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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Angie Y. - community ban time?

For at least the past 3 years, people have been telling Angie Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to add uncited personal opinion to articles. I ran across her recently when her editing on Willy Wonka-related articles was brought to ANI. Just about every time I trimmed something of hers out of an article, she would restore it with no discussion, even in the edit summary. Today she reminded us that her editing style isn't restricted to fiction: she edited the Priceline article, adding the text "One of Shatner's early commercials for the company had him sitting in a spaceship's captain's chair, in loving tribute to his famous Star Trek role." The existence of the commercial is uncited. Its position as "early" is uncited "Loving tribute" is opinion. "Famous" is WP:PEACOCKish.

As she has been told that this sort of thing is not acceptable for so long by so many people, I am forced to conclude that she is unwilling or unable to work within our community norms, and suggest that she be community-banned for at least a year.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem... but I see a lack of blocks to tell her that this is a problem. I see only one from a couple years ago.. Surely a series of escalating blocks should be attempted before an outright ban, right? Friday (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, she tends to skirt right under the edge of blockability for any one incident. It's the long-term pattern I'm looking at here, and that's harder for a single admin to act on without this kind of discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

She does seem to have a lot of warnings over the past few years telling her not to insert her POV into articles. Not sure what to do about it. Possibly assign her a mentor? Basket of Puppies 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like mentoring was tried, pursuant to her second RFC, but didn't go anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose editor is no doubt a pain but lack of long block log suggests lesser sanctions are not exhausted. Or you could have Willy feed her a candy bar that turns her into a huge helium balloon and the Oompa Loompas can sing as she floats away. Ooompa Loompa loopa de do ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree it is a seriously issue that needs to be dealt with. Also wondering at the lack of previous blocks beyond the one, when her user page also shows a lot off issues with incivility, ignoring or harassing other editors when they try to correct her, constant lack of edit summaries and just reverting when people undo her OR/opinions. Also curious as to whether there has been any recurrence of the meat puppet issues which caused her one block. Her response to your warning about the OR of "Ah yeah"[1] however also strongly shows that you are correct in that she seemingly doesn't care. Looking at her contribs, she pretty much ignores her own talk pages and rarely tries discussing anything with others on other user talks[2], while her contribs to article talks seems mostly to ask random questions[3]. I also worry how much truth there is in her edits to fictional topics, when she is fond of injecting her own opinion into topics, and if any of her edits are being checked in those areas? Not an admin, so I don't know the rules on blocking, but I do think some kind of block and an editing restriction, at the minimum, would be a good start. Any violations to the restriction gets escalating blocks, until she exhausts the usual set, then go for a ban. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor's behaviour has been discussed here several times previously. TFOWR^propaganda 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Forgot to mention her RFCs above.
  • 5 July 2007
  • 11 December 2007
• Granted, it's been a while since the last one... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for a while. No evidence she works around them, so going for a ban isn't necessary. But (as one who has warned and reverted her many times) she's royally painful to pin down. Pushes right to the edge of a block, then backs off either by moving away from the target-page of the moment, or by saying she will change her ways. Again and again. With some good edits too IIRC. Taken together, the Park Service needs to give this forest a block even if each ranger doesn't think any one tree is irredeemable. Enough community time-wasting. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for at least a week. This person seems adept at gaming the system here, and as I see it the record cited shows that. Too early for a ban, but count me in with those wanting accountability. User should be encouraged to discuss this issue here at ANI. Jusdafax 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, this user was once a pusher of birther arguments, pushing fringe sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berg v. Obama and at the main article. Old edits, yes, but this is clearly not a user that plays well with others. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't think that's really relevant to her current editing behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse blocking for around a week or two perhaps. With increasing durations for further problems. This may very well end up a ban, but I'd rather see us get there in a few steps than just one. Friday (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Issue stern final warning, then block I feel that she needs to be put on last notice, and that any further infractions will result in an immediate block. The stern final warning will be indefinite for duration- meaning that in 6 months if she makes an infraction she will still be blocked. No one is irredeemable but some need special circumstances due to the length of disruption. Basket of Puppies 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help in any way I can. Angie Y. (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Angie, is that the ways you try to help tend to make more work for everyone else. Even though many people have told you to add references to your edits, and not to put your personal opinions into articles, you keep doing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block now clear lack of competence, three years is generally enough time to determine if someone is capable of or willing to learn. Time sink, net detriment to the project on a review of the edits. Make it indefinite. If they cogently explain what they've been doing wrong and promise to never do it again, maybe unblock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have imposed an indefinite block; there isn't really an established community block process here, but reviewing many edits going back several years, plus her talk page history, convinces me that the concerns raised here are valid. I believe that she is editing in good faith, but the net result of editing in good faith but with poor understanding of project goals and policies, the difference between encyclopedic factual content and personal opinion, is disruptive. If she comes to understand the policies and issues and seems likely to comply going forwards, any administrator can unblock her without consulting me, though given the community input above I think that bringing it back to ANI for discussion would be wise (at least a notification afterwards). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment —I've encountered Angie in the past (circa 2+ years ago, I think) and tried to gently nudge her in the right direction. I've not seen the recent issues other people have concerns over. If there is further discussion of this, I'll root through history and the more recent events, and offer an opinion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• ... and I have declined her first unblock request with a couple of questions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block for only a week; an indefinite block is not necessary, in my opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block - indef. I was the admin who introduced her last AN/I (a few months ago). I have seen zero improvement since then, and her long history of non-improvement speaks for itself. I recommend she take up blogging instead where the rules are more lax. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block that has already been imposed. I don't see the sense in putting a timer on the block if there's nothing to guarantee that it won't just continue once the block expires. It's up to her on how long it takes her to understand, and this way, sanctions will only be in place for as long as necessary. Of course, without socking, I don't think an outright ban is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Amend to a couple of weeks to give her time to understand that no, we really mean it about the personal opinions. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef. The sanction can be lifted as soon as there is a reasonable undertaking to amend their approach to contributing; 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks... whatever. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Based on her interaction with the folks who have reviewed her request for an unblock, that will be a long time coming. She seems incapable of understanding what the problem is. (And as long as this is simply an indef block -- not a community ban -- I endorse this as an adequate response. A community ban in this case would be the equivalent of breaking a butterfly on a wheel.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse 1 week block - There needs to be some indication that this issue is taken seriously, but it's too early for an indef. Shadowjams (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Post-indef block comments

As there's been an indefinite block, some of the above comments are outdated. Further comments below. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate in this case. As discussed above, a progressive blocking structure would be more fair. This has clearly gotten Angie Y's attention. I would advocate a short-term block, followed by reconciliation, attempts at mentoring (I see above that's not worked before), and scrutiny. By indefinitely blocking we're just inviting a new username and alienation. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think it has to come to this quite yet. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Indefinite is not forever, the user does not seem to understand how to fix the problem (and seems to be suggesting that she has some issue personally that might make it impossible and that we should "understand") so indef is correct. I have left a suggestion that she try proposing some sourced NPOV changes on her talk page, to see if she can satisfy people that she can do it. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I share Shadowjams's concern, in as much as I feel that there should be a clear route back for Angie Y. That said, Guy has advised Angie Y. that there is a way back, so I'm happy with the indef block standing for now (i.e. until Angie Y. indicates that she's prepared to work constructively to end her block). TFOWR^propaganda 11:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Each case is distinct; using an indef block in all cases will obviously not be appropriate or ideal (and this should not be interpreted as establishing a precedent as such). In this particular case, my opinion has not changed - there is a clear way back and putting a timer on the block would not otherwise be helpful or sensible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I dislike indef blocks, in the manner that it's a kind of "closed door" to the blocked editor. Although technically they can appeal the block, sooner or later, almost always they either 1) have their unblock request denied, or 2) they never edit again, which would mean that we may lose a possibly productive user in the future. A short term block of a few weeks seems like the best solution, as it isn't an indefinite block, and it gives the editor (who in this case is Angie Y) some time to think about her actions. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• As someone who also has an autism-spectrum disorder (mine is PDD-NOS), let me just point out that it's very hard for many people on the spectrum to read between the lines. What may seem like a terminal case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't necessarily so. I left a short note of encouragement, because she doesn't seem too receptive to criticism at this point (not really all that surprising). I think JzG's suggestion is a good idea, and hopefully she'll go through with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to sound too harsh, but I do think that WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here. In short, she may have problems that may make it difficult for her to follow our policies, but that is no excuse for disruption. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with you, but my experience with people on the spectrum (I'm living proof of this) is that if you do give them enough chances, they'll catch on. I think a block may have been in order, but indefinite can be very intimidating. If this was made, say, a week or two weeks, that'd give her a chance to put everything in perspective and go from there. She does seem to realize now that there's a problem. Maybe if she had someone to bounce ideas off of if/when she gets unblocked- not a mentor, exactly, but just someone to help on the side. Hey, we gave someone else another second chance, and that seems to be working out all right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that we have been remarkably patient with this user already, as her pattern of disruption goes back to 2006. I have a hard time believing that she's only just now realized that there's a problem, judging by the messages on her talk page. If she actually has just realized this, Wikipedia:COMPETENCE should be considered. It's also important to remember that an indefinite block is not necessarily permanent. That said, I wouldn't object to her being unblocked on the condition that she found a mentor. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Some do catch on, but others... well, I won't invoke the name, but at least one refuses to catch on, and his mother hasn't been able to deter him at all. Suffice to say, we have to treat each one individually, and she's not quite getting it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of who you refer to above, but the issue there would seem to be much more severe- there are varying degrees. Anyways, we let the aforementioned user back after pulling some truly egregious stuff (I went back and looked) that was worse than what's going on here. This at least can be fixed fairly quickly. I also acknowledge that it goes back to 2006, but to jump to DefCon 5 1 ^whoops all of a sudden seems a bit... harsh. Perhaps this is the "final warning" she needed. Hey, reblocking is never too difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the length of time this has gone on for, I would argue that it wasn't properly dealt with then, and so implementing a more harsh sanction may be justified.RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the logic in your statement, now that I look at it again. I still hope she does get unblocked- she works in articles I wouldn't touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole- but I see where you're coming from. JzG/Guy gave her a way out, and I guess all we can do is hope she takes it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Although I endorse this block, I think it should be shortened to a fortnight. After all, it only takes a few clicks to block her again, should she choose not to learn from this (and if, on the contrary, she were to learn, we would gain a useful contributor). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's the same, slow pattern we've been seeing for three years. I don't think a fortnight will make a difference but, if it does, she'll be able to tell us how & why she's changed and we can unblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I undestand that blocks are necessary to prevent disruptive behaviour; however, personally, I don't like them and would always try to be optimistic (or naive, if you prefer). That's why I'd give her a second chance. I don't think it's all that risky, given how fast she can be reblocked, should the need arise. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

She has a way out, it's been offered pretty much from the outset. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently left a message on her talk page to this effect, but if appropriate, perhaps a succinct phrasing of the "way out" would be good either here or on the talk page. Just so there's a clear roadmap. Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That has already been done: User_talk:Angie_Y.#Suggestion Harry the Dog WOOF 09:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef. I agree it's a shame to jump straight to the indef rather than incremental blocks but there is a very clear way for her to come back. If she starts posting some editing suggestions (per Guy's suggestion on her talk page) which show that she now understands the problems with her adding her opinions and OR to articles, we can look at unblocking, but I don't think fixing a timer to that process is going to be helpful and it will likely undermine it. I think it's better to leave the block as an indef and to review again in due course when we get some indication that she understands - whether that be two days, two weeks, two months or whatever is entirely in her court. Sarah 06:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef Angie has been offered many ways out over the years. People have been extremely patient with her, and offers of help have been numerous, and generally rebuffed. As others say, indef does not mean forever. It is not banning, which has been advocated. People who cannot edit in conformity with the community guidelines are blocked. It's as simple as that. I don't believe that progressive blocks are needed in this case. There have been several times when a short block might have been imposed but Angie has evaded it by promising to change her behaviour. Her behaviour has not changed, and therefore I regard that as if a block had been imposed. It would have been but for assurances that were not subsequently met. Sadly, I don't think we can accept her assurances (repeated in the wake of this block) any more, and so an indef is required. If she can show that she really can conform to the community guidelines, she should be welcomed back. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef - her post-block edits clearly indicate she still doesn't get it. Rklawton (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SirFloyd

While working on the Tito article, I looked up the reliablity of an author named Bernard Meares and rediscovered this little gem. It is the article "Titoism and Totalitarianism" that user SirFloyd created on en.wiki earlier but was later deleted due to its POV content. This is apparently a wikiclone which user SirFloyd uses to, among other things, stalk users and "strategize" his moves for the real wiki. Among the findings are:

• A page dedicated to countering user DIREKTOR's edits "Wikipedia & Political Agendas".
  • In it is a section "Wiki Articles that are manipulated by Neo-Communists" which contains a list of articles that user DIREKTOR has edited at one point or another.
  • In another entitled "Propaganda Pushing Editors" editors DIREKTOR, Ivan Stambuk, AlasdairGreen27, myself, BokicaK, and Zocky are listed alongside nationality and are apparently identified by SirFloyd as a clique.
• Another page "Nationalistic Editing on Wikipedia" discusses the "House of Bona" article which DIREKTOR and SirFloyd were engaged in. While he is careful to not mention names it is obvious at whom such quotes are directed at: "Wikipedia with its current group of editors is participating in that process [cultural genocide]."
  • Attempt at canvassing for the "House of Bona" article [4].

Taking this evidence into consideration, it is, in my opinion, that SirFloyd's intentions on Wikipedia are far from good faith. His actions are in violation of numerous policies including: WP:COI, WP:HOUND (stalking DIREKTOR), WP:NPOV (creating the POV fork "Tito and Totalitarianism" after his failure at the original article), WP:OWN (using a wikiclone to evade deletion and own an article), and WP:CANVAS. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Floyds intentions and contributions here have been very beneficial to the project. His contribution was deleted here and he is able to post it wherever he likes. He is perhaps in opposition to your group but that is good , we don't want everything from a single perspective do we. I also note that in those links you provide there is no mention at all of any specific people. I don't see anything requiring any Administration action.Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Director Croatian, Ivan Stambuk (Croatian), AlasdairGreen27 (Croatian), Producer (Bosnian), BokicaK (Serbian), Zocky (Slovenia) Wikipedia Administrator" ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@User:Off2riorob.

• 1) being in opposition to someone is fine, its a way to ensure against POV, mine included. However, User:Sir Floyd is not reported here for being opposed to someone.
• 2) You are, as you say, a "close friend" of User:Sir Floyd. It comes as no surprise that you would support him even after this was uncovered, and its certainly not a surprise that you would judge his "lobbying" as beneficial to the encyclopedia.
• 3) Finally User:Off2riorob, I cannot believe you are being honest when you say you "don't see any mention at all of any specific people". Have you noticed this link? You see, it lists all users who dared oppose Sir Floyd as "communist propaganda pushers". Add to this that User:Sir Floyd has been attempting to WP:OUT users on this project [5] and I think you'll find this is not only actionable, its indeff block material.

Finally, I don't think anyone here is prepared to pretend he/she is stupid. It is perfectly obvious that User:Sir Floyd has been stalking editors, following them around, and marking their edits (as well as themselves!) for the attentions of his buddies. This explains much of the suspicious coordinated MEAT that's been going on in this Wiki. The purpose of all this evidently seems to be outnumbering editors with meatpuppets and bypassing proper discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are mentioned there as a POV pushing editor, I did not search all the pages. I know and respect Sir Floyds contributions here. He was in dispute with user direktor when I met him and helped him to become a good contributor here. I still don't see any issues worthy of Wikipedia Administrator action. There is nothing to assert any meat issues at all with Sir Floyd. I don't see any stalking. As I said, we don't just want one side of the story do we. So you present a six month old ANI archived thread with no action at all as a claim to Sir Floyd outing, nothing happened then, never mind now and a wikibiz article http://www.mywikibiz.com/User_talk:Ockham/Wikipedia_&_Political_Agendas#Propaganda_Pushing_Editors complaining about POV editing on wikipedia, not very startling is it. Perhaps you could try dispute resolution, or we could topic ban you both from Yugoslavian articles. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh lol Off2riorob... We're not in any conflicts at all. I think you've conclusively demonstrated your "neutrality", not to mention a serious need to familiarize yourself with policy (WP:MEAT, WP:STALK, WP:OUT, WP:CANVASS etc.). I for one admire such dedication. Leave it for the guys here to read and decide, lets not clutter the thread up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I had one brief encounter with SirFloyd and after that it was clear to me that his motives are not good. If this does not convince others, then I don't know what will. -- Bojan  Talk  05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The GFDL says that any content of Wikipedia can be copied and distributed everywhere. If this content will be deleted the content distributed must not be deleted. Please give me the part of GFDL where the license says that the distributed content must be deleted and I will accept your position. I would invite all persons, most of all administrators, to understand the principles of GFDL in detail. Do you need that also the old dumps of database will be corrected? In this action I can only see a "programmatic" action of a group and surely I will start to open an investigation about this group. --Ilario (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, GFDL was abandoned in favor of Creative Commons few years ago. But this is not the question. The question is that what Direktor stated above. -- Bojan  Talk  08:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've only encountered SirFloyd on the Tito article. IMO, he does have a bit of a point - some of the ex-Yugoslav users do wear extra-rosy-tinted glasses when looking on their former country. However, in my experience, SirFloyd wasn't doing anything to counter that productively. His modus operandi consisted of pushing his (IMO rather extreme) POV by listing out-of-context quotes, often from extremist and/or amateur authors. That in itself wouldn't be a big problem, because it can be countered with other quotes and sources. But, he also incessantly engaged in accusing other editors of having sinister agendas, which sort of kills any sort of productive discussion.

All that said, I don't care much about what he writes on other websites. If there are good reasons to believe that his activities on Wikipedia as a whole are a net loss for the encyclopedia, we should probably do something about it. If not, water under the bridge. Zocky | picture popups 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In hereby calling for action on this and similar situations, I would remind readers of the WP:ARBMAC ruling, which all of us are beholden to apply. What requires action here is that s/he is displaying the most grotesque bad faith imaginable, and the most extreme Balkan nationalist aggressive POV. I would like to work on articles with editors who think I can contribute something. We can work together well. In what way is it possible to work collaboratively in the true spirit of Wikipedia with someone who derides the whole idea(l) of Wikipedia, who describes and derides good faith editors as communists, who describes our articles as communist propaganda and so on. The Balkan Wiki area is overpopulated with POV monsters as it is. If Sir Floyd is allowed to demonstrate such POV and total bad faith and continue to edit regardless, then we might as well ring fence all of our Balkan articles as POV garbage that no-one with a sane mind should read. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have un-archived this discussion as it appears to have been prematurely archived. Toddst1 (talk)

This is pretty clearly off-wiki harassment by Sir Floyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and calls for an indefinite block until such harassment is removed and ceases. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, no on can be judged in Wikipedia for something which is extermal to Wikipedia and most of all no one can be judged for his point of view. It seems to me a judgement of a person derived from some other persons who has the other extreme point of view. If Sir Ffloyd is extreme I cannot see that the persons who are judging him are neutral, absolutely wrong. I would add that in the article written by him there are also official documents and I am a little bit disappointed that their are judged like "secondary" sources. Sorry, but I would have a more neutral decision here. This is a discussion to judge a person where only few users are participating and most of all the users accused by him. In this case I think that the accused persons should not be considered to give to the community the opportunity to be more neutral and to don't consider the parts involved in the original discussion. --Ilario (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• As there are quite a few externals would the blocking Administrator please point directly to the "off wiki harassment" ones and the exact content the harassment is referring to as regards the alleged Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I Agree. Having a personal opinion about something inside wikipedia, and espressing it off-wiki is a very different thing that doing harrassment. So i suppose it's necessary the blocking Admin will point clearly what exactly he considered harassment, just in order to not make his decision an unclear or fuzzy precedent. Theirrulez (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not understand why Sir Floyd was blocked. I cannot see personal attacks in that pages. He only expressed an opinion. An opinion is not law.--Grifter72 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag. If I'm off base, please feel free to re-add, I won't object or consider that an issue. It just appears that this matter appears to remain under discussion. As far as I understand it's pretty clear that off-wikipedia behavior, however bad, does not by itself merit an on-wikipedia block. Nevertheless, off-Wikipedia statements can reasonably be interpreted as evidence that someone's presence on Wikipedia is not in good faith. Which is it? Incidentally, I have no idea what the underlying dispute is about and I don't think it's relevant to this particular question. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks doesnt'seem to support the decision. Off-wiki attacks paragraph doesn't (of course) contemplate any sanctions like blocks, because: «Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions.» - Theirrulez (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a WP:ARBMAC decision, and must be considered in that context. It is perhaps not surprising that the protesters that have surfaced since the block was made are three Italian editors (Ilario, Grifter72 and Theirrulez) that share SirFloyd's POV. I guess/suppose/am sure that the only reason that they all came here in a procession is that they all picked up the block on their watchlists. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems a bit of a "quid pro quo response": "You help us out with our POV-pushing, we'll help you out - maybe we can save the guy to fight another day, or shorten his block". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm here as well asking a decision about this absurd unfair, discrediting and offensive attack against me posted by AlasdairGreen27 on a an Admin talk page [6], followed by DIREKTOR's attack [7], and preceded by another astonishing DIREKTOR's attack [8]. These above mentioned harassment posts were not off-wiki, but incredibly on a wikipedian users talk page.
This is to be considered as an official report. Theirrulez (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be fun to use the word "attack", but commenting on single-purpose edit history is not really a violation of WP:NPA. I cannot guess why you're inserting this here, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, here: Wikipedia:Spa#Identifying_SPAs reads

Focusing on a single broad topic: When Identifying SPAs, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. Very broad subjects like music, medicine, sports, history, and physics are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not necessarily mean the user is an SPA. SPAs edit a group of tightly related pages or a group of unrelated pages in the same manner.

In my opinion, Theirrulez is not an WP:SPA. And, by the way, he is an editor in good standing on it.wiki (he has brought an article to WP:FA, that is to say it:Rodi Garganico) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'm not an WP:SPA. This is an attempt to lead us off-topic and the last try to influence other users discrediting me. After DIREKTOR replied here above, and after the admin GTBacchus clearly warned him and AlasdairGreen27 to stop the harassment, he demonstrated that he really doesn't matter to abuse wikipedia policy keep on harassing me more and more on the same admin talk page. And probably he and AlasdairGreen27 will continue until someone can stop them.

Anyways my contribution history is available, everyone who want to take a look it's welcomed. I want to remind to whoever could be interested about my contributions history to check also my former account User:Theirrules. After that please, I need urgent explanation about what reported above: the astonishing accuses I openly received. Theirrulez (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that SirFloyd has a point about Direktor being quite biased. That's my two cents on this issue. (LAz17 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

Apart from Sir Floyd's incident, I would like to point out how many vehement attacks AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) are used to making on other contributors, engaging in perpetual edit wars and immediately suggesting that there are planetary conspiracies. It's important to underline AlasdairGreen was called into this discussion by another user, PRODUCER (talk · contribs), just to create a firing squad ([9]). I would note that AlasdairGreen has been blocked once ([10]) for "personal attacks" and "harassment") and that he despises the Wikipedia project, having literally written (on an ARBCOM ruled article talk) he believes that Wikipedia (he says: "you know f..k all") is dominated by "the International Court of Wikipedia", formed by a panel of f..ing American Teenagers ([11]). Who at the time, few minute later, took care of removing the astonishing insult in AlasdairGreen's edit was "strangely" Direktor ([12]), coincidentally the very pair who point the accusing finger at me! How can all this be coincidence? And after talking about "clique" by others!

I would ask all of you to consider whether this is a good way to contribute to the project, since I always behaved correctly on enwiki. Theirrulez (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Who invited Theirrulez then? hmmmm I invited everyone that was relevant to the discussion per the list above. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you know what the word "violent" means. Please don't over-inflate this issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Violent" can also mean "marked by intensity", but if you prefer we can ask Theirrulez to replace it with "vehement"... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask AlasdairGreen, the one who said Sir Floyd is not compatible to the project, what exactly he means for f..k you all, referring to all wikipedians... I'm just curious to know.. Theirrulez (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest here. He said "You know fuck all about anything" not "fuck you all". Not civil but certainly he's not saying fuck you to all Wikipedians. AniMate 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me be more honest. He shouts that infamous and astonishing slur on the Tito talk page. ARBCOM rules there for Sir Floyd as same as for AlasdairGreen27. I want to hope. Theirrulez (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the editor was blocked for 72 hours as a result. WP:STICK applies here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments were pertinent. That is exactly the point I wanted to show:

two users, two harassments or personal attacks, one off-wiki, one inside wikipedia, both under ARBCOM ruling: huge difference in block actions taken. - Theirrulez (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir Floyd is not banned. Sir Floyd's block log has specific instructions to "Un-block if/when off-wiki harassment is removed/ceases." He could have been unblocked within minutes from when the block was issued. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please specify exactly what you considered to be the off wiki harassment and please provide a link to it. Personally I see very little harassment at all, Sir floyd has a clean block log, perhaps you could have asked him to remove whatever you saw as a violation rather than just indefinitely block him, he was very upset I can tell you. For a first infringement and off wiki at that this was a severe response to a minor issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See above. Blocked for only as long as the off-wiki shenanigans continue. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Shenanigans? Please specify exactly and link to what you consider to be harassment worthy of indefinitely blocking without warning a user of around a year with a clean block log. User Toddst1 I would also like to ask you if you are involved in Yugoslavian issues yourself? I find myself wondering why, when the thread had been ignored by all admins and archived you unarchived it and immediately indefinitely blocked Sir Floyd after being personally contacted by one of the complainants on your talkpage. Personally I would like to suggest to you that there is minimal alleged harassment off wiki, we all know there issues regarding POV in that area, it is no secret is it, we are allowed to mention the elephant in the room. Perhaps a reconsideration of the indefinite and moving to time served with a warning for the future or something like that, or perhaps a couple of months topic ban in the Yugoslavian area? Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason most admins ignore things related to the Balkans. It's a horrible area to edit in, and any administrative action always leads to loud, long, and vociferous objections from whatever side feels their ally has been wronged. Toddst1 is not involved in Yugoslavian issues. You know that, since you've obviously read the section where PRODUCER asks him to look at the archived thread at User_talk:Toddst1#ANI. He specifically states: Actually, I'm decidedly not involved in Balkan related activities and have gone to lengths to keep it that way. As for the specific harassment, he obviously thinks the specific four pages linked by PRODUCER at the top of this section constitute harassment. SirFloyd hasn't asked for an unblock and apparently has stated to you that he feels keeping the pages up at MyWikiBiz is more important than editing here. If he feels this block is unjust, he's more than able to request an unblock on his talk page or appeal this to ArbCom. Until then, why not drop this, since SirFloyd doesn't appear interested in challenging it. AniMate 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen enough ANI to know that if there is anything worthy of Administrator action, whatever the field or issue is that action is taken in the two days the issue was here. Ask yourself, how many times do you see the need for an issue to be unarchived for action? Within minites of the message on his talkpage from one of the complainants Sir Floyd was indefinitely blocked. I prefer it if you left the blocking admin speak for himself, only he knows if he is involved with Yugoslavian issues.IMO this block is excessive, Sir Floyd is not here because I can tell you he was upset to be indefinitely blocked without any warning at all and he has a clean record here, it is a bit much if you ask me and I would like User Toddst1 to explain his exact reasons and the link to exactly what is the harassment for the indef. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I can't tell if you're hard of hearing or if you are angry at the horse carcass. Regardless, Toddst1 has spoken for himself. As I linked above at User_talk:Toddst1#ANI he said: Actually, I'm decidedly not involved in Balkan related activities and have gone to lengths to keep it that way. So he isn't involved in the Balkans except as an administrator enforcing ArbMac. If you only want him to respond, I would suggest you go to his talk page or email him. I too have seen enough of ANI to understand how threads dealing with edit disputes from the Balkans work. Administrators ignore them because the respective sides won't stop fighting enough to allow anyone an opportunity to give an outside opinion, and when action is taken they get all sorts of hell for it. This is a highly controversial and emotionally charged area of editing, and I challenge you to name 5 administrators who are active in it. Since this block was made via WP:ARBMAC, I would suggest the best course of action for you to get it reversed would be to take it to WP:ARBCOM. AniMate 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is how it happened for me, I was keeping Tans talkpage clean and User Toddst1 comes along and reverts my tidy edit and then we get in a little dispute about it and this is further complicated by my attempting to help another user that user Toddst1 is in dispute with User Malke, at the same time, my friend Floyd is at ANI with this jumped up outing and off wiki harassment claim, everyone ignores it and it is archived, people know Sir Floyd is my friend, next thing I know user Toddst1 unarchived a dead thread and indefinitely blocks my friend. Perhaps it has nothing to do with it but user Toddst1 can say so himself can't he. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So now instead of wanting to know if Toddst1's motivation for blocking SirFloyd was some secret involvement in Balkans related editing, you now want to know if it is because he has a grudge against you? Can't wait to see what you try next. AniMate 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What was his motivation then? The block is excessive and could happily be reduced to time served and a condition of some sort. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So you have changed tactics. Interesting. Toddst1 has said the block will be reduced to time served when SirFloyd removes the off-wiki harassment. He believes the articles at MyWikiBiz constitute harassment and if SirFloyd wants to be unblocked he can delete them. Toddst1 has been involved in ArbMac blocks long before you came onto his radar, so try to assume good faith and realize you're probably not so important to him that he would risk losing his adminship by performing a bad block just to upset you. Try reading the WP:ARBMAC decision, and if you feel this block falls outside of the scope of the decision rendered there, go to WP:ARBCOM and ask them to reverse it. AniMate 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is a bit more complex Animate. You are right when you say Off2riob has to assume good faith regarding Toddst1 decision. I'm sure of Toddst good faith, and I suppose Off2riob is sure too.

Maybe he just supposed an human inaccuracy in Toddst valuation and he would like to havve his doubt cleared. Are we sure of Sir Floyd identity on the "MyWikiBiz" off-wiki website? What exactly was considered harassment? Can Wikipedia put conditions about off-wiki networks? For the "conditional" block imposed to Sir Floyd did the admin use the same "meter" used for precedent similar harassment (like AlasdairGreen27)? I think these are the question Off2riob means to ask, and I think they are not controversial at all. - Theirrulez (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about Offt2riorob and good faith. He pretty much said the only explanation for the block was either Toddst1 having a secret agenda in Balkans related editing or because he had a vendetta against Off2rirorob and his friends. You seem quite focused on AlasdarGreen27. I get it. He said "You know fuck all about anything" which is quite uncivil, when he should have said "You have no idea what you're talking about". You seem to want tit-for-tat. No one is going to block AlasdairGreen27 for that at this point. Let it go. If the information wasn't posted by SirFloyd, he probably wouldn't have told Off2riorob he would rather retire than remove it from the web. The only thing I will agree with you on, is that this is a complex situation. We have a block related to arbitration enforcement. We have two sides dealing with nationalistic issues. This board is ill suited for dealing with such situations. Administrators do not want to deal with Balkans conflicts. Most are hesitant to undo an action that involves arbitration enforcement. If I may suggest, there are two other venues where we should deal with this. The first is WP:Arbitration enforcement. There is a process there for for appealing arbitration related blocks. The second would be a case at WP:ArbCom. There are conflicts spanning multiple articles, accusations of off-site canvassing, accusations of rampant incivility, and who knows what else. Perhaps it is time to nip this in the bud. I understand why most of the participants here are hesitant to enter arbitration, since it will examine everyone's conduct (including editors I consider friends). However, the limitations of WP:AN/I have been reached. Pursue something else, and let this thread die. AniMate 08:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Animate I don't see two sides dealing with nationalistic issue, I see several users from different places in the world arguing about complex but substantial things. We can also let the thread die, I agree, but never before getting some further answers to some very precise questions (those above). It could be an easy effort to throw far away every doubt about if this issue could have (or better already could have been) a rightly different ending. Don't you think so? - Theirrulez (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You've gotten your answers, several times, from several people. Now you're being WP:TEDIOUS. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

Closed; referred to ArbCom Rvcx (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've been trying very hard not to get sucked into silly edit- and flame-wars with User:Mathsci, but even the very first comment that disagree with him brought forth an immediate barrage of personal attacks. A WQA alert eventually got a non-apology apology, but personal attacks and blatantly offensive edit summaries have continued, and he seems hell-bent on edit-warring to write whatever he wants regardless of input from other editors. There's no question he's made some terrific contributions, but this kind of behavior can't be tolerated. May I suggest a one-day block to help him cool off and reconsider his approach? Rvcx (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps I am simply calloused and scarred from exposure to Climate Change Probation related pages, but I am struggling to see these personal attacks you complain of and can only think that your understanding of the phrase "knee jerk" involves some activity I would rather not be familiar with. I am seeing someone who is explaining how WP uses its sources, the need for comment to be sustained by reliable third party references, that quoting something accurately cannot be libelous, and that personal appraisal of an original source is not permissible. However that latter is clearly in the domain of content dispute, which is beyond the remit of this board. Unless you can specify what part of Mathsci's comment contravene WP:NPA, I very much doubt you will get much traction here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Dismissing feedback on whether the cited sources support the statements in WP articles because I'm an "amateur" (used many times, of course never for Mathsci himself), accusing people of "making remarks off the tops of your head without any lengthy attempt to look at the sources" (despite repeated reminders that I have actually read the sources) and commenting "like a teenager playing a video game", demanding that I "get some grip on reality (unless of course you want ArbCom to be involved)", yet more allegations that I "hasn't read the sources- just knee jerk reaction", and the reversion of an edit supported by others on the grounds that "if you want to move towardss your 300th content edit do it elsewhere" seem a lot more like attacks directed at me (requiring very childish arguing over who has more "expertise" on the subject) than discussion of the content at hand. I don't deny Matsci's points about how primary and secondary sources should be used; I simply have not been able to verify the original phrasing of the text in secondary sources, and the primary sources suggest there's a good reason for that... Rvcx (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) My review of the comments leads me to believe that although probably within the realms of a WQA referral - can you provide a link? - Mathsci was contrasting the findings of the third party sources with your own appraisals and, notwithstanding that you may or may not be an expert in the field, that would tend to be in the realm of Wikipedia:Original research and therefore not allowable (beyond the fact that Mathsci apparently believes your conclusions contrast to that of the reliable sources). I should note that I am not an expert at anything much than me, but a review of Mathsci's later comments - with the spelling mistakes and grammar - makes me believe that they were a little frustrated and might not have expressed themselves as respectfully as they might have. I would like to see Mathsci's comments upon this. Presently, I feel that this is a content dispute that has veered away from the preferred norms of interaction. Perhaps if Mathsci reviews the matter there might be some kind words exchanged about past comments and everyone can get on with the discussion? I will gently request that he takes a look at this section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks LHvU for letting me know about this and your truly horrible wikipun :) Rvcx's edits did not match the secondary source used [13]; he attempted to analyse the Jensen article himself There was no original research, just a summary of what appears in the secondary sources, a lot of which had been used for History of the race and intelligence controversy. Having produced 80,000 bytes of content with over 80 references, I can't really pretend not to be slightly familiar with the subject, often described as one of the most controversial papers in the history of psychology. A number of other people - from memory these include Slrubenstein, Maunus, Professor marginalia and RegentsPark - confirmed what I said. I did apologize for any misunderstanding twice here [14] (see in particular the final two statements). Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 11 hours after your backhanded apology, you reverted an edit with the inappropriate edit summary "Rvcx (talk) no thanks - if you want to move towards your 300th content edit do it elsewhere". (You reverted Rvcx's edit 2 hours after it was made, despite the fact that he noted it on the talk page and appeared to receive acceptance from Professor marginalia, among others, prior to your revert). Your apology appears to lack any sincerity, and it appears 2 hours was not enough to read the discussion that was underway on the talk page. About an hour later, you were reverted on the basis that there was consensus on the talk page that Rvcx's edit was fine, but you edit-warred by reverting yet again here, failing to discuss your content reversion on the talk page. What is so difficult to understand about the fact you need to discuss reversions you make on the talk page and make appropriate edit summaries that don't go against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Are experienced administrators failing to teach you how to appropriately deal with perceived or actual POV pushing, or is it a matter of being stubborn? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) And now Mathsci has reverted three times despite an apparent consensus and without a single comment on the talk page where the (minor) change was discussed. Rvcx (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Finally I see a potential sign of improvement - he's begun discussing his concerns on the talk page here; hopefully the edits in that discussion and in edit-summaries now comply with the relevant policies and preferred norms of interaction, even during perceived or actual difficult situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC) No such luck; "howlers" right out of the gate. Honestly, there has never been any indication that Mathsci has anything but disdain for third-party input. Rvcx (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (ec) Rvcx is editing too fast and not checking secondary sources. Here is what the secondary source says; [15]: But he felt that 'the technique for rasing intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological sciences than in psychology or eduaction'; eugenic reform rather than compensatory educationheld out the solution to the problem of the nation's intelligence. I paraphrased this in two distinct ways, the first (diff 1) with the words "in" and "than" missing, and the second (diff 2 and 3) slightly closer to Wooldridge. He felt that the solution lay eugenic reform rather compensatory education surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education". He felt that the solution to this problem was through eugenic reform rather than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education". I did leave a message on the talk page [16] but Rvcx must have been editing too fast to read them, His version tht he and Captain Occam have edit-warred back into the article reads: He felt that eugenic reform would prevent this more effectively than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education". This is not what the secondary source says. Indeed as the secondary sources say, Jensen's paper starts off with "Compensatory education has been tried and it has apparently failed". There are no comparatives. Anyway since there are two versions I have only reverted twice. On the talk page, Rvcx discusses what the quote means in the primary sources. He says, it means "changing people's biology", [17] but of course it doesn't mean that all. As the secondary source states, "biological sciences" means eugenics: population control, which in these cases - as several of the secondary sources also say - means either birth control or sterilization. Certainly that is what is in the rest of the summary. Our task is just to paraphrase Wooldridge, the secondary source. This kind of error, apparent with the mention of "Changing people's biology" in interpreting the primary source, shows exactly why we use secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I’d like to point out that when this issue was brought up at the BLP noticeboard, Jimbo Wales became involved in the discussion, and left this comment about it. His comment is about a slightly different piece of content than the one that Mathsci is edit warring over currently, but the same principle clearly applies. According to Jimbo Wales, we can’t claim that Jensen has advocated something unless Jensen has specifically stated that he advocates it—“we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.” In the case of eugenics, even though some of Jensen’s critics have claimed in secondary sources that Jensen has advocated this, all that Jensen himself has stated is that eugenics is more likely to raise the IQs of low-IQ people than compensatory education is. Mathsci is not only edit warring to try and change the article against consensus; he is repeatedly inserting material that according to Jimbo Wales is probably a BLP violation. And this is in addition to his repeated personal attacks, which have been near-constant for the past several months. I can provide diffs of some of the more egregious examples from before Rvcx became involved in this dispute, if anyone needs them. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I decided against getting involved in the WQA thread, but now that this has been taken to AN/I, I figured I should offer my opinion about it as someone who’s been the target of numerous personal attacks from Mathsci in the past. In general, the attitude I’ve observed from him is that no criticism of his behavior is ever appropriate because he’s a “user in good standing”. For an example of this, see his exchange with Keegan here. His attitude appears to be that “good standing” is a status that becomes irrevocable once it is earned, and grants immunity from any censure or negative consequences in response to policy violations. I would certainly hope that isn’t how Wikipedia works. For a user to remain in good standing should be contingent on their staying civil, and not engaging in disruptive behavior, and I don’t think Mathsci can reasonably expect to stay in good standing after his behavior towards Rvcx and David.Kane during the past week, as well as his behavior towards me, Varoon Arya and Ludwigs2 over the previous several months. Assuming it’s the case that Mathsci’s history of contributions does not excuse him from having to abide by policies such as WP:NPA, I think it would be beneficial for an administrator to give him a hard dose of reality about this, and that it would help avoid similar problems from Mathsci in the future if an admin could make him aware that he does not have free reign to ignore WP policy without any fear of negative consequences. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I concur with LHVU. This matter is related to the endless disputes about Race and intelligence. User:David.Kane made a post on WP:BLPN essentially arguing that academic sources have made libelous claims about Arthur Jensen, and has been supported in this position by User:Off2riorob and User:Rvcx. Mathsci has pointed out that there is substantial scholarly coverage of Jensen's positions and has explained the substance of this coverage and given citations and links to where it appears. Off2riorob and Rvcx do not appear to have followed up on these citations/links, and Mathsci is expressing frustration that other editors are not doing their reading. I find Mathsci's reaction entirely understandable; sadly, Wikipedia editors cannot be graded down when they show that they don't have command of the sources. In any event, nothing that Mathsci has said in the diffs provided is uncivil, and bringing the matter to ANI borders on the vexatious. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I agree. For more background (not related to Rvcx) see this. In short, several SPA editors have been using WP:CPUSH to promote their views across a wide range of race and intelligence articles. Mathsci is about the only obstacle preventing SPAs and other enthusiastic editors from having free reign. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) This is simply not consistent with what happened. Off2riorob and Rvcx followed up on the only citation necessary to validate a BLP violation, the writing of the subject. The violation has recently been corrected as a result of this. Mathsci made efforts for several months to maintain his virulent anti-Jensen material. His behaviour towards other editors during this time was appalling. mikemikev (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Frankly, I don't think the content dispute here is that significant. It's crazy that such a protracted discussion was needed to change just a few words to ensure the text is verified by sources (both primary and secondary—let's not get into a lengthy debate here, but suffice it to say I think both are relevant). I have no particular interest in views across that article space. What is significant is Mathsci's stubborn and confrontational attitude, and his assumption that he is entitled to insult and ignore everyone who disagrees with him, even over the smallest details, on the basis of his "score" in terms of number of edits. I didn't think that was the way Wikipedia was supposed to work. Rvcx (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC) My view, after reviewing what is written since I logged out, is that there is a content dispute relating to the subject, that Mathsci has used terminology that is not optimum, and those instances are being pursued in an effort to limit Mathsci's input in the dispute. The latter is not going to work, so I suggest that the point of contention is taken to dispute resolution; RfC or WP:3O would be my suggestion. To the parties I would comment, Mathsci might consider choosing their words a bit more carefully, and Rvcx, Off2riorob and others should separate the content dispute from the civility issues and find a way to get consensus on the content matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, it seems like LHvU is trying to taint other editors with MathSci's bad behavior. I have been incredibly careful to separate civility issues from content issues; thus the attempt to discuss civility here and at WQA and focus entirely on content at BLPN and the article talk pages. It is consistently MathSci who employs ad-hominem in content disputes and tries to deflect civility complaints with arguments over content. It is consistently MathSci who argues that other editors have no right to provide input, purely on the basis of who they are. It is MathSci who laces every comment with "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and they should fuck off" attacks, on multiple occasions actually threatening to escalate to ArbCom purely because an editor had the temerity to suggest that he could be in the wrong. I don't think any one comment is particularly egregious, but the overall message, sense of entitlement, and pattern of personal intimidation are both clear and intentional. At some point administrators should intervene to let him know that such an attitude is not acceptable, regardless of how many "content edits" he has made. Rvcx (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Akhilleus: 1) If you are going to make claims about me, then you ought to have the courtesy of making a direct link to the material. Here is the BLPN section in which I raised the issue about Arthur Jensen. 2) The first two uninvolved editors (talk and Rvcx) to comment agreed with me. Jimbo Wales was also supportive. And MathSci has given up on defending the specific edit that we had a problem with, that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." And the reason that he has given up defending it is that Jensen did no such thing. Now, we all make mistakes. If MathSci would just admit that this claim does not belong in Wikipedia, we could all move on. But, as is his usual practice, he engages in a blizzard of irrelevant citations and ad hominem attacks. This issue in this thread is whether or not such attacks belong on Wikipedia and, if not, what ought to be done about MathSci's behavior. Do you really believe that MathSci's behavior here and elsewhere is not "uncivil?" David.Kane (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Some editors in this thread seem unconvinced that MathSci's behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps they are right. But they should look at the history of MathSci's behavior as discussed in previous ANI threads: [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. Note that other examples are available. My point is not to claim that MathSci is always wrong (or always right) in these debates. My point, counter Johnuniq, is that complaints about MathSci's behavior are not specific to his edits of Race and Intelligence related articles. His behavior is consistent, as best I can tell, across the range of his interactions at Wikipedia. Rvcx's experience with MathSci is completely typical. Is this what experienced admins want to see at Wikipedia? If so, I have little doubt that MathSci will continue to give it to us good and hard. David.Kane (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Let's just take a look at the diffs shall we? The first two diffs refer to: A.K.Nole (talk · contribs). It was determined by a member of ArbCom that this user was wikihounding me and continued to so under a new account: they have been iinstructed by that member of ArbCom to deists. Next diff from 2008 ends as follows: I would like to add that this matter is resolved, as far as I am concerned. It was unfortunate that Mathsci and I got off to a bad start but the situation has calmed down and I'm sure we'll be able to co-operate in a constructive way in the future. I most certainly do not want to see Mathsci blocked, he has made many constructive edits and is valuable to Wikipedia. He has offered his apologies and I've offered mine for our heated exchange and I believe that no more needs to be said about it. I wish to thank the other users and administrators involved in this discussions for constructive and meaningful comments that helped to diffuse the situation. JdeJ (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC) The fourth diff was about Ethnic groups of Europe where a Suomi editor was removing good edits by Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) which are still in the article. Normal nationalist issues there. The fifth diff is by Danko Georgiev, MD, who was blocked for a week for attempting to out me as Alan Weinstein, then head of department in Berkeley,and actualy a friend of mine. So you get a γ- for accuracy but an α+ for misrepresentation and attempted harrassment. Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Note as an uninvolved editor, I have made a temporary change to stop the edit-war short of protection and blocks. See my comments at the talk and come to a consensus that does not violate policy. Enough is enough - if anyone involved wants to continue edit-warring about this matter, they proceed at their own risk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I don't feel that strongly about it and there is no ongoing edit war as you claim. So I have restored Rvcx's version, despite its very mild inaccuracy, which I don't really care that much about. However I do care about secondary sources as they represent one of the pillars of wikipedia editing policy and I hope other editors will continue to respect and abide by those policies. I'm sorry for spoiling the fun for the peanut gallery. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I think others can assess for themselves whether there is an ongoing edit-war from just looking at your reversions [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. That is, the same person usually doesn't make 3 identical reverts on the same page within 24 hours if that person doesn't "feel very strongly" about something, nor do they wait until the third revert before even bothering to discuss their issue(s). Some people take a long time to learn, but I suppose it would be better late than never. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Even if this instance of edit warring ends up being resolved here, I hope there can also be a solution to the problem of Mathsci’s repeated personal attacks. This problem has been going on for as long as I’ve been interacting consistently with Mathsci, which is for around four months, and unless an admin does something about it I doubt it’ll be changing anytime soon. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Hmmmm, by now all these AN/I discussions have become part of "History of the race and intelligence controversy" as well. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC) There needs to be an end to the personal attacks on Mathsci, as well. Some of Mathsci's comments do appear to be personal attacks, but so do most of the edits of the people complaining. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Comment At the moment it does seem to be a team of editors picking on me all over wikipedia. It includesd the familiar WP:SPAs: David.Kane, Mikemikev, Captain Ocaam and Varoon Arya. I edit Bach Organ Music. I'm editing Orgelbüchlein at the moment. I have the two main English languages source books by Russel Stinson and by Peter Williams (both edition). I also have also have severaal version of the scores. Previously I created Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes and Canonic Variations. Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) has followed me to this article and has started questioning the sources and the standard orthography. However, in all Bach editions there is now a standard spelling which I am adhering to. Breitkopf used a different convention in the nineteenth century, but adopted a different convention along with all other publishers of urtext editions from 1969. I have both of the German Breitkopf editions. In his edit summaries Varoon Arya has started questioning all those sources: the scores, the definitive book by Peter Williams, The Organ Music of J.S. Bach, Cambridge University Press and The Orgelbüchlein by Russell Stinson, Oxford University Press, the only book wholly devoted to the subject. [29][30] I am preparing a long table with 164 entries and he inserted apostrophes of the 19C version, which has now been dropped, probably beacuse of adherence to the autograph, now available in facsimile. Why is he leaving such sneering comments, why isc heasting doubt on the sources and why has he followed me to this article? I think this a concerted attempt by a team of 3 or 4 users to wikihound me. Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Arthur Rubin: even if that’s true, I think when you look at some of the worse examples of this from Mathsci, they’re of a different caliber than anything that’s coming from the people who are annoyed at him. Here’s a small sampling of some of the worse examples of this from Mathsci. There are a lot more than this that I could provide, but I think these are probably sufficient to demonstrate the point I’m making. <= The onslaught continues here [31]. I think Varron Arya is trying to provoke an edit war. Fortunately the German 1991 Breitkopf edition is in exact agreement with the two books in its spelling and use of apostrophes.Mathsci (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC) [32] In response to a detailed explanation from Varoon Arya of why Mathsci’s preferred version of an article violated NPOV, Mathsci writes “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.” (This was Mathsci’s entire response to VA.) He considered this a sufficient rebuttal to Varoon Arya’s points to revert any efforts to address the NPOV concerns that VA was raising. I don’t think any of the rest of us consider snide comments like this a sufficient response to policy-based arguments that Mathsci makes. [33] “BTW if you revert my edits you are very likely to be blocked for a considerable period of time, possibly by ArbCom.” I don’t think any of the rest of us have threatened Mathsci with blocks to try and scare him out of reverting our edits. He’s also done the same thing in some of his edit summaries, such as this one: “you'll be blocked if you repeat this POV-pushing”. [34] “From the blog previously linked to his user page, Captain Occam has an extreme point of view in real life, which also extends to forms of holocaust denial.” I think this is probably the worst example, both because it’s false, defamatory and completely unsupported by anything in my blog or elsewhere; and also because I’m of Ashkenazi (European) Jewish ancestry and had relatives who died in the holocaust. The fact that I’m of Ashkenazi ancestry is mentioned in one of the userboxes on my userpage, which I know Mathsci has looked at, because at several points he’s brought up information he found at external sites that I’ve linked to there. I think he could have known both that this comment was false, and also how offensive I’d find it. And obviously, none of the rest of us have made these sorts of defamatory personal claims about him. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Arthur, could you back that up with diffs? Honestly, "most" of the edits from people complaining are personal attacks? I don't see a single instance on BLPN or the race/intelligence talk pages where I've made a personal attack against Mathsci. This thread contains links to dozens of diffs where Mathsci has. The attempt to paint everyone with the same brush in an attempt to exonerate Mathsci's uncivil and domineering behavior is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Ugh. When are you people going to realize that Mathsci - no matter how much support he has from certain editors and admins - is an inveterate troll who uses intimidation, harassment, political gamesmanship, and other emotional tactics to try to dictate wikipedia content. He is simply not worth the trouble he causes. It's truculent ciphers like Mathsci that make editing wikipedia an excruciating experience. So long as you all allow Mathsci to turn every page he touches into a full-scale cockfight, Wikipedia will not be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and it won't be a pleasant place to edit at all, at least not for anyone who doesn't kiss Mathsci's a$$. No point in belaboring this issue, so I'll leave it at that. do with it what you will. --Ludwigs2 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Did you come here after this invitation from [35] Captain Occam (talk · contribs)? He has a habit of requesting "help" from other editors, either here, on other noticeboards or articles he's trying push his point of view on. Mathsci (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Because a polite "this may be of relevance to you" is far worse than soliciting allies with personal attacks. Rvcx (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) No, Mathsci; all Occam did was point out that you are (once again) engaging in bad behavior. If I had noticed on my own I would have made the same comment. I do not need help or invitations from other editors to recognize how badly you pervert the principles of Wikipedia. I am, in fact, shocked that other editors seem to think your behavior is acceptable. but that is between them and their own consciences. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC) @Ludwig2, yes your characterization of Mathsci's techniques are fairly correct. That said, they are also tactics being used by you and many of the SPA accounts that Mathsci mentions. The main difference between his edits and the others using similar tactics is that his edits are generally solid, whereas the edits of others are symptomatic of pov pushing. His behavior is not excused by the higher quality of his edits, and neither are the edits and behavior of the SPA editors excused by Mathsci's behavior. At the heart of the matter is the ability to edit wikipedia using well sourced secondary sources with a neutral point of view. Shining a spotlight on his behavior without discussing the underlying context and editing problems is a perfect example of tolling behavior. A.Prock (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Aprock, are you accusing me of being an SPA account? Are you accusing me of trolling? Or are you simply diverting attention from the complaint about Mathsci's behavior? I'm sorry, but given the number of people that have had problems with Mathsci, it's a bit ridiculous to argue that all of them were at fault. The pattern is Mathsci himself; if you want to start threads about other editors (including me) then feel free. Rvcx (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC) @ A.Prock: AProck - I've never had a squabble with you (or even thought badly of you). In fact, I can count the people I've had squabbles with on Wikipedia on one hand - everyone else on Wikipedia I communicate with well and cooperate with carefully and thoughtfully. My problem with Mathsci is that despite (or perhaps because of) his obvious skills as an editor, he treats other editors in a rude and supercilious fashion, one that I (personally) refuse to put up with. If he were to interact with me in a civil and restrained manner, then I would have the highest opinion of him, and we'd get along well. Because he insists on treating me like vermin, however, I find myself consistently having to clip his wings. I have no use for people who think they are God's gift to Wikipedia, and I have no compunctions about telling them what I think about their bad behavior. No one gets trouble from me unless they bring the fight to my door, but I have little tolerance for bullies. Mathsci has a long track record of bad behavior, and he has brought the fight to my door more than once. Until he cleans up his act he should not expect me to be gentle or silent in my disapproval. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, Mathsci's behavior does cross into the realm of inexcusable on occasion. If you read the WP:CPUSH essay, you'll see that Mathsci's uncivil reactions are one of the typical outcomes for editors working on articles where WP:CPUSH is ongoing. A big part of the problem here is that there is an attempt to move the discussion away from content and editing issues to personal civility issues. This is a big reason why there are so many problems dealing with the WP:CPUSH problems. For uninvolved editors, civility issues are a lot easier to identify, pursue and discuss than content issues. A.Prock (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC) No, Aprock. The problem here is your attempt to move the discussion away from civility issues (which is what this complaint is about) to content disputes (for which this is not the right venue). Mathsci's behavior cannot be dismissed as an understandable reaction to manipulative POV-pushers—he has consistently treated every editor who disagrees with him in the same uncivil way from the very start. It would great if a good writer and researcher were also good at working with other editors, but unfortunately that's not the case here. Pretending there is not a problem with Mathsci hasn't worked so far and unless something is done about him the problems will continue in the future. Rvcx (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) We're never going to resolve this dispute at AN/I or via RfCs: I think only ArbCom can deal with this situation. Long-term POV pushing by single-purpose accounts has turned the whole area of race and intelligence into an intractable battleground. I'd like to see all SPAs in this area topic banned. Fences&Windows 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I agree entirely. The continued attacks on Mathsci here and elsewhere are a distraction and a blot on the project -- no one should be subject to such vitriol simply because they're trying to uphold core Wikipedia standards. The SPA activity needs to be curtailed, and these accounts blocked from editing, or, at the very least, put under severe editing restrictions regarding both the "race and intelligence" subject area and attacks and complaints about Mathsci. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Fences and Beyond My Ken: 1) This complaint against MathSci was bought by Rvcx. Would you describe him as engaging in "vitriol" or as an "SPA"? 2) Am I one of the editors who you seek to block? The only reason that I engaged in this thread is because Akhilleus mentioned by name in a misleading fashion. David.Kane (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) This is all a smoke screen. If we step back and look at the bigger picture, Mathsci may be involved in a few minor incidents from time to time, but he is not the problem on race related articles. Rather it is civil POV pushing, tag teaming, edit warring SPAs who are creating an atmosphere conducive for incidents. The solution to this problem already exists, topic ban POV pushing SPAs, and repeated threads on ANI will reduce or cease altogether. Unfortunately there has not been enough political will to implement this solution, though almost everyone, including the SPAs themselves, have acknowledged the existence of POV pushing SPA editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Wapondaponda: Given your rampant sock-puppetry in the past, you are probably doing MathSci more harm than good by chiming in here. I, at least, have never "acknowledged the existence of POV pushing SPA editing." David.Kane (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Easy excuse to divert from the main problem and I have heard it countless times whenever editors try to discredit any edits I make. From my experience, it doesn't work very often which is why I am still quite active on Wikipedia. If a suggestion is good for this encyclopedia, it really shouldn't matter, and it usually doesn't matter who it is coming from. There might be a tendency to focus only on the negative, but there are some positives, I've been editing Wikipedia for five years now and I have experienced many of these controversies before. During that unfortunate period, Mathsci did participate in getting me blocked. But from my time on Wikipedia, I have encountered Mathsci's edits in a diverse range of articles. Most are uncontroversial and of good quality, so I am confident that Mathsci is not a POV pushing SPA, and that when this particular flare-up is over, he will move on to work on other articles. Overall he is a net plus to the encyclopedia. I cannot say the same for the band of SPAs currently holding a number of race related articles hostage. Captain Occam, Mikemikev, Bpesta have all acknowledged in one way or another that they are SPAs. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC) (convenience break) I find it incredibly discouraging to see that even in the face of conduct from Mathsci of the sort that Rvcx and I have linked to above, behavior which has no equivalent from any of the users complaining about Mathsci in this thread, Beyond my Ken and Fences & Windows both believe that the solution is to punish everyone but Mathsci. It really seems like what Ludwigs2 described might be the case: that there are certain administrators who will support Mathsci regardless of what he does, and that since Mathsci is aware of this fact, he knows that he has free reign to violate any policies here without any fear of negative consequences. Aren’t either of the admins who are saying this aware that at this point, no more than half of the users currently complaining about Mathsci’s behavior are SPAs? The only users currently making these complaints who could arguably fit that definition are me, David.Kane and Mikemikev. Rvcx, Ncmvocalist, and Ludwigs2 clearly aren’t SPAs, and the first two became involved in the article only as a result of it being brought up at the BLP noticeboard. The current conflict between them and Mathsci is the result of them trying to remove material that (as I explained above) according to Jimbo Wales is a BLP violation, and Mathsci edit warring to reinsert it. Following Jimbo Wales’ instructions about how to comply with BLP policy is not POV-pushing, and the editors who initiated this complaint because of how Mathsci reacted when they tried to do this aren’t SPAs. In this situation, do you seriously think the problem is just with “POV-pushing SPAs”? If David.Kane and I weren’t involved in these articles, and it were only Rvcx and Ncmvocalist trying to remove the BLP violations, is there any evidence that Mathsci would be treating them any differently from how he currently is? I really hope I can get through to you about what’s actually going on here, although I don’t have all that much hope about it. My understanding of the current situation is that Mathsci knows he can ignore whatever policies that he wants here, because he expects admins like the two of you to support him regardless of what evidence or arguments are presented against him. And judging by what I’ve seen thus far, it looks like he might be right that this is the case. If he is, then we may as well abandon all pretense of users being judged objectively on the basis of their behavior—apparently, the only thing that really matters is who the admins personally like or dislike. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Captain Occam canvassing [36], and forum shopping [37]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC) If they were no POV pushing SPAs, would many of these incidents exist. The history of these articles suggests not. This dispute has been running for eight months, Mathsci was not initially involved and during the mediation he did not participate for 2-3 months. During Mathsci's absence there was still name-calling, incivility, edit warring and blocks. It is evident that the real problem is the existence of SPAs rather than Mathsci's edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Ludwigs2 may not be an SPA, but Mathsci was, for some time, the only remaining editor complaining about his (sorry, I can't think of a word which is both accurate and not a personal attack, ummm, let me think), "mediation" on Race and intelligence. He has a personal interest in Mathsci's being discredited, as it's the only way that his "mediation" might not be considered a reason for a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The characterisation of the personal behaviour on Wikipedia of Mathsci by Ludwigs2, although strongly expressed, has much truth in it. Apart from that, the edits by Mathsci and his supporters to the article History of the race and intelligence controversy‎ seem to me and to several other people to be tendentious and slanted. Attempts to place a NPOV flag on that article have been repulsed. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC). There is zero truth in Ludwigs2's unfortunate characterization of Mathsci as an "inveterate troll", a few paragraphs above. Mathsci doesn't make "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors" (see WP:TROLL). On the contrary, a deep care for the encyclopedia seems to be what motivates Mathsci (and, admittedly, sometimes make him lash out in crude hyperbole). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) "Captain Occam canvassing [38], and forum shopping [39]." Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to look into what's actually going on before making these sorts of accusations about me? I contacted Black Kite because he specifically asked me to contact him if there's more edit warring on these articles. As for Ludwigs2, I contacted him because during the four months that I've been interacting with Mathsci, he's the only person who's been the subject of more personal attacks from Mathsci than I have, and in a thread about Mathsci's personal attacks it seemed like it would be appropriate to have Ludwig's input. If you look through the three AN/I threads in which Mathsci tried to get Ludwigs2 banned because of his actions as mediator, the first two of which were started by other users and hijacked by Mathsci, you'll see that Ludwig was begging Mathsci to raise his content disputes within the mediation itself, and Mathsci repeatedly refused. Mathsci's complaints in all three of these threads were almost exclusively either personal attacks on Ludwig, or content disputes over the article that he was attempting to resolve via administrative action against the user he disagreed with without attempting any form of dispute resolution with them, even when the user he disagreed with was specifically requesting this. This last thing is something he's done several times with me and David.Kane also. Arthur Rubin and Beyond My Ken, are you going to make any attempt to address the points I've made about the attitude you're expressing here? Or are you going to continue expressing what appears to be blind support for Mathsci, while refusing to acknowledge any of the evidence that's being presented that his behavior really is his own fault, and not someone else's? --Captain Occam (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC) No, actually, I'm not going to make an attempt to address the points you've made. I agree that Mathsci can be abrasive, but, as he's not violating any of the Pillars, the good of the encyclopedia should be considered. Mathsci has made more constructive contributions than all the people who have complained about him, combined. For those who consider this contrary to my view of Betacommand, so be it. His bots may have made more constructive edits than his detractors, but they also made more nonconstructive edits than his detractors made constructive edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I think the diffs that I and others have posted are sufficient to demonstrate that Mathsci is violating the fourth of the five pillars: “Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner”. Mathsci isn’t avoiding personal attacks, he isn’t avoiding edit wars, and he isn’t assuming good faith about just about any of the users that he disagrees with. I agree that he’s made a lot of constructive contributions also, but I don’t think that should grant him carte blanche permission to ignore policies such as WP:Civility and WP:NPA, which seems to be both his own attitude and the attitude of several of the admins who’ve commented here. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I think the many posts I have read of yours over the past months are more than sufficient to show that you are a civil POV-pushing single purpose account whose contributions are not conducive to improving an encyclopedia writen from a neutral point of view. As such, your comments get from me exactly as much consideration as they deserve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, this is exactly what Ludwigs2 and I are talking about. I guess it’s good that you aren’t afraid to state it publicly: that as an administrator, your decisions in cases like this one will be based on your personal opinions of the editors in question, and will disregard any evidence that’s presented if you don’t like the users posting it. Is there anyone else who feels this way? If there are any other admins who’ve decided ahead of time that they aren’t interested in handling situations like this one objectively, I think it’s useful for those of us who are the targets of Mathsci’s personal attacks to know about that. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) I am not an administrator, will never be an administrator, and as far as I know have never presented myself as an administrator. Were I an administrator, you would have been blocked long before now. My judgment is that you are a net negative for the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) @ Sluzzelin: Actually, Sluz Mathsci has made a protracted, deliberate, and intensive effort to disrupt the ability of me and numerous other editors to edit wikipedia, from simple name-calling and derogative slurs to non-communicative reverts to active efforts to get us blocked, banned, or otherwise prohibited from editing. You may agree with his ends (which is fine by me if you do) but his means fully satisfy the definition given in TROLL. That may make him a moral troll in your eyes - an interesting category that bears some consideration - but troll he is, beyond any but the most remote shadow of doubt. That he is inveterate is obvious by inspection, since he has done it consistently for months (likely years), and shows neither remorse nor any inclination to stop. Deal with it. I will credit Mathsci with being intelligent, dedicated, and interested in improving the encyclopedia. He can be all that and still be a detriment to the project, because his attitude is so poisonous that it makes working anywhere in his vicinity nauseating. I can tell you this from harsh experience: most of the people Mathsci complains about (whom I largely disagree with) respond to reasoned discussion; Mathsci (whom I largely agree with) does not. Attempting to engage Mathsci in reasoned discussion will produce nothing except a string of insults and mildly paranoid complaints. He has good days where he will talk things out for a while, but as soon as it becomes clear that he is not going to get precisely what he wanted at the start he turns to ANI or other administrative venues to try to enforce his preferred outcome. His mere presence makes any possibility of properly communicative consensus impossible, because as soon as any consensus he doesn't like starts to emerge he will disrupt the consensus with accusations, insults, calls for administrative action, and any other disruptive technique he can wangle to prevent consensus from being reached. If you can think of any behavior that is more against the principles of Wikipedia I'd love to hear it, because I sure as hell can't. --Ludwigs2 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Someone please topic ban the SPAs already Or is it necessary to go to Arbcom every time that a topic ban of a POV pusher is needed? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC) A modest proposal. Clearly the normal processes of editing on these pages have broken down, and all parties are now convinced that they, and they alone, are in the right amid competing and increasingly acrimonious demands for retribution and justice. Justice is something that this board is never going to be able to supply, and so the problem comes back time after time. When this sort of train-wreck happens, I suggest to the community that everyone, but everyone, be barred from the page for a period of say three months. That is, nobody who has edited this page or its talk page in the past may edit either for a period of three months from the date of their last edit (enforced by a block of commensurate length if violated). This isn't intended to be "fair" or "right", because that's not we can or should aim to do here. Instead, that's what the orderly construction of the encyclopedia demands. The encyclopedia does not, and never will, require these particular people to be editing this particular article at this particular time. There are thousands of people who might be able to make a better job of it, and they can have the chance. 94.196.217.26 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Note: The above is the second edit of this IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC) It's necessary to go to ArbCom. Or at least see if consensus can be built on this board for banning someone. Even if I thought someone should be banned (and I'm not saying that, because I haven't looked deeply into the matter), I wouldn't do it unilaterally, because I have no desire to be dragged through the wikilawyering that would inevitably ensue. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) While it does appear to be necessary to go to ArbCom, the community should really take a close look at this. What we have here is a situation where several accounts are collaborating, on-wiki and sometimes off-wiki, to edit as well as create as set of articles that appear to push what may well be a minority or fringe point of view about race. Perhaps these accounts are well meaning but the reality is that wikipedia's articles on race are likely to reflect their views because of the sheer number of accounts and because of their unusually long persistence. We shouldn't want this situation to persist and should immediately, and consensually, topic ban these editors from all articles in the category race. A community ban rather than an ArbCom case is what is really needed here. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC) So admins here are going to let Mathsci get away with this? I am disgusted by Mathsci's poisonous defamation, and by those who support him. The constant counter argument is 'SPA', which appears to be nothing more than a mindless term of abuse. mikemikev (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, it's a fairly precise term of art, and totally appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) "precise"? Let's take an example. Am I an SPA? David.Kane (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Although you do make edits to topics around a liberal arts college in WIlliamstown to a certain extent, most of your efforts are on race-related articles and from a very particular point of view. It is the fact that you keep inventing new ways to WP:CPUSH that makes your edits particularly problematic. Very few of them seem to be geared to improving the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. Even some of your edits related to Wiliiams College have been problematic. The now deleted article on EphBlog currently in you user space [40] until yesterday was a vindictive attack page, violating almost every aspect of WP:BLP. Unnotable individuals were maligned: the statements about them came up within the first 30 items in a google search on their names. Professor marginalia blanked most of the BLP violations. The article EphBlog was deleted by administrators not once, but twice. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) So, I guess that we could do a separate ban proposal for each SPA? To tell the good from the bad? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC) The current group of SPAs does not have a homogeneous editing history, they differ in their extremity of SPA editing. The most extreme is Captain Occam, who despite being an editor since 2006, with over 2000 edits, has edited less than 100 unique pages and only edited about 32 unique articles. Captain Occam is the "ringleader" and the other SPAs have congregated around him. Some are Captain Occam's verified meatpuppets and other are potentially unverified meatpuppets. Some editors were not initially SPAs, having only a made a handful of edits prior to the eruption of this dispute, but have recently morphed into SPAs by significantly increased their edit count on race related articles. While these editors are not homogeneous in their editing history, their approach to race related articles is homogeneous in that they are all, civil POV pushing,( with the exception of Mikemikev, who tends to use words like idiot and nitwits all too frequently). As I have mentioned previously on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy, there are few pure SPAs, but we have a new breed of SPAs who take great care to avoid obvious policy violations. But their net effect is what is worrying as they have successfully managed to drag a dispute from as far back as October 2009, which is about 9 calendar months. It is possible that a prolonged dispute is in fact a more potent form of advocacy then actual article content, because such disputes are spread over several noticeboards. Nine months is a lot of time, and non-SPA editors involved in this dispute could have used this time more constructively in other areas of Wikipedia. It is probably a good time to put an end to this. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Don't you see David Kane's objection, though: If the problem is SPAs, and he's not an SPA, then clearly there is no problem! QED! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Support topic ban of the SPAs. The field of race and intelligence is littered with fake science and erroneous conclusions, and is a massive target for those of a particular interest. These SPAs have defeated each attempt to curb their enthusiasm using their ability to overwhelm any normal person's ability to unravel their arguments. An admin needs to step in and see the obvious: enough is enough; the SPAs need to edit their own websites for a while because it is just creepy to focus that much energy on converting the race and intelligence articles on Wikipedia to promote your point of view. Mathsci is the only obstacle preventing these SPAs from using Wikipedia to "prove" certain conclusions regarding one of the least understood human features (intelligence in general, and race and intelligence in particular). This have been raised in several places, notably here. No, David Kane is not technically an SPA, but yes his actions are indistinguishable from an SPA at this stage and he needs to take a break from this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Am I an SPA? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

David.Kane's disruptive blanking: Jensen and his writings on "American Negroes"

• David.Kane (talk · contribs)
• History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mainstream Science on Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruptive blanking:

• Adrian Wooldridge (Cambridge University Press) [41] (summary of Wooldridge's precis of book)
• William H. Tucker (University of Illinois Press) [42]
• Michael Byrd and and Linda Clayton (Routledge)[43]
• Joan Freeman (Springer Verlag) [44][45]
• Donald T. Campbell, [46], [47]

Forum shopping on WP:BLPN [48], [49], [50]

Typical example

• Jensen quote blanked by David.Kane: "well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve [the] lot" of blacks
• Actual long Jensen quote: "As a social policy, avoidance of the issue could be harmful to everyone in the long run, especially to future generations of Negroes, who could suffer the most from well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve their lot."

David.Kane is an editor who mostly edits race-related articles where he engages in WP:CPUSH. This editor has somehow decided that Arthur Jensen wrote no articles mentioning African Americans and their learning problems. This is manifestly untrue and is reported in multiple secondary sources (history books, commentaries, academic papers and books) as well as in Jensen's original articles and books. Now, for whatever reason, he has decided that if there there is a statement in a secondary source about Jensen that he doesn't like, he can just remove it as a BLP violation. This he seems to regard as his passport for removing all content where Jensen makes remarks about African Americans: Jensen referred to African Americans as "Negroes" or "American Negroes" in articles and papers in the late 60s and early 70s. So far David.Kane has challenged material written by Donald T. Campbell, and William H. Tucker, on the grounds that they were written maliciously and misrepresented Jensen. However, the material is repeated in many secondary sources. William H. Tucker is still alive so allegations of this kind on wikipedia amount to some form of libel. Now he has removed text on the same subject by Joan Freeman, an English psychologist specialising in gifted education. Researchers in this particular area are extremely pro IQ-tests and in general have welcomed Jensen's work. So the idea that Joan Freeman is writing maliciosly in a Springer Verlag text book is highly unreasonable. It is another example of David.Kane trying to remove all connection between Jensen and his documented statements on American Negroes. Similarly he has removed a section in the lede of History of the race and intelligence controversy which was a simple extract of what was is still in the main text taken from the book of Adrian Wooldridge, historian and managemant editor of The Economist. Similarly he removed a passage cited in a textbook of Michael Byrd and Linda Clayton (also cited in Tucker). I have no idea why David.Kane is doing this. Does he really seriously expect other wikipedians to believe that all these authors, many still living, are deliberately misrepresenting Jensen? In no cases so far have David.Kane's objections been in any way justified. He is using this as another method of WP:CPUSH to waste other editors' time, as pointed out to him by other users on the talk of the History article (notably Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)).

A few weeks ago he decided that all material of this kind was fine, leaving "Kudos!" messages about the content. Now he is attempting to remove the very same factual statements, appearing in multiple secondary sources, on the tenuous and usually unsupportable grounds that they are BLP violations. David.Kane is a single purpose user who is edit warring on History of the race and intelligence controversy to remove any mention of the documented fact that Jensen discussed possible policies involving African Americans.

It is absurd that he suggests that the En[glish academic Joan Freeman could be writing malicious falsehoods in a book published by Springer Verlag. That really is going one step too far and is clearly an unreasonable excuse for removing properly referenced content. On the basis of his edits today, he will continue to remove any statements that don't suit him, claiming that they are BLP violations. That will exclude him from the 3RR rule. However it now makes it tremendously difficult in those circumstances to use any secondary sources, no matter how realiable or how eminent the author, when writing about Jensen. This does not seem reasonable and seems to be a misuse of WP editing policies. He has removed material four or more times in 24 hours, which normally would result in a block for breaking the 3RR rule. Please could administrators look at the way he is trying to misinterpret wikipedia editing policy to cause disruption. I have no idea what his motives are. Apart from occasionally editing articles related to Williams College, he only edits race-related articles and usually from the hereditaraian point of view, that is, the recorded fact that African Americans score lower on average on IQ tests than White Americans has an inherent genetic cause connected with their race. Usually David.Kane is supported by editors that include Captain Occam, Mikemikev and Varoon Arya. Distributivejustice was another supporter but he retired as an editor (around about the time Ludwigs2 was blocked by BozMo). Many of these users almost exclusively edit race-related articles from the same point of view as David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder along the same lines as Mathsci here: these claims are made by otherwise reputable, reliable sources and therefore are acceptable, at least as being their authors' interpretation of what Jensen said. Specifically because it seems there may be issues as to where (and maybe whether) Jensen said exactly those things, it would be prudent not to put them in Wikipedia's voice, but to attribute them to their various authors. However, the fact that the same comments can be found in different sources lends strong credence to the fact that Jensen actually said those things. As long as proper attribution is maintained, I don't see that there is a problem to include them; indeed, I can see where Mathsci can contend that excluding them on the basis that these several authors are "misrepresenting Jensen's words" can be construed as a BLP violation of those otherwise reputable researchers. So, let's just make sure the comments on Jensen are properly attributed to their authors and let it go at that. I fail to see a BLP violation there at all.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:37, 31 Ma]]y 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake. It's about time, however, that something was done to reign in single-purpose POV pushers on these articles. Perhaps a long-duration topic ban for David Kane and Occam is appropriate, at this point? Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

More disruptive blanking and misrepresentation by David.Kane who has undisclosed WP:COI

• Allan Ornstein (1982) [51][52]

David.Kane's blanking is continuing. He has also claimed that the new material, properly credited to a professor of adminsitrative administration, is another BLP violation. Thats frivolous assertion seems to be false. He also claims that new 1982 source added by me just yesterday has alereadt been discussed. He wrote this in his second edit summary, but it is untrue. In fact David.Kane appears to have an undisclosed and very serious conflict of interest here. In 2009 he created an article which since has been deleted and its content userfied at User:David.Kane/EphBlog. During the AfD, David.Kane admitted that he was the person of the same name who had started the blog when queried about WP:COI by User:Blueboar. Now on this blog in February 2010 David.Kane made the following statement [53] about African Americans in elite colleges in the US:

Looking at the 6 year data from the Diversity Initiatives, you are three times more likely to fail to graduate from Williams if you are black then if you are white. Does Williams have an obligation to tell this to admitted students?

I suspect that this is not so much as race issue as an academic rating issue. I bet that US students with AR 1 have a 98% graduation rate while US students with AR 4 or below are at 80% or worse. If so, shouldn’t Williams be honest about that discrepancy? Would those students be better off at a different, less competitive school?

This is a very extreme statement. These views conflict with David.Kane's claim to be neutral and "agnostic". It indicates a WP:COI. Already this was the case when he volunteered as a "neutral third party" to write the draft of the modified version of Race and intelligence in March 2010 during the last stages of mediation. His continuing tendentious and disruptive blanking of material from reliable secondary sources on History of the race and intelligence controversy is certainly not designed to improve this encylopedia. Another plausible explanation, differing from the many constantly changing reasons offered so far, is that David.kane is removing this material from wikipedia for very strong personal reasons connected with not having his heated arguments on ephblog undercut by wikipedia.

David.Kane has now been disrupting the writing of this article by spuriously blanking the same material from completely different reliable academic sources multiple times. It's time he was blocked for edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

His tag team member Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring in the same way, blanking material from reliable secondary sources without explanation at all, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This, by the way, is typical behaviour for the single puprose account. Just disruption with no desire whatsoever to build a reliable encyclopedia. Instead of content to wikipedia, these two users are tendentiously removing without any justification.[54][55] I have which has written most of the 82,000 bytes of content of History of the race and intelligence controversy. All these SPAs do is tendetniously and dsiruptively remove content that conflicts with their extreme personal points of view. In this case Occam should not have edit warred (for which he blocked three times) but discussed what was wrong with the sourced material on the talk page of the article. Apparently he doesn't feel the need to do that. Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is creepy. Following DK around to find that he's concerned with why people drop out of college. This is a content dispute, deal with it. 94.196.104.45 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "creepy" about this. D.K admitted to being the author of the blog in question. That's not "following DK around." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the very definition of ad hominem, and a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest. MathSci is effectively labeling David.Kane a racist on the basis of this blog entry and arguing that such a viewpoint renders him incapable of editing on Wikipedia. The premise is absurd, and the logic that any private political stance could invalidate an editor's contributions is simply wrong on more levels than I could list. Rvcx (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

-

Having and voicing an opinion isn't a COI. While I agree with Mathsci that assing criticisms of Jensen is never a BLP issue when sourced to reliable sources this is just a waste of time taking the focus from the real problems at the Race and Intelligence related pages. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. Is it just me or don't there look to be more serious WP:BLP concerns on this User:David.Kane/EphBlog page that should be dealt with before worrying about solidly, reliably published claims about a highly public, prominent figure like Arthur Jensen? BLP violations sourced to what David.Kane appears to have written himself and self-published in blog exposé? What in the heck  ??? That page warrants a serious scrubbing, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) followup-I've blanked most of it for now. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a fairly crude attack page [56] written wholly by David.Kane. It was not properly userfied when transferred to his user space: if for example I search google now for "Robert Shvern", whom David.Kane singled out for mention in the article, David.Kane's user space article still comes up 30th in the google list. Was David.Kane willfully violating WP:BLP publicly to disgrace the boyfriend of an unnamed female student from Williams College because of some student prank? Does he really imagine that articles like that are part of the purpose of this encyclopedia? Mathsci (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tag team content blanking - without checking secondary sources

• Mikemikev (talk · contribs)

Here is the latest bout of edit warring in action, where this tag team continues to blank sourced content indiscriminately taken from a reliable secondary source without any cogent reasons:

1. David.Kane [57]
2. Captain Occam [58]
3. Mikemikev [59]
4. Mikemikev [60]
5. Mikemikev [61]

There has been more forum shopping at WP:BLPN here, where so far no support has emerged for the tag team's claim of BLP violations. There are a lot of reliable secondary sources which contain the same material and they have existed for years. What is slightly disturbing is that these editors are removing actual factual content about Jensen's theory of Level I and Level II theories of learning which he did actually apply to explain the low IQ scores of African Americans. If David.Kane, Captain Occam or Mikemikev have some doubt about this, they should presumably explain themselves, because account of the theory are repeated in countless psychology textbooks. Are they trying to WP:CENSOR wikipedia because this material doesn't suit [[their point of view? Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Captain Occam, if you do not want editors to discuss your blog, then you also should not discuss your blog on Wikipedia. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Since you have blanked my comments concerning your blog controversy, it is only fair that you blank your own accusations since I was responding to them. If you choose not too, then consider restoring my comments or else I might do so. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, my accusations are directed at Mathsci, not at you. Why do my accusations against Mathsci make it necessary that you have the right to respond?

If Mathsci wants to dispute what I’ve said about him, then he’s welcome to do so, but since this has nothing to do with you I find it very strange that you’d have this attitude. This issue has also already been discussed at length here, and nearly all of the editors who commented there agreed that Mathsci’s claim about this wasn’t acceptable. There is no controversy over these claims from Mathsci, and never has been; there’s only a single user (you) who seems compelled to express support for Mathsci’s personal attacks based on things people have written outside Wikipedia, apparently because you’ve made similar personal attacks against me in the past. For you to keep trying to justify this aspect of Mathsci’s behavior amounts to a personal attack of your own, so I advise against it. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• [62]

Another revert by Captain Occam at break-neck speed, this time of material from a peer-reviewed article of Yehudi Webster, a professor of sociology. I didnt even have time to proof read the content. Another writer of vicious calumnies no doubt: Captain Occam has an incredible ability to judge such texts all on his very own. He determined that Yehudi Webster was obviously biased in probably less than 2 or 3 minutes. Yehudi Webster is an African American. It surely can't be true that all African American academics are biased and can't be trusted to write neutrally about Jensen or other aspects of race and intelligence or its history. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• [63] David.Kane blanking content yet again. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Victor Chmara (talk · contribs)

Another single purpose account whose edits are mainly on race-related articles form the same point of view as David.Kane, Captain Occam, Varron Arya and Mikemikev has joined the tag team. He is inserting own WP:OR and blanking sourced content, without making any attempt to locate secondary sources. He is deciding with Captain Occam witout leaving any opportunity for other editors to comment. This appears disruptive to be edit-warring. Expanding Europe#PRehistoric history was peaceful tranquility compared to the mayhem these editors are causing, by attacking the article simultaneously. Mathsci (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom request should cover this as well. Rvcx (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

JIDF at Gaza flotilla clash

JIDF is bringing people to Gaza flotilla clash http://www.thejidf.org/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-wikipedia-continues-to-be.html

In only a couple of hours many new editors registered today have stared editing the article. Is there some way anyone can lock the article so that no new editors can edit it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's protection, but... since this is a current event I'd personally prefer to avoid that if it all possible (and I'll concede that it may not be...)

Apparently we're "group-thinking terror sympathizers and leftists" (per the JIDF), so I suppose steering new editors towards working on articles... like... these won't necessarily be to their tastes, but I do feel we should be welcoming these editors, even if their initial contributions may be less than helpful.

Disclaimer: I'm opposed to "the State", not "the State of Israel".

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Protection has already been requested. I'm inclined to move towards "yes please, let's protect and get edit requests onto the talk page instead", but purely because editing is no longer easy/possible due to edit conflicts. Crap reason for supporting protection, I know... TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support semiprotection. Definitely needed; the sheer volume of editing from IPs is making life difficult all round. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've granted both requests. You might want to consider whether full protection is appropriate, but I'll leave it for another admin to determine that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I don't think full protection is appropriate at this stage but let's keep an eye on things to see how they develop. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I love the way anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel is automatically an anti-Zionist and anti-Semite. Way to go, guys, that kind of attitude makes it much easier to spot and ban you. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Preaching to the wrong choir, JzG. No one here fits that description.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, any chance of getting 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip put under the same protection for the time being ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I like everything in this area to go strictly by the book, so put in the formal request at WP:RFPP and in the meantime, I will look to see what is going on with the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it and do not see much going on there. Very little vandalism. I probably wouldn't grant the request, but what I will do is not respond to it and let you take your luck with another admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have been protected by Wehwalt. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not too bad at 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip yet so I'll see how it goes. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, Wehwalt. They are cranks, pure and simple - it's just nice to have an unambiguous one every now and then when people actively flag themselves as needing removal from a subject. Much easier than the climate change war. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Those new editors pushing POV should be blocked (by their IP)Lihaas (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment surely shows how NPOV you are. Not everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite/anti-zionist, but many critics of israel are driven by antisemitism/anti-zionism, and all antisemites/antizionists are critical of Israel. If someone is critical of Israel, we don't immediately assume that he is an anti-semite, however try to get an idea of the causes of his criticism. Is it true concern of Israel's actions, or deep-seated hatred of anything jewish, using israel criticism as a cover.--Doom777 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the case. We do not judge people by their beliefs but by their actions. If they can edit in a collegial fashion, all is well, if they cannot, they must learn to. Keep in mind that we expect that people will edit what they are interested in, thus most of the editors on that article are interested in the I/P situation. Editors interested in editing in that field must accept that there are restrictions, that they must follow our rules closely, and that their edits will be intensively scrutinized.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• More eyes certainly wouldn't hurt, but I've just commented on one editor's talk page that the overall conduct seems to be pretty good, considering the highly-charged atmosphere offline. Plenty of POV pushing by both sides, but it's pretty obvious and t'other side and more neutral editors are counter-balancing it. TFOWR^{is this too long?} 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the editors with fewer than 600 edits to their name are tilting the scales inappropriately at the Gaza flotilla article. They have current edit counts of 21 edits, They have the classic characteristics of socks, rather than of newbies. I think a sock check of them is very much in order -- and they should be blocked if found to be socks.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It's amazing how many sock-like accounts are there. This didn't happen with Operation Cast Lead as far as I recall. There needs to be some SPI's but where to start ? I haven't recognised anyone yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• it seems User:Supreme Deliciousness opinion is biased against israel and many others as well which is why it's pro-palesitian whenever i check for updates.

how about closing the article from being edited by anyone until NPOV is reached in a cleaned-up discussions section, i already wrote about it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • There are many editors there advocating on behalf of the State of Israel too using IDF/MFA primary sources, youtube, you name it. It's always like that. Being personally biased for or against Israel shouldnt be a problem if everyone follows policy and the discretionary sanctions. Sockpuppets/new accounts are a problems. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds like another Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign type of off-wiki campaign going on over there. Wouldn't be surprised if there's socks of some old hands taking part alongside the newbie meat-puppets. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban of User:B9 hummingbird hovering

For background and numerous diffs see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering

• I'm afraid I feel it's the end of the line for this user. For the past two years numerous users have tried to get him to tone down his extremely verbose and unwieldy writing style, mostly in the already obscure area of Tibetan Buddhism. Attempts have been made to explain to him that this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be written for a general audience and that it's content should be comprehensible to the average person, but he has steadfastly ignored or belittled those who have tried to speak to him about these matters. A full user conduct RFC was initiated last month, and B9 refused to participate, twice announcing his "retirement" only to return a few days later. My attempt to get him to participate in the RFC was met with this reply [64] in which he once again categorically denies that any editing he has done has caused problems and rejects the very idea of consensus based decision making. The RFC includes many diffs showing his overuse of dense, flowery language in contradiction to the WP:MOS advice on the subject: "Articles are supposed to introduce readers to topics, or remind them of what they had half-forgotten: it is not their purpose to dazzle readers with editors' learning or vocabulary. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, vague phrases, and unnecessary complexity."" The shame of all this is that he is clearly knowledgeable in these areas, but refuses to express that knowledge in a plain, comprehensible manner as required in an encyclopedia.

• Relevant policy pages:

• WP:OWN
• WP:CON
• WP:MOS
• WP:CIVIL

• Seeing as B9 has refused to acknowledge there is a problem and will not participate in any meaningful way in a discussion of his editing, taking this to ArbCom would very likely be an exercise in futility. A lesser editing restriction would require acknowledgement of the problem on B9s part, which to date has not happened. A ban discussion seems the best remaining avenue as attempts to come to a voluntary agreement have failed due to B9s refusal to participate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not interacted with the user in question, but I read through some of the material and it all seems rather surreal and bizarre. This request for banning does raise one question though: has the issue ever been taken to Arbcom? It seems to me that that would be the next logical step. Or if the issue has been reviewed by Arbcom, could you please provide a link? (Note: I've been editing here about a year now, and am just now starting to watch these admin pages, so please forgive me if I'm missing something about how this all is supposed to work.) Yworo (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is not a requirement for a community ban. We just need to see if the user in question has exhausted the community's patience. AniMate 19:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom cases is for complex disputes that can't be resolved by normal dispute resolution channels. That's why Beeblebrox took it to this level, from what I'm seeing as an uninvolved user--this seems to be a simple case of a user who isn't willing to interact with others. For that reason, I endorse Beeblebrox's proposal. Blueboy96 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suspect someone who refused to participate in an RFC about himself wouldn't participate in an arbitration case either, so most likely any attempt at arbitration would simply delay action on the matter, but it did seem like the obvious next step to me. Yworo (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is why I specifically explained in my initial statement above why I did not go that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies: I guess I read the first bullet point and the links and then forgot to read the last or had glazed over by then. :-) Yworo (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've run into this editor briefly recently and have been looking at his edit and old talk page comments. It seems pretty clear he doesn't engage in serious communication with other editors, and his edits are rarely helpful to readers and may be self-indulgent. I don't see any chance of his changing this behavior, Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'd support this under WP:COMPETENCE. I was involved in an early ANI post on this user's conduct (thought I never did get around to certifying the RFCU), and it is genuinely disruptive of the project; any article on Tibetan Buddhism watched by B2HH gradually backslides into an impenetrable wall of jargon, and he demonstrably has no interest in changing his behaviour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Competence is clearly an issue here. The user's unwillingness to participate in a valid RfC doesn't bode well either. AniMate 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - after reviewing many of this contributor's edits and interactions with other editors in edit comments and on talk pages, I don't see that any other solution would be possible. Yworo (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. You can't squeeze blood from a rock: apparently, he's not here to edit in a collegial fashion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per above and my comments at the RFC/U PlainJain (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Indef block An indef block will show B9 that unless advise is taken from other editors about how to improve the encyclopedia he cannot continue editing. Based on how an unblock request might be worded I would consider to reinstate editing privileges. I would for example change my stance if B9 expresses any kind of will to learn how write within the generally accepted standards for this encyclopedia and will to accept advise from other editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It always makes me sad to ban based on WP:COMPETENCE, because I'm a teacher. But when teaching has failed, the encyclopedia's good needs to be considered, and I think that allowing him to continue editing will simply put us in the position of perpetually trying to restore readability to these articles, which his writing turns into gibberish. I'm a person with two degrees in English literature. Big words and complex sentences don't alarm me. I think James Joyce's Ulysses is a great book, and I understand it (well, a lot of it). This user's writing isn't the complex, flowing language of someone who is expressing big ideas and forgetting an audience of laymen... it's the language of someone using complex, flowering language to obscure ideas. It's not reminiscent of Joyce's complex language. It's reminiscent of a student using lots of big words to cover the fact that she doesn't actually understand the material. Read it slowly and carefully, untangle the complicated sentences, define the unfamiliar words, and at the end, you see that a lot of what he's writing doesn't mean anything at all. Since he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that this is a problem, and has done for several years, I don't see it getting better, ever. I have to sadly agree that the encyclopedia needs his absence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Look what he did to Nondualism (before after). Especially this sentence, which he placed in the lede:

Traditions of nonduality may be identified in the Ancient World Traditions such as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Persia and Ancient India whose influences pervade the modern world; in the Classical traditions of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, Dharmic Traditions of theistic religions and non-theistic traditions origins rooted in the ground of the Indian subcontinent but are now globally pervasive; Abrahamic Traditions such as Christianity and Judaism; and Indigenous Traditions such as the Navajo Nation of the Americas, in a number of philosophers such as Buber for example, critical theorists such as Gadamer[1] and Derrida[2], and various mystics within traditions orthodox and heterodox proper or arising outside of any tradition, amongst others.

B9 leaves it to other editors to translate this impenetrable pseudo-academic obstructionism into standard written English. — goethean ॐ 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's a fair example of his writing, it's not good. Ironically, the proposal here is to give B9 a lengthy sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this diff might show the changes to Dualism efficiently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I was only made aware of this ANI discussion (and the prior RFC) as a result of a message on my talk page here and having looked at B9's contributions and the discussions on their talk page, on the RFC and here, I am forced to agree that despite being asked to write in a manner which is consistent with the style of the English Wikipedia, they have not been willing to do so. They do not appear to be willing to work in a collobarative way. Their writing style is needlessly verbose and complicated - I do not think that I'm stupid (although I know that I am a long way from being very intelligent!), but I found several examples of their edits hard to follow. If they are unwilling to follow the guidelines (including the MoS) and to work with other editors, then a ban is in order. If this means that they believe me to be part of the group "bullying" them (as per the accusation on my talk page which ironically got me to look into this), then I'm sorry: but I do not see bullying here of anyone. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support having read the diffs, RfC etc. Communicating in this text-only medium is problematic enough without complicating it, especially when we're writing for a global audience of all ages and abilities. It's the dismissal of reams of good advice that's most concerning though. In common with others I don't see any bullying; this is merely an unpleasant duty made necessary by B9's own refusal to learn. EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Update Here is his response to this proceeding: [65]. He's also been spamming this message [66] onto the talk pages of random articles. This exchange [67] with FisherQueen is particularly telling, as he seems genuinely unaware what could be wrong with the articles he mentions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: B9HH has now commented in their RfC here. I had previously !voted support here on the basis of B9HH not responding to their RfC; I self-reverted when I realised they had in fact now commented. I'm still pondering, but tending towards supporting this proposal. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The RFC was opened on May 1 and it's only now that there is such strong support for this ban that he feels a need to comment, and once again he denies the very nature of the problem and rejects the notion of consensus based decision making, and of course throws in a "witch hunt" comment at the end to try and garner some sympathy. If anything that remark should help convince you that he does not understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question: And forgive me if this is spelled out and I've just missed it, or if this question is premature: are we discussing a site ban or a topic ban (and in the latter case, what topic areas)? Also what duration would the ban be for? Thanks. PlainJain (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A full indefinite site ban, anything less than that would require B9 to admit he has made problematic edits, which even now he still refuses to admit. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• WAIT- Question: has this user been instructed in simplified writing? I don't see any indication that this user was instructed about techniques for simplifying text. I saw no mention of keeping sentences to just 4 prepositions, nor of clearly putting the main subject and verb near the start of a sentence. Perhaps you're asking Einstein to please explain Special Relativity to a 7-year-old Chinese kid, who does not speak German, Italian, French, Latin, English, or algebra. Even Einstein did not want to learn English or (any other "modern languages"). Unless people actively explained and defined those techniques for simplifying text, then I think the term "witch hunt" might be justified. In fact, I read about 30 of the linked edits, and I saw no attempt to obscure the text, but rather to broaden the coverage, and add more precision to general statements. If I had to "go behind" and simplify the writing, I think it would be very easy: mainly just split a few sentences, and replace a few unusual words with more common terms. Please link the main text used to teach how to simplify Wikipedia articles. I think I've written one, so let me look for that page. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For simplifying text, see: "Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable" and related pages. The U.S. Government (of course) has documents explaining how to simplify text for various types of readers. -Wikid77 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Baloney. if you're not competent to edit here, don't edit here. We're building an encyclopedia, not a school for remedial writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Amen. I don't suppose everyone can be expected to know the case inside and out before commenting here, but the main point is that he refuses to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with his writing, and anyone who suggests there is a problem is ignored/mocked/accused of being a bully. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Let's give him one last chance with an indef block, instead of a community ban. Sheesh, after looking at that one diff that FisherQueen provided, he's either pushing his own idiosyncratic POV or has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues -- so I'm not defending the guy. However, looking at his block log he falls between the two common approaches of handling people like this: either a lengthy interaction with the person, trying to install enlightenment with the occasional keisaku of increasing blocks (yes, I know I'm misapplying a Zen Buddhist technique on our erstwhile Tibetan Buddhist acquaintance, but if what I know of Tibetan Buddhism is correct, their practices are even more austere), or a bum's rush out of Wikipedia with an indef block. Things have gone on too long for the bum's rush approach here; so we need to apply one more rap with the clue stick before we give him a community ban, which will allow him to indulge in his version of zazen untroubled by our distractions. -- llywrch (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Indef block sounds good, per llywrch. He's not a net positive, but not malicious, so I don't think a community ban is quite due- this way, if he ever gains some clue he can still come back. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference between an indef block and a ban in this case is minimal. Any user blocked or banned by a community discussion would require a second discussion to get unblocked. I'd like to know, after numerous ANI threads and full month long user RFC how anyone could come to the conclusion that this was rushed or that "one more chance" would somehow reverse a problem that B9 denies the existence of. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as feeling that this was rushed. In no way am I trying to criticise the proposal or the suggestion that B9 has been unconstructive. I know the difference is minimal; that's exactly why I'd rather go for the slightly less harsh of two options even if only in word. I am not minimising the problematic editing, or the constant refusal to communicate. I just think that if a return can be softened the slightest bit for a contributor who was not a blatant vandal without compromising the solution, by all means. (by this I mean, people will be more likely to evaluate based on his edits and his request than just decline due to the community ban.) But action definitely needs to be taken, and if consensus is for a ban, I have no objections to it. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- WAIT per Wikid77 or indef block per llywrch and Sonia. Let voices of tolerance, reason and compassion prevail. The project is big enough to accommodate this user, who is clearly intent on its improvement but still labors under misapprehensions. Meanwhile he might be wise to state acceptance of the "desired outcomes" (with the exception, IMO, of the demeaning demand for confession of past sins) at his RfC. Writegeist (talk)

I'm really trying not to badger those that oppose this proposal, but as the author of the "desired outcome" I take exception to that characterization. I can only assume you are referring to the portion that reads "That B9 hummingbird hovering acknowledge that the style of writing they generally employ is unacceptable for an encyclopedia". The point was not to force a confession, but rather to get B9 to understand why his editing is problematic. Nobody is asking for an apology, just an acknowledgement of the problem, and some indication that B9 does not intend to continue in his previous style. All indications are that he has no intention of doing any such thing, and indeed the events of the past days have convinced me that he actually does not understand the nature of the problem despite it being repeatedly explained to him. Indeed I'm beginning to suspect that FisherQueen was correct in stating that he is not able to put these concepts into plain English because he lacks the level of understanding of them needed to do so, otherwise he surely would have at least tried to do so by now.

I'd like to point out again that the RFC has been open for a full month, and B9 refused to participate at all until after this discussion started. There was a full month of opportunity to discuss these matters and reach a voluntary agreement regarding his editing, an opportunity he ignored until he saw how rapidly a consensus to ban was forming. When he did finally comment, he again rejected the notion that he has ever made problematic edits and the notion of consensus based decision making, which he sees as "bullying." He has also refused to participate in this very discussion, while at the same time spamming talk pages and canvassing users to come to his defense. I note that several of those previously uninvolved users have ended up supporting the ban proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to think like a long-term scholar, about this circus of events, with the assumption that B9 is, in fact, a scholar and not just assuming a role. Some issues:

• A scholar is unlikely to accept a "peer review" by this crowd.
• If another scholar could be sent, as an ambassador, to "talk turkey" perhaps B9 would respond better with a real peer.
• We need to prepare an essay WP:Scholars guide to writing Wikipedia articles, and this seems like good timing, and perhaps B9 would help write that essay (over the coming weeks), to warn other scholars when to simplify the text.
• B9 has made it quite clear to avoid these "trial-by-jury-of-who-are-you" forums.
• Perhaps this incident defines a WP lesson-learned entry in how to work with an alienated scholar, who has been insulted in ways a professional journal would never condone.

In reaching for consensus, everyone must try to meet, in the middle, and not expect the accused to submit to a "mob vote" as if his agreement was implicit, somehow, to reach consensus without his consent. Forcing people to obey is NOT a consensus-building technique. Let Wikipedia try to gain a true consensus, by abandoning strict rules, and actually working with another person to gain a mutual agreement. If progress cannot be made in listing steps to simplify text, then perhaps that is the time to part ways, because a compromise will require accepting some form of simplification of the text. Putting those steps in writing should appeal to a scholar, with even citing research to "prove" a 12-year-old can read an intro paragraph, when simplifed in that manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've been following this thread and have looked at the editor's contributions, and I have to agree with Wikid77. Dip into many of the articles at the back of the queue for articles to be copyedited and find plenty of bad writers, yet the articles still exist and the editors haven't been banned. Banning an editor because they don't write well sets a precedence for a slippery slope in my view. Maybe have other editors try some consensus building with B9. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, if B9 had submitted copy to a professional journal, and it was returned with the message "sorry, that does not meet the style guidelines that we use - please read them here" - and then B9 continued to submit material in clear controvention of those guidelines, would you expect the journal to accept the submission? I think they might tell B9 one more time, and then ignore any further submissions until they met the criteria which the journal had set. I don't think that two years later you would get anyone on the journal's editorial staff saying "hang on, let's give him another chance" - they would say, instead, "Sorry, if this person cannot meet the criteria for style which we have told them we expect, then we'll just have to do without their material, as we can't afford to spare an editor to rewrite it in our style".
• Also, with regard to other editors who write in a bad way, how many of those have been approached on multiple occasions and told about the style expected here? If they have, and blatently ignore it, as B9 seems to do, then they would probably be facing a ban as well. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I realize the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument shouldn't be used, but a full ban seems excessive because of writing style. A ban based on disruption is another thing. As for writing style, my worry is where does it stop? If someone, for example feels an editor lacks spelling skills, shall they be banned as well? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree with you at least that bans should be very seldom given out for writing style alone (I can't say never, because, really, competence is required), but so far as I can see, the primary problem at this point is not the writing style, but the evident unwillingness of the contributor to engage in consensus building and address community input with regards to the writing style. My background here goes as far as yesterday, when this contributor notified me and a great many others of the issue at my talk page. Prior to that, I believe, I had only ever interacted with him in copyright matters. I told him then that I believed it was essential at this point for him to participate plainly here and at the RfC in order to demonstrate his ability to engage. Instead (after continuing to CANVASS for a bit, even at article talk pages), he posted this statement at his talk page, continuing to characterize the efforts of others to engage him as bullying. He also posed and answered the following question: "what is the stuff of a Wikidragon? The ability to stand in solitude and in strength when the whole village says you're the cause of destruction...." That in itself shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia, which (of course) relies on the consensus process, and, in fact, that answer could be used equally well to answer the question, "What is disruptive editing?" No editor is an island. We're a community, and he seems unwilling to embrace that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with your arguments, but then I look at an article such as Ratnagotravibhāga (text) and wonder whether the writing or the subject matter makes it difficult to understand. I have much less difficulty parsing the writing than the underlying subject (which people devote decades, years, lives to understanding.) Very much on the fence here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't express myself very well. Writegeist, I think tolerance has been expended with this user. As for reason, I think that it is reasonable to block one user who is depriving others of time spent building content, because I would rather have one problem editor leave than experienced editors gain the impression that they are not as important and the community would rather them expend their time and patience with such issues. Compassion? That is what I was talking about above- "He might be wise..." but he has ignored the wise choice, at least for now. If he wises up later I want him to be able to return, but it is time to resolve this. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Sonia here. I think everyone would agree that the desired outcome in all of these cases is that a problematic editor starts making productive edits, allowing the rest of us to do something far more enjoyable than dealing with the person. However, there are some problematic editors who will never be productive -- & I would not be surprised that B9HH is one of them. My concern, in simple language & without allusions to Zen Buddhism, is that I want proof that B9HH hasn't misunderstood the incredible amount of patience others have shown her/him as being approval, & that a "change your ways or be uninvited by the community" message has been delivered in as simple language as possible. (An indef block would deliver this with a clue-by-four to the back of B9HH's head; a community ban at this point might still be misunderstood.) And if such a message has been delivered, then I have no problem with a community ban. (And if Beeblebrox is getting frustrated with this push-back against a, I apologize. My intent is not to create Wikidrama, I just want to make sure that a final warning message has been delivered before B9HH is permanently banned.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand you point, and offer these diffs: B9 informed of RFC [68] B9 informed that RFC is certified and live [69] B9 asked to participate in RFC and informed that this is the final opportunity to reach a voluntary agreement [70] B9 informed of this thread, which he has yet to comment on [71]. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Regretfully, I am leaning towards supporting an indef-block at least, per User:Sonia, and I would not oppose a ban (which I think preferable to no action). I'm still kind of hoping for an 11th hour turnaround, but pending some showing of a sincere interest in collaborating, I think User:Beeblebrox is right. As I indicated above, he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's communal processes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having thought about the matter since my last post, I decided to simply block indefinitely User:B9 hummingbird hovering, to end the WikiDrama & so everyone involved can move onto something more enjoyable. (Consensus appears to indicate this is the least serious action that will be taken here.) If this is not enough & a community ban must be made, feel free to continue this thread. I invite a review of this act, & give any other Admin my full permission to revert this if they believe my action is inappropriate -- or B9HH proves that she/he has experienced enlightenment. Meanwhile, I'm withdrawing from further involvement in this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I suggest noting some final points, to catalogue this situation. Mark this event as both of the following:

• Category of lessons learned: Indef block of a scholar
• Category of lessons learned: Indef block of a poet

Because those are not actually WP categories, this text can be searched (such as "Indef block of a poet"). In my 1-day review of this situation, I had overlooked the need to also develop an essay as "WP:Poets guide to writing articles". In final comments, B9 had indicated a wish to write in a "literary" (and poetic) style, so that is an area for future work, perhaps in writing articles about poetry, with using some poetic devices when explaining poetic topics. Just as a mathematician or chemist can flood articles with formulas, consider if WP is banning all poetry from article text, while allowing complex formulas as acceptable. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the indef block as it essentially the same thing as a ban, the only thing I would add is that this block should not be lifted without another community discussion, and that such a discussion should not take place anytime soon, and not at all if B9 still refuses to acknowledge the nature of the problem. I don't think any of Wikid77's above suggestions have any support in either policy or community consensus however. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume that if the indef block was lifted, this discussion here would continue. Until then, people can discuss the block on B9HH's talk page. -- llywrch (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(the) Ohio State University

Resolved

 – This is a content discussion and belongs on Talk:Ohio State University, not here.

User:75.23.202.149 has made multiple reverts of content related to Ohio State University by placing the word "the" in front of "Ohio State University" -- normally, something that could be handled through discussions. To make matters worse, the user may actually be technically right in these reverts even though it appears that consensus may not be supporting such moves.

I first asked the user and other interested parties to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#More "THE" OSU B.S. (which isn't exactly a "neutral point of view" name but the discussion was already started) about the topic. To my knowledge, the user has not approached the discussion.

The user has revereted changes for at least two users, calling them "vandalism" -- one at the article Edwin Sweetland by User:Jweiss11 and another at Paul Bixler by myself.

The user has made mutliple changes in multiple articles around this topic, and it looks like we might need an outside admin to come and take a look to provide some guidance. What's the best approach to take from here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the institution's formal name is "The Ohio State University", but in colloquial usage it's normally called "Ohio State University." As such, the "The" should be in the bold text at the top of the article, and then not used for the remainder of the piece. The article name should be the common name, which is "Ohio State University". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article name should be the common name, which is "Ohio State University" or "The Ohio State University". According to which source which name is the most common name. How did editors decide which name is most common. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Every single time an OSU graduate announces where he's from, they invariably say "The" Ohio State University, and make sure to stress the "The". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your omniscience on the matter overwhelms me. Yworo (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Nasty, much? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there are a few more people in the world than just OSU graduates, and it is common usage which prevails. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example, a Google search on "The Ohio State University" brings a little under 4 million hits, which, of course, includes all instances where the "The" is just incidental and not part of a formal title. A search on "Ohio State University" excluding instances of "the Ohio State University" brings up 6.7 million hits. Not conclusive, but indicative. Real-life experience is the confirmation: use of "The Ohio State University" is actually quite rare, and comes across as terribly pedantic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is for the same reason as the emphasis in Official Monster Raving Loony Party, yes? Guy (Help!) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I actually considered attending OSU. Pretty much everywhere you see it printed the "the" is left off. I would imagine the emphasis by alumns on the "the" is because they want to differentiate themselves from the well known party school Ohio University over in Athens. My parents didn't even want us to apply there because they worried we'd have cirrhosis by graduation... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • All I can say is, "Muck Fichigan" ;> Doc9871 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see there are some buckeyes in the crowd... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Buckeye fan for sure (and I can be a poisonous nut myself sometimes). As I said in my edit summary, my father simply calls it "Ohio State", and would scoff at "The Ohio State University". No offense to Everard's friends... :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox hit it on the head. The folks who emphasize it are distinguishing themselves from OU in Athens. It's nothing to do with the actual university name. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The official name is clearly "The Ohio State University", but I agree with BMK, Beeblebrox and Hand. I went to "The George Washington University", but we all call it "George Washington", or simply "GW". Hope this helps more than hurts. "Welcome to Ohio State!" :> Doc9871 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the quarterback of the football team knows best, and he calls it University of Ohio State. Case closed. WolverineFootball2008 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(Growl) Okay, Wolverine! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that commonly people will abbreviate Ohio State as "tOSU" (lowercase 't' for "the") no as not to confuse with OSU, also the common abbreviation for Oklahoma State University. But who am I to talk? I pledge allegiance to the almighty Bucky Badger. –MuZemike 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Oregon State University? What do they do? ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "ORST" is what they use, but I'm not 100%. –MuZemike 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I won't "badger" you about it... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit ridiculous. It is standard practice in English to remove the word "the" before titles. Therefore, "Ohio State University" is correct, not "the Ohio State University". —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; but not always true... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that tOSU is more an internet thing than an actual official abbreviation - it's fine for informal conversation or message board smack talk, but shouldn't be used in an article. But yes, tOSU does emphasize the "the" - watch College Football Live just about any day and you'll see the announcers kid them about it by stressing the word "the" (THE Ohio State University). It's either "Ohio State" or "the Ohio State University" (an editorial decision which to use), but the editor is correct that it's not "Ohio State University". --B (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll never understand why the University of Kentucky is "UK" but the University of Kanses is "KU". When I went to Lawrence to do a show there and called it "UK", our driver got indignent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because people are weird. As for any "officialness" to calling it OSU, look at the top image here [72] not to mention the fact that the official website is "osu.edu." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at the official website, it seems that usages with or without "The" are both frequent, along with "OSU". And there's no indication that it's a small "t", as the school's seal, for example, has it as "The". But the common name is "Ohio State University". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh! I just knew you'd chime in hewe, you wascal! Doc9871 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And not that that we should model ourselves after Google, but: "OSU" - About 8,420,000 results (w/the official website at the top). "tOSU" - About 355,000 results. "Next!" ;> Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's most definitely "The" Ohio State, and it's hardly a technical interpretation, but the common usage. As for other school names, the people that live in the area pronounce it right. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronounce what right, now? In which area are these people? Is this some sort of "Jedi mind trick"? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last sentence at all... Doc9871 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The people that "live in the area" call University of Minnesota "The U", but nationally it's "University of Minnesota", just as it's "Ohio State University" on a national basis. No "The" prefixed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of the above discussion should be discussed on the related article talk pages. Not here.--Rockfang (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed I just wanted to know what to do next...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(the) Ohio State University NOT RESOLVED

Okay, I get that the "conversation" should take place on another page. I didn't start the conversation, a lot of other editors did.

Here's the question: What is the best way to approach these accusations of vandalism?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page pointing them to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Now it's resolved!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mdupont

Hello. Just wanted to ask someone (preferably admin) to help User:Mdupont with his edits. User add Albanian names wherever he find needed ([73]) constantly uses underscore in article space ([74]) uses some weird signature without links, ([75]) while his articles are in complete mess (Mosque Katip Sinan Qelebi). He also back up all of his articles in every possible place, including article talk page ([76]), his personal pages, (most of them meaningless) and his talk page. I tried to help him, and explain, ([77], [78], ) but he didn't reacted on my advices and guidance links. As a final act of misunderstanding, he tried to open arbitration, but filled it wrongly. Last dialog can be seen here. (User talk:Mdupont#Districts) User is not vandal, or anything like that, it looks like he love wikipedia, and we is here for long years, but he just need some help that will explain him everything CLEARLY and UNDERSTANDABLY. I just tried to help as some other users did in the past ([79]), but he didn't liked my help, per bit problematic point of view, that was already recognized earlier ([80]). As i will not talk with user anymore, please, i ask from some neutral admin to send him link or two with some guidelines, and help him implement those. As users articles topic is under WP:ARBMAC restriction, his adding of Albanian language everywhere may be problem. For more, sure, i am here. :) --Tadija^speaks 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Posted something to his talkpage. EyeSerene^talk 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am being warned of what exactly? please explain. Also, I was not informed about this complaint. the adding of Albanian names to areas where Albanians live has precedence on the Kosovo article, so why not on other places. Am I being warned of being banned? For what offence, please be very specific? I feel like user User talk:Tadija has been wikihounding me and my edits. James Michael DuPont 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not get a notification that I was dicussed. It seems that Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. was not used. James Michael DuPont 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here i have gotten a second opinion the albanian names in my favor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metohija#RfC:_Can_we_include_the_local_names_of_the_towns_as_well.3F James Michael DuPont 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Mystic Researcher redux

Take a look at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). My finger is ready to block Gattosby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the basis that nominating yet another group of RAN created articles within hours of another RAN blocking event just can't possibly be unrelated.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do it. I consider mass deletion nominations like that disruptive at the best of times and I agree that, given the history, it;s unlikely to be coincidental. I'm contemplating closing all the AfDs as bad faith nominations... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let your finger do the talking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Only question is, whether to ask who it is first or just block striaghtaway as a badhand account and run a checkuser to see whose it might be in this ongoing saga Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare has already blocked. Closing the AfDs seems like the right thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Having taken a look, I believe that this account, along with Sapporod1965 and Ocean Mystic Researcher, is very likely to be Torkmann—who is in turn likely to be Wiki brah. Torkmann is a user who has targeted Richard with AfD nominations in the past, as you can see from some of their other sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torkmann. Dominic·t 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare procedurally closed some of the AFDs, and I got one more. Two had already received arguments for deletion before the problem was noted, so those have been left untouched.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've closed a couple more, and simply deleted the MfD nomination of the userfied article (no point preserving a record there). We don't want to reward trolling any more when people actually take the bait than when they don't. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the editor's contribution history, and confirmed that their other edits to the encyclopedia are either harmless or in good faith. This leaves two things pending. First, they created an article Allen Dorfman, that appears legitimate if weakly sourced. Second, an AfD nomination for the sub-stub article, Brazil–Japan relations. That wasn't one of Richard Arthur Norton's articles, so there is no harassment issue there. Also, I'm not sure what the general result was in the earlier mass nominations of the "X-Y relations articles a year or two back. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The result was "no consensus", and the more recent run of bilateral relations nominations by LibStar have similarly failed to result in anything more than long, circular argument and bad blood. Procedurally speaking the Brazil–Japan relations AfD should probably be allowed to run but I suspect we'd get along as a community much better if it fell into an early "no consensus" closure. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave the Dorfman article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

actually, the dorfman article is in rather dramatic contradiction to dozens of excellent newspaper sources. I have re-edited the grossly erroneous part of it in accordance with the news reports, which I have added as references, and am checking it further. To me, it shows a contributor so eager to get an established account here as to work with remarkable carelessness. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems ridiculous. I would note though that RAN is attracting a lot of attention as of late. I don't think any of this drama has been productive (full disclosure, I've been opposed in 2 [of an infinite number] of bilateral relations afd debates) Shadowjams (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for crap's sake. I'm beginning to wonder if a couple of our indefinitely banned users are in on this. –MuZemike 07:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just informed that my assumption as incorrect. My ESP must be out of sync with the CheckUsers' magic 8-ball. –MuZemike 07:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who did you just checkuser to determine that? Seems pretty duckish to me. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gross Harrassment of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

---

Posting on Treasury Tag's page today I noticed an edit by NewYorkBrad which led me to what I think is the most vile and obvious case of wiki-hrassment I have come accross in 6 years here. I cannot be doing with all the diffs, but I have made my feelings clear here [81]. Yesterday as the result of soliciting by Treasury Tag [82] 2 edits there you can see his earlier soliciting above the editor was wrongly blocked [83], it now seems the victim had every cause to be so upset much of his work is nominated for deletion on one fould swoop, much of it by yes, you got it Treasury Tag! Perhaps some of these pages do meet criteria for deletion, I have not looked through them all, but have yet to find one, but the way this is being handled by treaury Taf, seemingly supported by certain others is vile and needs stopping. One of you Admins needs to step in and close the show down and see what exactly is going on.  Giacomo  14:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• See the previous ANI thread about this, which concluded that there was no inappropriate behaviour on my part. I have no further comment ot make on this issue at this time. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  You are bullying and harassing.  Giacomo  14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Like Giacomo, I've not looked at them all here, but the same is going on at Commons now. Richard Arthur Norton is a longstanding productive member of this community and targeting his user space content and images here and at Commons seems like a very low blow. Unless there is evidence of egregious copyright problems - which I don't believe is the case - this needs to end now. Wknight94 ^talk 14:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  So the day after TreasuryTag files a 3RR case about you (now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132), you come here to complain about TreasuryTag bullying and harassing someone else (a case which had been looked into before here and found wanting), and go around voting keep on AfD's he nominated, going even so far as to revert comments he makes, with a personal attack edit summary to boot[84]? I would suggest that you leave this well alone, or you may have an acute case of WP:BOOMERANG. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Competely correct. If I were not on TT's page I would never have seen Brad's message telling him to back off! You may find a respected editor like RAN being driven to distraction a fine spectator sport - I do not!  Giacomo  14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My situation precisely. If I hadn't run into Richard in an unrelated venue, I would never have discovered his history of copyright and WP:NOTWEBHOST violations. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's not uncommon when finding copyright violations or other image problems from a user to look through their other image contributions for problems. There are plenty of users (not Richard) who think it's acceptable to upload every image they find on the internet so for the most part, if you find one image with copyright problems from a user, you're going to find more. This isn't harassment. --B (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• TT said: "See the previous ANI thread about this, which concluded that there was no inappropriate behaviour on my part." This is not an accurate depiction, its not like TT was absolved. Like almost all issues raised at ANI, there's no jury verdict rendered at the end of a discussion, there's usually just some throwing-up-of-hands at the inanity of it all. GiacomoReturned took the time to review what is going on, and its no shock that he found it abhorrent.--Milowent (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I find this comment at Commons (threat of summary block by user:Axpde for anyone "complaining of harassment") to be utterly contrary to the spirit of either project. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Just like Richard Arthur Norton's block for a comment made on Commons was a mistake, discussion of other comments, threats, warnings made about this on Commons are out of bounds here. But if such a comment was made on Wikipedia, it would not be "unterly contrary to the spirit", but just a logical conclusion of "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly" (from Wikipedia:Harassment). Fram (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Blocking may indeed be appropriate, even for "complaining of harassment". However threatening summary blocks to all editors is far too close to using power for entirely the wrong purpose and simply stifling debate. Blocks are, after all, protective and never punitive. We don't need to act hastily, the appropriate actions can be taken slowly, by consensus, and in public sight. The cost of a workable open system is an acceptance that all editors, even the worst trolls and vandals, retain a path of appeal even when this does imply an extra workload for the community at large in "listening to the whining of the obviously culpable" (should it reach that point). Threats like this, and an acceptance of them, is a much greater risk to either project than some inappropriate uploads. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Surely both sides are in the wrong? Unless I'm mistaken, people wouldn't be deeming no harassment has occurred unless there was a problem with the contribution - therefore, the upload should not have been made or should have been removed or something. Unless I'm mistaken, people would not be alleging harassment unless the other editor did something similar to templating the regular as opposed to informally/gently raising the concern, and only if they were unreceptive, begin taking more formal steps (and even then, escalate rather than start at the top extreme). This is probably a completely different school of thought...but that's how it seems to me, based on what little I've read of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, so you feel the contents list of this page [85] is gentle do you? I can think of some editors it would drive to the nearest canal! It is harrassment on a grand scale!  Giacomo  14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Silly question: suppose there existed a prolific editor who had uploaded some large amount of problematic content. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that he had contributed 5000 photos, 500 of which were poorly sourced, irrelevant to the project, or otherwise unacceptable. What would be the proper method of dealing with the problematic ones? I'm sorry, but I don't see how to differentiate between what you say is harassment and a good-faith effort to cull a user's uploads for ones not acceptable to the project. --B (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor such as Commons:User talk:Duncharris perhaps? This caused utter chaos across the railway project, yet there's none of the rancour or AGF failure we've seen in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure if it was my wording or if you misinterpreted my comment Giano, so I'll try to clarify. Some people say no harassment occurs because there was an issue with editor X's upload and therefore editor Y is justified in going through editor X's stuff. On the flipside (where I referred to 'gentle'), I was trying to convey the point that if editor Y had a concern that editor X's stuff remaining uploaded on Wikipedia, they should gently raise that concern informally (letting each concern being dealt with one at a time rather than unreasonably spamming the lot; it might involve plenty of emails for example) and if there is no receptiveness to the concern, then one thing at a time sort of thing...etc. When that doesn't happen, we have a situation where editors feel harassment has occurred because it seems more like editor Y is engaging in an antagonising exercise. Sometimes that is intentional; sometimes that is not. Unfortunately, I still don't know enough about this to come to a conclusion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo, would you mind explaining how this is constructive? --Smashville^talk 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I feel like saying "a plague on all your houses" to RAN, TT and Giano. This is getting ridiculous. RAN's understanding of our copyright rules seems hazy at best and his use of Wikipedia as a webhost is very trying, TT has the bit between his teeth and is going after RAN like a terrier, and now Giano can't resist sticking his oar in and making a personal attack (I've warned him for this). Interaction ban for the lot of them? Fences&Windows 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know that an interaction ban would be very useful - it's the functional equivalent of closing your eyes to make the problem go away. There are three distinct problems to resolve: (1) Richard uploaded some number of unacceptable images, (2) TreasuryTag et al used an uzi rather than a scalpel in going after them, and (3) Giano sees it as an opportunity for a soapbox. --B (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Giano's attacks against me are continuing [86] [87] – ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 15:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Unhelpful nastiness redacted.)  Giacomo  15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments like this are neither constructive nor acceptable. --B (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

neither are comments like this being so swiftly hidden [88] after more of his soliciting and victimisation.  Giacomo  15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not "swiftly hidden", he replied on his talkpage and just copied it to me. Furthermore, I don't see the problem with it anyway. I do object to your persistent personal attacks, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted the comment. Poison like that adds nothing. Giano, avoid gross unpleasantness or find yourself blocked. None of us want to have to read boring nastiness. AGK 15:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You lot are a joke in your behaviour you dish it out, but can't take it. As for you TT, I bet you do! always archive (was it archive or remove) that fast do you? Seems to be becoming a habbit of yours today doesn't it archiving and soliciting seem to be amongst your many frequently used talents. Not so funny is it having a taste of your won medicine dished out to you. Well you can relax now because I am disengaging from you and have other things to do for a few hours. You just follow someof others people's advice and try and put right the harm you have done. So long for now.  Giacomo  15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Clear harassment and abuse of a contributor to the encyclopedia building effort. And now we see those standing up to the vile abuse being attacked as well. Shame on Gwen Gale, Newyorkbrad, Treasurytag, AGK, Ncmvocalist and others for their involvement in this sordid affair. If you can't be bothered to investigate and put things right then you should resign your positions of authority. There is no justification for the outrageous and abusive blocks now in Richard Norton's log, despite his being stalked with socks and other efforts to drive him off. Those who have stood by and allowed this to happen or encouraged it by attacking anyone who points out how grotesque it is should be ashamed of themselves. Civility policy my ass, these behaviors are sick and those defending them have no constructive role to here in building a supportive community or an encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're in danger of going slightly over-the-top here... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We're not asking for civility, but for people to behave like adults and to not make life unpleasant for other contributors. I actually am looking into this in as much detail as I can. My request for Giano to stop throwing bile around was as an interim comment only, so you can both stop the melodrama. AGK 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should have waited until after you investigated before commenting. You might have avoided being completely off base. As usual Giano is one of the few Wikipedians who stands up for those being made victims here by the abusive, corrupt and dishonest.

Once Richard Norton's block log is cleansed of these outrageous and disgusting admin actions there will be cause to ask for quiet, not before. There also need to be sanctions against the abusive harassers and the admins who aided them so these outrageous behaviors are not repeated. Unless of course you think socking, mass nomming, harassment, and blocking of editors when they object is appropriate? Is that Wikipedia's new Fairness Doctrine, an addendum to the "civility policy" so often invoked by the worst of Wikipedia? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was the wording of Giano's comments more excusable before I had reviewed the situation? Hardly. AGK 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You or another Admin should have reviewed the situation before I, a non-admin was forced to make a fuss to make people take notice of the wrong being done. anyway, I beleive things are now happening "upstairs" to adress this matter.  Giacomo  16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My clairvoyance is a little rusty these days, so I'm afraid I was unaware of an incident that I hadn't been following and hadn't been brought to my attention. Shame on me! AGK 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Preliminary comments: The interaction between Treasury Tag and Richard Arthur is deeply unsettling. I am thinking that an interaction ban between them both may be in order. More unsettling still is the discussion here between SGGH and TT, which at best treats Richard as a "problem" to be eradicated; and at worst constitutes flagrant collusion against another contributor. We don't expect our contributors to conduct themselves so. I am interested in the opinion of other uninvolved administrators; this situation could do with some neutral eyes. AGK 16:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  To be clear, the "problem" being referred to in your link is the (what I considered) intimidating nature of Richard's badmouthing of me around the site (eg.) and around Commons. If you look into the ANI archives, you will see a thread I started on this. I was not aware that reporting suspected breaches of WP:CIV and WP:NPA to an individual admin, rather than to a general noticeboard, was forbidden or frowned upon?

  Just for the record, I would not dream of attempting to "eradicate" (as you put it) another contributor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am worried by some of the interactions I've been seen, and I think that the diff you linked above is somewhat overly-aggressive ("OH DEAR GOD HOW CAN WE STOP HIM!?!?!?" I mean, seriously, come on...). However, it also worries me (probably more) that the addition of large amounts of content that goes against policy might end up being overlooked because of the harrassment claims - despite the fact that WP:HARRASS explicitly states that looking through someone's contributions for policy-breaking content is acceptable. It is also typical that Giacomo has jumped on the situation to use it as a soapbox, and is thus further muddying the situation and making everything much worse. I'm uncertain as to whether an interaction ban would do more good than harm; I believe it would simply mean that RAN goes on uploading copyvios and using Wikipedia as webspace with no oversight, which I'm not sure is appropriate. It's a tricky one, that's for sure. Ale_Jrb^talk

  Yes, you're right, the "dear God" sort of comment was overly dramatic, but I was frustrated and feeling a bit intimidated by Richard's badmouthing me all over the project. However, your summary – as I read it, basically, that whacking me in this case may lead Richard to believe that everything he has ever done is vindicated – is a poignant one! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• You were not the least intimidated and I don't think it was "badmouthing" anyway. Far from being distressed you were salivating and enjoying every moment in a a hypocritical way. That is just so obvious from the dialogue here [89] It was even begining not to fool Gwen Gale!  Giacomo  17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  You were not the least intimidated. I think I was. Far from beinh distressed you were salivating and enjoying verymoment in a ahypocritical way. Don't remember any salivating or hypocrisy, and my mousemat appears remarkably clear of dribble... ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Norton being singled out?

New section to separate from the carrying on above. Why exactly is Norton being singled out here? TT alerted me to a previous MFD where several of Norton's user space pages were deleted. Why exactly? Is he really doing such harm here that his user space material needs to be deleted?! Is there some sort of disk space issue that I am not aware of? Hasn't there been a tendency of kindness here to let people who do good work maybe keep some personal stuff around, just to keep all their interests in one place? What happened to that? When did the community turn so sour on long-term good contributors like Richard Norton? Wknight94 ^talk 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TT alerted me to a previous MFD where several of Norton's user space pages were deleted. Why exactly? Presumably because that was the overwhelming community consensus at the discussion. I do think that complaining about the result of a clear-cut deletion debate on ANI marks a new low, if I may respectfully say so. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• A question on the same note as Wknight: Is there any merit to Richard's suggestion that TT wilfully nominated every one of his uploads for deletion as retribution? AGK 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  If you mean is it true, then it is not. I spent about three hours painstakingly reviewing each image I nominated, there and on en.wiki, before including it. As I pointed out in the nomination, it is possible that errors were made in either direction, but there are countless examples of uploaded files which I did not touch. In particular, Richard added hundreds of properly-cited images from the Bain News service, which I filtered out of the list to be nominated using a Microsoft Word regex.

  And it was absolutely not for retribution. I have !voted against hundreds of people in hundreds of AfDs, obviously, and I am not so vindictive as to chase after them all with a {{di-no source}} tag! Check the earlier ANI threads for my more comprehensive statement on the issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  What precisely brought on this unexpected review of Richard's uploads? Certainly not a negative interaction with him? AGK 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  His upload of File:Mexico-Iceland 2008.png had been discussed as a breach of the NFCC in the deletion discussion of the page it was used on. I nominated it for FfD (where it was deleted), and it seemed so obviously a copyvio that I looked into his other images, as is the done thing with users suspected of having a problem. I then discovered the vast treasure-trove of improperly-tagged and web-hosted files and pages, and went from there.

  I surely would not be expected to leave a problem like that simply because I !voted the opposite way to him in an arbitrary AfD debate! ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, I tell a lie, it was this AfD comment which alerted me to the image-copyright issues. Apologies. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 16:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  That's plausible, I guess. Irrespective of what becomes of this thread, I hope you will refrain in future from interacting with Richard; this discussion, I think, proves better than anything else could that you and he don't mesh well :). AGK 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Wknight, just because we don't have diskspace issues doesn't mean that we can ignore WP:NOT. I'd also suggest that the outcome of said MFD implies that most of the community doesn't really share your views that it's 'just fine'. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)*2 Improperly sourced and tagged files, sure. But what with all the user space nominations? That's just smacks of raw spite. And triggered by what? Has Norton somehow offended you? Sure, once you bring it up at the tucked-away little corner of WP:MFD, the people there see your lead and jump on. But I'd like a wider audience here to tell me what the hell Norton did to trigger this multi-project attack against his work. Wknight94 ^talk 16:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  As Ale jrb (talk · contribs) observes, the community consensus was to delete the pages as a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. I nominated them as a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. You're an admin; when you delete articles, did the creators do anything to offend you? Was it raw spite? No. It is, I'm sure, because those pages are contrary to Wikipedia policy. And the consensus was that Richard's pages were too. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I second this question. I'm struggling to see why you're interested in this user, other than that much of his work seems to you to be problematic. If an editor genuinely was concerned about the work of another, I'd expect to see some sort of talk page message saying "your work worries me – specifically, files X, Y, and Z. Could we talk about it?". Instead, I am told that you two fell out over something (or did I imagine that? has there been any negative interaction prior to the deletion of some of his work); and I then see that you went, unannounced, on this spree. AGK 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I confirm that I had never met, interacted with or heard of Richard prior to seeing his image uploading discussed in the AfD I linked to above. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  As for not discussing it first, a quick search showed that Richard's copyright problems had been ongoing for years, and lead me to suspect that negotiation would be fruitless. I may have been wrong about this, but it was a decision taken in good faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  WP:NOT can be, and routinely is ignored. When someone does a lot of good work on the project but also engages in non-WP stuff - like family research or creating endless userboxes stating which tween singer they like, or making funny pictures and colors appear on their talk page - it is ignored. Why is that not the case for Richard Norton? Wknight94 ^talk 17:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  WP:NOT can be, and routinely is ignored. Sure. But it wasn't in this case. Is this sub-thread just to complain that a bunch of editors, mainly admins, !voted in an MfD in a way which you disagree with? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm confused here. Wknight94, are you actually arguing that anyone who is a regular editor should be permitted to store unlimited amounts of stuff unrelated to actual articles? There's an obvious difference between user page "about the editor" type content or community content (like photos from meetups) vs family photo albums. I think there are four separate classes of content from Richard that are all getting lumped in here together - (1) images being used under a very questionable claim of fair use - from my past discussions with Richard I know that he disagrees with some of our fair use rules, (2) useful images from family photo albums where the copyright status needs to be clarified - did Richard inherit the copyright or is he just scanning the photo but someone else has the copyright, (3) not very useful family photo album pictures that are being more or less pigeonholed into a commons gallery to make them appear encyclopedic (ie, showing an example of apparel from the 1920's), or (4) userspace pages depicting galleries of some of the above. Surely we can all agree that #1 needs to go away, and #2 needs to be clarified. #3 should probably go away or at least be severely curtailed. #4 I couldn't care less about. --B (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  "Unlimited" is not what I said. That MFD had less than 30 pages. Are we talking about thousands of others? I don't think so. Someone who has put several years of work into this encyclopedia should be allowed to keep a certain amount of personal stuff around if it isn't bothering anyone. Norton's stuff was not bothering anyone to my knowledge. Others, like Linas (talk · contribs), have been allowed to keep personal pages with seething attacks against other editors - surely Norton can keep some completely benign pages here which, at worst, are somewhat interesting to a genealogy buff like myself. Wknight94 ^talk 17:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag and Richard: can we bring this to a conclusion, because I'm getting sleepy?

I respect that I may not have handled this in the best way, while maintaining that I acted entirely in good faith and, for the most part, for the best. I think that AGK (talk · contribs) sums up the situation in response to my explanation of how I came across Richard:

That's plausible, I guess. Irrespective of what becomes of this thread, I hope you will refrain in future from interacting with Richard; this discussion, I think, proves better than anything else could that you and he don't mesh well :)

I certainly intend not to engage personally with Richard outside of formal dispute resolution, because I just can't take the stress, to be honest.

Please can we close this ANI thread, because I fear it is accomplishing nothing? I will voluntarily recuse myself from interacting with Richard, as outlined above, and all the personal attacks and nastiness I have suffered, and others have had to read, will be able to stop? Please? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you choose to look into a contributor's work and find problems, please approach them civilly and respectfully in the future. This is a collaborative enterprise and treating people with respect and dignity is important. There's nothing wrong with letting someone know "hey, I'm concerned that some article/ images/ content you've added may not be appropriate because XYZ". When you're already in dispute with them and start doing mass noms (and are joined in the effort by various socks) it becomes extremely abusive. The admins who piles on here with abusive blocks are also to blame for the escalation of this situation and should lead the charge for bogus blocks to be expunged so their damaging actions can be addressed properly. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to do a lot more than recuse yourself. You are not getting out of this that easily. Your backtracking now exposed is too late.  Giacomo  17:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, do I need to do? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop being so goddamned obnoxious. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to expect better, clearer, more helpful and more sensible contributions from, you, MZMcBride... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the other descriptors, but the statement was pretty clear :) - Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a simple solution for de-obnoxiousification - lose the signature. Symbols, colors, and a random word or phrase is a bit much. --B (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit much, perhaps. Goddamned obnoxious? A little over-the-top... ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

While I don't about the theology of the claim that God has damned your signature, it is pretty obnoxious. ;) --B (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Putting aside the wise advice from Mr McBride above. A sincere and well composed appology to both Norton and the community would be a good start and some form of acceptance of the harrassing and distress caused. Norton has been put through hell because of you - now you want to walk away because the goings not quite the way you wanted it. There is only one way to treat bullies - be grateful you are not receiving it.  Giacomo  18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  As I said above, I concede that I may not have handled this in the best way, but maintain that I acted entirely in good faith and, for the most part, for the best. I still unreservedly insist that I carried out no harassment, no bullying, so any apology would be inappropriate and insincere. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'll second Giacomo. Or else should someone nominate File:Tt-whitehouse.svg, File:Treasury tag.jpg, File:Treasury Tags.jpg, User:TreasuryTag/Fan-cr!p, etc. for deletion? WP:NOT violations! Wknight94 ^talk 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is not harassment or a violation of policy to point out policy or copyright violations by other users. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Aha the cavalry has arrived. Stifle, there you are. Not customary for you to be the Lady-in-WaitingValet de chambre.  Giacomo  18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Giano, you don't like me, and I have no like or dislike for you, but I will treat you civilly and hope that you will continue to treat me likewise. I am not, however, female, and please therefore don't refer to me as such :) Stifle (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What purpose does this serve other than to inflame? This whole thread has not served to resolve anything, but only to give you a forum. Whether TreasuryTag or Richard have behaved badly isn't going to be resolved here - not like this. --B (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No way! You lot would love it shut and hidden. let people see what has been going on here.  Giacomo  18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano, thank you for amending the reference to "lady in waiting". May I ask what you wished to accomplish by making this ANI listing? Stifle (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is "you lot"? You think that anyone who disagrees with you is a part of a conspiracy. ANI is a forum for seeking redress to a particular incident, not a forum for airing your general disagreement with ... whatever it is that you generally disagree with. Nobody is going to block TreasuryTag over this. Nobody is going to immunize Richard from having his contributions subject to deletion. What is it that is going to be achieved here? --B (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• OK. even his user page image "me in Sweden two years ago" was nominated for deletion. Why was that? Any reasoning behind that little gem? Or are all user page images to be nomonated for deletion? C'mon speak up - let's hear you. Here is a friend of mine (typical of a 1000 pages) File:Jeanne Griffin 1974 makeup style.jpg doesn't look like she took that one herself - does it? Off you go then nominate it for deletion - C'mon what's keeping you? Giacomo  18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think nominating that particular userpage one was excessive. But it doesn't make the others all right now, does it? Stifle (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh do you indeed! A bit late in the day to say so.  Giacomo  18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Stifle, but it's difficult to tell which have a real basis - like copyright - and which are just nominations of harmless personal photos for no apparent reason than extreme rigid adherence to a rule which is applied far too selectively. Wknight94 ^talk 18:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think you're right and it's unfortunate that everything has just been kinda lumped in together. Some (a lot? most? substantially all?) of Richard's uploads are from, IIRC from discussions from a long time ago, photo albums from his family members that he inherited when they died. In those cases, the description page really needs to spell it out. Many of his description pages say something like "the Bob Smith archive" or "Bob Smith collection". If he spelled out, "photo by Bob Smith. Upon his death, his family photos were inherited by Richard," then many of the copyright problems go away. There's still the issue of useless photos (some of the ones on Commons were things like signatures of non-notable people - not useful at all) and there are some questionable fair use claims, but simply being more descriptive on the image pages would answer a lot of questions. --B (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  @Giano & Wknight94: It was technically correct (the image did have no source) but could have been handled better.

  @Giano: Can you now please reply to B and I as to what you hoped to accomplish by opening this listing? Stifle (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, we are exposing just what has been going on, and the inages nominated for deletion and the complete trolling and persecution that Norton has endured following his disagreement with your mate TT (they were on opposite sides in an AFD debate on bilateral relations - the next day 50 of his images were nominated) You seem to have a had a lot to say on the votes for deletion, yet seem strangely quiet here.  Giacomo  18:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  But that was exactly what was covered in the previous ANI thread... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • OK, and what outcome did you expect would come from this besides drama? Stifle (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—I don't know what this browbeating is about, but I suspect it will end unhappily... ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another page on your watchlist TT. Anyway in answer to your question, We are re-visiting the facts, something a patholagist often successfully does years after death, in this case we are lucky, the body is still warm. Yes, I too suspect it will end unhappily for you TT.  Giacomo  19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, your contributions are on my watchlist. And if I am to gather from your hint that you have "proof" I coerced Edison into making those AfD noms, then either someone is severely misleading you, or you are severely misleading the community. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo, that doesn't even make sense. While I'm aware the internets = serious business, I think you're overvaluing the importance of this situation. The "victim" of the "harassment" has (quite wisely, IMO) not even commented here, so I'm still not sure what you want to achieve other than to stir up poo. Just let it go. What is going to come out of "revisiting the facts"? --B (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidently Giano, as it's now been going for a while, what administrative action are you looking for out of this thread? That's a serious question, in case it seemed sarcastic or something - just getting a feel for it. Ale_Jrb^talk 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tch Tch tch getting impatiant is always a bad trait. We shall just wait and see. You all seem very concerned for this to leave the spotlight, but sadly I have only just turned the spotlight on. One thing, all even those who hate me to death will agree, is that I never give up without a result. There has been some monkey business here and it's going tp be exposed fully. Incidentally, why was his user page image nominated, not to mention domain images, government images and even an image that he only adjusted the colour of. You are in it up to your neck TT. I want some answers.  Giacomo  19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't really recall any of your other 'exposes' resulting in anything much at all, except of course affirmation of your unique postion on Wikipedia as the only editor who can say what they like about others with apparent impunity. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not dispute resolution, it's for admin actions. May I respectfully suggest that if you are not willing to specify an admin action you would like taken and have a conduct issue with TT, you take it up through the usual dispute resolution channels? Stifle (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

well you are the admin stifle, how do you think such a harrassing bully should be treated, or do you feel you are too involved to deal with such a disreputable person as TT?.  Giacomo  19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The only person harassing anyone here has been you. If you don't have some actual desired outcome, then this thread just needs to be closed so we can quit wasting everyone's time. And by we I mean you. Has TreasuryTag behaved poorly? Probably, but that doesn't give you a reason to have a general gripe session about him. And with all due respect to Stifle, if a gripe session is all you want, dispute resolution is not an appropriate channel either. --B (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, finally, someone has voiced a thought which had been troubling me for some time. The only person harassing anyone here has been [Giano]. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh do stop re-posting people's quotes in green. You really are making yourself even more totally ridiculous.  Giacomo  20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the conduct issues arising from this thread, all of them, should be channelled to dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well it has been rather like drawing teeth without an anasthetic, but there does now seem to be a general acceptance that TT has behave badly and has something to answer for as indeed he does, so if you, his friends and supporter, wish to close the thread, who am I to stop you?  Giacomo  19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The us vs them mentality gets really old. All of us are looking at the issue and calling it like we see it - we're not a pro-TreasuryTag faction and we don't have "Friends of TreasuryTag" luncheons. You are refusing to say what it is you want - you're just stirring stuff up. It doesn't take a "supporter" of anyone to see that's not helpful. --B (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you may close the thread, we have seen enough of your "calls."  Giacomo  20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither do we need it collapsing or having a negative closing statement. This has been a very useful and informative thread; noneed to hide it.  Giacomo  20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Cy Q. Faunce

Recently, I was involved in a deletion discussion regarding recently-deleted article Bullshido.net (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)), where Cy Q. Faunce was an active participant. Then this morning, I received this message, from JMU:

“ I work for the Office of the Registrar at JMU and we received a request for information about you from a <redacted>, <redacted>@<redacted>.com, which included your DOB & SSN. Are you aware that this individual has your private information?

<unrelated signature redacted>

”

I called up the person at JMU and also did a little research, and found evidence that indicates that Cy Q. Faunce and <redacted> are the same person. Cy Q. Faunce's first edit and the majority of that account's edits (see Special:Contributions/Cy Q. Faunce) have been in regards to the deletion discussion of Bullshido.net.

Considering the real-life stalking that appears to be going on here, putting in a request to JMU and such, I was tempted to indef-block for harrassment, but would prefer that an uninvolved admin look at things and see what's going on. I'm not so worried about myself - I've filed a fraud report with the credit agencies, and if they do attempt to do anything along those lines, that's a criminal offense, so I think I'm safe there. However, this kind of behavior is disruptive, and appears to be an attempt to intimidate users. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Cy Q. Faunce (talk · contribs · logs) <- for ease of admins, here are the user's links. I too would view this as a stalking-harrassment issue and move to block. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Indef blocked as unacceptable harassment; review of this block is welcomed. I was going to note that you're also outing, but he outs himself on Bullshido.net. Fences&Windows 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Good block, and we might as well consider that a community ban. I doubt that any admin would be willing to unblock after this. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• There probably should be a checkuser to find/block this persion's other accounts. This one obviously was not his first and harassment like this is completely unacceptable. SchuminWeb, you may want to consider contacting the police if you have not already done so. --B (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we be scrubbing this entry of "Cy Q. Faunce"'s personal info as well? Tarc (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. And done. And I support the indef block. Be sure to check your credit reports, SchuminWeb. — Scientizzle 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unblock request posted [90]; I declined. –MuZemike 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so Cy Q a) gets SchuminWeb's birthday and social security number from public sources, and b) contacts a public university to try to verify if Schumin really has the degree he says he does. While this is certainly misguided, is it really worth the indef block? You all say this is stalking/harassment, but I fail to see how it is. Cy Q never even contacted Schumin to tell him that he had this information (that was the university), so the harassment charge seems pretty tenuous. Wanting to find out more about someone may be considered "stalking", but I would have reserved that term for constantly following them around or monitoring their every action, not just trying to find some more information about their background. Or is there additional information that this lowly editor isn't privy to that strengthens the case for harassment? Buddy431 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... if you can't see why that conduct is unacceptable, I don't know what to say. There is obviously no legitimate reason to verify someone's academic credentials for an AFD over some website. --B (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be no legitimate reason to do it, but that doesn't mean that Cy Q. is acting in bad faith, or that a block's going to do any good (preventative, not punitive?) He could, and I believe he does, genuinely believe that verifying Schumin's credentials would allow him to discredit his arguments at AFD. No, that's not how Wikipedia works, but it doesn't appear that Cy Q. has broken any rules, either on Wikipedia or in Real Life. Maybe Cy Q. is just trying to steal Schumin's identity, in which case there's nothing Wikipedia can do. That's a job for the local police, and blocking won't help prevent that. Buddy431 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you (in the extreme case you gave) had a user who was trying to steal another user's identity, you would see no reason not to allow that person to edit on Wikipedia? Good grief. --B (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) In case it offers perspective/context, I participated in the AfD at issue, read this ANI, and experienced about an hour of serious anxiety (approaching terror) over this -- am I next? This guy was clearly unhappy with me at the AfD -- did I tick this self-styled private investigator martial artist off? Do I actually believe that this is simply to verify his academic credentials? Why should I? Oh God, I googled his name and he's, to listen to some random bloggers (I suppose I'll listen to anybody when I'm afraid), a known character assassin -- perhaps with the physical skills to be an assassin par Jason Bourne!!! (italics intended to mock my own silly anxiety, hehe).

Yes, we should preventatively block editors who are willing to undertake off-Wiki efforts that will scare the bejeezus out of good faith editors. That is, to put it lightly, disruptive. So... try and see the disruptive effect of his actions from the stance of those for whom it is disruptive. In many respects, Cy's action was the most personally disruptive thing I have literally ever seen on Wikipedia. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, there's no legitimate reason to do such a thing. SchuminWeb's education has no bearing on his adminship nor the AfD. In addition, a BS is a moderate degree, so, in a context where most would not bother checking, there's no reason for a liar to set their sights so low. As a result, the motivation for doing something like that is inexplicable, but whatever the reasons for it, the behavior is completely unacceptable.

As for his list, I ran across a small list towards the bottom of a page he referenced when threatening another editor [91]. It appears that User:Niteshift36, User:Crotalus horridus, SchuminWeb, and myself are on his short list of most hated WP editors. Whether he's attempted his P.I. routine with the rest of us is unknown at this time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Support the indef. Cy Q just refuses to get the point of what Wikipedia is. Off-line stalking someone to determine their credentials is ridiculous in many ways, and just underscores his refusal to understand how useless claimed credentials (or any other material not gained from reliable sources) are in the first place. Dayewalker (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I could consider overlooking it if the OP's SSN were not involved. I might even question whether the SSN were really involved, depending on who was doing the reporting. But Cy Q has admitted (on his talk page since being blocked) tracking down an old traffic violation which dated presumably from when an SSN might be used as a driver's license number. While it's public information (which should have been redacted), that level of stalking is scary and doesn't belong here. Yworo (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's not here. It's outside, in the real world. No stalking has gone on on Wikipedia, and it doesn't appear that it was going to. This block is a completely punitive measure for what the account holder did in the real world, not a preventative measure to stop disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Buddy431 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's something to take up with WP:STALK. Offline harrassment has always been treated harshly here and for extremely good reason. long may that continue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddy432, it has impact here. His actions weren't literally performed on here, but that is beside the point; his actions had disruptive effect on Wikipedia. The block was preventative. We can't tolerate editors running around scaring the real life crap out of other editors they disagree with -- that is disruptive to the project, and is behavior we are wise to prevent from continuing. And, either way, my explanation aside, it's plainly blockable behavior per WP:STALK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

His actions only have an effect on Wikipedia because SchuminWeb brought the email from the university (not Cy Q). Cy Q. has not threatened SchuminWeb personally either on or off Wikipedia. It very well could have evolved into Harassment, but frankly, I don't think it has at this point. If Cy Q. had said to Schumin that he had his SSN and was going to investigate him and post his results for the world to see, I'd be screaming "block" as loud as anyone else. Bud he didn't. He discretely attained his personal information, without telling anyone. He discretely made other inquiries, again without telling anyone in an attempt to "harass" them. When he found out that Schumin's degree was real, he almost would have certainly dropped the search and never told anyone. If he hadn't dropped it, but instead posted personal information or engaged in other forms of harasment, then I'd be fine with a block. It seems hard to me to claim that that's harassment. Off-wiki stalking, maybe. I don't see any policy dealing with such, but it appears that current practice is to block those who engage in it. I disagree with this practice, but consensus obviously exists elsewhere. Buddy431 (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddy432, if one attempts to do this kind of thing, one will be indefblocked. That's the rule. Simples.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the rule, as far as I can see. It may be the current policy, but isn't codified anywhere that I know of. Buddy431 (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's policy: As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether Buddy recognizes that "rule" = "policy" or not, can this conversation be closed so we can all move on? We have one meaningful dissenting opinion regarding the block, and the dissenter has already ceded above the "consensus obviously exists elsewhere." I think most of us can at least be pleased and relieved that an editor who attempts to dig up the private information of our administrators offline, maintains a list of most-hated editors on his website, and refers to other editors as "dead man" in edit summaries is no longer able to disrupt the project. Let's move on. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Where's his list of most hated editors? Wheres his hateful edit summaries? All I see at this ANI is "my university sent me a note telling me that some guy has my personal info. I think this guy is this other guy", at which everyone starts shouting BLOCK! at the top of their lungs. If you had said that he's maintaining a list of most hated Wikipedia editors offline, I'd have been much more agreeable to a block. But you didn't. You assumed everyone was already intimately acquainted with this editor and his tactics. Maybe if you said "he's been harassing me on and off wiki here and here, and now he's evidently going after my personal information so he can post it on his website" I wouldn't have jumped to oppose the block. Buddy431 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

and I meant "practice", not "policy". No harassing is a codified rule/policy, but blocking for stalking off wiki is merely a common and accepted practice, not written down as far as I can see. Buddy431 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• He's not the first one banned for activity like this and won't be the last. When people take this petty wikipedia disagreement junk into the real world, they aren't firing on all cylinders. It's taken seriously here and it should be, whether he is an actual danger or not, the behavior is unacceptable. Period. Your defense of him isn't going to work. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The hated editor list was referenced (first I saw it myself), in response to something you posted, above by Sxeptomanic, where he expresses the concern that he may be getting "investigated" as well. A lovely talk diff where Cy brags of having "taken down a dozen like you before" is also supplied in this response, and the "dead man" reference comes shortly later in that talk page's history. "I" didn't assume anything here, but I suppose the assumption exists that people responding to this ANI would take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the situation before contributing, or at least read responses to their own posts. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(also, from WP:STALK: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.") ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of prior behavior, this kind of behavior should result in a swift block. This has the same kind of chilling effect as a legal threat, perhaps even worse. After his actions, would most Wikipedia editors feel comfortable editing an article with Cy Q? Dayewalker (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, editing an AfD with Cy Q this time led to me deleting my Foursquare account and a bunch of Tweets from Twitter... so, I think the answer is no, if Cy Q were around and I saw him editing an article I'd probably steer clear of that article :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see the list now, and I apologize for overlooking it earlier. That's clearly a blockable offense. I still don't think that the original action in this ANI thread (looking up public information about an editor and not telling anyone about it) is grounds for an indef block, but I see that I'm in the very small minority on that issue. Buddy431 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oversight needed at Escort Ireland

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted. - Yworo (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit on the talk page and these edits to the article. IP looks to have been dynamic and reinserted under another address here. I think that's all but a second set of eyes to review the edit history might be wise. Yworo (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the revisions in question. If you would like to make a request for them to be oversighted (which will remove them even from admin view), please use WP:RFO. --B (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Why spend the time deleting revisions on an article that so clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the articles has not been deleted yet. Yworo (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Japan relations

Resolved

 – AFD is closed. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Would have been closed eventually, but sorted. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Wipeouting

User:Wipeouting is an account that has been started only for deleting articles from Wikipedia. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but the user repeatedly refuses to abide by Wikipedia policy. He/She believes, Actors/Singers/Politicians do not belong to Wikipedia and tries to remove them. He started out by mass prodding articles he did not like. He insists anyone can get coverage in newspapers/Television and will not consider that as a factor in inclusion in Wikipedia. He even once prodded a bio of a dead writer claiming self promotion. I have warned him repeatedly in his talk page that there are policies which govern inclusion in Wikipedia, but he refuses to listen. He has been told the same by at least three other editors, that he has to read WP:BIO before nominating Biographies for deletion again. He stopped prodding/speedying for a while but has now started AfDing articles. This is his latest AfD. The subject has enough WP:GNG and meets WP:MUSICBIO (it survived a previous AfD easily). I am not sure this user has any intention of reforming / acting according to policy. I request the admins to warn/block him before he wastes others' time by AfDing articles that clearly meet WP:N.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He has had ample warnings and he has been sent links to the relevant sections of the guidelines. To no avail.

As he points out on his userpage:

My aim is to improve the articles about the origin of the Sri Lankan people and wipe outing Non encyclopedic Personal promotions.

Unfortunately one of his aims isn't following guidelines. Jarkeld (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? That seems to fit. However his most recent AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apiramy Visuvanathan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanka Dineth Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajith Jayakody Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandana Prasanna Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher education institutes in sri lanka are getting or have had agreeing delete votes. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashanthi seems to be created on top of a closed one in error. I'm just looking through his prods. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Though most of his prods have been declined, he has then taken them to AfD and they seem to be meeting with delete consensus. Could you point me to any deletions which appear to be against consensus? AfD, that is? It only takes one disagreeing user to cut away a Prod. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes his recent AfDs are on non-notable persons - but that is a coincidence. He still does not want to follow policy. The nominating rationale for the Ashanthi article is I am not sure of the accuracy of the article because anybody can publish personal interviews or personal coverage using newspapers or website. No sophisticate evidence of the coverage required to meet notability requirements. This is a personal promotion. Note the refusal to acknowledge newspaper coverage - I have repeatedly told him, reporting in RS is accepted in Wikipedia. But he just wont listen. He says Most of information in the article is essentially unverifiable., when the article essentially has references for every sentence.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current one is a poor AfD nomination. I'll try to untangle the mess it is in. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I Just want him to understand he cant make up his own rules in Wikipedia. (like thinking articles on entertainers as personal blogs/promotions). I and other editors have tried to get him to read the relevant policies, but his rationale for the AfD mentioned indicates, he has no intention of changing his ways. Can you atleast warn him again to read and follow policy? --Sodabottle (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was doing so as you posted :). Take a look and see if that meets what you were asking for. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Thats all i wanted. I think this will make him extra careful while nominating articles for deletion.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Please drop by again if he doesn't appear to get the message and makes obviously poor AfD or PROD decisions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some friendly advice might be useful here, along the lines of WP:SOFIXIT; a collaborative environment suggests that even a minimal effort to repair articles is to be preferred over nominating for deletion, which has been deprecated as a mechanism for forcing the improvement of articles. However, if such articles are beyond rescue without any editor wishing to make that effort, they should go. Deletionists sometimes get a hard time here, but so do Inclusionists. What is more important is the reasons why we should sustain articles. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not totally agreed with nomination about me as a block user. I am trying to explore about personal promotions and incorrect information. I did not try to delete any article by myself and I did only propose to deletion. If somebody doesn’t agree with my nomination why doesn’t he or she come to discussion? Wikipedia is encyclopedia and there should be a possibly edit or delete incorrect information. I hope to write few new articles to Wikipedia within few months. Person who is trying to block me is not Sri Lankan and I believe can get a decision than him, about Sri Lankan Context. I invite to one administrator please get a reasonable decision about me ? --Wipeouting (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And I pay attention User:Sodabottle advises which he or she has informed since couple of weeks. I hope to do my editing further, associate with other writers.--Wipeouting (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left you that message, Wipeouting, and I think that's all that will happen at the moment. I don't think Wikipedia revolves around our nationalities too much, we are all Wikipedians! And you aren't being blocked, the friendly word of advice in my notice should suffice as long as you keep it under advisement. Cheers, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha Quadrant and WP:NFCC policy

Resolved

 – User issued final warning by B (talk · contribs) that (1) further violations of the image policies will result in immediate blocks without further warning and (2) further abuses of either rollback or twinkle will result in those privileges being removed without further warning Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In mid-May of this year, this user began placing non-free images in inappropriate places violating WP:NFCC policy. A series of events has unfolded:

1. 11 May 2010 03:09 - Placed File:VoyagerStarship.jpg on a userbox he created at User:Alpha Quadrant/Userboxes/Star Trek Voyager. (see revision)
2. 11 May 2010 20:23 - I removed the WP:NFCC violating image from the userbox, noting the violation [92].
3. 11 May 2010 20:38 - He re-instates the violating image to the userbox, violating WP:NFCC. [93]
4. 12 May 2010 00:26 - I re-remove the image [94]
5. 12 May 2010 00:26 - I advise him on his talk page that the use of this image on his userbox violates WP:NFCC. [95].
6. 14 May 2010 01:00 - He places File:VoyagerStarship.jpg on User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Editnotice, violating WP:NFCC. (see revision).
7. 14 May 2010 03:14 - He places a free content image he created on User:Alpha Quadrant/Userboxes/Star Trek Voyager. [96]
8. 14 May 2010 12:49 - I left a message on his talk page telling him "Nicely done" for the change to free content on his userbox, and also inform him that I have replaced the violating image on his edit notice with this image he has created. [97]
9. 14 May 2010 14:41 - He restores File:VoyagerStarship.jpg to User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Editnotice, saying in the edit summary that if I don't like it to tell him, violating WP:NFCC. [98]
10. 14 May 2010 15:19 - I once again remove the violating image from the edit notice page and ask him to see his talk page. [99]
11. 14 May 2010 15:19 - I advise him on his talk page that the image violates WP:NFCC, that I am re-removing it, and please do not re-add it as it is a direct violation of our policy. [100]
12. 14 May 2010 16:17 - He leaves a fairly nasty note on my talk page claiming the images are both "fair use" and "public domain" (apparently because they can be found all over the Internet). [101]
13. 14 May 2010 16:25 - I explain to him in considerable detail how his stance is in error, and how such images are managed on Wikipedia. I include mention of DASHBot doing removals of this type as well. [102]
14. 14 May 2010 16:57 - He retracts his most recent message on my talk page, and gives me a cookie. [103]
15. 29 May 2010 21:10 - He places File:USS Defiant leaving DS9 damaged.jpg on Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/4, using Twinkle to revert back to a much earlier version that had WP:NFCC violating content on it, violating WP:NFCC. [104]
16. 29 May 2010 21:27 - He places File:St08-uss enterprise e.png on Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/5, violating WP:NFCC. [105]
17. 30 May 2010 20:17 - He places File:WorfTNG.jpg on Portal:Star Trek/Selected character/1, violating WP:NFCC. [106]
18. 30 May 2010 20:23 - He places File:Ro Laren.jpg on Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/1, violating WP:NFCC. [107].
19. 30 May 2010 16:56 - I remove File:Ro Laren.jpg from Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/1. [108]
20. 30 May 2010 21:23 - He places File:Star Trek - Photon torpedoes.jpg on User:Alpha Quadrant/Editnotice (see revision) and the same file on Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/3 (see revision), violating WP:NFCC.
21. 31 May 2010 03:17 - I remove ([109][110])the violations from User:Alpha Quadrant/Editnotice and Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/3
22. 31 May 2010 03:24 - I leave a strongly worded message on his talk page regarding the two new violations, indicating this is a final warning. [111]
23. 31 May 2010 03:28 - He restores File:Star_Trek_-_Photon_torpedoes.jpg to Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/3 claiming in the edit summary "files are permitted in portal space. portal space features the best articles in that category. Many other projects use pictures in their portals", violating WP:NFCC. [112]
24. 31 May 2010 04:02 - He reverts my warning from his talk page, indicating he has read it (he's free to remove content from his talk page if he likes; the point here is to show he has read the warning). [113]
25. 31 May 2010 05:01 - DASHBot removes File:USS Defiant leaving DS9 damaged.jpg from Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/4. [114]
26. 31 May 2010 05:04 - DASHBot removes File:St08-uss enterprise e.png from Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/5. [115]
27. 31 May 2010 05:04 - DASHBot removes File:Star_Trek_-_Photon_torpedoes.jpg to Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/3 [116].
28. 31 May 2010 16:54 - I respond on his talk page to his claim in the edit summary noted in #23 above, making it clear that non-free content is not permissible on portal pages [117].
29. 31 May 2010 16:55 - I remove File:WorfTNG.jpg from Portal:Star Trek/Selected character/1. [118]
30. 31 May 2010 17:20 - He uses Twinkle to remove my latest message to him, calling it vandalism. [119]
31. 31 May 2010 17:37 - He restores File:St08-uss enterprise e.png to Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/5, violating WP:NFCC. [120]
32. 31 May 2010 17:43 - He restores File:USS Defiant leaving DS9 damaged.jpg to Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/4, violating WP:NFCC.

WP:NFCC policy has been explained to this editor several times. He's been shown that it also applies to Portal space. Regardless of this, he continues to routinely violate WP:NFCC policy. Further, my warnings to him are now being reverted as vandalism, and he is undoing DASHBot's edits to pages where he wants to place non-free content. I don't think this editor understands the difference between non-free and free content, but my attempts to educate him on the matter have failed, and he insists on violating our policies and ignoring warnings. Given that multiple warnings were given, and a final warning was given, and even a warning after that, I think a temporary block is appropriate at this point, along with a very strongly worded message regarding his behavior. I will notify him of this thread on his talk page. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently he hasn't gotten the message - just today he restored a non-free image to portal space [121] --B (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, and you can see from the diff that he's apparently trying to get DASHBot not to touch it, by placing {{nobots}} on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• As much as I hate to say it, I think a block of some length is in order. This has to stop, and if it takes a block to get his attention, then as much as I absolutely detest blocking genuine contributors, it's about the last remedy available. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am unimpressed by the use of twinkle vandalism rollback to revert Hammersoft's warning about using non-free images outside of article space. I don't know if a block is needed right now, but perhaps a stern warning that his conduct is unacceptable and (1) further violations of the image policies will result in immediate blocks without further warning and (2) further abuses of either rollback or twinkle will result in those privileges being removed without further warning. If he commits either abuse again, then we've had the minor inconvenience of having to revert one more thing. But if he abides by the rules, then we have kept an editor. --B (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your attention, B. Your solution is fine with me, but the warning will go unheeded from me. Would you please place such a warning on his talk page? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. --B (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ron Broxted appears to be owned.

Resolved

 – User:Ron Broxted is temporarily full-protected. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these four editors below belong to the same person, but they seem to be editing the article User:Ron Broxton without permission of the user. I'm not sure if any of these editors were intended to be the same person, so I haven't warned any of them. Can any administrator help me work out what to do here?

Anyway, here are the editors that were recently modifying the userpage:

• User:Prof Colin Berry
• User:81.129.211.80
• User:81.129.210.2
• User:217.41.240.15

Minimac (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How weird. I've just protected the page to stop the incessant changes while we take a look. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he is a blogger and these people were "fans" of his blog. I have deleted the revisions in question. I suggest leaving the page s-protected. --B (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor (but persistent) disruption

Short version:

User:Ephix has been deleting relevant text that has no objections for neutrality or sourcing. ArbCom seems to have ruled this as a disruption, but User:Ephix persists even after being so warned.

Details:

At the Peter Schiff article, there have been some minor disputes over how best to present certain characterizations of Mr. Schiff in the article lead. There was an older talk page controversy about labeling Schiff as an "economist" without qualification. A while back, I attempted an edit in order to address those concerns, which was sourced to an author who is something of a peer for Mr Schiff. However, qualifying Mr Schiff as a "non-professional econonomist" sparked a lot of (hand-waving) objections. In case this first attempt violated neutrality, I decided to take another approach and to use the simpler "economist" label but then expand the lead by simply drawing in more of the notable points from the rest of the article.

It is well-established that Mr Schiff advocates a small minority viewpoint as an economist/economic writer, departing in substantial ways from the majority view. My expanded text notes this controversy, per WP:LEAD ["The lead should ... summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies."], and per WP:UNDUE ["...it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view."].

In regards to the new expanded text in the lead: there has been no objection that the text is not cited [it is a summarization of already-exisitng and cited text]; there has been no objection to the neutrality of the text; and, the text is obviously relevant to the article subject.

Even given the above, User:Ephix continues to delete the neutral/cited/relevant text. I have warned him that this may be considered disruptive.

Despite warning ([122]), he insists on deleting the material. [123] [124] He seems to imply that discussion on the new edit is not worthwhile for him. [125]

There has been no talk page consensus against the new points included in the lead, and, really .... not much objection raised on the talk page at all regarding the new points in the lead. (An RfC about whether to substitute "economist" for some other label is still ongoing.) But, the section I created to specifically address these recently-added points covered in the lead has received no comment as of yet.

I believe the deletions are disruptive and I could use some advisement. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite confident that any administrator who reads through the full discussion will finally put an end to your distributive edits.

To the admin, please note that user:BigK HeX's comment about me being a peer constitutes a personal attack as this is not only unsubstantiated but has nothing to do with my edits, this reflects on his overall demeaning approach to the Peter Schiff article. The comment comes from someone whose first and only interest in the article is Schiff's status as an economist. user:BigK HeX's use of a passing remark in book review as a source for Schiff being a "non-professional" economist was a waste of my time and still is. user:BigK HeX then dropped that for deleting "economist" altogether, and now favours other labels just as if not more demeaning than the previous one. Of course Wikipedia does not decide who is and who is not a mainstream anything by such measures. We simply tell it like it is according to majority of reliable sources and if there is a controversy surrounding any point of contention significant enough have been covered in the media, we may include it as a minority view in the lead. But this of course isn't the case, the vast majority of reliable sources have it that Schiff is an economist. user:BigK HeX has made it clear he doesn't like that, he should be taking issues with Wikipedia's guidelines, not this article.

I at first gave him the benefit of the doubt and invited him to start a discussion, but he preferred a course of action in reversions and deferred the opportunity to me, here it is. I also invited him again to start an RfC, which another contributor finally undertook the task of completing, but it hasn't gained much attention from uninvolved editors, certainly not the kind user:BigK HeX's wants, so here we are.

Thanks. ephix (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ephix stated, " please note that user:BigK HeX's comment about me being a peer constitutes a personal attack as this is not only unsubstantiated but has nothing to do with my edits".

Ummmmm ..... this assertion is baffling on so many levels, that its unclear where to start. A) I never referred to User:Ephix as a peer of anyone. B) Even if I did, being called a "peer of Peter Schiff" would almost certainly be a nonsensical "attack" to make against an editor. BigK HeX (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also ... for someone so concerned about personal attacks, Ephix's comments above seem to contain quite a number of attempts to characterize me.... BigK HeX (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff is definitely an economist according to the dictionary definition of the word. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economist And he definitely has a profession in economics (on TV, author, etc.). --StormCommander (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Though that's nice (and there is an RfC to address that question), the thread here is about the deletion of verifiable/relevant text. And, in any case, Schiff is noted as an "economist" in both versions of the contested text. BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Harvardlaw block evasion again

Resolved

User:72.222.174.25 is an anon of blocked user Harvardlaw, an aspiring actor again trying to add his role as an extra into a movie he was in and an "alleged" project with a big name. See previous ANI results. Diff 1 and Diff 2. Last block was for 2 weeks. Longer this time? Thanks! ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 3 months this time.  Will Beback  talk  22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet

I have the username and password of an account with which I have reason to believe may be used to vandalise Wikipedia. I cannot confirm (yet) whether it is a genuine account which was hacked or whether it is a single-purpose account created by one of our dearest and oldest enemies. I will only reveal the details of the account privately to trusted users. Jolly Ω Janner 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we see the username? Rohedin (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to happen, and I don't understand why you can't post the suspected sock/compromised account here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If the situation is as sensitive and confidential as you suggest, you may contact the Arbitration Committee. I'm one of the arbitrators, so you can use the "e-mail this user" feature to contact me and I will forward your note to our mailing list for review and any appropriate action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm unsure of the sensitivity, so would feel better passing it into your hands. I was given the details by a vandal, so I'm pressuming it's a sockpuppet. Would be nice to wipe the smile of his face before he gets the chance to use it. Jolly Ω Janner 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just change the e-mail and password to random gibberish. No need to bring the Arbitration into this. Rohedin (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If it was a genuine account, then that would prevent a genuine user from using their account. Jolly Ω Janner 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then refer to my first comment. Rohedin (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:CuriousDrat. I've already emailed the username and password to Brad though. Jolly Ω Janner 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about any vandalism, but that's definitely a sock account being used to nominate Newgrounds for deletion, presumably while escaping scrutiny. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That was the account that made the deletion request for Newgrounds. It was a joke that my friends at the forums did because they were kicked out of the local Stickam Chatroom. I can give you the link to the topic. Rohedin (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did Grawp give you the account? And tell me the username of the NG user that sent you it. Rohedin (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I heavily doubt JarlaxleArtemis would do that, Rohedin. Speaking as someone who's been dealing with the blackguard for a few years now and who's just removed two threads related to him and his lemmings, it's more likely someone claiming to be him, not realizing how much of a laughingstock Grawp presently is. Not only that, but AfDs aren't his MO. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That is because the password and username was given to Grawp via one of my Newgrounds friends. Somehow he decided to wait for his latest ban to expire rather than take a freebie. Rohedin (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Rohedin, Grawp's perma-banned from this site and has been since '05. Also, he doesn't edit himself (exc. vandal page moves, and even then that's iffy), rather he recruits /b/ to do his dirty work. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also been given evidence that User:Rohedin is a sockpuppet/troll involved. Would kind of make sense considering the above comments coinciding with the timing of me receiving the evidence. Jolly Ω Janner 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have chat logs to back up my evidence. Rohedin (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And I say that it's not JarlaxleArtemis. He wouldn't willingly expose one of his own socks. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he wouldn't know how to change his MO a little after how many years this guy has been active. Rohedin (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, JarlaxleArtemis would never willingly expose one of his own socks, primarily because he knows that once he does so, it's blocked quickly. He'd have absolutely nothing to gain by giving up a sockpuppet to anyone. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't give up the account, my friends gave him or some guy using Hagger as his MSN username who gave it to the real Grawp and then for lord knows what, he gives it to the guy that made this thread. Rohedin (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. I would try to explain why, but suffice it to say that that is most certainly not Grawp's standard behavior whatsoever. I'd say the guy using MSN faked knowing Grawp in order to get the account name. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Duh! Let's stop prancing around, since my patience is wearing thin. Rohedin, email ArbCom with the details, and let them deal with this. Otherwise, stop playing Spy vs Spy. Drumming up uncertainty just isn't helpful. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrfoldes Reverting Again

Reported this guy a few days ago for edit warring on the You Can't Do That on Television and Vanessa Lindores, including restoring the latter despite an AfD consensus to redirect[126]. At the time, he had made six reverts to the first article, four to the latter. Once the ANI started, he pretty much stopped editing, during which time the articles were protected. The protection has lifted and he returned to immediately do the same reverts on both articles.[127][128] To me, this gives every indication that he fully intends to resume his edit warring and continue trying to spam the fansite and ignore the AfD. Per, User:Jéské Couriano, bringing back here for outside attention, as he reverted Jrfoldes edits and felt it would not be appropriate to do a block himself.[129] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

C'n we please get some more eyes on this? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Second set of reverts today[130][131] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the best result is to pour green slime on him. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:S51438

S51438 (talk · contribs) I have a question: shouldn't and edit like this immediately result in a ban or block? (Apologies if this isn't the correct forum for this - feel free to steer me in the right direction.) ClovisPt (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, but that user should most definitely be placed under the discretionary sanctions prevalent in the area... (I assume there are discretionary sanctions in re Obama?) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There are discretionary sanctions, but I don't think it's worth bothering. Just warn them that they'll be indefinitely blocked next time they do something that foolish. NW (Talk) 00:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, did you actually look at the edits? I'm really surprised you'd say they are not deserving of an immediate block. The guy vandalised a BLP, calling the article subject a "nigger". Looking at his other edits to the page, he then made a series of other edits which could only be intended to be disruptive (going through and changing each instance referring to Obama being born in Hawaii to Kenya, including in the titles of references, changing Obama's name to Osama and calling him a Socialist). see. Since he's been given a warning, I'm not going to block now, but I disagree that calling a BLP subject a "nigger" and vandalising in this way shouldn't warrant an immediate block, regardless of the article subject and whether it is under discretionary sanctions. Sarah 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gave them an only warning. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 00:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

From briefly surveying that user's edits, they have a pretty lengthy history with no prior disruption that I can see. I'd say it was more likely a compromised account (eg, a roommate, sibling, classmate, etc) than actual intentional vandalism. If the user himself/herself actually made those edits, I'd call them banworthy, but based on them being totally out of character for the account, I'm assuming they were made by someone else. --B (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The warnings placed on the account seem fair - if he/she acts like this again, an immediate indefinite block should be forthcoming. I do feel that someone who makes edits like the one in question should be prohibited from "contributing" to the project. A compromised account is a possibility, I suppose. Thanks to all for the responses, and I'll avoid placing the user template in headers in the future. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat

I have received a legal threat on my user talk page from an IP contributor. I was directed to report here by WP:NLT, so here I am. --Danger (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

They've been blocked for a week. I wonder if this is enough, and should it only be an anon block? Whois says this is a stable IP address, so an autoblock will catch whoever was editing logged out as that IP, if anyone. Fences&Windows 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since people seem to forget rather quickly, we do not block IPs indefinitely due to the likelihood they will be given to someone else. This applies to seemingly-stable IPs as well. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I forgot nothing. There's some leeway between one week and indefinite; one week is very brief for such a disruptive editor, and you didn't answer about the idea of an autoblock to catch anyone who was editing using this IP while logged out of an account. Fences&Windows 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an anon-only block, so no autoblock here. Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

The Three Stooges page has been vandalized.--69.248.225.198 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardly worth noting on a board for incidents, but OK...2D Maestro ^{Immune Diplomat} 01:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV is thataway. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You should also undo the vandalism and warn the vandalizer (if someone else had not already). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo and SYNTH

Ghostofnemo has been disruptive at Peter James Bethune. We have previously been on noticeboards for other issues. Although his previous methods are questionable, his clear violation of WP:SYNTH is too much.

Bethune's trial is currently wrapping up in Japan. He recently made statements that distanced himself from the founder of Sea Shepherd. Ghostofnemo is now attempting to insert information on potential mistreatment as the reasoning behind this. I don't know why the subject made the statement and none of the sources have said why. Please see this edit.[132] Is adding a line and source discussing Amnesty International being critical of interrogation methods in Japan without mentioning Bethune appropriate after a line discussing his Bethune quote?

Instead of edit warring, can an administrator explain to GoN if his reverting to insert such material is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The line in question is a fair paraphrase of one source being quoted, so it is not SYNTH. The line in question is relevant to the article, which is about the trial of a suspect who has been held for a long period prior to his trial in Japan. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted him so it appears that this is no longer an edit warring/against guideline incident needing admin attention issue. Should I move this to the OR noticeboard?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to have an administrator look at the pattern of deletions of referenced material going on at this article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nemo, that line is synth. Yes, it's a correct paraphrase from the BBC story, BUT the BBC story doesn't say one word about Peter James Bethune. It's addition into Peter Bethune's article is implying that it's happening to Mr. Bethune.

It's synth , Cptnono is right to remove it. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Enigmaman

Resolved

 – Anon was blocked by Nyttend. No action needed against Enigmaman. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated obstruction of AfD at Scott O'Grady and removing content and request for citation from article. Tried to warn them but they have locked their talk page to keep away. Now they threaten. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Page isn't locked (but should be), you are edit warring and putting unnecessary amounts of tags and templates on the page. You are also putting an AfD template on the page that is malformed. Enigmaman is right in his reverts. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also reverted the anons edits and issued a Warn4IM warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a lie and an insult. His talk page is locked. They are geniune questions to raise about the article and why am I stopped from doing that? You are both harasing me now. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not been disrupting scott o'grady. That is a personel attack. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't, cause you are a POV pusher, as you have done on several different pages. All of which I have reverted as vandalism. Stop before you are blocked. Move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How is a POV to ask for deletion? Reasons are given. Please stop personally attacking me. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a blantant POV. There are more on other pages. Move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified Enigmaman of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh great so both of you can gang up together and censor me. I tried to notify him but his talk page is locked. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Might be good to CSD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott O'Grady as well, since it clearly isn't a real AfD. It was started with a "keep"[133]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How is deleting all my constructive edits a good move? If there is something wrong with one of them but all of them? So I've wasted my time? --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you have wasted our time, but you have wasted ours because we have to clean up your mess. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What mess? [134] How is that constructive? Why am I not allowed to raise the issue of this being a poor article with no citations? You've done it again. And no reason. Just vandal accusations. Please stop bullying me. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting POV nonsense all over multiple pages, tagging things unnecessarily, just plain being a troll. You have done it all in under a day. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD as speedy keep per criterion 5, which permits speedy keeping of pages linked from the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was basically vandalism. I'm glad the IP was blocked, as its goal appeared to be disruption. Adding huge amounts of unnecessary tags to articles, taking me to AN/I for daring to revert, etc. Enigma^msg 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and this IP reminds me of another similar IP. I don't remember the exact number, but they behaved in a similar way, and flipped out when they were reverted, going to AN/I just like this one did. I'm certain this is a sock of a previous user. Enigma^msg 06:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Emergency blacklisting required

Can someone please quickly add

\bareacode\.org\b
\countrycode\.org\b
\btollfreeforwarding\.com\b

to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (just copy and paste). We've blocked

• 202.65.133.239 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Snipsz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 24.126.249.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 110.33.100.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Spoling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 65.188.155.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Akhapr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Wingtip71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

just TODAY for spamming these sites. (I'm deliberately circumventing the blacklist request page due to it being backlogged.) MER-C 05:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And while you're at it, please hack at the backlog on the talk page. I hate reverting the same spam over and over. MER-C 05:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done those three. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though the wider problem of spam backlogs remains. MER-C 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I cleared the first ten sections or so just there, but it's pure drudgery. I'm minded to nominate you for RFA so that you can do it yourself :) Stifle (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The upside of the drudgery is that you get viciously attacked on and off Wikipedia by the spammers. Wait, did I say upside? Guy (Help!) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was considering having a go at it, but the syntax of regex remains completely opaque to me. —DoRD (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that I made a typo above: \countrycode\.org\b should be \bcountrycode\.org\b.

@Redundancy Most blacklistings are of the form above: replace . with \. ('.' matches any character in regex) and surround the domain with \b (a "word boundary": matches spam.example.com, example.com/blah and example.com but neither anexample.com example.community). You can ask me (I can access XLinkBot), Barek or Beetstra if you need help.

@Stifle 2.5 weeks + resolution of Internet Brands and Chinese knockoffs is the earliest I can consider a nomination. I don't know if the risk of another failed RFA and the downsides (a month no spam patrol?) and the dubious record of being the user with the highest editcount to fail an RFA is worth it. MER-C 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I supported your second (and most recent) RfA (#49) and remember being most annoyed when you didn't pass at the 100 mark. Those 3 years 4 months have been a blur but nothing really changes spam-wise, eh? – B.hotep •talk• 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

MER-C isn't an admin? For shame! Guy (Help!) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Typo fixed. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanistic Management

Resolved

• Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed as speedy delete, as the article was deleted under CSD G12. --Taelus (Talk) 06:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive template replacements

174.3.121.27 (talk) has nominated Template:Blockquote for deletion but has not awaited a consensus for deletion before embarking on a campaign to replace it everywhere.

The most obvious consequence of the replacement is that footnote markers (the figures marking and linking citations) following the blockquote are being displaced a line, indented and preceded by an empty underscore (example). (I have checked this on both Firefox and IE.) The user is claiming that "the reference is supposed to placed in that area", and apparently thinks that the footnote has to be on a line of its own, rather than immediately after the quote, to "cite the whole quote, not just a word or sentence". I would think that the indentation of a blockquote as a whole pretty much makes it obvious that it all comes from the same source. Quotation marks play the same role for shorter quotes. These are generally accepted conventions understood by all educated (and probably most uneducated) readers, and there is no need to reinvent a new and inferior wheel.

174.3.121.27 seems to be following his/her own rather idiosyncratic views of how citations should look and seems determined to create a de facto situation before anyone else has had the chance to interfer. --Hegvald (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning; he carried on, at high speed, so he needs a block now. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Ale jrb for 24h. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but its more than past time. Said IP is highly likely to be yet another IP sock of 100110100 (talk · contribs), who was given free reign to continue socking despite his real account being indef blocked. He's pulled this with multiple other templates, including {{Otheruses4}} which he stripped from hundreds of articles then tried to have deleted. In those cases, he mostly got support and encouragement, despite it being well known he was a banned user violating his ban, so it is not unsurprising that he keeps right on doing it. He's already been here multiple times, with adminis generally deciding "eh, he isn't doing anything too bad". I gave another editor wondering about him a good summary in my talk[135]. Perhaps now folks might consider actually dealing with this on a more long term basis. He's gotten 24 hour blocks before on some of his previous IPs. They didn't do anymore than this one will, and 10 to 2-, he'll be back within days, if not hours, on yet another IP because its been made clear that, in his case, banned does not mean banned.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, yes. This one is a piece of work. This is not the first campaign of dubious cleanup he's embarked on - the Talk page of his prior IP, here, is instructive on that score. This problem has been begging for a solution. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this user - esp. the 174.3.123.220 variety - should be blocked for a long time. He's had AGF+many chances, even after prior blocks. He's taken up far too much time from all of us, admins. included.

Incivility, taciturn - yet time to discuss shopping, jumping around WP reference sites - to troll, does just enough replies & ESs to deflect accusations of not compromising, very chequered history (so is tech-savvy), anon. IP despite > 4,000 edits in 6 weeks, made 18 edits of templates, trivial edits - to irritate rather than improve, just out to push the boundaries, for devilment?

No sense of Consensus or what Collaboration means. Loose cannon? No user page. Asked many times to provide ESs. He just has an axe to grind.

Surely we've all had enough? This user's block (& range?) needs extending - he's not for turning. Trafford09 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ok. We have an indef blocked user that is continuing to disruptively sock/edit via IPs. Sounds like the next step is to upgrade the indefinite block to an official site-ban. That'll make it much easier to do the official steps needed for dealing with the shifting IPs, revert on sight, etc.. So, are we ready to turn this into an actual ban discussion? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Official site-ban? Absolutely. Trafford09 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly support, of course. He was indef banned initially for a wide range of issues, including wikhounding and what seems to have been the final straw (death threats), and he has basically skirted the ban ever since and continued with the same sorts of issues, including continued wikihounding myself, and I believe several others, through his various IPs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of history here and it might be helpful to understand it at least in its broad strokes so that the discussion here is at less risk of being sidetracked by old issues that could be thrown in like chum. Anma's Talk page discussion, to which she previously linked (here it is again), is a good place to get started. JohnInDC (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Looking through the various links provided above, we have a long term indef-blocked user, who appears to have, at no point, shown any intention of respecting the block. They have continued to edit, often disruptively, despite the blocks. Even a well meant mentoring attempt earlier this year failed to turn this user into an asset to the project. So I would like to propose that User:100110100, whatever account or IP he may decide to edit under, be officially declared community-banned. This will make it much easier administratively to block his varied IPs, and to revert on sight his edits. It will also send a clear message, once and for all, that he is no longer welcome on the project.

• Support - as the one proposing this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Bill Phillips (author) article

The Revision History of the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Phillips_(author)&action=history, shows more than four years of persistent misuse by “Yankees76.”

In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.

The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased, unreliable, and not in keeping with Wikipedia verifiability standards.

TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.

Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.

The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.

Getfit1980 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for specific examples of bias? -Reconsider! 14:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Two examples of hearsay:

"Athletes like José Canseco would contact Phillips for advice on steroids,[13]"

"Reportedly, after the tumor was removed, he returned to "hanging up survey sheets from MM2K that showed Bill was our most popular writer. Each one had the words, 'Bill knows his audience!' written on them." Soon Phillips and Cusack's wedding was postponed and Phillips was regularly seen at strip clubs and in his magazine with fitness models and Playboy bunnies.[16]"

Getfit1980 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This ought to go to the BLP noticeboard. There has to be a middle path between writing an ad for the guy, and describing him as a failure and a specialist in steroids. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrous accusations. User:Getfit1980 is one of many sockpuppets who come to the article every few months without any previous Wikipedia edits and rewrite the article to remove any statements (sourced or not) that are related to Bill's well documented past as a steroids dealer/bodybuilder and supplement company owner or any negative statements in general. Any attempts to get these sockpuppets to discuss edits are usually met with silence. At one point (September 2008) the article was fully protected to avoid nearly the entire removal of content by a sockpuppet using the name User:BillEditor. How I've "bullied" any editors is beyond me, considering these editors refuse to discuss their changes and usually disapear only to be replaced by yet another sockpuppet that proceeds to do the same thing without any attempts to form a consensus on any of the informatio. The last one, the now blocked User:Chloe81375, attempted to intimidate both myself and another editor by threatening to expose our alleged personal information. Clearly there is an agenda being pushed by an individual or group of individuals who have a conflict of interest.

The article as it stands now does not give any undue weight to any side of Bill's career/personal life - both his successes and failures. The main article was written in March of 2006 by User:Glen and I've simply expanded on it with talk page discussions dating back to February 2006. A look through the edit history will show that I've spent considerable time carefully sourcing the info, especially info that is likely to be challenged. I've also attempted to explain why sources such at TC Luoma and magazines such as Mucle Insider and Testosterone Magazine are reliable sources. There is not much additional information I can add to this article at this time, however I'm not about to let an individual posting under numerous accounts remove sourced info in order to satisfy their own agenda. Yes, I'm aware of WP:OWN however watching an article and removing content blanking and vandalism does not fall under that guideline. --Yankees76 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Demand community ban for Vote (X) for Change

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

Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I demand a community ban on User:Vote (X) for Change and an indefinite block on 92.27.84.129 in response to the long history of block evasion, capped by the insult which can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Demand"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The user is already indefblocked. The IP is likely dynamic, so blocking it forever isn't going to help anything. I don't know what can be done other than a range block if it gets really bad. --B (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why he's asking for a ban -- so that any IP determined to be Vote (X) can be immediately blocked as the sock of a banned user, instead of arguing about block evasion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A blocked user who evades a block is to be blocked on sight anyway. Any user who is blocked and whom no admin is willing to unblock is banned already. It sounds like this is an argument over semantics. (Obviously, I agree with the ban ... I'm just not clear over the point of having a ban discussion for a long-time blocked user who is sockpuppeting ... it seems pretty cut and dry.) --B (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In theory, maybe. In practice I've been blocked (no complaint, good block etc) for edit warring with a sock puppet of an indefed editor. I have no qualms about repeatedly reverting banned editors; I would think twice before repeatedly reverting an indefed editor. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at WP:3RR and WP:BAN. Apparently the rule has changed from what it used to be. It used to be that reverting the edits of a currently blocked user evading their block was explicitly exempted 3RR. It used to be that if an administrator blocked a user and no admin was willing to unblock, that user was considered "banned" so long as nobody was willing to unblock them. I'm not sure I like these two rule changes, but IIWII and I now understand why the discussion is relevant. --B (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there is a debate over the name of a calendar. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarawak and User:95Kenrick

Could someone take a look at this article and this user's actions. They keep on adding a db-copyvio tag to it which I've removed for reasons I state on the talk page - in short a) it's only one section so not a valid G12 candidate and b) it seems nearly certain the website in question copied from us rather than the other way round. The editor in question also has a rather strange edit history of the article. It appears that they've not got their own way about somethings so are now trying to get the article deleted - at least that's my interpretation of it. I'd appreciate another pair of eyes to look over it as I'm at a three revert limit and don't want to be seen to be edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I acted on COPYVIO, Copying within Wikipedia and Text of the GNU Free Documentation License because it listed on the website with Copyright © Great Holiday Travel Sdn Bhd (843 225-A) and now I have replacing with {{copypate}} until the investigation is completed, thank you. 95Kenrick (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am investigating. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While it's always good to evaluate copyright concerns, in this case it is evident that they have indeed copied from Wikipedia. The first five sentences were introduced in a total of four edits, from March 2008, June 2004, April 2008 and January 2008. I've removed the template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding Sarawak and 95Kenrick: this user keeps on adding an edit in broken English to the article introduction, despite disagreement from multiple editors, and several removals of the same. This user is adding the same edit to Sabah. There is a discussion about this on the Sarawak talk page. I took the liberty of removing the "resolved" tag, since this is an ongoing issue. Chelos (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of talk page messages.

User:Kuebie has been insisting on removing a talk page message, that while it certainly is not civil, it does not seem to be the personal attack that he is claiming.

I did try to explain that his continued removal of this would result in an ANI report, but the reverts continued.

article - Talk:History_of_Korea

diffs

[[136]] [[137]] [[138]] [[139]]

I don't know if this removal is allowed or not, neither do I know if the 3RR applies to article talk pages.

assuming this is the correct place for such a report, can someone please shed some light on whether he is correct in his continued removal, or if the message should be left on the talk page.

thanks

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a prefectly legitimate removel as the comment adds nothing to improve the quality of the article. In fact, it can and should be removed as a troll post ment to stir up trouble. —Farix (t | c) 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that there is a discussion on the talk page relating to how long Korea has been inhabited and the removed messaged addressed that particular issue, I thought the comment while slightly incivil, was relevant. I don't see how it fits the criteria of messages that are allowed to be removed from an article talk page. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still very much a troll. The intent of the comment is to cause disruption, which is enough grounds to remove the comment. —Farix (t | c) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many comments that include less than civil language and put forward a point of view that might cause offence to some - however I tend to assume good faith and try not to read the minds of other editors. I see a comment made by an emotional editor, who could have used a little more tact, but still a valid comment addressing an issue relating to the article in question. Thanks for the input, but rather than waste any more of your time on this, perhaps we could wait for an admin to deal with this, one way or another, but thanks again for your opinion. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, I should point out that edit-warring applies to any sort of tit-for-tat reversion even if it's happening on a talk page and not an article: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion" (from WP:EW). Kuebie has made four reverts and Sennen goroshi three. Although you both have a bit of a history with this, Kuebie's is ongoing and he has been warned as recently as last month (while Sennen goroshi's is from a couple of years ago and looks like a fairly typical newbie learning curve). Accordingly I've blocked Kuebie for one week, which may seem harsh on the face of it for a 3RR violation, but it's clearly a long-term behavioural pattern that needs either changing or excluding from the site. Sennen goroshi, I hope you don't mind a reminder that you've narrowly avoided a block too; please follow WP:BRD in future :)

  Secondly, WP:TALK recommends "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." My feeling is that the post in question comes under the last part of that and would have been best left in situ; if it was found offensive, it could perhaps have been collapsed rather than removed entirely. However, it's borderline and others may well see it differently. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 16:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Holocaust

Desperately needs more eyes. Dispute in a nutshell is that there are two versions, a pared down one that takes a just the facts approach, and on that is rather, shall i say, polemical to be kind. This is not an "editorial dispute" so much as a question of choosing to rather flagrantly distort in service of a cause.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a ridiculous topic for an encyclopedia article. Maybe it could be expanded to United States media coverage of the Holocaust or some such thing? --B (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested topic would be a reasonable target (though it would also be a coatrack for activism/revisionist history as this one is). The problem is, who will write it? I wouldn't, because i'd still have to do battle with the revisionist history activists. Even keeping distortions out of this little coatrack is a full time job.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate has been edit warring for days, removing content without consensus that is well sourced and has been POV pushing non-stop along with PhGustaf. Both are trying to censor the article because they don't like it. Period. Caden ^cool 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How adorable. To give one a flavor of the problem look at this diff [140]. You can read the source material yourself to determine which version hews more closely to what was actually written. This is the sort of stuff being restored (went through this article and its sources with a fine tooth comb in January; the SPA that wrote it in the first place now wants his version back, and crack researchers and historians like Caden are being recruited to the cause).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Edit-warring is undoubtedly a fact, so I have protected the article at the wrong version. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think a month is way overkill here. The merge discussion will likely be done in days. I'd urge this move to the 4-6 day range. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

NB: Bali ultimate brought his complaints here (although what he is complaining about is an editing dispute) without bothering to tell the editors he is complaining about that there is an AN/I thread. His has more than enough experience to know better. Naughty, naughty, Bali ultimate! No reason to keep this thread a secret from the other editors.

Perhaps the one problem at The New York Times and the Holocaust, that qualifies for discussion here, is that Bali ultimate abrasive editing style may may reach the level of being disruptive to the editing process. But for some reason he has not mentioned that problem. The editor who created this article is a newbie, at least in terms of editing experience, and probably deserved gentler handling....even if if should prove true that Bali ultimate is as right about every thing as he thinks. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate reached the level of disruption days ago through his non-stop edit warring and his never ending biased POV pushing. I'm not surprised either that he failed to notify a single editor about his report here. Caden ^cool 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This article seems like a potential candidate for deletion. ClovisPt (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, how about a merge into Criticism of The New York Times? ClovisPt (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount that has been written about this specific topics, I think the article is defensible, but the discussion obviously belongs elsewhere. Thee seems to be a view here that this is fringe, but it isnt.A much more extensive article could and should be written. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Claim of libel from Nicholas van Praag

The article Nicholas van Praag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a history of apparent COI edits including the blanking of reliably sourced detail. It is currently under AFD. The following anonymous IP (registered to the The World Bank Group), claims to be Nicholas van Praag and has made the following complaint on my talk page which include a claim of libel and requesting administrator attention on his BLP:

I do not understand why you (Fae, whoever you are) continue to change my entry in Wikipedia - putting my expertize and present function in the past tense and making libellous assertions about my character and performance without substantiation. Further, your edits are poorly worded and detract from the readability of the post. I would ask you (Fae) to desist and, at the same time, I would request the Wikipedia administrator to decide how to word the entry about me on Wikipedia rather than continuing the back and forth over edits to the text, thereby risking deletion of the post itself. This link to my bio on the world bank website indicates my present functions as well as previous roles and responsibilities. I would be grateful if you could stick to this description of my career without embroidery or bias. Many thanks, Nicholas van Praag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.86.100.36 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Original talk page entry: diff

I have not replied and would appreciate advice. Fæ (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the article per his concerns and WP:DOLT. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was necessary, Hipocrite. It seems to me that the IP is trying to spin his article, and it certainly looks like Fæ's right about the COI editing. I assume the information that's being objected to is that relating to his departure from UNHCR? If not, can Fæ supply a diff? Assuming it is... The Telegraph is a reliable UK broadsheet newspaper and that information looks suitably neutrally-written and sourced in compliance with WP:BLP. I see no reason to remove it. This from March 2010 seems to corroborate that Mr van Praag is no longer in that position. The link we're being provided by Mr van Praag, on the other hand, is to a blog - likely self-published, and certainly not WP:RS. I do applaud the removal of most of the "External links" section which was overly-promotional and fell foul of WP:ELNO.

My feeling is that the article should probably be deleted; frankly, I don't believe it passes WP:BIO. However, should it survive the AfD, Mr van Praag needs to stop editing the article completely under any alias and should realise that it's not under his control and is certainly not his curriculum vitae. Neither must it become an attack piece, so if he has genuine concerns we'll take them seriously - in which case he might try contacting the WP:OTRS team or mentioning them on the article talk page together with a disclosure of his interest. Legal threats, even veiled ones, are a definite non-starter and will lead to his account(s) being blocked until he's sorted them out with the Wikimedia Foundation.

That's my take on the situation anyway :) EyeSerene^talk 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll want to be careful, here, ES - specifically, what was listed in the past tense was "was a public policy communications professional." That's just not true - even if not employed, he would still be a "public policy communications professional," though he would be an unemployed one. Further, the Telegraph article deals with a 2009 resignation from the UN's High Commission for Refugees, not any position related to the World Bank, where a reliable source (a blog hosted by the world bank) states he "manages the communications and advocacy program for the next World Development Report." I did not remove the statement he left the UNHCR, but I placed his current position in the present tence, because all present reliable evidence shows he currently works there. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Password abuse/help needed

Resolved

 – Fake temporary password requests can and should be ignored. –xeno^talk 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have falsely received this email message:

Someone from the IP address 64.107.0.158 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

Would a checkuser or admin please help? Thanks —Tommy2010 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you. Someone is trying to get into your account; I might change your password. Do not post the code anywhere, as anyone could crack in. mono 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you posted the code; Xeno was quick to WP:REVDELETE it. mono 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't worry about it (but don't post your password here, either!)

What happens if some clown thinks that they'll try and crack your account. Being the elite "hackers" they are, they fail to sign in as you. They then they'll request that your password - or a new password - be emailed. They try this. Unfortunately, they don't get the opportunity to specify the email address! Oh noes! The request goes, instead, to the email address you originally specified. They fail, you laugh. Honestly, there's nothing to worry about - except how silly some "hackers" are. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3)Despite what mono says, ignore the message. Unless you change your password, there's not a whole lot they can do - the password request email doesn't allow them to see your current password. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 17:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I was freaking out there for a bit. Many many many thanks to Xeno for his (?) extremely fast response that (had he not done) could have compromised my entire account. Excellent. —Tommy2010 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(response to a blunder that could have compromised my account, I think you mean ;>) No problem. And yes, {{gender|Xeno}} = he –xeno^talk 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed ;) Damn those linguistic ambiguities! —Tommy2010 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Neutralhomer

I don't know what route to take with this, but I am again getting harrassed by user:neutralhomer. I posted a link to a photograph on my website (standard site, no advertising, I get no revenue, just a picture host) showing proof of evidence in an article. I disagree with his assertion that is it not a reliable source. (He state's conflict of interest, however I dispute that! How is a photograph evidence not reliable? It's a good faith source). I removed the link for the time being, however.

Anyways that is not the intended purpose of this post. He has requested that I do not post on his wall, so I can't notify him directly of this matter, and hope someone else here can.

He is now clearly following my every move on here, and based on other users talk pages, he's done/doing it to other users here as well who question his motives and what could be considered WP:Harrassment. Examples of a couple of other user talk pages [| here], [| here], and [| here]. His tactics include unnecessary flagging, incorrect flagging [| here.] reporting removal of unverified information as vandalisim, which had been determined to not be. He's been flagged by other users in the past as well. When the OP is questioned about his removal of unverified information, he refuses to go into arbitration. I had to flag him for edit warring, something that appears to have been done before. Based on comments left on my [talk page] by other users, I am not alone in this matter.

The user "requests" that I do not post on his wall, but feels it is ok for himself to do so on my wall. I believe this qualifies as WP:Harrassment as well as WP:Hounding , based on what I stated, and the comments clearly posted on the other three walls. What are the correct steps to take to get this overzealous member to back down? He's making several people's lives on Wikipedia a nightmare because of actions. Necrat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT.

He is correct that that picture is not an appropriate reference for the information you're using it for. Also, pointing to an entire article history is not generally considered suitable evidence for "incorrect tagging".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I tag the one line that I am referring to? Also that's not the bigger problem here. It's the borderline bullying over other members as well, and what I would consider to be WikiStalking. I have removed the link to the picture in the article he questioned. Is this acceptable to use? [| Link ]

I think you mean WP:DIFF. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wasn't told of this thread. No worries, found it searching for another ANI thread. I told Necrat that a website owned by him wasn't a reliable source since it was added by him. Just like I can't source an article with my website, it is COI, since I own the site. I think it could be possible for others to source it (since they are not owners, I will leave that to an admin to decide). I directed Necrat (politely, regardless of our past) to the FCC website where I believe they keep a list of transmitter brands the station using on the main application, which in this case would be here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks really shouldn't be banning other editors from their user talk pages unless there's serious harassment. I see that now Necrat has reciprocated by asking Neutralhomer not to post on his talk page either. User talk pages are there for a purpose - communication.   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be honest, I do that for things I just don't want to deal with and areas where I feel I am being roped into a pissing match. I just say "begone". Though it is very rare I have to as I do try to get along with most everyone on Wikipedia. This has been a big pissing match gang-up between 4 users and me and I had better things to do like get an article to Good Article status (and I did) then deal with a pissing match. I just felt telling them to "begone" was easier than continous fighting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

As you all know, I have a very consuded idea of "rollback misuse" so I would be grateful to know if the use of the esteemed tool is legitimate here [141]. Where user:Fastily (an admin) to my mind is misusing the tool very badly. Life is just so confusing isn't it? Go forth and discuss.  Giacomo  18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to hear from Fastily on this. As a preliminary comment, I will say that the decision to use rollback here seems to me to have been an unwise one. AGK 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have rolled back that edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? so what are you going to do about it? Take away his rollback rights, say he is harrassing or do nothing? There seems to be a lot that is "odious" going on currently - doesn't there?  Giacomo  19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback cannot be taken away from an admin. (That's not an endorsement of anything, just a clarification of what is technically possible.) --B (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, only one thing can be taken from an Admin and that won't happen - just go stew, all of you. I feel tainted in some of the comapany here right now. I won't be back to this thread so just close it - leave it - cover it up or whatever it is you usually do.  Giacomo  19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As B says, Fastily is an admin. I'd say someone should talk to him. Now that I understand you were baiting me, I also understand why you didn't ask him about it yourself on his talk page. I think this thread should be closed now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Giano said it before B did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What's with the forum shopping, Giano? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He'll be able to answer that question when he gets back from AGK's block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Or when the wheel war begins ... --B (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the question of appropriateness, if the edits themselves were appropriate, then using rollback would be appropriate in this case - it is approved for bulk reverts. However, I don't see that the edits themselves were appropriate for the most part. Some of these images are clearly public domain and, while there technically needs to be a source for our image policy, if it's obviously PD and it's obvious where it came from originally, we don't need to be obnoxious about it. But I should point out that the articles from January 4, 1923 are NOT public domain. So to answer your question, no, the use of rollback was not appropriate. --B (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is just a plain obnoxious revert. I would hope it was accidental. --B (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In the edit I just undid here, it was clearly an invalid deletion rationale -- it was stated that it came from a particular issue of the New York Times that was comfortably in the Public Domain. The exact provenance of the scan is irrelevant.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be nice if we had (just in case there is ever any question) something like "User such and such scanned this image from an original clipping" or, "this clipping was posted on Bob Smith's blog at http:// whatever". That way, if, sometime down the line, someone questions the authenticity, we have that level of audit trail. But I wouldn't go around deleting things without it unless there is some legitimate concern that it may not be authentic. At Commons, for instance, there are plenty of works of art that are obviously PD, but for which there is no exact source of the image file itself. Going through them and deleting for the sake of deleting would just be obnoxious. --B (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another reason why the admin toolset should be split up. There is no way that Fastily can be "punished" for this - any ordinary editor would have their rollback right stripped without question. Oh, and Giacomo has been blocked for "personal attacks". Aiken ♫ 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding that - an ordinary editor can be topic banned, or told to not post to another editor's user page; can not the community, or other admins in concert, put an administrator under a ban from using one of their tools? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are about 20 he has the same tag on under the same circumstances. All PD. I know of no Wikipedia rule that demands what library I scanned a book from or what roll of microfilm I used. Bridgeman v. Corel says that a new copy of an expired image doesn't reset the clock for copyright. Saying "New York Times on January 12, 1910" is enough info to refind it. The demands for a link or that the text be in a fancy new format are just a continuance of the nonsense all week to pile on. I want to remove the tags since they are incorrect. Can I remove the tags, when I tried to add more text and remove the tag he threatened to block me and rolled back my changes as you saw above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard, you don't need to say what microfilm you used - just put in there that you personally scanned the image (as opposed to downloading it from a website). The whole idea, as I said above, is that if five years from now, there's a question about where it came from and someone says "some website claims that the article text says this", we can say, "no, Richard himself scanned it from microfilm so we know our version is correct". You don't have to give the life story - just say that you did the scanning. --B (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I found flaws in most of those tags, I'd say rm them. My only (wee) worry is there may be a very few scanned articles which may not PD (I don't know if they are or not). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There was one that was from January 4, 1923. --B (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aiken, there is a way Fastily can be "punished" (using the term loosely because, in general, corrective action on Wikipedia is preventative, not punitive) - he can be blocked. If it is decided that there is an ongoing threat of disruption from Fastily's use of the rollback privilege, he can (and will) be blocked. --B (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of a Title is Disputed

I hope I'm posting this in the appropriate place. The neutrality of the title, Opposition_to_water_fluoridation has been disputed in the talk page, Talk:Opposition_to_water_fluoridation#Article_title_should_say_.22controversy.22_rather_than_.22opposition.22. Please take a look and change the word "Opposition" to something with more neutrality such as "Controversy". Adamlankford (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)