being blocked you continued to try and push your way on the article without consensus. Please enlighten us to what the passage on aesthetic opinions on creative works of art has to do with researchers names being in the article in conjunction with the studies they've produced. The tendentious editing comes from your unwillingness to see a discussion to the end before trying to force your opinion onto multiple articles by edit warring and even when you participate in a discussion to provide evidence to support your position. You just admitted you didn't look for the proper source which basically means you don't want to or can't provide it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC) As I previously stated, the consensus is in the form of millions of articles that do not give prominence to individual researchers, but instead use the established reference formats. I stated that this consensus is unwritten, but that does not mean it isn't the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC) No you clearly stated you didn't look for the consensus. studies aren't used in millions of articles on wikipedia so it would be unreasonable to expect them to give prominence to things they don't use. Unless you've actually got evidence of mass removal of these kinds of sentences unchallenged or with discussions showing consensus agreed with their removal, you have no consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I didn't look because you Wikilawyer everything, and because I use abductive reasoning. What I try to do is educate. As for my actions or statements being unchallenged, how much admin inaction here does it take for you to get the message? Abductive (reasoning) 08:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC) No. you didn't look because it doesn't exist. Your juggling on the Asian Fetish talk page is plenty evidence of that. You're concocting the most elaborate and asinine arguments I've ever seen. Citing completely unrelated polices and guidelines coupled with what almost appears to be intentional misunderstanding of them to try and support your arguments rather than cite the consensus you claim you have.--Crossmr (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) ♫ Nobody's listening to us ♫♪. Abductive (reasoning) 08:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC) When you two are done, any concise diffs or condensed explanations might be more useful than the above. Are there perhaps a few places we could focus on? Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) For what it is worth User:Abductive previously edited as User:Joey the Mango. He put some strange comments on my talk page but I can't say that I found them objectionable enough to complain about. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Concise diffs

• Last summer it was noted that Abductive used multiple accounts to mass-prod a bunch of articles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Wikihounding, by bunch over 150. They were all contested. AN/I shot the messenger because he was a sock, but it doesn't change what abductive did. Disruptive socking. At that time it was also noted that he refused to disclose old accounts and if you follow this discussion he ducks the question every time, but his user page indicates he's been here 2.5 years longer than his account.
• Around the same time, he got in a dispute with an editor here [22]. Not a 3RR violation, but he was going back and forth without discussion.
• In october 2009 he was involved in another edit war that was stopped with page protection before he could technically violate 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Abductive_Uncalled_for_Behavior [23] It was also noted he was uncivil making a personal attack.
• Last month in March he violated 3RR [24], [25], [26], [27] the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed.
• just recently he was blocked on Asian fetish for violating 3RR. After being unblocked he made a contribution to the consensus building discussion we were having [28], but followed that up with trying to push his version back into the article [29] [30] twice. Before being blocked he insinuated with evidence that I had some kind of COI when he wasn't getting his way [31]. this was an assumption of bad faith and I consider it a personal attack.
• During the discussion he brought up the point that there were no articles which had researchers names in them with the study. I provided a couple google links showing plenty, his response was to start making disputed, WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits to multiple articles. [32], [33], [34]. See contribs, he's done this to 7 or 8 articles. He knew his position was disputed but reverted any opposition and carried on with other articles.
• After I reverted a couple of this indicating there was no consensus to remove these names, he accused me of wikihounding and reverted again. Ignorinig WP:BRD. [35], [36].
• He's repeatedly claimed consensus yet each time he's asked for it he refuses to provide the link because he doesn't want to look for it [37] or claims I'll just wikilawyer it.
• Knowing that there is no consensus for his assertion and that it is disputed and still failing to provided evidence of his consensus he just tried to push it on a featured article [38]. Basically anything that gets mentioned as support he will try to edit out.
• While a discussion is on-going on one page that shows that users don't support his POV [39], he uses mis-leading edit summaries on other articles to push it [40].

Maybe a few more shortly.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that his edit war last month, this month and his pointy and battleground edits all seem to center around academics he thinks are not notable. Couple with his statement here about "juniour professors" [41]. It would seem like its a hot button issue for him.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quick point to Abductive about "consensus" regarding the names of authors; look at Court of Chancery. That's an FA; one of our highest-quality articles. That's an article which has been peer reviewed, and the idea that it is high-quality and does not violate policy has reached consensus. You'll notice authors' names are mentioned when they've opined. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have made an example edit (reverted by Ironholds using automation and the single word No) with a concise explanation of my reasoning on the talk page to the Court of Chancery article, which is easier to wade through than the mess in Asian fetish. Ironholds may not agree, but I think my reasons are sound. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that your behaviour is at ANI and the (admittedly small) consensus at the talkpage says you're wrong may make you want to think twice about your quote unquote "sound" reasons. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh I think twice often. For example, the phrase "according to academics" occurs in only 4 Wikipedia articles. "According to Professor" occurs in only 347 of Wikipedia's 3 million articles. In my discussion with you in Court of Chancery, I suspect that your opinion is colored by the way this stylistic concern was brought to your attention, and you might have reacted differently if I had just made the edit de novo. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, judging some form of WP natural law from statistics doesn't work. And no, I'm pretty much the same all the time. Again, have you considered that since nobody is agreeing with you, you might be wrong? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Before User:Crossmr went on his fishing expedition, the talk page was tied 2:2, with Hippo43 taking the same position as I did. Also, if you look through the article history of Asian fetish, Hippo43 has been struggling with many POV editors and socks, alongside Crossmr. Questions were raised about the appropriateness of including a study of racial preferences in dating in an article on sexual fetishization of Asian women, concerns which Crossmr shouts down. The treatment of this study has been given steadily more prominence in the article, to the point that it is the majority of the text, and that's when I started to try to trim it back a bit, per WP:UNDUE. This issue revolves around WP:UNDUE. I say that using the names of researchers inline lends a certain weight to the statement that may or may not be justified. In spite of the fact that WP:OWN is a policy, many people own articles and cannot see that there may be legitmate concerns. Abductive (reasoning) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• The fishing expedition which is showing you don't have the consensus you claimed you did and refuse to cite? The issue revolves around what appears to be your personal bias. Your two latest edit wars, your combative edits this time around, your casual comment about juniour professors on the talk page all show some kind of contempt for academics you don't deem worthy. Even knowing there was opposition to your position you just went and tried to change a featured article to push your point of view. you've been trying to dance around this for awhile now and providing all kinds of ludicrous and borderline disruptive answers as part of your reasoning. Claiming that you can't find a certain sentence pattern in some required imaginary number of articles as consensus that it shouldn't exist in any article is akin to saying your position is right because you're wearing blue pants. Your latest argument centered around the fact that somehow a notability guideline for article creation meant that we couldn't name a studies author in the article text. Naming the authors and/or universities involved in a study has absolutely nothing to do with WP:UNDUE and everything to do with presenting a clear picture to the reader.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• As further evidence of your doing whatever you want regardless of what other users say: [42] after two users explained to you that it is perfectly normal and correct to identify who it is that is making statements, claims, etc and that it is not a problem with WP:WEASEL, you went and gutted one article changing several statements from being attributed to a particular person or sources point of view to blanket facts. [43]. While he did remove a couple "some people say" kind of references, the vast majority of the ones he removed were named sources. He's basically providing false edit summaries. Claiming to be removing "according to's" per WEASEL, when in fact WEASEL only says you should remove the ones that are unattributed and unclear. Named sources don't fall under that.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• So are the two studies on the GA Theodore Kaczynski.--Crossmr (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any WP:UNDUE weighting in the Theodore Kaczynski article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts about the diffs above. I don't have a stake in this issue nor do I want to engage in a blow-by-blow regarding the below. I'll make a few specific points though. The two ANI's up there don't bother me. In fact, aside from an isolated uncivil comment (it really wasn't that uncivil either), they're entirely appropriate. It's not 3RR to keep removing vandalism or spam. Similarly the List of University of Toronto people edits are essentially an IP (that changes) attempting to add inappropriate redlinks to a list page, something that had previously been discussed a lot by Abductive and others on the Talk page. In that case he RVed 2 times, then sent the IP to the page. I don't see why that's a problem. Similarly, the "mass prodding" was to a whole set of address pages that a sock puppet account then had issue with. I don't think anyone else called it disruptive.

The James R. Davila stuff is a little pushy, and should have been discussed somewhere other than in edit summaries. The proper move would have been for Abductive to have undone Avraham's RV with a note to go to the talk page. If Avraham continued to remove it after that, then take appropriate action. Neither of those are model behavior, but nor are either of those fatal. That incident was almost a year ago too.

What is inappropriate are the edits that got him blocked, and the similar ones removing researcher names. I agree with Ironholds on some of those details, but that's not the point of discussion here. There is a tendency to be a little pointy about some of these recent edits. My conclusion is that there are some legitimate complaints regarding this recent trend (especially in the 3R situation, which after the first change was explained there was ongoing discussion), but Crossmr's claims regarding the past edits are either without merit, or minor problems.

I think Abductive should cool down on these "Professor X says..." edits for a while. If they're going to be made across a bunch of articles, there should be a central debate about it somewhere. As for the SPI stuff, you should put that over at SPI and leave this other stuff out of it (or else I pity the clerk who has to wade through all of that). Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple notes, the admin who protected the page last October specifically said "but also got carried away in his response to reinsertions of the kind that got the article deleted in the first place". The reinsertions might not have been appropriate but the admin felt that Abductive got carried away anyway. This is more about his response to challenges to his editing. At the toronto article only the first 2 edits were explicitly over redlinks with the IP, the next two were reverts of Wisdompower. To me it shows that he doesn't handle opposition to his POV well, which is what is happening again now. While I don't find those two events to be huge problems, I just find them to be indicative of a on-going trend that with this account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• And the WP:TLDR award goes to... You guys! Serioisly, have you noticed that everyone else seems to have tuned out a while back here? Dare I suggest you do the same and just try to avoid one another for a while... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's not particularly helpful and since the addition of the concise diffs section we've been getting some helpful feedback.--Crossmr (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox is right but so are you. The frustration here though is that the disagreements appear to be largely personal. It's not long til someone says "this isn't an administrator issue", which is mostly true at this point. We'd all appreciate any remaining issues be boiled down to some core contingency and those be funneled to the right place.

Look, you're both good editors, but even the best of us make mistakes from time to time. The question is if Abductive, takes this to heart, and similarly if Crossmr does too. This isn't blame... and someone else may still do something about it too. But notwithstanding that, I'd hope you both try to discuss things a little bit more. You two know enough to be incredibly productive, or incredibly disruptive. Not that I think either of you are doing the latter, but you know the game, so please understand that if the rules are applied somewhat more rigorously to this issue, it's because of that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here. I've rarely ever edited the same article as abductive [44]. 1 of those few articles we've both edited was like 4 years apart. I brought this here because I saw an editor who repeatedly edited against consensus, and refused to properly discuss issues before hitting the revert button. Since I brought this here you've seen him continue the disputed edits knowing they're disputed and even doing so on a FA. You've suggested he should cut that out unless he's going to start a central discussion to get consensus on it. Continually pushing POV without properly seeking consensus when you know your edits are disputed is an administrator issue. It is why I brought it here. If he's going to cut that out and engage in proper consensus building discussions and adhere to WP:BRD I've got no issues dropping it. But if he's going to just blindly revert any opposition to his POV we're just going to be back here tomorrow.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for administrative actions

Which as I expected brings us right back here. Yet again Abductive is doing whatever he wants regardless of who speaks out against him [45]. As I pointed out yesterday Abductive ignored the opinions of experienced editors and used misleading edit summaries to change another article. After an IP (which he assumed was me and was wrong, reverted him for legitimate reasons) instead of WP:BRD he just reverted and made bad faith accusations. The blind reversion and bad faith accusations need to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams suggested above that these edits were not a good idea and that he should stop until a central discussion was held on the issue. After trying to push the change on an FA, he was told there was no problem with the researchers name being inline by two different editors.[46], [47]. It is clear Abductive has no consensus to make these changes. So he went off to several other articles and made those changes.

• [48] Here he claims to be removing entries per WEASEL, but WEASEL addresses using words like "according to some" he only removed 2 of those and removed 4 instances where those statements were attributed to individuals. This was just explained to him that it was okay and that he shouldn't make these edits
• [49] he does it again
• [50] and a third one here
• An IP (which he assumes bad faith and assumes its me, feel free to run a CU) comes along and reverts him with explanation. [51], [52], [53], [54]
• Ignoring WP:BRD Abductive continues his WP:BATTLEGROUND edits, assumes bad faith and insinuates the IP is me, threatens the IP on his talk page for reverting him, and then reverts all of the articles. [55], [56], [57] [58]

I said I'd let it drop if was willing to edit inline with policies and guidelines but its apparent he isn't. So far, he's violated:

• WP:POINT
• WP:CONSENSUS
• WP:BATTLEGROUND
• WP:AGF
• WP:BRD
• WP:3RR in the last week.

This has to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• How did I insinuate that an IP was you? This claim is bogus. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• By slapping him with the same bad faith warning and using the same verbiage to dismiss his edits?--Crossmr (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hardly evidence that I was saying it was you. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• But plenty of evidence to support you are acting in bad faith and ignoring WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lionel Hutz: "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your edits are right there where you accuse him of wikihounding you and threaten him on the talk page. Are you telling us you didn't make those edits? Was someone else using your account? Another lost password? How about the fact that you went out and made those first edits in the face of growing opposition to your point of view which you still can't cite a consensus on? You're right people should read your edits, because it is clear as day that you have no regard for other people's point of view and feel entitled to revert any page to your preferred version regardless of discussion and in violation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. While there was only small connected evidence before this began, you've shown since its started that you zero regard for any kind of opposition to your POV.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• If I decided to remove instances of "not uncommon" from every article it which the phrase appeared, would that be a blockable offence? No, because the phrase fits WP:WEASEL. Similarly, removing a few instances of "according to" is both a minor change and consistent with the MoS. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• You were just told by multiple editors not to remove that and that it was not consistent with MoS. Removing according tos, when they're attached to words like "some people" or "some academics" is appropriate. Removing according tos when they're attached to "John Smith" or "Professor X" are not appropriate. It is clear attribution of an opinion. This was explained to you. You ignored repeatedly. Which is why we are here and people are supporting your block.--Crossmr (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, those edits predate Shadowjams suggestion at 23:29, 20 April 2010 that I "cool it" with those sorts of edits. If people take a look at the edits, and the edits summaries, I think some will not see any problems at all. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your reversions of the IP who disagreed with you do not predate that suggestion. They also don't predate being told on the talk page of the FA that the names are appropriate [59]. Nor does it excuse you using misleading edit summaries to cover up the changes you make.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• So I continued to edit articles I already edited? My edit summaries were not misleading. I strongly recommend that all editors reading this look at the edits. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Editing an article once doesn't give you license to revert any opposition to your edits. That is specifically spelled out on WP:BRD (which has to be well over a dozen times I've linked you to it which you seem to have great issue reading). You were bold, you were reverted, and instead of discussing it you reverted again with bad faith assumptions and accusations. You were also bold at a time where there was not. WP:WEASEL specifically addresses removal of "according tos" that don't go to a specific source, you removed 4 such entries that did go to specific sources. That is a misleading edit summary.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• In each of the follow-on edits I made, I carefully considered what the IP said, and made new edits that were either different from the first, or explained why I felt I was correct. At present, are any of the articles worse than when I started? Abductive (reasoning) 05:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2 of the 4 were blind reverts were you accused him of wikihounding then threatened him on his talk page. None of the removals were appropriate at that point because multiple editors had said it was inappropriate. The status of the articles is immaterial because you clearly knew these kinds of edits were disputed but you persisted in pushing your point of view without having the discussion that was recommended to you.--Crossmr (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with everything you just said, except to note that now we're down to 2 out of 4 articles. Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I never said the other 2 were okay. At that point it was still suggested you stop making those edits. Its only in 2 of them you made direct bad faith accusations and blindly reverted the articles. The other two you still removed the names without consensus. When you reverted those articles Shadowjams had recommended you stop and 2 editors on the FA had told you that the names were appropriate. You had no support for your edits yet pushed away.--Crossmr (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. The edits were consistent with the Manual of Style, and 2 or 4 edits hardly constitutes any kind of mass action. Again, I note that the articles are better now than they were before. This is how editing gets done on Wikipedia; there may be some opposition, but given that the IP hasn't complained or reverted, perhaps s/he doesn't perceive a problem. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, they weren't. You were told that already. you were told to stop making them. The IP could just be busy and hasn't come back to the article. Their absence isn't evidence that they support you. I know you like to use that a lot as argument, but it doesn't fly. The problem is you ignore other users, and revert pages rather than discuss. It is what got you blocked before, and the exact behaviour you've continuing since then. You've intentionally gone to articles and made edits you know were disputed. I haven't reverted all of them yet because I'm waiting for a clear consensus which is starting to form. If you want to continue these edits you need to make a proposal at the village pump that they should be removed and see how the community feels. Everything else disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• You know what? I think that you need to get the last word in. You and I repeat the same arguments over and over, with you making sweeping statements about consensus forming, when in fact the general consensus is that this is not important. It is an editing dispute, with some people even agreeing with me. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block This is a long list of violated policies. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Abductive's WP:POINT violations concern me the most. If he wants to have inline attributions of studies to their researchers removed, he should have gone to the village pump, rather than just removing them all himself, without prior discussion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that this is a real problem. Disruption, socking, fait accompli mass edits, wikilawyering about 3RR (there is no 3 revert entitlement). Talks like an academic and edit wars at asian fetish? Give me a break. Overall attitude could be viewed as an ownership issue towards the whole encyclopedia. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is no socking. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Then why don't you tell us who the previous accounts? You were asked by an adminstrator last year to name your accounts and refused.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I refused correctly. There is a difference between sockpuppeting and legit alternate accounts, and there is no problem at all if the accounts don't overlap in time and articles. I tell you what, though; if you can guess any of my alternate accounts, I'll admit them. You can have 1000 guesses, just ask at my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 04:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• How would anyone know since you won't disclose it? I'm certainly not going to take your word on it at this point. The very least you can do is e-mail the list to arbcom.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'll tell the truth. After all, if in the future any admin or member of arbcom ever did take an interest in this non-issue, my lying would be perceived quite negatively. So, if there is any account that has ever aroused your suspicion, just ask on my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you want to come clean with your past accounts you can do so here or you can e-mail the list to arbcom. No reason to tuck it away on your talk page. Last year you claimed that they would only show more of the same (Which tells us a lot) but that there wasn't anything untoward, so why not just list them unless you got blocks or bans to hide?--Crossmr (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed. Who said academics can't have fetishes? Seriously, this seems a pretty wp:lame conflict, people should just back off from gouging each others eye's over stuff like this. I don't see significant issues with Abductive's latest incriminated edit [60]. Removing some verbiage is always good. It makes sense to repeatedly use "According to ..." only if the statements are contentious, and some alternative interpretation is provided, like "According to X, A1 happened, but according to Y, A2 happened." Just repeatedly using "According to X", where X is not even the same across occurrences, and the there are no disputed issues, just induces the impression that there may be a different interpretation when none is provided, so it should be a construct to wp:avoid just like "claims". Pcap ping 00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Except he's been told by multiple users he shouldn't do it without getting consensus first. There are multiple problems here. 1) that he's making WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT edits he knows are currently disputed and 2) any reversion of those edits is met with assumptions of bad faith and reversions rather than discussions per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. it was suggested above that he not continue these edits without a central discussion on it, and after he tried to push it on an FA he was told by 2 users there that there was no problem with the edits. Someone ignoring consensus and edit warring their pov into an article isn't lame. It's a problem. The problem at Hephthalite was several, 1) disputed edit, 2) misleading edit summary, 3) assumption of bad faith, 4) consensus and BRD. He managed 4 violations in 2 edits. and we already know that Abductive is removing this names not because the claims aren't disputed but because he feels these individuals are "non-notable" academics, and that naming them is some kind of vanity, spam, or whatever other story he's concocted today.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, Ironholds has warmed a bit to my point of view. The way you have characterized my edits is not consistent with the, well, truth. Abductive (reasoning) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• "I'll take a look" doesn't mean, I agree with your point and you're free to remove researchers names from countless articles.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Listen carefully; I am not advocating removing researchers from articles; what I want is their names down in the footnoted references--not inline--unless there is a good reason. Abductive (reasoning) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Listen carefully; there is opposition to your moving names down to the references from in-line. You were told to stop it, both here and on article talk pages. You continued. More people opposed you. You reverted and made bad faith accusations. You are being disruptive, see no problem with your edits, and have no regard for consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I disagree. The consensus you claim is actually people wishing that this ANI discussion would die out, or people who came quite late to this discussion and clearly are mislead by you. Earlier, Ironholds, one other user and I had a discussion on a talk page, with results amenable to all. An IP and you are the only ones intrested in following my contribs and finding fault, and I made an effort to take everybody's concerns into account, and the IP has not edited the articles further. Are you saying that I cannot edit? Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, the consensus I claim is Shadowjam who told you to get consensus, ironholds and the other person on the FA talk page, the IP, and even Radman above specifically states that you should have gone to the village pump to get consensus first, as well as a second IP. If you made an effort to take everyone's concerns into account, you wouldn't have run out to change every article that was provided as evidence to dispute your false claims. You're free to edit, but you shouldn't be moving researchers names out of the inline text until you have consensus to do so. Several users have told you that. You've ignored it repeatedly and made bad faith accusations and ignored WP:BRD to push your point of view.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, you make sweeping claims that I changed "every article", was going to remove "all" of something, and that I am reverting when the edits are not reversions, and that I am not following suggestions when in fact I am. I'm also engaging in normal editing practices to the best of my ability. Go ahead, put in the last word. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Crossmr, I don't see a good reason to invoke the source of some science in text by default. You haven't provided any. Just because you and some other editors disagree with Abductive on this issue, it doesn't make you (or them) any holier than him. I do use similar constructs occasionally, but when I have a good reason to do so. For instance, I used something like that in the capacitor plague article "The failed capacitors analyzed by two University of Maryland researchers..." to emphasize that the guys that did the analysis are reasonably independent of the hardware manufacturers. Another case is when someone pioneers a new technique etc. But in general, I don't see a reason to give the names in text for routine science, especially when they don't have wikibios here. Can you argue for one? Pcap ping 09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Holier no, but knowingly going out and repeatedly making edits you know are disputed is disruptive. Especially when counselled to start a consensus discussion. It is completely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Individual articles have to be addressed individually, but anyone who has disagreed with his edits finds their work undone. This is the problem. Other than the featured article, every other article has him constantly putting his preferred version, without names back in. He probably knows that edit warring on a featured article would get him far more attention than some fringe article so that is why its the only one he chose not to to instantly undo the opposition to his edits. You have to remember the whole reason this started was because of his false claim in defense of his edits on Asan fetish was that no article on wikipedia had this language in it. As soon as he was confronted with a list of tons of them, he started changing them.--Crossmr (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. I am disappointed that after the improvements Abductive showed in his editing at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators after receiving a dressing down from several regulars at that page and changing his name from Joey the Mango to Abductive he has edited disruptively and against consensus in other articles. It seems that he edits subjects of which he has limited knowledge in a domineering and recalcitrant manner and is unwilling to accommodate the views of others. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

• The more I see the more its clear there is some personal bias against academics he thinks are non-notable and is out to remove every mention of them from wikipedia regardless of how others feel.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this characterization is untrue. User:Crossmr uses the word scare word "remove" to describe either my desire to see the names of researchers mentioned in footnotes rather than given undue prominence, or a legitimate process called AfD. Seizing upon an AfD nomination I made when I was rusty upon returning to editing, he makes sweeping, untrue claims. Abductive (reasoning) 15:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Ramsay Shaw was an interesting if unfunny read, but that was almost a year ago. Towards the end of that Abductive gave the impression he learned something from that AfD. Are you suggesting that Abductive has some hidden agenda to diminish the presence of academics on Wikipedia by removing "According to ..." verbiage? I see Crossmsr thinks so, but I want to hear it from you. Pcap ping 01:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it was a year go. Hence why I titled this long term disruption. Older incidents are quite relevant because it shows that this is an on-going problem which shows no real indication of changing. He gave the impression he learned something, but obviously he didn't. All his edit summaries belie his intent. Instead of indication that he's trying to improve the articles he's telling us he's removing their names from the inline text because they're "non-notable" he was nominating academics without properly checking them. He was referring to Fisman and Iyengar as non-notable academics at Asian Fetish when a quick Gnews/Books/Scholar check shows they meet WP:PROF and their inclusion in the article as "vanity" or "stealth spam" [61], coupled with that statement and the fact that He's twice violated 3RR fighting over what he considers non-notable academics it paints a very clear picture.--Crossmr (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• He was asking Xxanthippe. Twice violated 3RR? What was the second time? And referring to an AfD that occurred a year ago is plainly ridiculous. I have nominated dozens of articles for deletion since then, partipated in over 1000 AfDs, and have prevailed in quite a few. Crossmr continues to cherry-pick, characterizing my normal editing behavior, and a few mistakes, as evidence of some sort of plot to ruin Wikipedia. In fact, none of my actions are particularly unusual, and all are attempts on my part to improve the encylopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• What is it that is being asked?--Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Pcap wanted to know if you think Abductive has some agenda against academics.--Crossmr (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have no views on that matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

• A month ago, look up, its already been linked to twice. Last month in March he violated 3RR [24], [25], [26], [27] the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed. You undid another editors work 4 times in 24 hours. It got lost in the shuffle of all of the edit warring that was going on there. I don't need to cherry pick anything. I just simply need to point out the times you were opposed and how you reacted to it. A year ago is perfectly relevant since the point being made is long-term disruption. That would require old incidents too. Which really aren't that old since you apparently started editing 2.5 years before that but refuse to name your previous accounts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Truly, the way you characterize things is Machiavellian (or Orwellian) and a bold-faced lie. Editing after two different IPs and a named account, with edits that weren't the same, is not 3RR. I think it is you that is violating WP:BATTLEGROUND. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Undoing another user's edits 4 times in 24 hours is a 3RR violation, it doesn't matter if its a named account or an IP. unless those edits are one of the few excepted edits (blatant vandalism, copyvios, etc) then it counts. Opposing Abductive's point of view isn't one of the excepted edits. Can you demonstrate that any of the things you removed and undid was an excepted edit under WP:3RR? And if you don't refuse to name your previous accounts, then put the list right here. So unless you can show how some of the things you removed met those requirements or are willing to put the list of accounts here the characterization is apt.--Crossmr (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that what turned out to be one other user was editing against the talk page consensus on an article with BLP issues, I don't think that 3RR applies. Nobody but you cares about the non-issue of my prior accounts, and my offer still stands for you to guess at them. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why this user is still, after this much disruption, a rollbacker. I do not feel that any user who has engaged in disruptive editing should possess this tool, and would support revoking rollback rights and then possibly blocking. Immunize (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question and might be the subject of a secondary proposal.--Crossmr (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry champ, that isn't one of the excepted edits you get to go over 3RR for. 3RR isn't for content disputes, and if you think it is then it tells us you really haven't learned anything from this or prior situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the prior accounts are an issue since concerns are being raised about them, and I think Abductive is showing a long term pattern of non-collegial editing, and ongoing wikilawyering (I haven't checked if that's also a long term pattern). Abductive, have you disclosed your past accounts to arbcom-l and/or are you willing to do so? While the sock policy doesn't formally require that, it is strongly recommended there, and if you won't do it, I think that diminishes the amount of AGF that should be extended to you in this discussion. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed There are issues and then there is wrongdoing within this thread. Trumped up charges should always be avoided as they are a means by which one side tries to unfairly tilt the playing field to possibly get a biased judgment. Wikipedia always looks forward and rarely goes back and corrects past mistakes in judgment. Secondly, what exactly is an "administrative action"? Are you seeking a topic ban? That sounds like a major action. Has either party attempted to resolve differences either informally or formally? While there are issues here to be sorted out the approach throws up caution flags.--scuro (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you can show where I said anythig false feel free to do so. Otherwise, you can retract your statement. I've provided links for all of his editing and what he has done. This isn't a content dispute. This is an editor who ignores consensus, fails to abide by the varous policies and guidelines he's required to and undoes any opoposition to his point of view. This goes across many articles and topics. While it is mainly confined to one topic, he's edit warred over other things as well. There is nothing he and I can do privately since it isn't a personal issue between us. Administrator action is whatever is required to get him to stop, gain consensus and edit in a manner conducive to running a community when his edits are opposed. He apparently needs that since one of his arguments on Asian fetish was "Since an administrator hasn't blocked me or done anything else, I must be right"--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Abductive has claimed exaggeration of your complaint, that user should speak to this issue. I do not buy the notion that there is "nothing he and I can do". Attempts on your part to earnestly resolve differences on his talk page should be the very first approach taken even if this exercise looks to be totally futile. This is a condition required pre-arbitration. Formal reconciliation mechanisms should have also been attempted. Are there several editors who who are in complete agreement with your observations? If so they could be used to initiate other procedures. Are you seeking a total ban from Wikipedia? While that in the end might be the end result ...explain to me why all the traditional remedies and procedures are not required in this case. While a contributor may be behaving poorly, the normal sanction process gives contributors the opportunity and time to permanently self-correct behaivour before serious sanctions are required.--scuro (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per User:Pohta ce-am pohtit, who notes that inline attribution suggests "that there may be a different interpretation when none is provided" ; having sources' names in the citation, not inline, is the norm. This looks pretty lame. I think both Crossmr and Abductive should just try to avoid each other.John Z (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The proposal of User:John Z is not helpful as it, in effect, warns User:Crossmr off these topics and leaves Abductive free to edit with impunity. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC).

Um, there's no "norm"--heck, in Harvard referencing, the cited author's name is necessarily inline, and it is a perfectly acceptable style on wikipedia. Edit warring over a choice like that completely inappropriate. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a content dispute. Its about an editor who constantly edit wars with multiple editors across multiple articles and topics and when provided evidence that his point of view isn't supported on other articles he rushes over to change them, including featured articles. The rightness or wrongness of researchers names appearing inline is completely immaterial to this editor's behaviour. The problem was him claiming false consensus and undoing anyone's opposition to his point of view.--Crossmr (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose a blanket block - I assume the only block proposals are for perma-blocks, which I would not support. If there's some more nuanced alternative, I would reevaluate (which doesn't mean I'd necessarily support). Also relevant: have any controversial edits continued despite discussion? Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked for adminstrative intervention, whatever they deemed necessary to slow him down and get him to actually discuss the opposition to his edits rather than just undo people's opposition over and over with bad faith assumptions. And yes, as I pointed out above, after 2 editors disagreed with him on the FA, he went out and changed 4 more articles. When he was reverted on that, he reverted again instead of following WP:BRD and actually discussing it, meanwhile assuming bad faith on the reverters intentions by accusing him of wikihounding and threatening him with a block for doing so. As you can see here he's shown no appreciation nor understanding of what the problem is. He hasn't made any disputed edits in a day, but as more attention is being paid to the issue, his level of WP:BATTLEGROUND edits has dropped. What happens if the thread goes off AN/I? Who knows. But since he's shown no acception nor understanding I doubt anything is going to change. Immunize suggested rollback rights be removed above. Perhaps a more concrete proposal is in order.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• At minimum, formally restrict to one account unless user agrees to inform arbcom of all aliases and does so (in which case we should ask an arb to spot check the other accounts). User is either operating multiple disruptive accounts and avoiding scrutiny by concealing the connection between them, or is operating a combination of disruptive and non-disruptive accounts, a good-hand/bad-hand situation that is also a misuse of alternates. The only way to legitimately use multiple accounts is to keep all of them completely free of any hint of misconduct. That hasn't happened here. I'm sympathetic to the block proposal but don't want to pile onto it without burning more time examining Crossmr's diffs than I feel like doing. Abductive's aggressive style if done for long enough (even at a low level) constitutes battleground editing calling for use of attitude adjustment tools if it doesn't change. Probation or a suitable editing restriction might be good. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If you have evidence of that, then file a WP:SPI, Mr. Anonymous. Pcap ping 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • He was asked by adminstrators to do so and danced around the issue. Given his behaviour here and the fact that he continually refuses to name his other accounts, even in a private e-mail to arbcom, it's an issue. If he is restricting himself to one account right now, SPI wouldn't do anything, and SPI data isn't kept a year old to find out if he's hiding previous bad accounts. I find it interesting that you'd take issue with someone expressing an opinion via an IP, but not with someone ignoring wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

How about the following:

• 1. A formal restriction to one account, and
  2. Either
     1. A 1RR restriction, or
     2. A 0RR on "stylistic" changes (e.g., moving a name from the text to the reference, or vice-versa). (If he doesn't think it's important, than he shouldn't be adding it against opposition.)

  Explaination:

  As he has previously used multiple accounts disruptively, then we (at least ArbCom) needs to keep track of his multiple accounts if he is acting disruptively on any of them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

What about the following:

restricted to one account

he emails his list of accounts to arbcom so they can keep track of them

1RR on regular topics

0RR on anything to do with "academics", their notability, and them being mentioned in articles, broadly construed.

he's encouraged to commit WP:BRD to memory--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

From a privacy perspective I don't think we can demand (rather than merely urge) that someone disclose past alternate accounts to arbcom, unless we're prepared to ban the person outright if they refuse. It less imposing to restrict their use in the future, which I think is reasonable here. Your other proposals sound ok. Pcap, nobody is entitled to edit with multiple accounts, especially completely undisclosed ones. It's a practice that we accept in certain situations, but we should withdraw our acceptance if other factors begin to weigh against it, as they have here. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why we're asking them to be emailed to arbcom privately. We consider arbcom trustworthy. Users are often asked to email arbcom these kinds of things privately if they don't want to disclose them publicly. --Crossmr (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct

Draganparis (talk · contribs)

For weeks now, user Draganparis makes constant accusations and slanders certain users he deems as his archenemies in Wikipedia. In the course of a few months he was banned once for disruptive editing and once for sockpuppetry and has 3 confirmed socks. Two of them were discovered after my complaint and were confirmed here [62]. Since then, he has been roaming Macedonia related pages intentionally and blatantly slandering my name and this of other editors. He also initiated a sockpuppetry case against user Athenian, accusing me and two other editors of being his puppets, which produced unconfirmed results only. It proved that 3 of us operate from northern Greece, but that was all [63]. Since then, user Draganparis is constantly making improper and slandering comments in a personal battle against me and other users making customized "technical notes", posting them around and threatening people (even admins!!!!) not to remove them!!!

Evidence:
[64],
[65]
[66],
[67]
Here he is warning another user to not remove his "technical note"...[68]
Here he is warning an admin to not remove his "technical note"...[69]
Here I warn him to stop propagating slanders... [70]
He of course goes on... [71]
..and on.. [72]
..and on.. [73]

...

Anybody who will look into this matter will easily see that throughout this time, I tried to refrain from discussion with user Draganparis and most if not all of his comments were made in irrelevant instances and with me (and the other users he mentions) absent from the discussion. This clearly shows his intention to slander. It will be very interesting for any admin to occupy himself with this case to look into the edits of all concerned editors, mine, Draganparis' as well as any other's Draganparis constantly abuses. Since day 1, he has not made A SINGLE constructive edit in any article. He is a man of single purpose and is only active in discussions to disrupt and propagate his personal beliefs. I could go on and on about how he has behaved to other editors and admins, but in this complaint, I only refer to his conduct towards me in the last weeks.

Please, look into this matter and rule out something... GK (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a heap of irritating disruption in that long message of his, and I agree it does not belong on a talk page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed it three times now - and since April 9 it has not come back. It's a bit late to leave him warnings about that unless he does it again. I have notified the editor for you. --SGGH ^ping! 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, my informing the community that we "might" have kind of collaborative editing is not accusatory. I think it is now well known, and if there is no collaboration, there is certainly a need to reduce edits of bare support of the opinions of the other editors from the "group" and STOP permanently insulting the opposing editors. Producing evidence (this is a history page!) is needed instead. I would appreciate if the Administrator would inform the mentioned "group" about the rules of decency on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, here you have it... He "informs" the community that some users "might" have some kind of collaborative editing... And then he again talks about the mentioned "group" which "might" exist and "might" collaborate and "might" be socks as he propagates... I think that user Draganparis' words here clearly show the extent of his misconduct... He propagates his suspicions, no matter where or why and blatantly attacks me and other users. He does not seem to understand that accusing somebody once, during a heated discussion, of something that according to his opinion "might" be true is not the same thing as continuously and methodically propagate such accusations. GK (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at what Draganparis considers a "discovery":

ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone please link "conspiracy theorist" and "there is no cabal" stuff...

Seriously though, it's not only that he accused some editors of being socks, he got his investigation which didn't prove his accusation, but then he goes on to keep insisting that the investigation was wrong and he is still right and he no less than SPAMS the same thing over and over and OVER again. This is not proper behaviour and I wonder why admins have not blocked him again. It's not like he was a perfect example so far, he's been blocked for trolling and sock-puppeting already! And he disputes those investigations too and claims we blocked him and not uninvolved admins. He slanders YOU too! Instead of focusing on borderline cases of unproven incivility (my pet peeve), how about you do something about a clear cut case such as this? Simanos (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is rather surprising that this is still going for months. Inaction can cause trivialities to grow into real problems. Then again, admin involvement is a thankless task, when there is a real or perceived ethnic dispute (here it is only perceived as such by one user).

• For instance, I have no dispute with Draganparis, and not the slightest knowledge of his edits concerning Cyril and Methodius (I had only filed his first confirmed SPI case in January [74] ; then, nothing more, zero interaction, despite being called a nazi on that case page [75] etc). His latest posts only came to my attention now, because I was inactive since March, being busy IRL, and therefore not willing to address any kind of provocations, or sloppy actions (see below). Nevertheless, it is disappointing that I come to discover my username continuously and repeatedly included, with no justification whatsoever, in a series of "warnings" or "notices" posted all over the place (from what I gather, in irrelevant pages) about belonging to some conspiracy or group or whatever entity of users (no matter who those users are). In fact, such posts in article talk pages, and unconcerned third user pages, would be disruptive, under any circumstances, even if they had been proved to be true. Even more so, when there is no basis for them, as is the case here.

• Moreover, let me add, that the SPI case mentioned [76] (against Athenean, myself et al.) was opened and closed in a much too hasty, even sloppy way. And to make it clearer: 1. there was no behavioral evidence justifying a checkuser privacy intrusion; 2. the conclusion as presented is unhelpful (and probably the investigation was too shallow; for example, I had been travelling a lot those days/weeks that there could be no coincidence of my location with any other users, except maybe at one given time... not to mention that I started my itinerary in the opposite part of the world). In this situation, I can guess the best intentions of those that acted, after hearing "scary" words like Macedonia, but the point of an SPI is not to get rid of it quickly, but rather to resolve it in a way that helps move on with encyclopedic work. Anyway, I hope concerned users don't take offence on this comment of mine; I refrained from commenting on this till now, but I see it as one of the sources of the current problem, and a clarification or intervention might be needed to finally move on... Antipastor (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but a checkuser's role in an SPI investigation is to evaluate the technical evidence (note, I was the checkuser in question). The technical evidence supported no conclusions. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. So, according to you, is user Draganparis parade through Wikipedia spamming warnings regarding these IPs justified? GK (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, further revealing discussion on this issue has been conducted in DP's personal discussion page here [77].

Here, he admits of his fault, he admits that he acted against the rules of Wikipedia but he embellishes his confession with so many theatrical pleas and arguments that I still cannot accept them as a true, sincere and straightforward apology. I am prepared to let go, as long as user Draganparis publicly admits to his misconduct and clearly, without any excuses and peculiar wording swears he will not do it again. As for the rest of the users who have been victims of DP's misconduct, I leave it to them to decide how to act. GK (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is overflowing everywhere, including on user talk pages (and my talk page unfortunately). Nothing productive is happening either there, here, or on the user talks. Can we propose archiving them all and imposing some sort of talk-page interaction ban? SGGH ^ping! 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That is just silly, I'm sorry to say. The problem is not Dragan's talk page (which is an attack page and should be deleted), but that he spills his sladners in every article talk page he visits. Over and over and over again. And you are right that nothing productive comes of it. Because you and other admins do not get involved in this clear case of personal attack violation by DP. Why is that? Simanos (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please read our last edits on my talk page and Cyril and Methodius page, and see my permanent and recent efforts to calm the spirits – and insatiable desire to have me out of the discussion of exactly 4-6 very well defined users, with very well defined concept. Without examining these edits you can not, I am afraid, have realistic impression. Look at that vocabulary please, even here. In addition, the users Simanos and GK (GK1973) are insulting me not in any oblique way but concretely using straight forward insulting words (layer, paranoid, etc. even on YOUR talk page!?). How about warning them to avoid hard words at least?Draganparis (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts to calm the spirits are always accompanied by your inflamatory baseless accusations and slander. Even in this message here you again mention (read: spam) the same nonsense about 4-6 "very well defined users" and you other conspiracy theory cabal stuff. Our desire is not to have you out of the discussion. Our desire is to have you stop slandering people and spamming and trolling. Every time you do not get your way you start complaining again about the world being out to get you. Or at least the secret evil cabal of Greeks. We are not insulting you by showing evidence that you are a sock-puppeter (confirmed twice), troll (blocked once for disruptive editing), or by complaining about your obvious slander attemp (and spam) that you haven't been banned for yet. Nor when we point out the conspiracy theory nature of your complains and spam. We're merely calling a spade a spade. Or would you prefer it if we shut up? You've tried to do that to others with threatening messages, even to admins! Need I remind you what you posted on Future Perfect's talk page? Simanos (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Message to admins: Can you please pay some attention to this issue of constant slander? It's not related to Macedonia or other controversial articles you may not want to get involved in. It's a simple clear cut case. Don't settle into inaction please because you fear you will get bogged down into a frustrating situation. Simanos (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Implementing possible solution

Unfortunately this thread hasn't received too much attention from other admins, though I know the user(s) above have in the past. Would another admin weigh in here on the proposal of some sort of talk page/interaction ban between the three, or some other less heavy-handed solution? The growing disruption on article and user talks between the three groups is beginning to tread on WP:BATTLE. SGGH ^ping! 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy

Information

• Primary account
  • Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Sockpuppets
  • MPFC1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
  • 72.95.200.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 96.236.232.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Sockpuppet investigations case pages
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy/Archive
    • CU confirmation of sockpuppets
      • MPFC1969

This user has been to the noticeboards many times, more often than not, as the person being reported. Recently, they were caught red handed socking to evade their indef 1rr restriction, and their abuse of twinkle, which got them added to the twinkle blacklist.

Currently, the sock is blocked indef, and the main account blocked a week. I personally don't think that's enough, so I'm asking for other's opinions here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing If he wants to retire, he can retire. If he wants to abide by the rules, he can abide by the rules. But if he's going to keep on editing in contravention of the rules, he has to be blocked or banned. I've had numerous bad interactions with this user and I believe that he edits in bad faith when interacting with other users. He has made it clear that he will lie to manipulate the community on Wikipedia and has resorted to not-so-subtle threats against me to try to get me blocked or banned for spurious reasons. I am not an admin, but I would like to voice my support for an extended block or outright ban as this user is unwilling or unable to abide by any community standard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I would like to point out that Radiopathy can be a very useful editor, frequently improving articles and even—ironically—reporting sockpuppets. It would be unfortunate for him to be banned outright, but I still think that a serious block might send the message that he cannot simply evade community sanctions with impunity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see in his block log that he has been blocked before for violating 1RR restrictions: on 10 December 2009 (1 week) and on 21 February 2010 (1 week). While this is his first effort at socking, it is his third effort to avoid 1RR restrictions, and he has effectively been blocked for it for the same length of time. But he hasn't been using his primary account since 2 April; it seems that this sock was some kind of WP:CLEANSTART effort, which he can't do while under sanctions. Lengthening the block of the primary account isn't likely to make a difference, given its inactivity. Are you thinking about a ban? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think an indefinite block is justified unless there is any evidence he's had a change of heart. He understands what is expected here, he just doesn't want to abide by the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, the primary account is pretty much inactive; therefore, an indef-block alone may not be practical. For this particular case, a long-term community ban may be what's needed to send the message that the user's continued disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, I've added the sock's links.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy was once a good contributor, although he's certainly had problems dealing with other editors for quite a while. At this point, he hasn't made a decent contribution to the project in months. Everytime someone takes issue with his lack of respect for other editors, he retires. The only reason he's come back since his last retirement was to hound an editor he had previously had problems with [78] [79]. As he told us all once upon a time to "get a fuckin' life already" [80], and he's since socked to avoid restrictions and his block history, I have no problem with an indef for now. Let's get him back to one account that we can keep an eye on, try and get him to understand civility and edit warring, and work from there. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The sock is now requesting an unblock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Which has been declined.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Includeonly I made a request on his talk saying that I would create a <includeonly> section and transclude it here if he had anything to say for himself. If his past actions are any indication, he will simply revert my post, but I figured it was worth a go and it would be an opportunity for him to respond to the conversation here (as he is currently blocked and can only edit his talk.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't care. Well then, if RP is unwilling to follow our rules, or explain himself, and per the above, should a ban discussion not start, then?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay It was worth a shot. He's unwilling to even contribute and apparently as intransigent as before, so I guess my earlier statement still stands. His former account is primarily used to harass me and his current account is primarily used to circumvent the restrictions on his other account. It seems clear to me that the only options at this point are a serious or long block or ban. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

His responses as his sock are exactly the kind of behavior that we've come to expect from Radiopathy, he doesn't care for rules, civility, or sanctions. He wants to declare the new account his primary acount and "edit in peace," and ignore all of the problems he's caused for himself previously. Dayewalker (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

His declaration to edit in peace is actually a fallacy. One need only look through his contributions to see that he was doing the same things his primary account got blocked for the first time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The sock is continuing to deny he is a sock, and that he has done anything wrong by socking to evade his indef 1rr sanction and his twinkle community sanction(he was blacklisted). I would like to wait for some opinions from involved and univolved admins before starting the community ban discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Redux I guess Radiopathy is back and willing to listen to the community. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for direct confirmation that he has directly violated WP:SOCK by abusing multiple accounts with the MP sock account. Let's see how he answers.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They have blanked the above, which to me is just continued denial of the sock. If he blanks my post without a response once more, I'll start the ban discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps a longer block could have been given for abusive sock-puppetry, but a week's block is not unreasonable either. Lets not waste any more of our time on this issue - if at the end of the week Radiopathy returns and contributes constructively and in line with their edit-restrictions, that's well and good; if not, they can be reblocked, or a ban considered. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy's response

I agree to adhere to the 1RR sanction, not that it's necessary anymore, but it's just some baggage I'll need to carry around for a while. I also feel that I should state explicitly, since the issue arose, that I agree to not use multiple accounts. My account, however, shall maintain it's "Retired" status until such time that I feel comfortable rejoining the community. Radiopathy •talk• 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification - I agree likewise to not abuse multiple accounts. Radiopathy •talk• 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And my request about direct admittance that MP is his sock goes unanswered.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is enough for now, and that it is likely best for you not to return to his talk page. The week long block can stay in place. AniMate 23:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

I have substituted the transclusion as this discussion is now over.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy, what do you mean by "clarifying" will not use to will not abuse? Are you using multiple accounts? I think in your present situation there is no way you can use multiple accounts legitimately. If any of your alternate accounts are editing disruptively then you're improperly concealing the connection between them to escape scrutiny. If none of them are editing disruptively then you're operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts. So I think you should be restricted to one account (WP:CLEANSTART is perhaps ok, but it means you have to stop using your old accounts). At minimum, disclose all aliases to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org and state here (truthfully) that you've done that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As said above, I substituted the transclusion, so that the talk page is not transcluded once this sections is archived. If you want to talk to RP, you'll have to do so at his talk page, as this discussion is over. If you want to restart any kind of discussion, I'll show you how to transclude anything if you don't know already, but you'll have to start a new thread with views on the matter. As said, I personally think this one is done and over with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Will the real Orly Taitz please stand up?

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

Uncertain of where to proceed here. This user account claims to be the real Orly Taitz, and has been leaving scads of personal info on the article talk page as "proof". I left a note on their user page earlier regarding WP:REALNAME, but as the account is continuing to post more personal details, it does not seem that this was heeded. Should the account just be blocked until an identity can be verified? Tarc (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends if the content violates WP:BLP and/or WP:CITE. Even if it is the real person (I have no idea who it is!) content can't be kept without cites. I remember Bill Bailey's birthday was kept the same despite him tweeting that it was wrong, because it wasn't WP:RS. SGGH ^ping! 17:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it violates BLP to be giving out phone numbers and personal info on an article talk page in an attempt to prove identity, yes. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We could ask her to post a copy of her birth certificate on her talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So the question here is whether this is Orly or ORLY? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I left her the contact info for article problems and photo submission. AniMate 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering we're all just marxist thugs, I would demand more than just her birth certificate. I want to see her COLB, her license to practice dentistry, license to practice law and of course, no copies allowed. Ravensfire (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm not a Marxist thug. I am, however, a Lennonist slug. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)'m more of a Trotskyist myself, but I doubt shades of grey matter much in birtherville. Anyways, the account is now blocked, and if it really was Dr. Taitz, then she knows what to to to verify her account. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, considering that at the top of the page you linked to has the disclaimer "The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers, do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, ESQ, and Dr. Taitz, ESQ has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles", we might not be all Marxist thugs. That sentence alone is proof that website is not a reliable source, & can't be used to confirm anything, possibly even details about Orly Taitz's own life & her campaign. Making it even less reliable than, say, Stormfront which can be used as a source about Stormfront. -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As the post was by Orly, I think it's safe to call it her opinion. Ravensfire (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) I've blocked the account until the identity is confirmed by OTRS. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that there's no need to worry about the posting of phone numbers, as that's the same phone number she uses in her filings to the US District Court. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Tim's action. All joking aside, Taitz is a controversial figure (to put it mildly), who is a prime target for impersonating by some troublemaker. Although her posts to Wikipedia appear to be what the real Orly Taitz might post to Wikipedia, until reasonable proof is provided to confirm her identity it is best to block this account. (And if this is the real Orly Taitz, when she talks to OTRS they can also explain the details about uploading an image with the proper permissions so it can be used, thus solving that problem.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the account was unblocked by Chaser yesterday. I see he is tagged as an OTRS volunteer, so I assume that the real Taitz did make contact and confirm her identity. A note somewhere to that effect from the unblocking admin would have been nice, though. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia advocacy on Lolicon

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

---

Given the current ArbCom ruling about pedophilia advocacy on Wikipedia, I would like to bring this edit to the attention of the administrators. The edit by Despondent2 (talk · contribs) advocates for the legalization of cartoon pornography depicting minors. —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that a warning will be sufficient; I've added this user's talk page to my watchlist, too, in hopes that I'll notice if there's an ongoing problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope so, but admitting to being a paedophile here (or almost anywhere) seems to be an invitation to "string me up from the nearest lamppost"; arguing for the legality of certain images (which in general are not illegal) is not necessarily "pedophilia advocacy", since the status and effect of these images is moot. However, I will also watch this editor (who hasn't been advised of this thread). Neither should we rule out a journalist testing us, or just plain trolling. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. "I am an actual pedophile but I have never harmed a child." It's probably a troll, so block them. But if it's not a troll, it's a self-admitted pedophile let lose in a playground filled with children. Perhaps wikipedia will help him get started? Where's the block? (If he needs graphic cartoon pornography involving children, he can get it elsewhere.) This is block on site stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "block pedophiles on sight" policy. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is one, as Draconian as it sounds. With arbcom, anything is possible. I'd rather have him blocked for trolling or severe POV pushing (which are both applicable here) than his sexual orientation in itself. ThemFromSpace 23:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Right -- let him hang around, befriend a few kids, get their emails, suggest a meatup over coffee somewhere after school where they can discuss the kids interesting ideas. Is that what you have in mind themfromspace?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much moral outrage in that argument for me, and not enough substance. There is such a policy? Where? I'm not seeing any advocacy here or POV pushing. That would be one thing, but all I see here is a sexual deviant (maybe) who happened to speak a little too much of their mind for comfort, and I'm not too fond of the idea of blocking people on that basis. If we are to block admitted pedophiles on sight even when they haven't advocated it or pushed article content in that direction, I think that should be written down in some policy. If there already is such a policy please point us to it. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

It's probably just a troll, but he's indef'd now anyway, courtesy of FloNight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked the account and referred the user to contact ArbCom. For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked. Any questions about the block can be taken up with ArbCom on the mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Makes my intended comments somewhat redundant. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and I'm also not too fond of the cloak-and-dagger ArbCom practices with regard to any mention of pedophilia. The whole "it's too sensitive to discuss in public" thing is all wrong, IMO. Taking things out of the public eye does not ensure that they get handled correctly. When a group can do things without accountability to open criticism, it's never good. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:49, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Right -- screw protecting innocent children! It's a fundamental human right to edit wikipedia! Jesus.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion. In this case we are really dealing with a troll. But if convicted criminals can contribute to Wikipedia (from jail or after release), then why not people with politically incorrect sexual orientations? If we have information that someone is a dangerous person who is about to commit a crime, then we are obliged to inform the police about this. Banning from Wikipedia can never be an effective reaction to a perceived threat to society. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already said my piece about self-identified pedophiles before. However, so long as some admins interpret the ArbCom case in such a way, then we are going to have to live with it. —Farix (t | c) 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let's try not to get bogged down in too much philosophy. The fact is we're dealing with someone who fantasizes about doing something that's a crime. If anyone else described themselves thusly with regard to some other action they wouldn't get banned. FloNight has done this before, and rest assured it's not to protect the children. It's to protect the reputation of Wikipedia in the press, specifically in publications that would take pedophilia-related discussion and twist it into some statement that Wikipedia condones pedophilia. As strange as it may sound, a discussion regarding someone who fantasizes about murder would not have resulted similarly. Pedophilia is simply too taboo a subject to even hint that we are comfortable talking about it, lest people judge Wikipedia for it. That's the only concern here, and it frankly disgusts me. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:00, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't give one runny shit for wikipedia's reputation. I don't know Flonight. But the right thing was done here. As for disgust. Well, you disgust me frankly. Why? Well, start here: Child grooming (i'm assuming the wikipedia article is a relatively sane explanation of the problem, though i haven't read it).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is taking outside Wikipedia what is our province, and ours alone. ArbCom has decided that pedophile advocacy should be forbidden from here, and that is to my mind correct for here. That is quite a different proposition from deciding that a "pedophile advocate" is necessarily a criminal worthy of investigation, and actually I'm more or less aware that such edits here are already supervised by law enforcement authorities, and although we will help them, the chances would be that those people are already under surveillance due to other activities. Let's face it, if you are a criminal pedophile, advertising it here just isn't smart, because we do have Checkusers, and the WMF Office, who deal with this sort of thing. And if there were any child grooming on Wikipedia, it would be spotted he more quickly than on, say, Windows Messenger. That's why this is an unlikely forum for such. Some reality would assist here. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Realizing you weren't responding to me, I just want to clarify that the only thing I see actually being advocated in this person's comment was the legalization of lolicon images. Pedophilia wasn't being advocated, even if he states his own desires regarding that. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:18, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Also his argument implicitely assumes that pedophilia (in the sense of sex with children) is a bad thing. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I understand that; I saw no advocacy beyond perhaps a criticism of the law wherever he is. However, it seems to be enough here to state "I am a pedophile" to ensure an indefinite block. It is not up to me to evaluate that here, beyond offering an opinion that it's a foolish thing to state in a very public forum. However, the strength of public, and journalistic, opinion is that pedophiles do not deserve the oxygen of publicity, or even the oxygen of oxygen, and I note that Pete Townshend has not produced much in the way of memorable music of late. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But that would suggest that Alan Turing would not have been allowed to contribute to Wikipedia had it existed in the 1950s. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We could throw up our hands thusly and say that's just how society works and we must obey, but traditionally Wikipedia has played by its own rules in that department. No matter how many complaints we keep getting and how different it makes us from other websites, we're still uncensored to an unprecedented degree. I would've liked to think that those ideals were in effect no matter how taboo the subject matter. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:47, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Turing was never "out", because in those days homosexual activities were criminal, although simply being a homosexual wasn't. Similar argument here. Being a pedophile doesn't imply that one commits criminal offences, although you'd be hard put to discern the difference these days. And that's the problem we have, in discriminating between the desire and the practice. Most people don't recognise that, as far as I have seen in my research in criminology. Turing would have been perfectly capable of contributing here on computability and cryptanalytical issues, but would not have exposed his sexuality, because he was perfectly aware that it was a social taboo. Certainly he would not have used such a publicly-viewable website to try to make sexual liaisons, because he would have know beyond doubt that his activities would have been visible. And how ironic it is that he chose to take his life with a cyanide-laced apple, the very symbol of man's original fall, according to the Bible. Rodhullandemu 00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The original report appears to have been resolved (for good or ill) by Despondent2's blocking. Could this thread be taken elsewehere, as it seems now to be a general discussion outwith the AN/I remit? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Editing Wikipedia isn't a right. Espousing pedophiliac views are frowned upon by the community here at large and by those in charge at WMF. Why do we have this discussion every time a pedo shows his head around here? Does anyone really think the concensus on this matter is ever gonna change? He popped up his head, got whacked and referred to ARBCOM. End of story, someone close this dram fueled thread and let it die. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The weird thing to me is that the article in question has a picture, but when someone say "I like this picture," it's a block? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Per ArbCom User:Flo Night: "For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked"; we don't have the full information here, but we do, perhaps, need to trust the people we elected there. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that logic. I don't inherently get behind the decisions of people just because they were elected (even if I was involved in getting them elected, which in this case I wasn't). I judge each action individually, and criticize it if necessary, which I think is my right. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:15, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't actually disagree with that, but we all know that Checkuser actions and WMF Office actions are not open to general scrutiny- they just happen. The lack of an effective public review of such actions may be open to criticism, but the reality is that that is the way it works, and we cannot collectively enforce openness without a major change in the structure of governance/control/review of higher-level decisions, and until we do so (although that would take a major sea-change in philosophy here) we are stuck with what we have. ArbCom/Checkuser/Oversight appointments are not made lightly and are less of a beauty contest than admin appointments have become. Some surrender of individual responsibility and understanding appears to me to be a necessary result of having these functions, although I doubt that we are so closed that individual decisions cannot be met by a appropriate explanation. I vote for functionaries I trust, and that is on the basis of their prevailing record, as far as I can see it. But if they go beyond their remit, believe me, I will question that, but perhaps not here. I've have many discussions in private that have allayed my fears. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because this is driving me crazy: the repeated reference in this discussion to pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" is a very poor and inaccurate choice of words. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that, if acted upon, is a criminal act. It is not a sexual orientation. jæs (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You should distinguish between the DSM-IV definition and the popular definition; they are not necessarily congruent. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat common misconception ≠ a definition. In any event, I suspect this account was merely a troll looking for attention, and we certainly obliged. jæs (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And on that basis, this discussion deserves to be closed. Serious discussions about the powers/responsibilities of ArbCom belong elsewhere, as do discussions of what actually amounts to "pedophile advocacy". But this case seems to have run its course. Rodhullandemu 01:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

What arbcom ruling are people referencing above? Does someone have a link? Buddy431 (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not advertised (not that I can recall), but the general rule is that all instances of paedophile advocacy should be referred to ArbCom by email - in much the same way as requests for oversight, and for similar reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And one of these days, we're going to do a Pornish Pixies, and whoever labelled the account holder a paedophile is going to get the ass sued off them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there has been no formal, public ruling. In practice, what happens is that every time a discussion similar to the one above takes place, an ArbCom member will come along, close the discussion, and inform the participants that if they want to say anything, they should submit it to the ArbCom mailing list. --Carnildo (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an official ANI comment by Fred Bauder back while he was on Arbcom, to the effect that admins should handle cases of apparent pedophile participation by blocking on sight on their judgement and referring the case to the Arbitration Committee for review and if necessary overturning.

This policy has been repeated in statements made by other Arbcom members at regular intervals since then.

It's not written down as official policy anywhere, but that's what they've asked us to do.

Part of the reason here is that any pedophilia activity is especially damaging to the encyclopedia reputation and separately to the community here, which has quite a number of minors. Jimmy originally established the policy, I believe that Arbcom and the Foundation have requested that it be treated that way.

Another part is that even false accusations or honest mistaken identifications will require relatively frank and open discussion regarding an appeal, which is not likely to be successful on-wiki because of onslaughts of both vehement anti-pedophile activists and vehement free speech advocates who disagree with the protective principle established by Arbcom, the Foundation, and Jimmy on this subject. The particulars of a given case get lost either way.

This is part of why we have Arbcom - we know that some issues, including personal identification, checkuser related stuff, and other topics, require special and careful handling. They can handle the issues in confidence.

I dug up Fred's original post when this question came up mid-last year-ish and linked to it, but I lost the reference since then. Someone else can probably find it searching on ANI and Pedophilia in the history.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the appropriate place to discuss this type of thing (i.e. blocking suspected pedophiles and referring them to Arbcom even if they haven't violated any of our written policies)? Because I'm not sure I agree with it, and I certainly don't like all this cloak and dagger/unwritten rules/arbitrary block mode of operation. If it is policy, I'd like it written down somewhere Buddy431 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The obvious originating locale for us is perhaps WP:RFC. In the absence of a documented ArbCom decision or policy, there seems to be no scope for a request for clarification. Unhelpful, perhaps, but perhaps some sort of statement of principles would be better than what we have now. * Addendum: perhaps this is better addressed as a WMF issue across all umbrella projects than just here; it's an issue that clearly also impacts on Commons. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Foundation (Board) have quietly supported this when asked.

Though it's controversial, meta-discussions about this have revealed that a majority of editors agree with blocking preventively given reasonable suspicion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits of such a policy at all, I will say that if this is the standard practice (and it appears to be), there's no need to be so damn coy about it. Wikipedia:Pedophilia --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the first rule of pedophile blocking club is "you don't talk about pedophile blocking club". :-O 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the document has been started now so we'll have to wait and see if it is accepted by WMF, ArbCom and the rest of WP --Jubilee♫clipman 09:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this be cross posted somewhere for increased visibility and input? Like village pump? Buddy432 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of this thread should be elsewhere, to be frank: "where", is open to question... --Jubilee♫clipman 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Taken to Village Pump. Buddy431 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• So, how exactly does hebephilia and ephebophilia fit under this unspoken rule? Are those automatic blockable offenses as well, if someone self-describes themselves as one? Or, heaven forbid (sarcasm), creates a template userbox for it? Silverseren^C 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The current discussion is actually at Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia. Buddy431 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - all of the new discussion should be added to the above archive and any further discussion should either take place at Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia or the VP (or via email...) Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Faux News gets a word in edgewise on pedophilia

see here 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Rockyman512

Rockyman512 (talk · contribs) impersonated a bot on my talk page. I'm not sure if this is a lack of clue copy-paste move, or malicious. Other edits in contributions are weird as well, and his talk page shows it. (If this isn't the place for it, please move it- I'm not sure that this is outright vandalism).

edit: I didn't see this earlier, but the account's only a couple of hours old- a bit early for clueful vandal fighting, so that might help explain it. What happens with users like this? SS✞^(Kay) 09:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

as per the talk page for user_talk:Singlish_speaker i was using a plugin for firefox, not very wise, as we have determined :P Rockyman512 09:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Still, placement of this false/questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page by User:Rockyman512 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) clearly constitutes an impersonation of a BLOCKED bot in order to harass another editor. Note: You do not conduct a test on another user's page here on Wikipedia by leaving a warning template and wrongly accusing Singlish speaker (talk · contribs)) of vandalism, if ever at all, the Wikipedia:Sandbox is for you to test out your "ideas", mind you. Also, I noticed an earlier note you had left for an admin (Woody (talk · contribs)) per this edit, accusing him too of vandalism. This is a clear pattern that your account is nothing short of being used for the harassment of other editor here, and a short check through your contribution history doesn't inspire much confidence in whatever you said. Sadly, you won't be missed per WP:DENY. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also received a warning for "blanking" from Rocky but I assume it is because he is too new to realize what my edits were. I was reverting massive plot summary bloat from a repeat problem user. In recent changes, I'm sure the edit came up as a large red negative number (he has not, as of yet, reverted my change, however). I did not actually blank any sections however, so that is a bit confusing. For now I'm assuming good faith as far as intentions but I don't think Rocky fully understands the process, barring some kind of tech problem with the tool he's using. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This user has a history of very unhelpful editing. See this edit and this one, where other users are confused by Rockyman512 posting totally spurious warning messages to their talk pages. Then there is this edit, where Rockyman512 posted a block-message to a user who has never been blocked. Then we have this edit and this one in which the user posts notices about proposing a user talk page for speedy deletion for quite nonsensical reasons. And we have this edit, in which Rockyman512 posts a completely spurious warning message and signs the message as coming from Pegasusbot. At a glance all this looks like vandalism and that may be true, but reading more carefully I am not so sure. I think it may be a case of a new user being too enthusiastic at getting going, trying to run before he/she can walk, and getting into a mess. I think this user should be counselled to hold back and learn to edit Wikipedia more slowly. Certainly it is not appropriate for such an inexperienced and confused editor to try to contribute as a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit Task Force: time for that if and when the user has gained a considerable amount of experience of how Wikipedia works. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson, note that from my past experience with several alleged newbies, they don't usually get themselves entangled in CVU-related activities right from the start of their editing career here on Wikipedia unless they are up to no good, and usually they are. The other thing is, the genuine ones will usually apologise unreservedly if they had made a mistake, but not for the case of alleged newbies. Read point number 6 & 7 of → WP:OWB ← for more details. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that this user's behaviour does not, on the face of it, look like that of a genuine new editor. I was assuming good faith, but deliberately holding back from committing myself (I wrote "this looks like vandalism and that may be true"). I am not sure which this is, but am still willing to assume good faith until evidence points one way or the other. I have also posted a message at User talk:Rockyman512 asking for more details about the Firefox plugin concerned. (However, by no means all of the problems can have been caused by a troublesome plugin.) Finally, it is important to realise that the editor has also made some perfectly constructive edits, though sometimes with minor errors, such as placing comments at the top of talk pages, which looks the sort of mistake a new user might make. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow really? I did apologize for the issue i cause i have read over the rules, and how things are done, and have been paying more attention... Rockyman512 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@Rockyman512: TBH, I don't think you have. To which, I shall now bid you adieu, per WP:DENY. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@dave: How are you affected by this, now please mind your business, you were not involved in anyway Rockyman512 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, it's completely understandable to be skeptical in this case but for the sake of propriety, how about remembering WP:BITE? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This filter log also shows him vandalizing List of One Piece characters earlier today, and then reporting it as a false positive on WP:FALSEPOS. In the same edit, he was removing someone else's vandalism, so I'm not sure what to think. I've never known the edit filter to mis-attribute edits, but I've never seen someone go to the false positives page and then report their own vandalism either. The "hi kevin" vandalism had been earlier added by an IP address, which I reverted. So it's possible that it was just an edit conflict which he was not aware of, and thus he ended up adding vandalism by mistake. —Soap— 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He has also added a comment onto my talk page which some could sat appears as a bot --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21

54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at this case the more it looks like what I suggested above: a well-intentioned editor who is trying to run before he can walk, and is continually getting into a mess due to lack of experience. The message really is "spend some time doing fairly low key editing before tying to use anti-vandalism tools which need understanding". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

how do you get a template like news release taken off of an article after it goes up ?

Resolved

 – Taken to more appropriate venue 94.195.172.30 (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One of my articles Red Back Mining was given that template but since then the user who gave it that label and I have added and removed material from it so it doesn't sound as much like a news release. at whose discretion is it ?Grmike (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)grmike

I think you may find it is not your article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

it is my article not in an ownership sense but in the sense that I did all the research for it, all of the content in it was put there by me. if there's anything wrong with the page then it reflects on my reputation as a user and editor.Grmike (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)grmike

This is not a matter for administrative intervention, so I am copying this discussion to User talk:Grmike, and replying there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User Varsovian

Resolved

 – User:Varsovian warned by User:Sandstein. Aggrieved parties advised to report future issues to WP:AE. Pcap ping 08:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of these edits, [81], [82], [83], [84], which are a repeated and persistent breach of WP:OR, with much regret I have come to the conclusion that User:Varsovian is displaying WP:TE problems and possibly even WP:OWN and WP:DE issues at the London Victory Parade of 1946. These edits came after Talk page explanation of WP policy/guideline breaches, after I filed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-25/London Victory Parade of 1946, after a WP:DIGWUREN warning here [85], after a edit summary complaint (which wasn't my complaint) about WP:TROLLING and after considerable third-party debate about the subject here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This editor's tendentious editing is by no means restricted to the edits listed above: both in the article referred to above and elsewhere the editor is clearly trying to a plug particular point of view. Also the editor has been edit-warring in order to keep those tendentious edits in place. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for solving the content problem at this article is found here [86] I will repeat (and update) it here "The current main article has 1,218 words about Polish participation at the parade and 665 words about everything else connected to the parade. Clearly there should be less about the Polish participation, although it seems that WP:WEIGHT is a policy Chumchum7 is unaware of. Perhaps the entire section regarding Polish representation could be replaced by "Representatives from Poland were invited but did not attend." would be suitable? All editors agree that such representatives were invited and all agree that they did not attend.

I would like to point out that I was until now unaware of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-25/London Victory Parade of 1946 as Chumchum7 didn't actually bother to tell me about it.

As to the comments of JamesBWatson, could he perhaps provide a diff or two so that I can see what he is referring to? Varsovian (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

One further comment: at the top of this page it clearly states "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Chumchum7 has made absolutely no attempt to discuss the issue with me on my talk page. I am trying very hard to not conclude that this report is a continuation of a strategy shown by the groundless Wikiquette alert [87] filed by Chumchum7, i.e. to win a content dispute by having the other party prevented from adding the other PoV to the article. Varsovian (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to Editor IV JamesBWatson's comment above, I should emphasise that yes the example I chose is indeed only the tip of the iceberg, which points to a very much larger pattern of editing behaviour. I have chosen this example only because it is the most recent one, and because it comes after several chances for ways to be changed and after many opportunities for lessons to be learned. I would invite administrators to look back through the circa 6 weeks of editing history at London Victory Parade of 1946, read its Talk page, and take a glance across the past 6 months for good measure. That would be an entirely objective analysis, and administrators will form their own conclusions. Administrators will also see that my Moderation Cabal message was signed and dated on the Talk page of London Victory Parade of 1946. If they have access to our watch lists, they could take a look at them too, to see what we are aware of. Editors will see that I have discussed Varsovian's behaviour with him several times, and the record of this is on his page, on my page and at the Talk page of London Victory Parade of 1946. Moreover, there are several other editors who are on the record as having similar difficulties communicating with Varsovian. I maintain that I made that Wikiquette alert in good faith, and that I open this case in good faith. If I have breached conflict resolution protocol in any way, I would like administrators to inform me so that I can learn, and so that I can apologize for it if necessary. In any case, the main issue here has been precisely identified and succinctly described by JamesBWatson above. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You were told here [88] that ANI is not the right place for your complaint and you were told here [89] that you need to discuss the issue with me on my talkpage before filing a dispute at ANI. But still you file the ANI. I am much reminded of the time when you sought assistance from admins. By some freak chance the two admins you decided would be most suitable to resolve our differences were the only admin who has ever blocked me and the only admin who has ever warned me about anything. Are you familiar with the phrase block-shopping? Varsovian (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When readers click your two diffs above, they'll see you are talking about an entirely separate complaint. You are now referring to when I took issue with you adding that Polish people had been in the Waffen-SS, to the London Victory Parade of 1946. But this ANI is on the subject of your 4 edits about the historian Norman Davies, and you taking issue with him, as my 4 diffs show. These are two different subjects - the Waffen-SS and Norman Davies - and this dialogue is an exemplar of the communication problem over the past weeks and months.-Chumchum7 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So this ANI is about Davies? Perhaps you could show where you have attempted to discuss Davies on my talkpage? But to end the wiki-drama I myself will now edit out the part of the article which you object to. I will then propose new wording on the talk page and wait one week for discussion to take place there and consensus to be built. I hope that is acceptable to you. Varsovian (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The 4 diffs presented seem to be a clear case of Varsovian edit warring to insert a personal negative and un-sourced opinion about a respected historian. His claim above that the article has weight problems doesn't address the issue and seems to be an attempt to divert attention.  Dr. Loosmark  12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced? Please check the links: you will find that the sources of the quotes which Davies contradicts are very reliable: one is the official record of the British Parliament and the other is The Times newspaper. Varsovian (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes unsourced. As in you presented no source which says Davies is wrong in what he wrote. Your personal interpretation that the The Times newspaper article contradicts Davies is basically just that, your personal opinion. Also could you please address the issue of your edit warring?  Dr. Loosmark  13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not unsourced. Davies wrote "on the very eve of the parade" (i.e. 7 June) invitations were sent to Poles other than the internationally recognised government of Poland: both Hansard (twice, do check Hansard, it's online) and The Times stated prior to that date that invitations had been extended to Polish airmen who had served under British command. My personal opinion is that 4 June comes before 7 June, is your opinion that 4 June is actually the same date as 7 June? Varsovian (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be original research and synthesis. Correct or not, you are the one drawing the conclusion that he is wrong. You need to find a reliable source that says this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he is wrong: I am saying that his statement contradicts historical records (i.e. Hansard) and media from the time (i.e. The Times). As the article says "Davies' statement regarding "the very eve of the parade" contradicts historical records and media from the time." Varsovian (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source already, before you, stated "Davies' statement regarding "the very eve of the parade" contradicts historical records and media from the time." or something similar? If you concluded that his statement contradicted historical records from your own interpretation of the dates and source material, but no one before you reached that conclusion, that is a novel synthesis of ideas. At wikipedia, editors should not reach their own conclusions based on availible data, as reaching your own conclusions is a form of original research. We may only present the conclusions which have already been reached and published previously in reliable sources. --Jayron32 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you consider the official journal of the British parliament to be a published reliable source? Do you consider The Times newspaper to be a published reliable source? Davies comment flatly contradicts the statements made in both. We are not talking about interpretation of dates, we are talking about certain verifiable statements verifiably made on certain verifiable dates. My understanding of WP:V is that anything likely to be challenged needs to have a WP:RS to support it. It is somewhat unlikely that anybody would want to challenge that 4 June came before 7 June, wouldn't you say? Varsovian (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Only that Davies does not flat contradics statements made in both, and in fact he does not even mention them. Having read all of those sources it is my opinion there is no contradiction. But anyway even if there would be such a thing as contradiction in those sources (and personally I'd say Davies is more reliable than a newspaper) then Wikipedia NPOV style requires you write: source X say this and this while source Y states this and this. Btw Varsovian I am asking you again about your edit warring as you seem to avoid that question. In case you think your edit warring is ok then you don't have to answer.  Dr. Loosmark  14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it possible that “the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade" (as Davies claims) when multiple sources from the time (Hansard, The Times, the memories of General Anders, etc) all state that invitations were issued to Western Command Poles before “the very eve of the parade”? You may say that Davies is more reliable than a newspaper (although I’d point out that Davies has been known to be wrong even about the year that the parade took place) but is he more reliable than the man who was responsible for deciding who to invite or a man who actually received an invitation? Thank you very much for the invitation to discuss edit warring, given your block and warning log I’m sure that there is much I can learn from you about how to edit war properly. Varsovian (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try restating my earlier remark: you are the one drawing the conclusion that he is contradicting other reports. You may be right, but you are the one who is stating this. You need to find a reliable source that says the same thing. Doing otherwise violates WP:SYNTH. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the article currently states "He states that "the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade", when “in consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London; and other invitations were sent to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. The belated invitations were courteously declined.”[24] Four days before the parade Ernest Bevin, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote “His Majesty's Government still hope that it will also be possible for a party of Polish airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain to be included in the parade.” " Would it be permissible to insert the words "(i.e. three days before the very eve of the parade)"? The text would thus read "He states that "the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade", when “in consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London; and other invitations were sent to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. The belated invitations were courteously declined.”[24] Four days before the parade (i.e. three days before the very eve of the parade) Ernest Bevin, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote “His Majesty's Government still hope that it will also be possible for a party of Polish airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain to be included in the parade.” " This would very much draw attention the fact that what Davies says flatly contradicts by historical sources but it doesn't actually say that Davies' statement contradicts historical sources. Varsovian (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, this discussion needs to move to the talk page of the article in question. ANI is not the proper location to discuss content changes to articles. Please move this to Talk:London_Victory_Parade_of_1946 where anyone who wishes may comment on the proposed changes. Admins do not need to use their admin tools to make this happen. I would copy and past the above propsed changes to the talk page, let the discussion run for a few days to hammer out a consensus, and proceed from there. Admins don't need to protect, block, or delete anything right now, so I don't see where this discussion needs to happen here any further. --Jayron32 15:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, unfortunately Varsovian has a long history of drawing original conclusions. See for example this edit from the talk page in March [90]. Mr.Moszynski is the person who wrote to the British government and about the lack of Polish participation in the battle. For some reason Varsovian disliked his statement and wrote on the talk page that he is a liar. Again not a single source was presented which would state that Mr.Moszynski's statement was untruthful . Ok it's the talk page but still, accusing a living person of being a liar is beyond appalling and it just shows that Varsovian just doesn't "get it". Above he seemed to have, once again, skillfully dodged the question of his edit warring and not following wikipedia policies by turning the debate into content discussions knowing that then admins will say go to the article talk page and discuss it.  Dr. Loosmark  15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a single source? The letter which Moszynski claims is "an apology from Tony Blair regarding the British Government's failure to invite the Polish armed forces to the 1946 Victory Parade" is linked to at the article: it isn't from Tony Blair, it doesn't apologise for anything and makes no mention of any failure to invite anybody. Instead it expresses "regret that Polish contingents did not take part in the victory parade." Perhaps you would like to read what Moszynski claims (it is here [91]) and then contrast it with what the letter actually says (you can find that here [92]). Varsovian (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

do you have a source which says that Mr.Moszynski's statement is untruthful yes or no? the answer is no. judging by your link the letter in question was signed by Matthew Rycroft and according to wikipedia article: In 2002, Rycroft was appointed Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair, to advise him on matters related to foreign affairs, the European Union, Northern Ireland and defence. Are you sure that T.Blair did not know about this letter or even asked his adviser to reply to Mr.Moszynski? We simply don't know that. And even if the whole thing was handled at a "level lower" it's possible and probable that Mr.Moszynski simply just made a good faith assumption. You most certainly have no business trumpeting on wikipedia that Mr.Moszynski is a liar.  Dr. Loosmark  17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that letter from Tony Blair? No. Does it apologise for anything? No. Does it say that Polish armed forces were not invited to the parade? No. Did Moszynski write a press release claiming "he managed to secure an apology from Tony Blair regarding the British Government's failure to invite the Polish armed forces to the 1946 Victory Parade"? Yes. Varsovian (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

These are your conclusions (somebody else might see it differently) and in no way prove that Mr.Moszynski is a liar.  Dr. Loosmark  17:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jauerback, this is precisely the kind of dialogue I have found difficult with Varsovian, long term. It seems like some kind of CHAFF. I want to ask for your objective and neutral opinion: Firstly, would this discussion be evidence to add to a case of WP:DE, or not? Varsovian removed the OR in an edit not long ago here [93], and is now quoting the new paragraph in this discussion with you. He did this edit, he added in dialogue with me above, to end the "wiki-drama". The reference to Wikidrama seems unhelpful here: a veteran editor has identified WP:TE, two editors have identified edit warring, two administrators have raised the WP:OR policy breach, and one is having to explain it more than once. To my mind the issue here isn't Wikidrama. It isn't this single case of WP:OR nor this single case of edit warring. It isn't even restricted to a single article, as JamesBWatson rightly says above. It is either a fundamental long term misunderstanding of Wikipedia, or else a long term WP:TE or even WP:DE problem. I took no pleasure nor satisfaction from launching this ANI. This was a last resort after a lot of grief. I don't like drama. I sincerely look forward to not having to go through this experience again. I look forward to your continued fairness, neutrality and commitment. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation

As an administrator with a bit of experience in handling disputes in this topic area, I consider this request actionable for these reasons:

• With the cited edits, [94], [95], [96], [97], Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly re-added the following text (or variants thereof) to the article London Victory Parade of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): "Davies' statement regarding "the very eve of the parade" contradicts historical records and media from the time", in violation of the policy prohibiting edit-warring.
• Contrary to the edit summary here, this assertion is not sourced; instead, as is apparent from the discussion above, it represents Varsovian's own opinion about (unnamed) primary sources and Davies' work, in violation of the policy WP:NOR.
• This unsourced opinion casts a negative light on the professional competence of the historian Norman Davies, a living person, in violation of the policy WP:BLP.

For these reasons, I was about to impose a sanction under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions on Varsovian. However, since Varsovian has now self-reverted the problematic text, I believe that a warning is sufficient: If you, Varsovian, continue to fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above), in the Eastern Europe topic area, you may be made subject to blocks, bans or other sanctions according to the cited arbitral remedy without further warning. I believe that this thread can now be closed unless the edit war flares up again.  Sandstein  16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me. Might I suggest that both Chumchum7 and myself (and perhaps Loosmark if he wishes to continue editing this article) agree to post all proposed changes/additions to the article (as it is now) on the talk page and then wait 48 hours to allow for dialogue about the proposed change/addition? Varsovian (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you. Will you, or any other administrator or team of administrators, now be watching London Victory Parade of 1946 closely to ensure that editors there do not 'fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above)'? Or if, in the future, an editor were to perceive such problems among their peers, should they flag that concern here at ANI, on your Talk page, at any other page, or by emailing you? Or should they continue to restrict themselves to standard dispute resolution procedure? Please advise. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, please could you just explain for me about how WP warnings work. This seems to be the second warning after one already appears to have been applied here [98] after a block here [99]. Was there any counselling of the type described here [100] ? If there is a next time, and I sincerely hope there isn't, it would be good for me to receive some guidance on how to deal with it. How many warnings do editors usually run up before sanctions are imposed? Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you should not assume that administrators will be watching any page. Continued misconduct should be reported to the WP:AE noticeboard in accordance with the procedures documented there. Thank you for pointing out that Varsovian has previously been warned against similar disruption. I overlooked this because it was not logged at the case page and did not contain the word "arbitration" (advice to fellow admins: warnings should be in the standard format). However, given that he has now reverted himself, sanctions are still not required at this time.  Sandstein  19:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I hadn't heard of the WP:AE noticeboard before, and it is good to know about it. I will use it if necessary. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecco Pro

For quite some time I regularly visit Ecco Pro, only finding over and over again massive amounts of inappropriate linking in the article, with texts like:

• '... with active community participation at the 'New' ECCO_Pro Yahoo! group, and the EccoMagic Forums.'
• '... at the eccotools forums and in downloadable format form the files library of the 'new' Yahoo! Ecco_Pro group.' (sometimes the groups are working links to the forum)
• 'NetManage premitted continued distribution of the final version as a free download at the official Ecco_Pro user group forum's file section.' (note: I don't think I ever saw a reference hanging on this sentence)
• 'Perez has returned to practice as a criminal defense attorney in Bellevue, Washington<ref>http://www.robertperezlaw.com</ref>.' (I fail to see why this is notable, nor is this an independent reference)
• '(SRP $59; sold direct by NetManage $9.99)' (I fail to see why pricing is so important here, similar articles don't list it, nor is it referenced.
• 'Video guides for Ecco are available [101]'
• reformatting 'InfoQube (fka SQLNotes)]' into 'InfoQube (fka SQLNotes)'

And massive removals of proper references (de-reffing of e.g. 'ECCO competed in the PIM space against several formidable competitors<ref>PC Magazine, August 1997, pp. 222-223, 237</ref>.') and removal of citation needed tags.

Most of these links don't comply with our manual of style, the language is promotional, and notability of many facts is not established. Furthermore, many of the editors keep reinstating information, not being able or willing to answer to questions of notability of the information, or having proper references for it.

I know that there are two sides of editors, who strongly contradict each other. On one side the forum people (YSWT who is moderator on the forums), on the other side another editor who is involved in selling the software. I am uninvolved, though my involvement in one of the sides was claimed (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Mar_1#compusol.org

These editors, on both sides, have been asked over and over to contribute more references, or independent references, but all they can come up with are their own COI references. I know that there are now some references which are certainly not the best, but that seems to be the best there is to offer. Nonetheless, the not-so-good references keep getting removed and replaced with the (worse) forum links.

Today I noticed these two diffs:

• "Please see talk page. Please follow wiki guidelines on obtaining consensus prior to reversions. Attempts to strong arm reversion will result in my taking this to arbitration."
• "Addition of video guides at compusol. Editors with agenda, please obtain consensus before removing this link."

and a post on the talkpage:

• Section-title: Please only make contested changes after establishing consensus
• Text: As one of the 'everyone' who contributes to articles the hostility here dismays me. I am an attorney and I take the wikipedia's promise and representation that everyone can contribute to be very serious. I have carefully read the rules and guidelines and I suggest those with any special agenda do the same. 70.251.114.178 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have re-reverted to a less spammy version, which I think conforms more with our policies and guidelines, and which has been generated with the help of other regular wikipedians.

Some more independent help would be appreciated, as it seems to be time for lengthy blocks or protections, but I leave it to review here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the abuse is only coming from IPs. There is one registered account called User:EccoProMember but he's making an effort to follow policy. Though the total volume of bad edits is not large, it can be tedious for article-watchers of a lightly-trafficked article to keep going back month after month to remove similar stuff. I suggest six months of semiprotection, and will impose that unless this noticeboard thinks it's unwise. Linking to Warez has been discussed on the talk page, and the dispute on the talk page may eventually develop into something that requires further admin attention. (One of the IP participants happened to mention that he's an attorney, though not in a threatening way). Watchlisting by admins would help. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the history of the Ecco_Pro article. You will notice that Beetstra only has made edits at the same times ad "EccoProMember" (the owner of the website compusol) also same person "Charlie1945" and various IPs. The edits are all the same, replacing legit references with references to the compusol website which is a pay-to-enter membership site distributing for a fee, the ecco pro software a licensed copy of which is FREE at the official distribution site, the ecco pro user group forum. The changes have all been made without consensus.

Initially I tried to work to protect the article from the injection of the mass compusol spam links, but since I am one of the moderators at the official, free distribution site of the official software, I have asked on the talk page for someone else to make the reversion pre compusol link replacements.

Sure would hope that someone who cares, will revert Beetstra's changes (take a look at the history, he only has made changes in connection with the insertion of the compusol links, spamming a period of at least 8 months.) Again, please note that the ecco official distribution and the ecco extension are 100% Free. The compusol site distributes a bootleg for a fee. The links & reference material to the official distribution (for free) of the the ecco pro and the new "ecco extension" (free) were removed and mass insertion of compusol links inserted. The 'articles' on compusol are mostly just cut & paste copies of user group forum posts or of other sites on the web.

Sorry, if this was too lengthly. The ecco pro article is something I have tried to help with (as an ecco pro expert) and it is very sad to see what has happened to it, how it has been hijacked by compusol with the assistance of Beetstra. Again, Beetstra is an active wiki editor who just happens to live in the same home town as the compusol owner. Beetstra just happens to edit when compusol edits, and just happens to remove reference or insert requests for citations that are then filled in with compusol links. Careful review of the history will show exactly what I am referencing here. YSWT (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Browsing Talk:Ecco Pro shows that user YSWT is passionate about the Ecco Pro product, but does not properly understand Wikipedia procedures regarding articles. The problem is that Ecco Pro was (apparently) a sensationally good PIM, but the company went in another direction and the product ceased development, although it was released "free" without source (I have not seen any licensing information). A loyal group of users (particularly YSWT) have kept the product alive for over ten years by working out various clever tricks to patch and extend it. A competitive group is a U.S. company (Compusol) which offers downloads/support for $10/year. The article problem is that the loyal users want the article to promote the product, and they want a lot of inappropriate detail, and they strongly dislike the competition (the article talk page includes nonsensical claims that Compusol is hosting warez). YSWT (and other editors) have completely misunderstood the advice offered on the article talk page, and the suggestion above that Dirk Beetstra has acted inappropriately is of course massively incorrect. I recommend that the article be pruned down to something like IBM Lotus Organizer, and that one link to each of the competitive distributions be included, with no editorial comment about which is technically or ethically superior, with article protection if necessary. The interesting details that fans would like on Wikipedia should be on some other website. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, how strange that you should just happen to comment here. I received a notice on my talk page and was directed here and posted my comment. I find your personal attack to be entirely improper. "but does not properly understand Wikipedia procedures" On what do you base that. The article is to be a collaborative effort. You attempted changes in past but you got no consensus. If you look at my edits in the history, you will see your 'accusations' are in error.

Note for those interested, the article was about how EccoPro was abandoned and then renewed with development of the machine code. References to the (free) extensions etc., was replaced with the compusol links. As edited by Beetstra, et.al., article tells story of EccoPro which was abandoned, but you can get for a fee at compusol. Factual story is very different. EccoPro was abandoned, but then released for free (at official user site) and updated with modern extensions (also free, also at official user site, and also with official specs, etc.). I find the story interesting. The historic pricing info, is part of that story, etc., and the decision to include/remove such material should be one by consensus. The pricing info was included for yeare in the article. Does not seem in wiki spirit that Beetstra, et.al., should remove the material by fiat. 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looked at the article. Many spammy links to "compusol". This piece of software was once notable, and there are multiple press references. So I replaced some, but not all, of the spammy links to a news story in The Guardian. --John Nagle (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to notethe pre-spammed version of the article (with legit references, full facts, etc.). Not only did Beetstra re-insert the compusol links, but also removed info about pricing, official distribution site (free, btw), extension official sites, spec, etc. Diff YSWT (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David.Kane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Distributivejustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These editors are attempting to use autobiographical writings by one of the main subjects of this article, Arthur Jensen, to write a severly biased version of a period in the 1970s. This is well recorded in secondary sources, which are published mostly by university presses. Captain Occam has given spurious reasons for removing material by Adrian Wooldridge, because it is 4 pages long and therefore too short. The views of these editors favour a minoritarian point of view and contradict what most historians of psychology, eg Franz Samelson, have written about Jensen's varying point of view over the years. Please could adminitsrators step in to sort out this tag-teaming and disruption on what was a neutral article. Captain Occam , by editng as part of a team, is attempting to impose a heavily biased and unacceptable version by force of numbers, in this case several WP:SPAs. I did suggest that they could write a separate section Jensen on "Jensenism" to include these autobiographical views, provided it was clearly labelled as such and separate from the history written relying on solid secondary sources and not written by the subject of the history himself. Captain Occam's finger was fast on the revert button. Note that he has been blocked three times before for revert warring on Race and intelligence. I would also note that the point of view of the tag-team on the sources seems similar to that of a review in The Occidental Quarterly. This looks like very agressive POV-pushing based on numbers, rather than arguments based on the readings of WP:RS. Possibly Captain Occam should be blocked. My temporary wifi link will unfortunately not permit me either to inform the above editors or to respond in the near future, Apologies about that. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Arbitration. The dispute is not being resolved, positions are increasingly entrenched. No way of untangling it here, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think I should point out that Mathsci has another currently open AN/I complaint about this same issue here. The linked thread is a request that I be banned for tag-team editing on the same article about which he's making his current accusations. Aren't we supposed to avoid multiple simultaneous AN/I threads about the same issue? At the very least what Mathsci is doing here is forum shopping, and having two simultaneously open AN/I complaints about the same issue might be a violation of other policies also. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps "forum flooding". --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• MathSci claims that books written by Jensen may not be used in an article that mentions Jensen. He claims that this is Wikipedia policy but fails to specifically cite any such wording. If writings by Ghandi may be used in the article about Ghandi, then writings by Jensen may be used in an article that mentions Jensen. (They do not have to be used and we need to evaluate them in the context of other sources.) Or am I missing something? David.Kane (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• History of the race and intelligence controversy is not about Jensen, it's about the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, obviously. The issue: Is there a general Wikipedia policy against using work written by person X in an article that touches on person X? MathSci asserts that there is, that in the paragraph or two in this article which discusses Jensen, we may not use work written by Jensen. But there is no such policy. MathSci is just making things up, hoping to bully people into getting his way. Could an experienced administrator at least tell us if there is anything wrong with the article on Ghandi using Ghandi's autobiography as a source? David.Kane (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are primary, so using them must be consistent with WP:PSTS. One could also argue that such sources are not WP:Reliable Sources, and that using them excessively is providing WP:UNDUE weighting to a particular POV, thus running afoul of WP:NPOV. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that all the (attempted) uses of Jensen's work has been consistent with WP:PSTS. And MathSci has not, to my knowledge, asserted otherwise. He simply claims that any use of work by Jensen is unacceptable in this article because they were written by Jensen. That is complaints about WP:UNDUE are secondary. David.Kane (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I second the vote for arbitration. Or at the very least mediation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mediation already failed as the mediator lost buy-in from one of the parties and then, as opposed to reengaging the party by determining their problems and adressing them, instead barrelled through mediation without that parties input. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Around two weeks ago, we finished a five-month-long mediation case for the main Race and intelligence article, which also covered the way we’d be describing this controversy’s history. Our mediator was user:Ludwigs2. Mathsci refused to participate in the mediation for most of the time that it was underway, despite multiple attempts from Ludwigs2 to engage him in it, instead posting multiple AN/I threads trying to get Ludwig banned for allegedly mishandling the mediation case. Mathsci also refused to accept the outcome we agreed on during mediation after the mediation case was finished, which is what’s causing the current conflict. Since he voluntarily excluded himself from the first mediation case and refused to accept its results, I don’t think a second mediation case is likely to solve this. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Then off to the arbitration committee! If it's been going on for that long and it's still not going away I can't see any other way to solve it. Unless Mathsci was willing to engage in some sort of talks with other editors. I'd like to see some evidence from them for the accusations of sock puppetry too, because if that is happening, that should be addressed. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn’t seem like arbitration should be necessary here. Of the seven users who are involved in the Race and intelligence history article, six of us are able to work together without any problems. (These are the six users about whom Mathsci is filing his complaint here—his complaint is against every user other than himself who’s involved in this article.) The only user involved in the article who hasn’t been able to work cooperatively on it is Mathsci. When the consensus of other users disagrees with him, rather than accepting what consensus has determined, he either edit wars over it or files complaints about it at AN/I like this one. Is it really appropriate to start an ArbCom case because of a single user who’s unwilling to accept consensus? --Captain Occam (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a democracy - and for that, you should count your lucky stars. If we did a quickpoll with only "topic ban MathSci" or "topic ban Captain Occam" as the only choices, I will personally guaranty that you would be banned from this topic. The same with every other name on the list of 7. If you care to dispute this, then I suspect that we could, in fact, host said quickpoll with your agreement. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We already have hosted a poll about this, when Mathsci tried to get me topic banned two weeks ago in the thread I linked to. Of the 15 or so people who voted in the poll, around five supported a topic ban for me, and the other ten opposed it. (We didn't vote on this in Mathsci's case.)

In any case, when I say that Mathsci has been refusing to accept consensus, I'm not just referring to what the majority opinion is. I'm also referring to the fact that when other users have addressed the arguments Mathsci was making for his preferred version of the article, Mathsci has only ever done one of three things in response: ignored us altogether (as he has towards the end of this thread and this one), made the exact same claims he's made before without addressing any of the earlier responses (as he has in this thread), or answered our rebuttals with snide comments or threats that have nothing to do with the arguments being made (as in this comment and this one). The real reason why consensus opposes Mathsci about this article isn't because the ratio of opinions is six to one (although that fact still makes some amount of difference)--it's because Mathsci apparently has very little interest in trying to justify the changes he wants to make. Not only does every other user involved in the article disagree with him about this; he also consistently evades our efforts to discuss it with him. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you and your hordes of POV-pushing SPAs is not refusing to accept consensus, it's you refusing to accept that you and your hordes of POV-pusing SPAs have driven off all of the legitmate editors. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I support arbitration. This needs to be dealt with sooner than later. Auntie E. (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also support Arbitration, but then a process that looks also beyond the issues specific to this case. So, instead of just looking at editor conduct here and perhaps imposing topic bans, it is high time that it is recognized that there exist a class of topics like this, where you can just wait until editors with an agenda arrive who will edit in a tendentious way, interpeting RS in a way that suits them etc. etc.

Clearly what would help is if the policies are rewritten so that NPOV becomes SPOV. Not that we don't want NPOV, but rather that achieving NPOV is best done by sticking to SPOV. Now, there is no consensus to modify the wiki-policies in this direction. But then that's why we have an ArbCom. ArbCom can impose new policies for the benefit of Wikipedia, regardless of consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I request that my name be removed from the above list, as the complaint is in regards to editors allegedly "attempting to use autobiographical writings by one of the main subjects of this article, Arthur Jensen, to write a severly biased version of a period in the 1970s", which simply does not apply to me. My only involvement in this issue - which spanned all of two comments on the talkpage - was a suggestion to consider the use of a secondary source on the topic of Jensenism which was not written by Jensen. Other than that, I've decided to leave this article alone, and have done for some time now, as Mathsci's antics literally turn my stomach. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, crap. I’d been wondering whether Mathsci’s behavior was the reason why you’ve mostly stopped contributing to Wikipedia, and it looks like my suspicion was right.

I consider you to be the most neutral and talented editor we’ve had involved in these articles in at least a year, so it bothers me a lot to see Mathsci driving you off the way he’s apparently doing. Is there no way you’ll be willing to resume participating in these articles as long as his behavior doesn’t change? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman neutral, lol. Maybe an uncivil civil POV pusher. The analogy he left on Occam's page and many others clearly demonstrate a POV. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Have any of Varoon Arya’s actual contributions demonstrated non-compliance with NPOV policy? During the time since he became involved in race-related articles last fall, my observation has been that he’s adhered to NPOV policy pretty strictly. If you disagree, I’d like to see diffs to support your claim about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So you admit that Aryaman has a POV but that his actual contributions comply with NPOV. The difference between civil POV pushers and regular POV pushers is that civil POV pushers understand wikipedia's policies well, and are thus able to avoid any blatant violations of policy. Despite the lack of blatant violations, CPPs may violate the spirit of wikipedia by cleverly advocating certain POVs. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thought crime already. mikemikev (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, everybody has a point of view, including you. The only thing that matters at Wikipedia is whether we can avoid introducing our personal biases into articles when we edit them. If Varoon Arya is able to do this—and you seem to be admitting that he is—then he hasn’t done anything wrong.

The same goes for everyone else who’s a subject of Mathsci’s complaint here. This thread is really just a content dispute, although it’s being presented as a complaint about user conduct, so the only actual conduct issue on our part is the fact that a few of you disagree with us. That’s why none of the users making these accusations against us are able to provide any diffs of objectionable conduct on our part, although I’ve been able to provide diffs and links that demonstrate stonewalling from Mathsci. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is entitled to have a point of view, and we all do. You are correct about introducing personal biases into articles. If Aryaman's edits were completely neutral, then many editors wouldn't have a problem with them. Other editors have complained about an atmosphere of resentment, undercurrents of hostility etc. regarding some race related topics. This demonstrates that some editors' POVs are spilling over into their edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

“Other editors have complained about an atmosphere of resentment, undercurrents of hostility etc. regarding some race related topics. This demonstrates that some editors' POVs are spilling over into their edits.”

I don’t think this is VA’s fault, or mine. If you read the talk page for the R & I history article, you’ll see that Mathsci is the one who keeps threatening other editors with bans or blocks when we disagree with him, and he’s obviously also the person who keeps complaining here at AN/I whenever he doesn’t get his way. The only example of something comparable to this from a user other than Mathsci is Mikemikev’s suggestion of starting an RFC/U about Mathsci, which was directly in response to Mathsci having continuously engaged in this antagonistic behavior for several weeks.

As I pointed out in the diffs and links above, Mathsci is also the one who’s either unwilling or unable to justify his opinion based on any policies here. When he responds to the rest of us at all, it’s either with name-calling and threats, or by repeating himself in an endless loop without acknowledging any of the earlier responses to his points. Even if you disagree with the changes we’ve been making to the article in terms of content, I don’t think you can argue with the fact that nobody has raised any coherent objections to them, least of all Mathsci. Unless you’re going to suggest that we ought to submit to him just because of how much noise he’s been making, or out of fear because of his threats, there’s nothing that the rest of us could be doing differently in order to avoid this problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what the Jensen issue is that Mathsci is referring to. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in the mediation, so I am not an independent voice. But when ArbCom was created, it was specifically to deal with personal behavior violations and conflicts. I know its brief has been expanding a bit but we Wikipedians should resist that. For a long time I have argued that we need a separate panel or multiple panels (e.g. of experts) to mediate content disputes. This is really a content dispute and should not be handled by ArbCom (although i agree that mediation did not resolve all issues in a years-long problem article). If this does not provoke the community into creating a separate mechanism for dealing with content disputes, then I suggest some kind of task-force. Wasn't this how ethnic-conflict e.g. Israel-Palestine conflicts were handled? The core issue here of course is race and racism so I think it is analogous. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Request Could an uninvolved editor please move this thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Slrubenstein and leave a pointer here? Or if nobody objects, I'll do it. I'm not involved in the content dispute but I posted some outside commments to the earlier thread. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A task force specifically for these types of articles seems like a great idea. I think this situation blurs the line a little between content disputes and behaviour conflicts, so it might be appropriate to send it to ArbCom. But something tailored to the specific situation would be a lot better. Who would be willing to sit in on that though? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why are we all "voting" on whether to take this to mediation or arbitration? If there's a conduct problem, present diffs illustrating the disruptive actions and myself or another administrator will slam a block on the guilty parties. AGK 01:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(This comment by AGK went missing, pesumably after a wrongly corrected edit conflict by someone. It should be checked if more comments are missing elsewhere on this AN/I page. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) )

AGK: This case is far too subtle for that approach because there have been lots of researchers interested in race and intelligence, so a POV editor can find plenty of material to support their POV, and can keep pushing until all related articles "prove" their point. As far as I can tell, Mathsci is one of the few remaining editors who is attempting to keep a neutral portrayal of the science. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps of only partial interest to this thread, but of considerable relevance to the actual issue of contention -- this is about history, not science. The NPOV issue surrounds the description of the motivations of various scholars 30+ years ago, but not their science per se. The science content is in the race and intelligence article, which is not at issue. --DJ (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

-> The Race and intelligence article has the problem that a number of largely single-purpose editors are trying to write the science themselves from primary sources. Not very much can be done about that as far as I can tell. But when it comes to history, they are now trying to play exactly the same game on the recently created History of the race and intelligence controversy. They want to write the history themselves using primary sources. They seem obsessive about their chosen subject and mostly edit very little else on wikipedia. So of course the game is to brush aside reliable secondary sources - in this case 4 pages from an account by Adrian Wooldridge, who is certainly not a Marxist historian (he lunches with conservative grandees and is Management Editor of The Economist) - and replace it with autobiographical statements by the person, Arthur Jensen, about whom the history is being written. They then spend time comparing that person to Gandhi and Winston Churchill. In this case, a fairer comparison would be to Enoch Powell, who sparked similar controversy to Jensen and produced copious amounts of primary autobiographical material, none of which is used directly in his wikipedia article. Fortunately, now that this has been reported here, several more widely experienced editors are now participating in the article and restoring some sense of normality to editing. If administrators want to look at the kind of edits I make, they can look at the carefully sourced material I added this morning [102] on Cyril Burt and the newly created biography of Otto Klineberg, a social psychologist whose career followed a slightly different path from that of Arthur Jensen. Or then again, they can look at Handel concerti grossi Op.6 or Christopher Jencks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to the bio of Enoch Powell is close, but not quite analogous. A better comparison would be to Powellism, the discussion of the controversial ideas and views attributed to Powell. That article quotes him extensively, and includes quotes taken from both primary (written by Powell himself) as well as secondary sources. I don't think the editors involved here are requesting anything other than balancing what secondary sources attribute to Jensen with what Jensen himself has said. In light of NPOV, this would seem imperative, particularly given the fact that Jensen himself has noted on several occasions that his views are more often than not misrepresented in such secondary sources.

And, for the second time, I request that my name be removed from this list. I do not plan on participating in this any further. --Aryaman (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryman - I've redacted your name from the list, unilaterally. If mathsci wants to raise a stink about it, he can bring it up at ANI - LMFAO --Ludwigs2 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"LMFAO" - So, you find this funny in some way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

proposed topic ban for Mathsci

I think it's time to raise the issue of a topic ban for Mathsci, much as I hate to suggest it. Mathsci has gotten so lost in his own personal perspective on this topic that he is no longer responding to reason or trying to edit cooperatively at all - he's simply engaging in procedural warfare against a half-dozen editors (starting or hijacking multiple ANI threads to pursue it), without even a minimal assumption of good faith for anyone. a short enforced break from any page related to the topic (two months or so) should give him an opportunity to regain some perspective.

and Hipocrite, save your breath - threatening me isn't going to do you any good, and you've never given me a reason to give a shit about what you think. --Ludwigs2 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Mathsci is not the problem here. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you sure about that? I think Mathsci is a fairly decent editor, all things considered, but in this case we are talking about a lot of ANI time he's monopolized trying to get people banned, blocked or otherwise in trouble. Further, his behavior on the articles and in article talk has been outrageous: He threatens people, reverts without credible explanation, indulges in name-calling and personal insults, demands that people accept his edits because he's a more experienced editor, and otherwise acts like a spoiled child. Don't believe half the hype he's been spouting here - I don't personally agree with Occam's or Mikemikev's perspective, but I can reason with them and start creating a balanced outcome. Mathsci simply refuses to listen to anything that he thinks is wrong, and starts ANI proceedings if anyone contradicts him. In my view he is the main and biggest obstacle to creating a balanced article, because he is (as far as I can see) hell bent on making sure that no other perspective save the one he believes in is represented in the article. Can honestly read through the respctive talk pages and ANI threads and tell me that you think Mathsci is behaving like a calm, rational adult? If so, then please do so, so we can get down to a detail by detail analysis of his silliness. I'd appreciate you explaining his behavior to me. This isn't about choosing sides, this is about creating a workable editing environment. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Ludwig, it might be helpful if you were to provide diffs of some of Mathsci’s more problematic behavior. I suspect that you’ve been paying closer attention to it than the rest of us have, especially during the mediation case. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I will if anyone asks. If things are true to previous form, the first 8 or so responses will be (mostly) from people who would oppose a topic ban even if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you, on the grounds that that would somehow be your fault. Give it a day or two and some more level heads will weigh in. I doubt it will happen this time, but I will raise the issue again in each of the subsequent ANI threads that Mathsci starts or hijacks, and I figure somewhere around the fourth or fifth time (because you know there will be at least that many more ANI threads) even his die-hard supporters will will be developing some serious cognitive dissonance about him. I'm patient... --Ludwigs2 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I’m asking. I do think that Mathsci’s behavior in these articles warrants a topical ban, but I also don’t think you’re going to be able to convince anyone of this without providing specific evidence. With the exception of Slrubenstein, everyone who’s commented “oppose” thus far doesn’t have any firsthand experience with Mathsci in these articles, and as a result probably doesn’t believe either of us that he’s been doing all of the things that we’ve observed from him. Providing diffs is the way to solve that problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If there are candidates for topic ban, I would start looking at SPAs. Mathsci is definitely not that. He is an editor who generally works on articles in which he has genuine expertise, and where his knowledge is lacking it is clear he knows how to do real research, even if it involves physically walking to a library. He has demonstrated this at scores of other articles and his contribution to R&I is consistent with his contributions elsewhere. He is also clear about core content policy. I sometimes find his editing too aggressive but he same is true about me and th majority of wikipedians, and all of us know we sometimes need Wikibreaks, and I have seen mathsci take one periodically on his own accord. This - realistically speaking - is precisely the kind of editor we need more of, and should not be discouraging. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Mathsci is definitely not the problem here, I came out of retirement to say so. Justin talk 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think either "side" is behaving well under our policies, but Mathsci isn't causing the situation here and is not the worst offender. No. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware my mainspace editing is without blemish, on a broad base of academic articles in the arts and sciences.
• By his silence on the matter, Ludwigs2 seems to be supporting a whole series of WP:SPAs. This is completely in line with his previous attempts to skew wikipedia editing policy to favour unduly representing minority views on fringe topics. His emotional and highly charged statements about me are no different from those of Abd (talk · contribs): they do not reflect my editing patterns in any way and are simply out-and-out personal attacks on an academic mainstream editor, unsupportable by diffs.
• Captain Occam is continuing slowly to push for inappropriate primary sources to be used by asking the same question over and over again here: Talk:History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#Primary sources - Jensen justifying himself 30 years after the event. These continued questions appear to have degenerated to trolling, Persumably when I tire of responding, this will give him the green light to reinsert material that several other editors have already removed. Isn't this just a slow version of edit warring on his part? I have no point of view to push in any of this, even if Captain Occam obviously has. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Mathsci, please leave me out of your mudslinging. How can I support anything through silence? Frankly, I've been avoiding the page(s) because you are being such an inveterate ass it give me a headache dealing with you. I have better ways to spend my time at the moment than watching you run around shouting "Off With Their Heads!" like the frigging Queen of Hearts. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahem. you wrote above: "if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you". Please could you explain to administrators what that kind of phrase was supposed to convey. Please could you also explain what anything you have written here has to do with me insisting on secondary sources for the history of a controversial event. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Slrubinsetin. This is the wrong party to be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• As someone who has been passively watching the evolution of R&I and related articles for years, I have to agree with the "opposes": Mathsci is definitely not the problem here. Who or what may be the solution to this mess is a wholly different question, and given the history and unsettling attraction of this topic to multiple single purpose accounts, I for one am pessimistic. But to topic-ban Mathsci, as suggested by Ludwigs2, won't help this ill-fated topic one bit. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - If topic bans are needed this isn't the place to start.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Captain Occam et al.

This article needs a lot of work. Count Iblis (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think I'd want to spend time on trying to improve Conservapedia articles? Hardly anyone reads that site. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And why does hardly anyone read Conservapedia? Count Iblis (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Because most people aren't stupid. Not difficult. Next question? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, does it matter what the reason is? I was just telling you why I don't think your suggestion would be a good use of my time. That's the case regardless of why so few people read it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of process when citing a page for deletion

I am not sure if this is the correct place to raise this matter, but I would like some other pairs of eyes to look at this. The user User:TreasuryTag has a problem with an image which they keep citing for deletion. It is a TV screenshot, and so uses the {{Non-free television screenshot}} license. After I had fixed some some minor problems with the license, the user:

1. Cited the image for deletion using {{ifd}}[103]
2. Deleted the image from the article [104]
3. Immediately cited the image for deletion using {{di-orphaned fair use}}[105]

These actions were all completed within three minutes. The user seems to have declared themselves prosecuting councel, judge, and jury. This has got to be wrong.

I tried to discuss the user's previous attempt to delete this same image on their Talk page, here]. Since the user is now leaving silly messages on my Talk page[106][107], I can't face discussing their latest actions with them.

To me, this user seems out of control. As I said above, I would like some other pairs of eyes to look at this. HairyWombat (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The image is a clear copyright violation, having no possible justification under our fair-use policies, and has been nominated for deletion where the community can discuss it freely. I am not aware of any "silly" behaviour on my part, and my messages on Wombat's talkpage were friendly yet firm, since s/he seems to misunderstand our civility policy. However, as always, I welcome scrutiny. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 16:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the fair use claim. But you cannot remove an image from an article and then claim it's an orphan. Neither is it ok to take an image to IfD and trying to get it speedied via the orphan tag. If you think this needs consensus, IfD is the right way. If you think the image violates copyright, hash it out on the talk page of the article before deleting it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Which policy specifies what you've just said? Because WP:3RR seems to champion the immediate removal from articles of "clear copyright violations" even if discussion is underway in a separate venue. (At least that's what I think it means?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. If you hit such a situation, list the image at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, get consensus, and delete it (or not). That's what it's for. Don't fire off a broadside on all venues you can think of - that pisses people off, and rightly so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those messages on the wombat's talk page don't seem silly to me. If you can't face discussing their latest actions with them, then stop editing. We operate on discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm genuinely unsure if that's what he meant to describe as "silly", because they really aren't... And sorry, if who can't face discussion...? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(i think toddst1's comment was aimed at hairywombat, not you TT Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

• If you think an image is a copyvio, I think you ought to remove it from the articles until there's been a peer review. However, it is obviously out of line to try to get it deleted as an orphan after you have removed it from linked articles. That is patent gaming of the system. Wait for peer review. --causa sui (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Of course, the orphan-deletion process takes exactly the same length of time as does the FfD... ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, but, if the IfD closes as "keep" and nobody restores the image to the article, then the orphan tag will expire and the image will be removed anyways. Are you going to restore the image yourself? Are you expecting that the IfD closer tracks the history of the pages to restore the images in the correct place with the correct caption? Are you going to say that it's the responsability of other people to make sure that their actions don't delete images that didn't need to be deleted after all? What about people who comment in the IfD, they can't see the image in its proper context to see if it's being used correctly. Please don't remove the images until the IfD closes. Note: if the IfD closes as "Delete", then the image becomes a red link and it will eventually will be removed anyways from the articles.

As an apart: you even said in the IfD "It's not even used at the moment!" (emphasis in the original). That's plain disingenuous, since you had removed it yourself right after nominating for IfD. It was being used when you nominated it and you should have left it alone so other people could see how it was being used. You also forgot this common-sense instruction from the IfD page: "If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted." --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DigiPokemon2010

DigiPokemon2010 (talk · contribs) seems to be a WP:SPA who is blatantly using Wikipedia as his own webhost. He created two pages: Mehna Region's Complete Poke'dex (w/ the new pokemons of Mehna), a fictional Pokédex listing for what appears to be a made-up Pokémon game, and Drano: The Supreme Dragon, also evidently about the user's own creation. He has been warned about the Drano page before and yet re-created it anyway. Clearly, the warnings aren't getting through to this user, and he's not here to edit in good faith. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles gone, and I'll leave a final final warning for the user; please advise if they do it again. (Who the heck names a dragon Drano?) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted on the deletions, these are so blatantly made up that they're unambiguously deletable. Will block him if he does it again. ~ mazca ^talk 18:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A plumber who's had lots of problems with soldering torches in the past? rdfox 76 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest referring the user to http://pokemon.wikia.com, a dedicated pokemon wiki. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the pokemon Wikia host articles on made-up Pokemon? It can hurt more than help to send a user to yet another site that will reject him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Khaled Abu Toameh

Resolved

 – Editors appear to be working things out on the talk page. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has been edited by a number of different users and IPs, all of whom make similar edits, deleting reliably sourced information about Khaled Abu Toameh's affiliations with pro-Israel lobby groups. Attempts to reason with these editors on the talk page have come to naught and the article is currently badly formatted as a result of their interventions. I cannot do anything more without violating WP:3RR. If someone could investigate what is going on there, it would be much appreciated. Tiamut^talk 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Abujamil has responded to you on the talk page. I don't think any admin intervention is needed here. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he has responded. But I don't think the issue is resolved. The disputed text remains unincluded, despite its being well sourced and relevant, and there is still the issue of sockpuppets under multiple accounts and IPs, but I guess that is better discussed at WP:SPI? Tiamut^talk 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Request Deletion of Userspace Subpage That Won't Expand DB-Userreq to Auto-Flag It For You Guys

Resolved

 – --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be so kind as to help me out by deleting User:WCityMike/Monobook.css, User:WCityMike (Usurped)/Monobook.css, User:WCityMike (Usurped)/monobook.css, User:WCityMike (Usurped)/monobook.js, User:WCityMike (Usurped)/myskin.js, User:MikeHarris/Monobook.css, User:MikeHarris/monobook.css, User:MikeHarris/monobook.js, and User:MikeHarris/myskin.js?

These are all me (the extra two accounts are the result of a recent cleanup involving universal logins gone awry -- documentation for this can be found on WP:CHU).

It appears that requesting same via the standardized way of doing it -- the db-userreq template -- doesn't work, as the code seems to remain intact as code (due to it being a CSS or JS page) instead of turning into the appropriate deletion template.

If I've somehow asked in the wrong arena, if someone would be so kind as to direct me to the correct location, I'd appreciate it. &#151; Mike 22:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Angusmclellan got most of them, I got a couple of stragglers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! &#151; Mike 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record you can add db tags to .js pages (and presumably .css, I haven't tried). It doesn't expand the template but it still adds the page to the category--Jac16888^Talk 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Reporting User:LessHeard vanU for Admin tools abuse.

After having discussed the reasons of the blocking of my account by User:LessHeard vanU with him, on his talk page, as indicated for this situations, I still fail to understand any possible violation that may had led to the blocking of my account. By this, and nothing personal, I would like to report this incident in which I feel extremely perjudicated. Here are some diffs and links that could be helpfull:

• [108] The reason of my complain.
• [109] My ANI report.
• [110] The subsequent block of my account by User:LessHeard vanU.
• [111] the discussion on LessHeard vanU talk page where the reasons of the block are (or not) clarified.

I will also like to report and ask User:Beeblebrox for explaining his, not understandable, statements that he had in two accasions, on the ANI report itself [112] and on the offensive users talk page [113], in which he accuses me of having had equal behavior towards the user I was complaining, and says that the user is "right" in saying those offensies, but "not cool". This is a serios acusation, please User:Beeblebrox find backing for this offensive arguments of yours. I had already tryied on two occasions, the report itself and on his talk page [114] but I was completely ignored. Thank you.

As a good and devoted wikipedian, I feel that it was my dutty to report the previos incident, so as this (on my opinion) admin abuse. Thanking everyone in advance, I send best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, LessHeard vanU has explained himself just fine. You were being disruptive by taking a particularly mild comment on your talk page too seriously and demanding unwarranted action. When you refused to listen to people telling you to drop it, you were blocked for threatening to continue the disruption. Everyone seems to have been more than patient with you, and if you still don't understand the reason for the block I'm worried that it's due to your own lack of comprehension. As someone previously uninvolved in this, I can't see anything remotely resembling admin abuse. ~ mazca ^talk 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, the initial edit summary in the first diff was by no means "paritcularly mild". DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's by no means exemplary behaviour, but as a response to repeated objectionable conduct - removing others' posts - it certainly seems fairly mild to me relative to the amount of fuss it caused. ~ mazca ^talk 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The post was restored in place much before the attack occured... FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::It was definitely not mild but looking at the ANI discussion, all the editors involved seemed to agree that both parties were at fault and that they should both just back away from each other. The party who left the initial comment agreed and FkpCascais kept pressing the issue. I can see why they might feel strongly about it but if the community has said drop it and you promise to continue disrupting proceedings, a short-term block seems warranted. This doesn't seem to be a case of admin-abuse. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Since I didn't use my admin tools I don't think a case could be made that I abused them. And yes, I did ignore your posts on my talk page because clearly you are not getting the message that you are making too big of a deal out of this. Don't expect any further comment from me on this matter since this has gone on far too long already. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I am asking you to explain your unjustified acusation on the ANI report that had direct consequencies on the blocking of my account. It was not you that was insulted neither blocked while asking action against it, so I can´t really see how is that you are the one making opinions of if this had already gone too far, or nor, in this case. I will remind you that Admins are not free of responsabilities behind the positions they take on the ANI reports. FkpCascais (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine I will explain it to you. You removed a comment here [115]. That you later went back and undid this ill-considered action does not mean it never happened. Alasdair pointed this out, but used some nasty language when doing so. So, you did something wrong, he did something wrong. My advice was, is, and will continue to be that you should let this drop. Please do not leave any further messages about this on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would comment that at no time had FkpCascais indicated to me that they considered my actions as abuse, but rather as a matter of seeking an explanation. I would likely not have responded any differently were I aware of that consideration, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that -in my opinion- admin LessHeardvanU seems to have been "pushed" (I'd dare to say "intimidated") by a group of yugoslavian/marxist-titofanatics around user:DIREKTOR (please see on Jimbo talkpage/edits: Sorry, Jimbo, if I pinpoint again about what is happening with user:DIREKTOR. He seems to be allowed to do any wrongdoings he wants on en.wiki (edit wars, vandalisms, verbal offenses, 3RR, political propaganda, etc..). He has collected six bans, but keeps behaving defiantly thanks even to his meatpuppets (like user:AlasdairGreen27). Please, read [116] in order to get an idea. Even with user:FkpCascais he gets whatever he likes (see [117]), but is not punished because some admins seems to be often on his side. Many others wikipedians have experienced his "attacks": recently an admin on it.wiki (user:Crisarco) remained astonished by his behaviour (and for the group "supporting" him) on en.wiki. Please see" [118]. He does -in a continue way- political propaganda (with his meatpuppet user:AlasdairGreen27 and others) supporting communist Tito and Yugoslavian topics.....and no admin on en.wiki seriously takes care of his many wrongdoings (may be they are afraid of him and his group?). The last admin who "dared" to ban him for a few days was literally "assaulted" by his group and was forced to offer a kind of withdrawal of the ban: unbelievable! A lot of people are tired of him and his continuous fights and edit wars: he should be banned forever or for a long period of months. Many wikipedians would appreciate your help to get this: Wikipedia needs to grow in a "peaceful" relationship between users; and this Direktor is always fighting with someone (just look at his talkpage and contributions). Sincerely --BisR41 (talk).-------Apologies, this is yet another "report" from a gang of banned sockpuppeteers I reported (most likely User:Ragusino).DIREKTOR.-------Well, well....I wrote the complainst in order to show Jimbo how quickly some admins "help" this fanatic Direktor (6 times banned! not a little saint...). His meatpuppet group literally attacks even admins (like User:JodyB) who "dare" to punish him! Allow me to repeat: Wikipedia needs to grow in a "peaceful" relationship between users; and this Direktor is always fighting with someone (just look at his talkpage and contributions). He should be banned at least for some months! Sincerely). Allow me to write that it is astonishing to me see that FkpCascais is verbally offended by DIREKTOR's meatpuppet user:AlasdairGreen27 and... who is punished? FkpCascais! UNBELIEVABLE! Let's free Wikipedia from Meatpuppets and their groups. An outraged wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.74.14 (talk • contribs)

Wow, that helped your case a lot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It´s not my fault that other people also have complains... I will just ask everybody to concentrate on the report. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have never seen User:LessHeard vanU misuse his tools on Wikipedia...ever. He is a great Wikipedian and admin, quick on blocking vandals, but also quick on helping newbies and experienced users. The dude is here all the time (I swear he is a robot). His contribs show a level of expertise that we should try to match, not remove. User:LessHeard vanU is always willing to listen to the other side of the conversation, so I think any problems can be worked out on his talk and this ANI thread closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:RicoCorinth reported by Camelbinky

As this is a relatively long dispute the relevant information regardin User:RicoCorinth's incivility can be found at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your help and advice where I have the relevant quotes for all to read of Rico's incivility and lack of AGF towards User:UpstateNYer which is he main thrust of this AN/I.

Cambelblinky, did you happen to notice that it states at the top of this page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page"? Why didn't you do that? -- Rico 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Secondarily- Rico then after reading my question to User:Silver seren asking if Rico should be brought to AN/I after threatening to remove any comments at Talk:Schenectady City School District if me and Silver continued to talk about Rico and another user not seeming to be having good motives towards improving the article and were indeed causing undue stress towards UpstateNYer as retribution for an AfD dispute. Rico then came to my page and left a LONG post (since deleted by me)about me being "uncivil again to the point of being disruptive" because I was accusing HIM of being uncivil, he went on and smeared me about an block I received which I fully dont believe would have passed muster had it been brought here to AN/I instead of just an admin throwing it on me like what happened; and then Rico went and brought attention about his post on my talk page to another user whom I've had serious disputes and problems with in the problem and whom I've brought to AN/I before because in MY OPINION he was harassing and unfairly watching my talk page and going to disputes I was in with no other motive than to argue against me (User:Equazcion handled the matter if I remember correctly), though we've been ok towards each other recently and dont wish to bring him into this other than Rico had no right or reason to bring this to other's attention or bring up past "problems" other than smear me so others could read it on my talk page.Camelbinky (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In six years of editing Wikipedia, I have never -- ever -- threatened to remove any other editors comments. I have asked you to stop accusing me of this,[119] and you read it.[120] It looks like you've confused me with Delicious carbunkle, who wrote, "I'm going to start removing off-topic comments like the ones above per WP:TALK."[121] I never wrote anything like that.

I don't know if UpstateNYer felt "undue stress," nor how you would know, but I have never intended to inflict stress on any anybody at Wikipedia -- and certainly not "as retribution" for anything.

You've been told about your incivility many times. I'm just the last person to. The administrator that blocked you just wrote, "WRT Camelblinky, I've seen him continuing his hostility elsewhere since I blocked him."

I didn't write that you were being disruptive because you were calling me uncivil. I didn't even realize you were. I wrote you that bringing this to ANI would be an abuse of process, and that is considered disruptive.

You were supposed to come to my talk page and discuss any issues you might have had with me, real or imagined.

Once I realized that the two of you had decided to come here and abuse ANI, I went to your talk page. Where else was I supposed to go?

I explained myself, but you just deleted my discussion without even replying.

You're not allowed to bring grievances to ANI without first trying to discuss your concerns with your targets on their talk pages.

Also, to the extent that you filed this grievance to try to drive me off -- as you did Delicious carbunkle[122] -- to help your ally win a dispute over WP:EL, and establish sovereignty over that page, you are also being disruptive.

My intention was not to "smear" you; my intention was to dissuade you -- in part by letting you know that you were wrong, and that you had confused me with someone else.

And partly because of something an attorney once said: "I'm gonna bloody your witness. Are you sure you want that?"

The witness was so pathetic, and a habitual liar, so she wasn't going to survive the witness stand. -- Rico 00:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky brought this it to ANI, despite never having discussed any of his issues on my talk page. Tasty monster/ Tony Sidaway told you that Wikipedia is not a battleground.[123] -- Rico 00:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Hippo43#Your name's been mentioned... as evidence of the smears I have to put up with "Best to avoid discussions with Camelbinky - rational debate is not one of his strong points." Camelbinky (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, that's not a smear, just a comment on my experience of your communication style, and constructive advice to Rico. Going to ANI and falsely accusing someone of hounding you would be a smear. Please don't make this about me and you. --hippo43 (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you inform me that you were discussing me on Jimbo's talk page? -- Rico 23:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I dont have to?Camelbinky (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Rico brought the dispute at Camelbinky's talk page to my attention because he had mentioned me in his complaint about Camelbinky. I don't think he needed to refer to Camelbinky's history with me, but having done so, he was right to let me know. I have no dog in this fight, but IMO it would be best if Camelbinky chose to walk away from these kinds of arguments at times, or simply agreed to disagree, instead of looking for admin intervention to prove he was right all along. --hippo43 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Hippo43, that was very good advice and I understand I am very hotheaded. I am glad that we got to agree on something recently at one of the policy pages, as your exclaimation point seemed to imply at that page you were just as surprised as me that we were agreeing and I do hope when we do cross paths that past problems are forgotten and perhaps new agreements and commonalities can be found. I appreciate you're post here. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Having some trouble following all the new posts that are being put in the middle... so lets start just putting them down at the end if at all possible... Rico- I put my concerns to you at the Talk:Schenectady City School District page and you gave me a "warning" on my talk page about it. What more needed to be discussed with you at your talk page? You have from day one given no AGF towards UpstateNYer and when I defended him you suddenly accused me of doing so because I'm an "ally" of his... yet you say that I am the one using words that suggest Wikipedia is a "battleground". He and I work well together to improve articles, but we actually NEVER go to the same policy pages and support each other in discussions on changing policy or anything like that. We actually rarely work on the same article at the same time other than right now on a sandbox rewrite of Albany, New York. If we are allies because we respect each other's work and you think that is wrong of us and accuse us of having some sort of conspiracy... wow, you have a bad view on editors interacting then.Camelbinky (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why were you colluding with Silver seren in a corner, falling all over yourself trying to come up with some excuse to file a grievance against us here.[124] Just to win a content dispute at the district article?

It might have been nice if you had invited me to participate in the discussion. When I found out about it, I though I straightened it out. -- Rico 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the above, but I did have a bizarre tussle with Rico on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons over a post of his.

  I asked him a question about an edit he made, and he replied in a different section, whether because he didn't see mine or I didn't see his, I don't recall. So I moved his response into the section I'd opened with the question, and I responded to his response. [125] He moved his post back without explanation, which left my response responding to nothing. [126] So I left his post where he seemed to want it, and copied it into the section about his edit, with a friendly edit summary complete with smiley. [127] He removed it again. [128] So I moved the entire sequence (my question, his response, and my response) higher as a subsection of the section he seemed to want them to be in, with the edit summary "I don't mind where it goes, so long as questions and answers are together," and another smiley in an increasingly futile attempt to signal my goodwill. [129] He removed his post entirely this time on the grounds that he hadn't originally posted it in that place. [130] I gave up at that point, so the page was archived with a section in which I'm talking to myself. :)

  Rico then proceeded to post about me in various places, how action should be taken against me as a serial talk-page-post mover, so I do sympathize with Camelblinky's perspective on this, though I think I'd also advise him to try not to respond to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of WP:BATTLE, but you're hardly an uninvolved administrator.[131] My reply at WP:BLP wasn't to a post of yours. You took it away from the post I was replying to and moved it under a post of yours to try to force it to be a reply to a post of yours. That was disruptive. -- Rico 00:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, please stop splitting my posts in half with your comments as you've now done to my first post. I do believe YOU are the one that DELETED UpstatNYer's posts for that very same reason. That is why I got Delicious and you mixed up. My bad, from your styles and continued aggressive editing and posting at the Schenectady CSD page against Upstater I hope you can understand why I made that honest mistake.

• Colluding?! HA! Wow, talk pages are that secret? I asked him a question as he had mentioned at the Schenectady CSD page that Delicious had other run-ins at AN/I regarding similar problems; and then after YOU deleted Upstater's posts around the same time Delicious commented that he would remove posts (and I thought you had posted that, I was wrong, I apologize for that) I thought it best to get Silver's opinion as he seemed to know more about the history of the two of you. You accused me in several places of being an "ally" of Upstater's and trying to gang up on you when you had your own "ally" as well. Ally is your word remember, you've used it several times. And at every place you have a serious lack of "assuming good faith" towards ANYONE who does anythign wrong or disagrees with you. And now you accuse Slim of "battling" and everything... for the record Slim and I have had our "battles" that have gotten quite heated, so I'd say she(?) IS an uninvolved admin; just another instance of Rico seeing conspiracies and people with agendas and no AGF. Rico- no conspiracy, just a bunch of people who just dont like your attitude. And now I'll take Slim and Hippo's advice and not make any more responses unles something is actually going to happen and I'm needed to answer a question.Camelbinky (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was given some good advice a long time ago by an experienced Wikipedian. If you're having a problem with a person who is apparently being irrational or very difficult, and you can't get through, withdraw. One of two things will probably happen: (1) you were wrong, in which case no one else will see this issue with that editor, and it's good that you withdrew; or (2) you were right, in which cases others will see it, and you can quietly sit back and watch that editor seal his own fate. It was with that principle in mind that I stopped arguing with Rico over where to place his talk-page post. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

More importation of a conflict by an uninvolved editor, that is apparently holding a grudge against me?[132] You never "stopped arguing with [me] over where to place [my] talk-page post" You put my post where I hadn't put it three times in half an hour.[133][134][135] All you did was edit war. We never discussed it, ever. You have gotten other editors blocked for edit warring at ANI. It must be nice to be above any need to follow the rules. -- Rico 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty disingenuous. I posted between your two posts up above. UpstateNYer audaciously chopped up a single post of mine, and inserted posts inside my post. When I restored my post to its whole, something UpstateNYer agreed I had a right to do, that caused UpstateNYer's posts to be deleted. But, then again, you knew that. Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and majors essays don't provide the right to insert posts inside the posts of others, as I explained here. You were originally wanting to take that here as your grievance[136]. Did you just want to bring any old grievance here, no matter what? Anything to harass an editor that disagees with your ally? -- Rico 04:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if an uninvolved adminstrator would be so kind as to opine about SlimVirgin's importation of a dispute, despite not being involved in it, but yet having every reason to be biased? -- Rico 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, suggest you move on. All this won't achieve anything.

FWIW, I find it really difficult to follow what you're saying in discussions when you make endless minor changes to what you wrote earlier. It would be a lot easier to follow if you just wrote what you want to say, at the bottom of the discussion if possible, then if you have something to add, write a new comment. --hippo43 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am only incidentally involved in this matter, so much as I was involved in the Eric Ely discussion and then noticed the discussion over at the Schenectady article. From just looking over the discussion there, I saw that UpstateNYer was presenting perfectly valid points to his benefit, while Rico and Delicious carbuncle were largely ignoring the points he was making. Adding in the fact that they have never worked on this article before and that they were involved in the Eric Ely discussion, it was rather clear that they were trying to bring their viewpoints into play here, when they had no reason to. The comment removal by Rico was also ridiculous. It is perfectly understandable for him to want to keep his post intact (just as it is perfectly understandable for UpstartNYer to want to address specific points, which is why he responded in the comment), but that does not give Rico the right to remove UpstateNYer's comments entirely. They should have been moved below his comment, if he disliked their placement. Removing them, per WP:TALK is not a valid response. Silverseren^C 01:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what happened was UpstateNYer was unable to build consensus for external links in the article, and revert warring[137][138][139] didn't work, so he summoned partisan allies that had never edited or discussed the article, to influence the outcome of this discussion[140] -- calling on friends/ allies to go there and agree with UpstateNYer for the purpose of supporting UpstateNYer's side of the discussion, as proxies to sway consensus.

That's when Silver seren and Camelbinky showed up -- but rather than discuss the article, they set about attacking the two editors that disagreed with UpstateNYer

Not one of Camelbinky's edits on the talk page addresses the article issue.[141][142][143][144] He opted instead to only to write about his ally's opponents to them, threaten them,[145] and stealthily collude off in corners about how to take us to ANI[146] -- despite never having discussed any of his issues on either of our talk pages.

He already scared off one editor.[147]

It's been said that UpstateNYer supports Camelbinky,[148], and I've seen it[149] -- even to the point of UpstateNYer wanting to defend Camelbinky without even knowing what he's been accused of[150] -- but this has always been about repaying favors, or just being loyal. -- Rico 02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Angry mastodon climbs the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to battle for ally

I was wondering if anybody besides me sees this this way. -- Rico 02:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you hadn't said much, most people would probably have thought Camelbinky was maybe over-reacting and just looking for a fight in starting this thread. If you stop now, there's still a chance. --hippo43 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a great idea. Why don't both of you go have a cup of tea and do something other than talk about each other for the next 2-3 days, and see how you feel then?

This is rising to the level of mutually disruptive engagement; I think that you both going on about your lives is generally preferable to having to block both of you. Hopefully you agree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree to the closure of this thread. -- Rico 04:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing practices of User:Mk5384

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

John J. Pershing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mk5384 has had quite a history on the John J. Pershing article and talk page over the issue of including the word "nigger" in the infobox. After getting nearly an indef block from Wikipedia over edit warring and disruption (see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Pattern of Behavior of User:Mk5384), it looked as if Mk had turned over a new leaf and was ready to work with others. Several users worked together on that article and a compromise position was reached which everyone could live with.

Mk was okay with this for a few days but then returned to start a new "proposal" stating that several users had agreed to another change (See: Talk:John J. Pershing#Proposal). Mk then began repeating the same arguments which had already been voiced and which had already been discussed during the compromise. In the end, MK "announced" that there was a "new consensus" and here is where the disruptive editing really begins (see: Talk:John J. Pershing#As of now). First, MK misrepresented the positions of two editors, stating that two users supported this new compromise when in fact the last recorded edit was that they supported the compromise version [151], [152]. One of the users even arrived to strike his name off of MK's "list" [153]. At this point, caught in a lie, MK quietly removed one user's name from the list [154] but left the others. Mk then declared that he had a "2-1 majority" and stated this new consensus would overturn the previous discussion. As a final act to top all of this off, MK committed a blatant personal attack by stating I could go and "Kiss Usama bin Laden's ass" [155] As a Gulf veteran, I find that extremely insulting which is what prompted me to post here.

MK has effectively turned the John Pershing article talk page into a battlefield, adopted a strategy that if he repeats the same argument over and over, eventually those who oppose him will get tired and his views will come out on top. There is also the unresolved issue of a possible sockpuppet, being the sudden appearance of Kind Journalist which seems to be a single purpose account to support MKs views. MK went absolutely ballistic when I had a private conversation with User:Xeno about the possibility that this was an SP account but I never made formal charges since I didn't have the evidence. I also, ironically, didn't even use MKs name. Nevertheless, MK has filled Xeno's talk page with a very harsh thread, using terms like "this is horseshit", demanding an investigation (see:User talk:Xeno#New user on the JP Talk Page) and also has approached another admin as well [156] even though this never made it off Xeno's own page and no formal charges were ever filed. Nevertheless, MK states he has been "falsely accused" and wants a full investigation.

In short, something needs to be done about MKs editing behavior as this has gone on long enough. The user is clearly not working with others, misrepresenting the views of other editors, and now committing personal attacks (i.e. "Kiss Usama bin Laden's" ass). A clear case of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and I ask something be done about this. -OberRanks (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I note the mediation was rejected due to one party saying on 3 April that they were not "convinced [participants have] exhausted [their] options in terms of just talking to each other...it is the wrong outlet at this time." [157]. Perhaps mediation should be revisited? –xeno^talk 13:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense, and I have no plans to adress it futrher. This all began when OberRanks made false accusations of sockpuppetry against me on Xeno's talkpage. When he learned of my intentions to take action against him, he resumed his childish nonsense, as can be seen by his two trips here in as many days.As for mediation, whilst I won't rule it out, I can no longer assume good faith with OberRanks, after what he wrote on your talk page, and his latest triva here.Mk5384 (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrators may also wish to review this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_on_Talk:John_J._Pershing and this posting [158]. -OberRanks (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; I'll bite. I'll AGF here, and assume OberRanks' cluelessness is genuine, and he's not just pretending to be stupid. I never told him to "go kiss Usama bin Laden's ass". What I said, was, that if Usama bin Laden came to the Pershing talk page, and supported the exclusion of "Nigger Jack", OberRanks would run to kiss his ass. Big difference, but again, I'll assume OberRanks is genuinely confused. That was, of course, in reference to OberRanks immediately throwing his support behind anyone whom he thinks supports his version of how the article should be. OberRanks didn't even realize that the user in question supports the nickname that he hates so much.Mk5384 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Also,after taking the time to actually read his drivel in its entirety, no, I was not caught in a lie, nor did I "quietly" do anything. The user struck his name, and, as I was the one who posted it, I summarily removed it. Also, the user in question's support for "Nigger Jack" can be found all over the talk page. They have obviously changed their mind, which is absolutely fine. But again, I have a hard time believing that OberRanks truly doesn't understand all of these things, and is making these posts in good faith. Again, as I have said, he got caught on Xeno's talk page with his SP BS, and has been making these premptive strikes ever since, in an attempt to cover his own ass.Mk5384 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I reiterate my dismay that mediation didn't take hold; has there been an {{RFCtag}} on the issue, to gather additional outside input? –xeno^talk 14:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not too concerned with whether that name is in the article or not. The entire point here is that MK has engaged in misrepresentation of other editors and has engaged in personal attacks. And, for the record, I am not sure who Kind Journalist is; all I know is it appears to be a single purpose account, controlled by whom is an unknown factor, but its appearance on the article, and then counted as a "vote", is very questionable. I will also say there is a recurring theme here - nothing is ever MKs fault, he is never the one who is edit warring, it is always other people and other people are always to blame. That is my concern here and I turn this over to the administrators for any action that they see fit. -OberRanks (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The RFC is an excellent idea. I wish to reiterate that everything had been fine. All of us were working together in a manner most civil to resolve our differences, until OR made his false accusations. Instead of simply apologising, he decided to take the low road, insisting that he had done no wrong, whilst resuming his daily trips here to report me for some imaginary infraction.Mk5384 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 has been obsessed with this one item for some time now, including personal attacks and also a false claim of "censorship" - all of which was probably noted in the previous ANI thread. He keeps trying to conduct new polls within the talk page in hopes of building "consensus" for forcing the N-word into the infobox, when this detail is already covered in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all. I have almost 2000 edits, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with John Pershing. Bugs himself has made personal attacks on the talk page, and the claim of censorship is not at all false. Some users, such as Bugs, are hiding behind the fact that the name is used in the article to bolster support for censoring the info box, whilst claiming that censorship is not at play.Mk5384 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you have nothing whatsoever to lose from dropping the stick and walking away, which I hope you will now do. I think everybody else is sick to the back teeth of this, and as far as I can see most people (read: everyone but you) seems to consider the current coverage in the article to be no problem at all. It's time to move on, you are not making yourself look good. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I once read something about a "subject ban" for users who were extremely disruptive on articles but didn't fully cross into the territory of vandalism or blatant blockable offenses. That might be what is needed here, especially if MK drops this for now but returns later to again begin another attempt to force yet again his opinions on the page. -OberRanks (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here he is saying another user "lied" simply because he decided to post again.[159] Can something be done? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop with the misleading attacks against me. It was not "simply because he decided to post again". It was because he said that his previous post would be the last one on the matter. Mk5384 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing his mind doesn't make him a liar. You need to redact that "lie" comment ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I said some of this on the article of the talk page, but MK has adopted a policy of repeating the same arguments as many times as possible, over and over again, mixed in with half truths and personal attacks, until this user gets his way. MK is not backing down and will continue filling the Pershing talk page with pages of argument until at last all users are exhausted, and MK can rack up his "victory". I also like to point out there have been numerous personal attacks and clear violations of WP:CIV littered in amongst his posts, as well as the unresolved issue of putting several users in a "consensus vote" who did not ever express the views as portrayed by MK. This would perhaps be understandable if MK didn't have a history of behaving this way, if users hadn't worked weeks to build a compromise, and if MK was now trying to tear that compromise down because MK didn't get his way the first, second, and third time. As Bugs said, we need to do something about this. -OberRanks (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that 2 users have now decided to gang up on me here. Enough is enough. Continue to write whatever you like about me. I will no longer defend myself here against a pincer attack filled with baseless charges. This is my final post here, and that is not a lie.Mk5384 (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our lenghty thread really appeared to accomplish little, as few to no administrators commented. I am little bit disappointed that the "Usama bin Laden" comment was allowed to pass - I truly find that insulting since I did serve a tour in the Middle East, including missions off the coast of Iran. Not much else to discuss though and this seems to be a dead issue as there is now new progress on the Pershing article. Best to everyone then. -OberRanks (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That comment wasn't appropriate, but probably did not rise to the level of demanding a block. WP:WQA is the correct venue for civility concerns of this nature. –xeno^talk 15:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kind Journalist

Kind Journalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since MK is also obsessed with "clearing his name" with regards to a sockpuppet accusation [160] (which actually never happened since the conversation didn't use MKs handle and was kept solely on the talk page of User:Xeno without any formal SP charges filed) here is the record of my opinion of user:Kind Journalist. The user is quite clearly not MK. The two do not write in the same manner, use the same grammar syntax, and KJ does not have a flair for temper as MK does. Kind Journalist's arrival on the Pershing article was, however,extremely well timed and very convenient. I will preface this by saying I have absolutely no evidence this user is up to no good but here is what I observed:

1. Kind Journalist arrived at the Pershing talk page some two hours after MK had proposed the idea to overturn the last consensus and begin a new poll and vote.
2. Kind Journalist at once began supporting MKs views
3. Kind Journalist showed extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy pages and the ability to in-link. The KJ account had not made a single edit prior to visiting the Pershing talk page and has not made an edit on any other article since then.
4. When questioned about this, Kind Journalist stated he had edited Wikipedia for years but had only now decided to make an account.

Again, I have no evidence of who this is or what this user is about, and I may be very badly mistaken here. I just find it strange that out of nowhere this supporter of MK appears, with no previous contributions on this account, showing extensive knowledge of Wikipedia pages and also even referenced the WP:DGAF page which had mentioned way back in one of the original threads on the Pershing article. I find all of this a little bit too convenient and the timing of this is quite suspicious as well. So, that's what I think and I have no evidence. If I am wrong, I offer my deepest and sincerest apologies to Kind Journalist. -OberRanks (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For some mild amusement, check out the irony dripping from this comment of MK's:[161] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're socks either, although it's obvious KJ is very knowledgeable about wikipedia, including lecturing his audience (even an admin) about policy matters, as MK does, especially the false claim of "censorship". It's also the case that so far, with one exception (21:18 on the 21st), KJ has appeared only during time gaps when MK is not editing. The one time they did cross over is when MK showed up during an hour in which KJ did not edit. When MK is calm, he can sound more like KJ. KJ has stated he would welcome an SPI. At this point I'm not convinced that the "duck test" applies, so an SPI would likely be rejected. KJ did betray a teenage-ism akin to MK's approach when he referred to the idea of removing both nicknames as a "pussy move".[162] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessively Brief

And another newbie heard from:

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

-- ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. Excessively Brief (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're too modest. Try "extraordinary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A second editor with no prior edits showing up on this highly controversial subject seemingly to support MKs view, also with knowledge of how to locate an embedded topic deep on the admin noticeboard. To quote General Buck Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove, "I smell a big fat Commie rat", or at least perhaps a meatpuppet. -OberRanks (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Or to quote Robert Wuhl in Bull Durham, "It's a miracle!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Q.E.D.? Excessively Brief (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Which ID did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not: User:Wahkeenah. Excessively Brief (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloody well better not be! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all kidding aside, this really looks the insertion of a meatpuppet into the Pershing article. I can maybe buy KJ's story about just happenineg to deciede that it was time to edit this article on the particular day MK was purposing a major change, but for this to happen two times in a row so close together is obvious single purpose accounts meant to bolster support. I have suggested that we end this on the talk page of the article and, as for these accounts, administrators might wish to seriously investigate what is going on here. -OberRanks (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish for administrators to seriously investigate what is going on here. OberRanks has openly accused me of meatpuppetry. I can't state this any more clearly. I do not know either one of these editors. I have never met either one of these editors. I have had absolutely no contact outside of Wikipedia with either of these editors. And most importantly, neither one of these editors is I. Please, please, please investigate this. How can someone continue to openly accuse me of something false here? And it awes me that whilst I am the one most vociferously calling for an investigation, it is not taking place. Meanwhile OR and BB continue to make these accusations without fear of repercussions. This is just unacceptable. What is it going to take for an investigation?Mk5384 (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not accuse you of anything. In fact, I suspect that one or both of these guys is a long-standing sock-maker whose usual M.O. is to take one side or the other in hopes of fanning flames. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.Mk5384 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Its becoming clear that MK probably had little to nothing to do with Kind Journalist or Excessively Brief, but those two accounts are clearly single purpose puppet accounts controlled by someone for an unknown reason. KJ perhaps I can see past it, but EB isn't really even trying to hide it. The best thing to do is ignore both since there is now a new flood of legit users on the Pershing article giving their opinions. -OberRanks (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is typical OberRanks behaviour. "Ignore those who agree with MK5384, as more who are in agreement with me are now coming forward." Notice, whilst he finally admits that he was wrong, he still is not moved to apologise.Mk5384 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

SPA accounts and consensus building

While there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the appearance of several SPA accounts is fairly irregular indeed; so I would again suggest an {{RFCtag}} on the article talk page to ensure that a representative sample of editors is being drawn to determine consensus as to the infobox. –xeno^talk 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.Mk5384 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now done properly ;> [163]. –xeno^talk 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; my fault.Mk5384 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf terrorizing Fethullah Gulen biography

Resolved

 – WP:OUCH. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia as a first source of information for some time. I have been watching Gulen's page due to my academic studies and interest as well. I felt obligated to report now that Arnoutf is terrorizing the biography. Although other editors are complained about him and his edits here before, the case was closed immediately after it was opened. Moreover, all user block requests by Arnoutf immediately approved by admins without any checkuser process which seems to be a standard in Wikipedia. I am kind of suspicious if Arnoutf is a nickname for Jimbo Wales?

I combined and compiled previous complaints in various places here into one list and hoping that it helps to someone to deal with the case.

1. Arnoutf owns the article: He does not collaborate, declare edit wars, instead. He gives impression to naive editors that all other editors should convince him to be able to edit the article.
2. Arnoutf distorts the facts and falsifies information: Arnoutf distort the facts based on his seemingly racist/nastionalistic prejudges. Although the islamineurope reference does not mention "segregation of Turks" in this example, he add this incorrect, falsified information deliberately into the article and linking to the reference as if it is mentioned in the reference. A true encyclopedia editor would consider this as the most embarrassing behavior.
3. Arnoutf alienates editors: Many naive editors are alienated by his disgusting POV pushing. Among recent a few: Hatice w, Gaddarca, Madaya2000, meco, Icaz. Please see the discussion page and archives for the full list. His main tactic seems to be blaming editors of being a sockpuppet and filing a sockpuppet case immediately once someone disapprove his POV version.
4. Arnoutf does not know the topic has no intention to improve the article: Arnoutf does not improve the article nor working on it. He just blocks others from doing so. He only reverts the uncomfortable facts in his perspective from the article. Here is a self statement of the fact that he only policing the article.
5. Arnoutf is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information: Arnoutf is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information and references. The history page is full of such similar logs.
6. Arnoutf does not comply with the Wikipedia policies: Arnoutf disregards Wikipedia policies and set up new rules as he wishes and declare reliable references as invalid.
7. Arnoutf is archiving to hide his edits: Once Arnoutf have an naive editor banned, he archives his discussions to hide the facts. He keep bringing the same issues inconsistently with his earlier statements. In the example of the use of the term 'philosopher', he first accepts the use of the term, then starts arguing the same issue with another naive editor.
8. Arnoutf tragicomically disapproves his own version: The version Arnoutf is fighting against now is actually the version he edited using the information in an existing version before.
9. Arnoutf ignores warnings: Not surprisingly Arnoutf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was already blocked before due to his edit wars on this page but he does continue exactly the same way.

67.201.93.20 (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philscirel/Archive is a useful resource in looking at this dispute. I originally assumed that 67.201.93.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just another sock of Philscirel, but all previous IP addresses geolocate to Columbus, Ohio and this IP is from Tennessee. Meatpuppeting still comes to mind.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That sockpuppet link is already provided in my message, actually as an evidence. It would be better to respond after reading the message. Thanks for it anyways. I know it is much easier to ban an editor without following Wikipedia regulations (as you and a few others did before) but will you try to read what I have listed above too? I am sure that you will keep meatpuppeting in mind while doing so.. 67.201.93.20 (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, all this has been discussed, repeatedly in the talk page of the article. The editors who have put up another version of this article have all (without a single exception) been unmasked as sockpuppets of Philscirel; the block I received was my own fault indeed (and my only ever block in over 3 years editins), as during summer there was a 3 week delay in the sockpuppet backlog; and all parties were temporarily blocked for 3RR just to calm down the dispute at that time; I do realise I should have waited out the sockpuppetry case (which was a clear cut one, and resulted in the block of the sockpuppet). Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Arnoutf does not tell the truth. Almost none of these points are discussed anywhere, and none of these points got any satisfactory answer at all. I urge Arnoutf to provide links for his answers or maybe better summarize his answers to these points right here as listed, instead of nonsense and general remarks like "those are all answered". It should be easy for him, if he is correct! 67.201.93.20 (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is either a case for WP:RFC or WP:OUCH. I'm leaning towards the latter. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ouch, I'd say. [164]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Psychedelia

The article Eight Tray Gangster Crips was nominated for deletion in Sept. 2009. The result was a redirect. [165]. User:Psychedelia has been removing the redirects from that article and spelling variations [166] and then restored the article as 83 Gangster Crips. Along the way he has called me a "bully" [167], "Gestapo" [168] and accused me of having multiple accounts: [169] He stated "I will never stop reposting the article as its main rivals gang page is up and never been deleted" [170] and admitted being an affiliation, which is a possible COI issue: [171]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Editor was notified here: [172]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • All I can say is "Wow". What deranged mental perturbations. It's like you'd want the dictionary to be blank.

Psychedelia (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2010 (PST)

• You participated in the AfD. If you disagreed with the outcome, you should have taken it to DRV. You didn't. Now, 8 months later, you want to just pretend like it didn't happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Psychadelia - you appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to advertise for gangs. We are most certainly not here for that purpose. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirects restored per AFD, redirects protected for 6 months. Psychedelia, you may want to try WP:DRV, but threatening that you will continue to undo redirects until some other article is deleted is unacceptable. Alternatively, if you want to build a sandbox version of the article at User:Psychedelia/83 Gangster Crips that actually overcomes the AFD objections, feel free to give it a shot.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

EHC returns

Just a heads-up... I've had to reinstate the block on IP 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a sock of the abusive user EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Previously blocked as a static access point for that individual, all edits since the block expired clearly demonstrate he is trying to get back in again. Articles to watch include those related to Martin, Tyler Perry's House of Payne, and Judge Judy, among others. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I denied an related unblock yesterday, methinks ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Drork

This user was indefinitely topic-banned from all articles in the Israel/Palestine conflict area [173]. He was subsequently banned for 24 hours[174], 48 hours[175], six months[176] and eventually indefinitely[177], for using sockpuppets to circumvent this ban. Despite this, he continues to create socks, and to edit from IPs. I reported onre of these at SPI yesterday[178], but the user is still using this IP, and continues to edit-war from it: [179], [180]. Can steps be taken to deal with this glaring abuse, and to prevent Drork from continuing to hold up two fingers to Wikipedia? RolandR (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RolandR tries to silence people who don't share his views. I'm sure other people on Wikipedia knows better. Am I wrong? 79.180.25.39 (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - The complaining user uses his userpage for political propaganda. He writes he's anti-Zionist, supports the Palestinian "Right-of-Return" and plenty of other political, sometimes offensive slogans. His job here is to silence people who don't share his views. He edits articles which he obviously cannot be objective about. This is a North Korea-approach, that should be condemned. 79.180.25.39 (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have thought that the responses above were enough to gain a block, and it seems that Tim Song agrees with me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a range block on this clown's ISP, [181]. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But Bezeq is Israel's main telecoms provider, and blocking it would block very many Israeli editors. Since, despite the comment above, I do not actually want to silence people who do not share my views, I do not think that we can go along with Tarc's proposal.RolandR (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

He's on too many different ranges, so there's too much collateral damage. Tim Song (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How about blocking a few of the ranges anon-only. Yes, he can still create socks, but at least we can indef each one as it pops up... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see here a group of Wikipedians. I see here people with a serious ego problem, and too much politics on their minds. Roland, it is nice of you to allow Israelis to edit. You will be monitoring their edits and revert them every time they say something in favor of Zionism (knock wood) or Israel. BTW, I'll be more fair and honest than you are willing to be. My name is Dror Kamir and I'm from Holon, Israel. Enjoy your anonymity and sense of power. 79.177.8.3 (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Now the folks at abuse@bezeqint.net will have something to work with. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV needs closure by an experienced admin

Resolved

 – closed ~ mazca ^talk 14:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV#International_response_to_the_2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash has now been open for 8 days. It will need an experienced and independent admin to review all the comments and make a decision as to whether or not to overturn the original AfD closure. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Doing..., was thinking about this closure earlier, I'll figure it out and close it shortly ~ mazca ^talk 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, overturned to no consensus. Having difficulty seeing exactly how this disagreement is likely to end; it seems it wasn't a good situation to enforce a merge via AfD so I guess it's almost back at the start. ~ mazca ^talk 08:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A tricky decision, but one which I agree with, considering that there was originally consensus to split this from the article about the accident in the first place. I've suggested a couple of ways to improve the article on the talk page. Hopefully it can be improved over the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal alert.

Remember the Indonesian long term misinformation vandal who has used a multitude of IP ranges? He's back. Same MO of connecting Digimon with various US movie studio without any source. This time, he used the following IP address in the 110.138.32.0/20 range:

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

He hasn't showed up in an address beyond the above range, but 110.138.32.0/20 is the best shot we have so far until he uses a third address.

Also, can also be any more stringent measures, especially on actually tracking down the guy or semi-protecting every single article he cannibalized? Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already blocked this range for now based on report on my talk page. But as I mentioned there, I would like more general advice/discussion as to what the best way to deal with this type of vandal is. Jumping IPs and articles quickly, making both semi-protection and rangeblocking difficult without lots of collateral. Should we just keep rangeblocking, but for fairly short periods? Peter 09:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, he comes back at longish intervals, so short range-blocks are not effective. I don't see anything better than a combination of article protection and whack-a-mole. It looks as if there is more than one person at it - edits from today's two IPs overlap, and the last two are actually in the same minute. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter? Special cluebot rule? 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing rampage by User:Wtsao

Two day old User:Wtsao is on a rampage of disruptive and tendentious editing, having repeatedly declared an overt bias against cloud computing and related topics which they consider overzealous marketing hype before making sweeping changes without any discussion (for example, stripping the Template:Cloud computing article of the vast majority of its content and updating its documentation in support of their changes, making controversial edits en-masse, adding specific content despite acknowledging the existing consensus that it be excluded, promoting a criticism section to the top of the article despite consensus that it be integrated/removed "so that the reader is warned to read the rest of the entry with a generous portion of salt", "as in, read this before you drink the kool aid", removing diagrams as "wrong" and "unhelpful", tagging the article with {{COI}} without providing any supporting policy violations, edit warring with mass reversions here, here, here and here - which are borderline WP:3RR violations if you consider their earlier reversions the day before, removing an entire, well sourced section on research, etc.). Most of their edits are disruptive and their summaries and interactions abrasive - indeed I didn't see a single edit that wasn't controversial.

Rather than risk violating WP:3RR myself, I ask that you revert their mass changes here and here and encourage them to seek clear consensus on the talk pages before making edits that could be considered controversial. I suggest that a short cool down block may be in order (perhaps 24 hours), particularly in light of a long string of what I consider to be personal attacks and my repeated warnings ([182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193]). My identity is no secret, nor is the fact that I very recently took a position at Google and thus need to tread carefully with controverial edits (I have since gone to great lengths to reach consensus where I might have been WP:BOLD previously). Nevertheless I have been accused of WP:COI without supporting policy violations, for edits that predates my employment by years, no less than TEN TIMES in the space of the last hour ([194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203]). I've also been accused of vandalism for reverting their rampage and of "bad behaviour in a new section on an article talk page. I don't appreciate such accusations, particularly from a new user who is out to satisfy a clearly stated agenda. -- samj _in^out 11:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see edit warring under the guise of "reverting vandalism" when you were restoring the template to its previous form. Not knowing the contributor, it's possible that he believes that your actions were vandalism, as there seems to be either unfamiliarity with or a profound misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS in this edit summary: "There is no excuse for bulk undoing my edits." To quote, "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." As a new contributor, it's possible that User:Wtsao is unfamiliar with the bold, revert, discuss cycle.

I see that the Cloud computing article has already been reverted; I'll leave the template for interested contributors in the interest of staying WP:UNINVOLVED (in the spirit of WP:PREFER, though I'm not protecting). I personally think a strong caution and explanation might suffice at this point, though a block will be appropriate if the edit warring continues. I don't object if another admin feels stronger action is called for. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've left him a note, I have to say that it's possible that any confusion he has over the term of "vandalism" may arise from your note to him here. At least on casual review, he doesn't seem to have used it before you did. I see another user has already reminded you about WP:BOLD and WP:AGF. To that, I'll add Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Remember (per WP:VAND) that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." His edits may have been non-neutral (I do not know, not being familiar with the subject), but WP:VAND#NOT specifically excludes non-neutral text. The template you left him is not my major concern, although it can certainly be seen as dismissive and disrespectful to good faith efforts, but the header is rather more pointed. More from that policy: "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism." Besides being inaccurate and a policy violation in itself, calling somebody's good faith efforts vandalism is only likely to inflame the situation and make reaching consensus more difficult. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this look like somebody may be logging out to avoid 3RR to anyone else? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict - my thoughts exactly> Section blanking here, here and here is arguably vandalism, particularly in the context of the other edits. In any case I would have reverted the "reminder" had they not already commented on it. I'm now more concerned about this edit "revert[ing an administrator's reversion] to a more neutral version by Wtsao [because] he has a point", this re-reversion by cluebot (as possible vandalism) and this edit re-re-reverting with the summary of who let this bot loose?? Note that User:79.181.50.218 is a WP:SPA has only ever made these two edits which would suggest to me that a WP:CHECKUSER is in order. -- samj _in^out 22:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You can bring that up for at WP:SPI if you want, or perhaps an admin who works that area more will weigh in. In the meantime, I have in accordance with WP:PREFER reverted to the last version prior to the onset of the edit war (specifically this one) and fully protected for three days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But just to clarify, as WP:VAND explains, blanking is vandalism when "[r]emoving all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason" (emphasis added); it isn't vandalism "where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Even if you think they aren't good reasons (and they may not be), the removal isn't vandalism if it's done in an effort to improve the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:BYSO

Resolved

 – No further admin action required at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

New user BYSO (talk · contribs) has been adding copyrighted material from the Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras website to the article. I pointed them to WP:Donating copyrighted material, but there's no indication that they've followed the steps there, or even bothered reading it. I reverted the copyvio material three times, so if someone else could try to get them to listen, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked as username violation, so at the very least they'll be confined to their talk page for the time being... Might prompt them to read the material you've provided. –xeno^talk 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope so. I have the greatest respect for the group -- saw them perform Mahler's Second with Maureen Forrester herself a few years back.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they've returned as Chiamars (talk · contribs), but without reading up on our copyright policies first. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a short block. –xeno^talk 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:Words to watch

Could an admin read over this page?

There is a merge proposal and an RfC which has been closed and implemented by two of the participants, despite the presence of substantive and procedural disputes. The RfC has only been open for a few days, and was only advertized seriously one or two days ago, and some people are already declaring a fait accompli.

I have objected, but am leaving (I appear to have stepped on the fringes of an ArbCom decision); would a genuinely neutral admin please intervene? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Delta

I was going to take this to WP:THIRD, but recent edits by the other party have demonstrated WP:OWN issues as well, so decided to take it here instead.

On Alpha Phi Delta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), content of a directory of all fraternity chapters has been removed by a couple parties (myself included) and restored by an IP who appears to be the same person as APD03 (talk · contribs). Their primary argument for keeping it has been WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

I can understand listing any individual chapters that meet WP:N, but an indiscriminate list just isn't appropriate. The user has also restored lists of "Notable Members" that have not yet been demonstrated to meet WP:BIO requirements (no refs and no articles). When restoring content most recently, the user inserted the edit summary "If you are not in this Fraternity please do not delete with out reaching out to me first." - showing the ownership issue.

A discussion was started on the article talk page, but the user has thus far only posted to my user talk page.

Would appreciate some additional eyes on the article and any comments on the article talk page discussion and/or here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified of this ANI discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with removing the directory. I did a basic cleanup of section headers and notable members, per the Law of Unintended Consequences. tedder (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Trueman31

Just under an hour ago, 6 accounts were blocked for being sockpuppets of Trueman31. Trueman31 first appeared on 7 July 2007 [204] and was blocked indefinitely on 3 September 2007 [205]. Since then, Trueman31 has created many sock accounts ([206]) to vandalise various articles on Wikipedia. I believe most of the articles vandalised are usually EastEnders characters. One of Trueman31's traits while using the new accounts is to copy and paste the talk page of User:AnemoneProjectors to their talk page. He has also copied another user's talk page who reverted some of their edits and today he copied mine, which I found to be quite creepy [207].

I came here to ask if anything can be done to stop Trueman31 from creating anymore accounts and to put an end to this. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami and his Misuse of Admin Tools

Resolved

 – Kwamikagami has pledged to pass off use of admin tools to other admins those articles he is involved in editing. Edit war has stopped. Nothing further to do here.--Jayron32 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Methinks I spoke too soon. Evidence of similar problems is arising...-Jayron32 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Kwamikagami, an admin, is involved in an edit war with myself over the pronunciation of the name of the town of Stephens City, Virginia. I previously had it as "ˈstē-vənz ˈsi-tē" in the {{pronEng}} template. Kwamikagami changed it to the incorrect "Steven's City". It is incorrect as there is no apostrophe in the name and putting it this way gives the reader the idea that the town has two names. We both broke 3RR (I will clearly admit that), but what made this ANI material was that Kwamikagami reverted to his perfered version and then locked the page. Clearly breaking a BIG admin rule that other admins have been blocked for.

I feel that Kwamikagami has misused his admin tools in an edit war of which he is clearly involved and broke 3RR. I do understand that if he is blocked it is only fair that I am as well, since I am over 3RR myself, but I feel that admins should be held to a higher standard and Kwamikagami should know better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism does not count against 3RR, though perhaps it's debatable whether pointy blanking of an article counts as vandalism. I said I would unblock as soon as NH agrees to stop doing that. Meanwhile, I'm debating the inappropriate use of a pronunciation template, which he has not bothered to review, with s.o. who does not understand what 'X, pronounced "Y"' means. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not warned for vandalism and only after I notified Kwamikagami that he was, himself, nearing 3RR, did he start calling this vandalism as an end-run around the rules. He also said this isn't "I See Sam" and were "weren't targeting idiots"...funny, but inappropriate. I have also been banned from Kwamikagami's talk page, so it would be impossible for me to discuss anything further with him other than here. He has simply painted himself into a corner. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please link to the dif where you were banned from Kwami's talk page, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Was doing that, but got edit conflicted. Diffs are in the updated above post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have to concur with Neutralhomer - this was an edit war, and Kwamikagami protected his preferred version. What blanking and/or vandalism are you talking about? Removing the pronunciation that you two were edit warring over is hardly "blanking", and it is certainly not "vandalism" to edit war. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• The edits are clearly not vandalism. This is a simple content dispute and protection was inappropriate. If these were both non-admin users, they would both be blocked for 3RR. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  And since they are both editors first and kwami is not only an admin second but one who actually not only broke 3RR but also misused the page protection, I would support that action. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  ...and I would not be against it either. Should have know better myself. Clearly, I screwed up. I would request a short block, of course, but I have no control over that...or could we say block use for time served and have the mark on our records and move on? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Blocking is fine for the 3RR but doesn't address the blatant misuse of admin tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've unprotected the article. You both know WP:3RR, so any further edit warring will result in a block. No need for one now as it wouldn't be preventative. Please discuss on the talk page or elsewhere to come to a content resolution. — Scientizzle 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Er. I thought I was unprotecting, but Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) musta beat me to it. — Scientizzle 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x2 I'm failing to see how this could be interpreted as vandalism. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• (multiple e/c) Actually, I've unprotected, as it was clearly inappropriate. I don't see a point to blocking for 3RR if they both stop (preventative not... you know). However, Kwami's inappropriate protection, and calling it vandalism, and refusal to discuss, is problematic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• As Cube lurker notes, there are two issues here, and the edit warring is the lesser of the two. Unfortunately, we don't really have any options to address the second issue, except to verbally chastise kawmi and remind him about what vandalism is not, as well as the clear injunction about protecting your preferred version. Kwami, I don't know why you have done this, but do realize that although it is difficult to de-admin, it is not impossible, and if you make a habit of abusing your buttons it will become an inevitability. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• (many ec's causing me to edit my initial point). I conquer with Floquenbeam on this. The unprotection is appropriate, and blocking would be pointless as neither user is engaged in the edit war. I also concur that the central problem here is a) Kwami's intentional mischaracterization of neutralhomer's edits as "vandalism" and b) his use of that characterization to protect his preferred version of the article and thus to "win" the edit war. This needs to be stopped immediately. Such behavior is unacceptable for an admin, and needs to be addressed. The best would be a statement from Kwami where he admits to his wrongdoing and assures us how it won't happen. Barring that, there should be something else done to ensure it does not happen again. --Jayron32 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What did we conquer? Is there any looting and pillaging involved? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • *Puts on my Viking helmet to join in* - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm going to start "conquering" instead of "concurring" too! Its a much more interesting typo than my usual... are you suggesting an Rfc if Kwami fails to respond, Jayron? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Just a note, I understand the "don't edit war" advice and will not on the page. I have left the pronunciation section in the hands of a gentleman I have been working on the page with. I left it up to his best judgement with my opinion (which of course could be ignored). I do feel that Kwamikagami should be properly admonished for his misuse of tools and such, but I don't have control over that and will feel fine with whatever is done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Interestingly (to me), from looking at the edit summaries and Kwami's talk page, it appears part of the problem was they may have been talking past each other; I'm not convinced either one understands even now why the other thinks he is wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I will honestly say, I don't understand the pronunciation templates, it confuses me. I pulled the pronunciation I used from another site. I can find it again, so you all can see my source is need be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That's all the edit war, though, whcih we are not concerned with here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, no problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I agree I should have simply referred this to a third party. My excuse is that I am cleaning up over 10,000 articles which use the English IPA templates, and it's difficult to keep track of which ones get subsequently reverted by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Of course, I can always run AWB again to catch them, but each pre-parse run takes several hours.

NH did not blank because he thought the pronunciation was inappropriate. He blanked as a WP:point because I corrected him. It was, after all, the same pronunciation! I certainly did not refuse to explain; I pointed out how the template he was using was incorrect, as he would have seen if he'd bothered to look at it. I asked him to take it to ANI after a while because he didsn't seem to understand the difference between spelling and pronunciation, and I didn't have the patience to teach it to him. It would be different if he were a newbie, but he's not.

As for the blanking not being vandalism, that would depend on whether he was acting in good faith. I'm not one to take WP:pointy edits as being in good faith, but in any case I said it was close to vandalism, or debatable whether it was vandalism. I didn't simply call him a vandal. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And what about your action of reverting the article to your version and then locking it? What is the rationale for that? Silverseren^C 18:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I reverted blanking and locked it. I didn't lock just for my preferred format: If it's worth including, then it's worth including, and pointy blanking goes beyond disputes over correct formatting. I also said I would unblock as soon as NH agreed to stop blanking the pronunciation, and didn't try to make that conditional on the formatting. And this wasn't a dispute over content: I agree with NH's pronunciation; his format was simply unsupported by the link he provided. For the majority of the world who have never seen that format before, the link would give them a pronunciation that NH would agree is incorrect: "stay-vəns see-tay", with tone. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you think you're right. Using those tools in a content dispute is expressly forbidden. Cut and dry no excuses no defense. If you can't see that this problem has only one solution.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, no. None of that will wash, kwami. You're excusing your poor behavior. There is no way - none - that NH's edits could be considered vandalism. You edit warred, then you protected, and now you're arguing and trying to excuse and defend your actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I protected against blanking, and said I'd unprotect as soon as that stopped. That was regardless of the actual dispute. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't "blanking". This is blanking. This is partia blanking. Please examine the difference. It was an edit war, and you restored what you wanted, and protected. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To explain my actions on the blanking. I removed it as neither him nor I were going to be happy with what the other one had, so removing it from the page seemed to be the best option. That way it was out of sight, out of mind, no worries. I did not do it to vandalize the page. Why would I vandalize a page, I am working so hard on (check the history). That is just silly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no vandalism. There was an edit war. Moreover, IMO protecting the page because a single account made 4 edits is wrong. It's interesting that I can't find any discussion in article's talk page or editor's talk page on the subject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't protect because of 3RR. I didn't protect because of the format dispute. I protected because of pointy blanking, which I took to be in bad faith (and blanking in bad faith is vandalism). I also said I'd unprotect if NH agreed to stop blanking.[208] That wasn't conditional on agreeing with me on anything else. — kwami (talk)

• Vandalism has a specific definition as far as Wikipedia goes, and I'm not seeing it here. I'm not entirely convinced that the template removal wasn't pointy, but that's still not vandalism -- and Kwami shouldn't have thought he was objective enough to decide on protection for an article that was the subject of his own content dispute. He seems to have admitted that much, albeit with the caveat that he had a valid excuse; too much on his plate or whatnot, which I have to roll my eyes at. Nevertheless I'm satisfied that this incident caused him enough trouble that he won't let it happen again any time soon. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:17, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll refer it elsewhere next time. I just hate bugging other editors with petty problems that I don't have the patience for. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied; kwami is still arguing that it was vandalism - page blanking, pointy, vandalism - and I have seen absolutely no evidence that any of these things took place at all - and neither has any other commenter here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, this isn't the place to split hairs over the issue. We aren't a moot court, we aren't here to decide intent or the mindframe of Kwamikagami. The edit war has stopped, he's agreed to let other admins handle articles he is involved in. Behaviorally speaking, those are the ONLY two results we can expect here. There is nothing else for admins to do here. We aren't going to drag him over the coals for a single incident. If we begin to see a pattern of mischaracterizations and misuses of the term "vandalism" here, then we can revisit the issue. A single isolated incident isn't worth beating the horse over. I am marking this as resolved. --Jayron32 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, clearly. In my experience, if someone does not use the same standards as everyone else, there either are, or will be, other incidents. I see I am, sadly, correct. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (User:Kwamikagami)

I know this is marked as resolved, and I hope I don't get trout-slapped, but this might be relevant. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You want a pattern? How about this, only going back 3 days. 99.247.250.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 6 month block to an IP with 5 edits and no more than a level 2 warning on the talk page? Highly excesive. No block notice. Note the contribution history on the article vandalized.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. So it appears this isn't an isolated incident. Looks like Kwami has some 'splainin' to do... --Jayron32 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Mufkas's diff above in particular worries me. I agree with un-resolving this. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:50, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Mufkas' contribution to the discussion shows that it does appear to be a pattern, regardless of this IP blocking incident as well. Silverseren^C 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

With Mufka's diff, I was not an involved editor as I was today. Looking back several months, I'd only made minor edits to the article, and not on this topic. Here one editor made an appropriate edit (number of native speakers, which is what that cell in the infobox is for, plus 2ary speakers, with a long-discussed RS), and a second editor, who'd been engaged in low-level revert warring for days, deleted all but the high end of the estimates of 2ary speakers, and deleted the source for native speakers. That source had been extensively discussed on the talk page. Violated RS, blanking, and POV, and repeatedly insisted on it. While I agree that today's edit was a knee-jerk reaction on my part, I don't think that edit was problematic. And I don't recall any of the several other editors complaining.

As for the other one, I blocked a vandalism-only account who had blanked the page twice, changed "those syllables" to "male genetailia [sic]", and changed "copulate" to "cockulate". Are you kidding me? — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You blocked a dynamic IP without a block log for 6 months; see WP:Blocking IP addresses for further information on appropriate block lengths, &c. (Note: I've unblocked, as a more reasonable block length [imo] would have lapsed by now.) –xeno^talk 20:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if you don't know the difference between an account and a dynamic IP you need to resign the tools for the good of the project.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree, just on the fact that if you can't distinguish between them, you could cause a significant amount of damage by blocking an important dynamic IP and you'd never know you did. Silverseren^C 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't read that page before, so thanks for the link. I don't know how to tell the diff between a dynamic and static IP; if you could point out that article, I would appreciate it. Normally I don't block an IP for long if it has a history of constructive edits prior to (or interspersed with) the vandalism, but have blocked for longer (though never indefinitely) when there is no history of WP edits other than vandalism, and the vandal comes back over several days, suggesting (or so I thought) that it is not a dynamic IP. Of course, there's always the off chance that an IP that hasn't been used for WP since the project started will pick up next week or next month, but I figured the risk was minimal. I remember a guideline suggesting that we not block school IPs for more than one school year, so that's the time line I had in mind. I see that this link suggests only blocking for a few hours, but what do we do about the vandal who returns every few days, and has already stopped for the day, so would be unaffected by a block that short? — kwami (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I use a sliding scale for repeat offenders of about 31h, 72h, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year (I skip steps sometimes). –xeno^talk 21:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For dynamic IPs too? — kwami (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, because even some dynamic IPs can be held for a very long time. But any hardcore vandal will likely reset their IP after getting the week or month level (let alone 31 hours). –xeno^talk 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding Mufka's dif, you state that you were "not an involved editor" Yet your actions exactly parallel today's, except you edit warred less before you abused the tools to preserve your desired version: You reverted twice[209][210] and then protected[211] your preferred version. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not at all parallel. Today I edited the page, got into an edit war, then protected when NH started blanking. That was a knee-jerk response, and I agree inappropriate. At Esperanto I did not edit the page. It wasn't my baby. I was restoring and then protecting an edit that had been made by another editor in accordance with the consensus on the talk page. How can you compare the two? — kwami (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so you're implying that while the Esperanto article was not, the article this ANI discussion is about IS your baby? Silverseren^C 21:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that I feel I own the article at all. People have been objecting that I revert "to my version" and then protect. The implication is that I feel I "own" the article, that it is my baby. KC even said that these two cases were "exactly parallel". So I pointed out that in this case it wasn't my edit that I reverted to, so even assuming the KC's implication of ownership for the former article, how could I feel ownership about the latter? — kwami (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Its exactly the same - you reverted edits which were no vandalism, they were content disputes, then you protected the version you'd reverted to. That's exactly the same, and its exactly not allowable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying that it's irrelevant whether I revert to my own version, or whether I had edited the article? I thought that was the principal objection to my edit this morning? — kwami (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

On Serbo-Croatian language, kwami reverted to his version (without edit summary) and then protected the page claiming vandalism. No 3RR here as above, but these were good-faith edits by an IP, not POV or vandalism as described in the edit summary. Brad 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

...and more of it comes out of the woodwork... Silverseren^C 21:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

SC is one of several Balkans language articles with emotions running high. There are multiple editors of long standing debating various issues, some practically accusing others of cultural genocide, and anonymous IPs jumping making irresponsible edits do not help things. Many of these articles are semi-protected for this very reason. My semi-protection, which didn't affect any of the parties in the debate, was as much preventive as anything. The edit summary I gave was my motivation, not a description of any particular edit: "anon. IPs have been partisan POV or even vandals". Note "IPs", plural. "Have been", thus on-going. Left out was that I'm thinking of a cluster of articles that are similarly difficult. Note also that there was no discussion on the talk page, the IP never said they needed to edit, never objected to the protection, etc. Not that the immediately preceding IP had been a vandal, but even if it had, I'm generally willing to unprotect/unblock even unambiguous vandals if they say they want to edit constructively. (Also, when NH objected to the protection this morning, which I now agree was hasty and inappropriate on my part, I said I'd be happy to unprotect if he'd agree to stop blanking. I didn't demand that he agree with me or change his opinion.) — kwami (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The edits you reverted were not vandalism, and there had been no instances of vandalism since 10 days earlier. Blocking IPs from editing the page accomplished nothing but protecting your version of the page. You did not explain this to the IP in question, nor did you explain your actions on the talk page. Brad 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mufka's diff is still a problem, I think. Firstly, as with today's incident, kwami protected an article to prevent a single editor from contributing to it. We generally block the user in that case, not protect the article. Secondly (again in Mufka's diff) it wasn't vandalism but a content dispute -- and in that case, admins should not make any reverts prior to protecting. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:59, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed; he reverts non-vandalistic edits then protects. This is the fist time I have ever seen an admin argue against protecting the m:The Wrong Version. This is extremely troubling. We now have three instances of this, and an admin arguing he has done nothing wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not deny it. My edit this morning was wrong. I don't dispute that. If there is consensus that my other edits are also wrong, tell me which and why and I will modify my behaviour. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we've just done that. Make sure you understand what vandalism really is -- WP:VANDAL. If it's not vandalism, it generally means a content dispute, and when protecting for that reason, you should never revert first. I don't know how to state this any more plainly, and am a bit unnerved that you're still asking. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:20, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was also the case of blocking a vandal because of dynamic IP concerns. That's completely unrelated, which is why I wanted to clarify that just saying "don't do it again" might leave me uncertain as to what I shouldn't do again. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this morning's incident - you said "I'd be happy to unprotect if he'd agree to stop blanking." It wasn't "blanking". This is blanking. This is partial blanking. Please examine the difference. It was an edit war, and you restored what you wanted, and protected. This is the core and the crux, and I'm not sure you quite see it yet. You're justifying that edit, as well as the Croation one, by claiming in the first instance vandalism, and in the second restoring consensus. I recently was editing an article where the consensus was 15:1, but I did n't violate 3RR nor did I protect. That would have been misuse of the tools. When it is a content dispute, you cannot justify protecting your version; that is completely unacceptable. And these examples are content disputes. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I get it that I should not have reverted to my preferred format before protecting. I could've reverted to his, then asked s.o. else to take care of it. That's my bad. But as for "blanking", he blanked the section under dispute. Should I call that "deletion" if under a certain %age of the article? I think you can follow the situation whichever word I use. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any blanking. I saw him removing the pronunciation bit, but that was the bit that was disputed. It wasn't like he'd blanked a section, which is what blanking is. If you have something, else you're calling blanking, please link to the dif - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this a symptom?

I don't think it's a widespread problem, but every once in a while a question arises in relation to an "old guard" admin (RFA before about 2006). In this case the thing that made me think of it was kwami's response above where he said "I hadn't read that page before" in reference to WP:Blocking IP addresses. Granted the page was created after his RFA, but those types of pages are critical to consistent adminship across the board. I don't have anything to propose in regards to that but I wonder if it's worth discussing. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Well, perhaps I could take a refresher course in admin policy. The principal objection at my RFA was that I had very few non-mainspace edits. And for a long time I did very little admin work. Mainly the tools just made my editing easier, and what admin stuff I did was mostly moving pages, using AWB, merging page histories, deleting orphaned stubs, etc. (I think you can get the tools w/o being an admin these days, but couldn't back then.) More recently I've gotten involved with pages that have more nationalism problems and serious POV disputes, and sometimes I've gotten rather short-tempered because of it. And here I thought that recently my temper was improving! — kwami (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just review WP:INVOLVED and, in future if you feel administrative action is required on an article with which you are involved, report to WP:RFPP or WP:ANI rather than taking action yourself. –xeno^talk 22:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I've seen a very few similar instances myself - pls don't ask senile me to remember - and one of a post-2006 admin being completely out of step with what was acceptable as generally understood by most admins (he unblocked himself.) We don't have refresher courses; we dont' have tests. The Rfa process has become much more focused on asking policy questions, but there is not a lot of order to it, and this could be left out of 99% of all Rfa's so far as I know. The wiki way is probably to ignore it unless there is an actual incident, or problem, then address that specific with that individual admin, as we are doing here. I don't see that adding bureaucracy would help in any way. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone going for an RfA right now would have to be familiar with all of these policies, along with a pile of other things that haven't been mentioned here. I'm a little concerned about the lack of knowledge of protocol here. For one, anyone going for an RfA right now with your lack of edit summaries would fail. Furthermore, anyone using rollback in a content dispute as often as you have would fail as well. Interestingly, you claimed in your RfA that you wanted the tools in order to revert POV, which nowadays would fail even WP:RFR (rollback is only for vandalism). Curiously, no one said anything about that in your RfA, and it's obvious no-one has mentioned it since. I think spending some time in New Admin School or even Admin coaching would be terrific idea. Brad 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Mufka's point, & admitting that I'm clearly a pre-2006 Admin, I will admit that keeping up with policy changes is becoming increasingly more difficult. First, new policies & interpretations are created with a lack of publicity; sometimes a new policy or procedure is only discovered when someone stumbles over it. Second, almost every stated policy is little more than a description of what it should be, not what it is. I won't list which ones these are -- no need to indulge in WikiDrama -- but there's enough chaff there to deter anyone from reading systematically in a self-motivated attempt to keep up. As a result, any veteran Admin simply goes by the spirit of what Wikipedia are -- heavily relying on WP:IAR -- & common sense, which is dangerous for all. A guide to what is important & current in Wikipedia policy would be a great help to everyone. (Although that undoubtedly will lead to another round of nasty WikiLawyering. I just don't know if that can be avoided.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To run with Llywrch's idea, I think a place where new policies and interpretations can be listed for all to see (as they are created) would be useful for not just admins but for regular ol' editors as well. The biggies we all know, but some of the lesser ones and the new ones would be good to have as they come out. Maybe a list by date and a list by topic, so it is easy to search. WP:POLICYLIST anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading this page out of interest but the comment that kwami should resign the tools for the good of the project feels more than hypocritical. Ok, so maybe kwami was a little quick in protecting; point it out and let it rest. The good of the project, yeah, where IS that going these days when someone who spends many a happy our editing and policing pages gets such a roasting as opposed to someone who thought it appropriate to just delete something they didn't like. If you have the good of the project at heart, step back and think about where this explosion of rules and at times blind application of them is going to take Wikipedia... Over and out. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami still doesn't understand

After User:Taivo posted this comment on Kwamikagami's talk page (which really didn't help things), Kwamikagami responded with this, which says in part that "I never thought it would be because of s.o. who doesn't literally doesn't know the difference between spelling and pronunciation." This clearly shows that Kwamikagami feels he has done nothing wrong (regardless of the back-peddling he has done here on this thread) and feels that I am still wrong and he is still right. This kind of attitude of an admin who has been shown with a pattern of abusing tools is not needed. I regret to ask this, but should his adminship be pulled over this lack of "getting it". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Why not actually give Kwami chance to adjust his use of admin tools in response to the discussion above, rather than pre-emptively second-guessing his future actions based on your interpretation of one talkpage comment?

An admin able to convert constructive suggestion into positive change is valuable enough not to discard on a blunt prediction of future motives. I am sure that even the slightest mistake in the near-future will not escape your watchful gaze, but let him be judged on his actual deeds and not mere supposition. Knepflerle (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Cult Task-force and User:B9 hummingbird hovering Breaking Basic Academic and Wiki Rules

The user edits mainly Tibetan Buddhist pages. He claims to have gone beyond the need for teachers in TB tradition. Something even elderly Tibetan great lamas who have been brought up in over half a century of full-time monastic education and practice would never dream of saying. This basically amounts in the tradition to declaring oneself a saint which is in fact never done. The user of course does not even understand Tibetan, colloquial or classic, never mind his understanding of the subject which would be equivalent to a young teenager in a monastery. The actual problem with regards to Wikipedia is that he creates wild specuation in the name of inclusivity! When editors ask him for academic refernces or any inter-textual citations, he dismisses such basic standards which any academic or Wiki admin would require. Secondly he removes the edits the protesting editors have done and engages in editing wars. Thirdly he claims he has certain rights on article pages he has started. Fourthly he justifies his unfounded innovative speculations without citation or reference, which he does not deny, by saying he is a tantric! When told all of of TB followers opposing him are also tantrics, he merely states that unlike the rest and even elderly Tibetan high lamas who still have regular teachers and tuition, such as the 75 year old Dalai Lama, he has gone beyond such needs!

We now have hundreds of thousands non Tibetans following TB worldwide. Only less than ten westerners have set themselves up as teacherless and lineageless novelties. Interestingly unlike the hundreds of valid western teachers and lamas within lineages as well as hundreds of academic Tibetologists, these few self appointed saints do not even speak or read any Tibetan dialect are still beginners interms of education even after decades! A few of these have setup organizations, cults, in the USA and Europe and some have presence on Wiki via members. But they are few in number and almost everyone of the hundreds of thousands of followers in Asia, Europe and Americas follows one of the lineages of the five Tibtan schools. Even if there is occasional disagreements amongst them they all acknowledge each other. So basically the picture is very satisfactory.

The actual problem with B9 hummingbird hovering is that he gets into editing wars, claims ownership of articles, dismisses others' valid academic requirements for references and citations and justifies his self acknowledged wild speculations in the name of inclusivity and as a superior rare tantric who has gone beyond the others who are asking for references which has also been the norm in Tibetan shedras and monasteries for over a thosand years when the rest of the world hardly insisted on it. So we need an unbiased admin judgment in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zhitro). Also as he is extremely active in Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Wikisource we need to make a record of his behavior early on. So that he does not enforce his mere speculations with no background whatsoever inside articles. If the decision goes in his favor, it means his section entitled "Cross-cultural correlates and possible antecedents" which he also admits has assertions that have no refernce or background except his personal special tantric feelings, can be repeated across atciles within Wiki by anyone?

Finally apart from this lone editor, I think Wiki needs a special small admin section which co-operates with various cult watch-dog bodies, who deal with their victims daily, in order to combat their misuse of Wiki. The reason is that cults basically milk their victims financially and in terms of resources and logistics whch we simply can not match. And also are time-rich via members and can make their members have organized co-ordinated behind the scenes presence as you well know. Unlike big corporations, they do not fear such adverse pulicity by being uncovered since they indulge in worse actions and are used to much worse reputation than being accused of abusing Wiki.

The question of a special section on cult presence on Wiki really needs to be addressed as it already is too late. I'd suggest to recruit several new admins and relieve some more experienced admins of their usual duties to have time to setup such a special unit and task-force or at least a think-tank to start drawing up contingency plans and guidelines and strategies. I think this will be unavoidable and the sooner it is started the easier things will be as many lessons need to be learned early on which will take time. Thank you for you attention. Occasionaled (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Per the header for this page, new reports go on the bottom. I would have just moved it but after the 2nd or third edit conflict I gave up. If you erase this and paste it in again at the bottom successfully at some point feel free to recreate it without my comment here. (2) Per the header for this page, you are required to inform the editor that you are complaining about. Looking at your contributions, I don't see that you have. If it wasn't for (1) I would do (2) for you, but at this point I leave it up to you whether you really want to recreate this following the proper instructions. Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that the thread is at the bottom of the page, I've notified User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:49, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for persistence! Syrthiss (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• B9 hummingbird is a long-term problem editor. I had a conflict with him some time ago regarding his addition of original research and absurdly flowery language to articles, which seems to have continued right up to today. I think a WP:RFC/U is probably long overdue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the original complaint above, I can't really see that we need a 'Cult taskforce' -- as to B9, the two problems (penchant for OR and purple-bordering-on-ultraviolet prose) could probably have at one time been handled with mentoring; the (in my opinion) more pernicious problem is B9's inability-cum-refusal to work in a collegial, collaborative manner [If you dare to disagree or edit one of 's/his' articles, you'll hear about it, believe me] and tendency to own articles (example: Talk:Seventeen_tantras). Also worrying is s/hir readiness to simply revert any edit without discussion if s/he finds it disagreeable. Compounding the problem is the fact that the subject area (Tibetan Buddhism) that s/he edits in is pretty rarefied and obscure so not many people are in a real position to challenge hir edits, even if they had the stomach to do so and gird their loins for the rain of flowers that would almost certainly follow. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sholom Rubashkin

Please watch the Sholom Rubashkin article for vandalism this week. There have been some big deletions by anons. Rubashkin's sentencing for his role in the Agriprocessors debacle is this week, and his supporters have been lobbying to get his sentence reduced. Some of that has spilled onto Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a normal editor, but i'll keep watch over the article with you and get rid of any vandalism that crops up. :3 Silverseren^C 20:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If it does flare up badly, request page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lucas Duke

I've blocked Lucas Duke (talk · contribs) for using his userpage as a platform for anti-Muslim bigotry after many warnings. The specific cause was this [212] edit. A number of editors have expresed concern on his user talk in the last few months over soapboxing on his userpage and his repeated addition of Category:Anti-muslim activists, among others, to his userpage. In this case, an indefinite block is really intended to be indefinite, and review is welcomed. Acroterion _(talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Support indef. He does other less hostile things, but keeps coming back to soapboxing using Wikipedia as a platform for overtly racist views. We're not here for that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As a person who registered concern before, I also support indef. No room for that at a legitimate encyclopedia. IronDuke 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ernie Kimble

Ernie Kimble (talk · contribs) is going around posting a phone number on several different articles, claiming to be the person whose number they're posting, but with a different name from the User ID name they're using. I don't think they're here for good purposes. Woogee (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User Mansoorelahi

User:Mansoorelahi has written autobiographical notes and posted them as articles at Mansoor elahi and at Mansoorelahi. this would be a straightforward matter of tagging for speedy deletion but for the fact that at least three times he has moved User talk:Mansoorelahi into main space as one or other of those two articles, so that speedy deletion would get rid of the edit history of the articles. I have posted to User talk:Mansoorelahi, attempting to explain to the user that this action is not acceptable. Can some admin try to restore the edit history? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted and WP:SALTed the spam pages, and move-protected his talk page, I would imagine that will be the end of it but if he does it again it will be time for a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dave1185

is harassing User:Wispanow for hours on many user-talk pages [213] [214] [215] and did not not stop. He was warned: [216]. He was additionally warned several times by me (Wispanow).

I request to block him 77.186.81.65 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wispanow

was blocked without any reason. Just for repeating the rude comments of others:[217]. The block was made by Edgar181: [218].

I request to immediately unblock him. 77.186.81.65 (talk)

User:Edgar181

blocked User:Wispanow : [219] without any reason. Just because Wispanow was requesting User:Dave1185 to stop harassment.

I request to block him .77.186.81.65 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked 24h for fairly obvious block evasion of Wispanow. —DoRD (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Look2See1

Look2See1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• In his edits [220], [221] and [222] calls out a user (myself) in an (article's) talk page, even after I warned him not to over both talk and e-mail. Shouldn't he reserve that for his or my usertalk? Also accidentally deleted some redirects (then blamed me for it) and exhibited bad form in movereqs, not that that matters. FYI, the consensus for the type of moves I made is at Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles; though moves can be made without community imput. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FOX News article announcing Larry Singer told FBI that we host child porn

• http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/wikipedia-child-porn-larry-sanger-fbi/?test=latestnews

I would have brought this to Commons, however I feel a mass deletion of this material would impact Wikipedia articles and it should be discussed here. I hope I made the right choice. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:47, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-04-12/Sanger_allegations. AniMate 23:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have anything to worry about here, The FBI can see for themselves what is child porn and what is not, I doubt Mr. Sanger's ridiculous accusations will get much more than a few mentions in the press, which is probably exactly what he wanted to begin with since Citizendium is so much smaller and less well known than WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)