Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.

Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Meat, Libel, four AfDs, and assorted weirdness at David Bruce McMahan

We have a strange situation brewing and I believe that we will need an admin to come in immediately and sort it all out.

Issue One: Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money

An IP posted a link to this article today at the talk for David Bruce McMahan. I responded that the process was all done legitimately to my knowledge. It was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McMahan (3rd nomination).

Considering that this is an issue of libel against Wikipedia, this might need intervention by the office staff. Or we can ignore the blogger, [REDACTED], and move on. More likely option is the first one, with all the chaos that entails.

Issue Two: Meatpuppetry or other Odd Beheavior

Someone with more experiance than I should look at the edit histories of user:SirBruce and the IP 69.140.102.40. SirBruce has not been seen since 9 Feb 2010 and then posted in the talk page warning another user not to remove sources. The other user (Melaen) seems above question and seems to have taken the correct actions, but SirBruce's appearance raises questions. This is compounded by the edit history of the IP which has been absent for over a month before posting the link to the voice and making accusations against Wikipedia.

Finally, the article creator Wikidpedia appeared today for the first time since 2007 to create this article. In 2007 he created several other articles that were deleted. The timing of all these users is suspicious. The admin User:Cirt blocked the account for 48 hours for disruptive editing, but I think this is someone's dormant sock, as there is no other explination as to why the account would suddenly come in and create an article like this.

Issue Three: The curious history of Bruce McMahan and David Bruce McMahan

There have been four AfDs for this article. Three without the David, one with it. I upgraded the fourth to a CSD G3 on account of it being deleted before. That being said, the first and second AfDs resulted in Keeps, and the third was a Delete. The sources seemed not to have changed, but the consensus shifted. In full disclosure I voted delete on the newest AfD, but was unaware of the other three except for the notification of the deletion history at the AfD. I wanted to bring this up in light of the posting from the Voice, and because the people that hang out here will know the best course of action in all three incidents.

I will not be participating in the discussion of these issues unless I am asked to do so. Please inform me at my talk page if I am needed. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

The page in question has just been deleted. Apparently this is not a problem for Admins, so I don't advise restoring it, as it can only cause more problems. All three issues are still valid though. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant link to final AFD before speedy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bruce McMahan. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

So this guy gets his page deleted because he's not "notable" even though he's had plenty of articles written on him and lawsuits against him. What would make him notable in the eyes of Wikipedia? A reference on Family Guy? Does Peter need to go "Bruce McMahan? That's like that one time I slept with Meg!"?

Just because the content of the article is poor, doesn't mean the entire page should be deleted. This person is clearly notable based on the wide coverage this has received in addition to his role as CEO of a firm that has received coverage, philanthropy that has received coverage, etc. Most of the criticism leveled is hung up on the negative nature of the original article -- clearly, the article's content was unacceptable. But, that means a stub should be created, sources listed, and appropriate tags citing need for improvement, perhaps even created with protection given the obvious controversy, and so forth. In other words, deleting articles due to controversy is ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of articles with far less reliable (and far fewer) sources that we don't go around randomly deleting. We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that we are deleting the article repeatedly due to, 1) the article content being bad (even in poor taste), and 2) controversial. However, neither of this actually justify the actions taken. It means that it's just going to be a huge pain in the ass for an admin to maintain and a writer to create. Strom (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted this wretched and unacceptable article, along with its talkpage. They should not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all well and good, and I stand by the delete, but issues one and two are still important. Should issue 1 be taken to the office and issue 2 to the sockbusters? If so, can someone else do it, I'm not sure how to report things to the office staff or how to report possible meats without knowing who the leader is. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and salted the article on the reason that some extensive discussion will be necessary before considering recreation. –MuZemike 02:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a random policy question from a new-ish user. I know salting prevents recreating articles, but do the discussion pages also get salted? If so it didn't get done in either case... Just curious, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain this to me? NYB's deletion summary indicates that there are multiple AfDs that have deleted this, but I'm only seeing one (proceeded by 2 keeps where consensus was strongly on the keep side). Further I'm not having problems finding sources on this person. There is all the "odd" stuff like [1] and [2], but there are also things like [3], [4] and [5]on his world-record setting car and for his foundation work [6], [7]. Help? Hobit (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• • 3rd AFD, 2nd AFD, 1st AFD. As far as this last deletion was concerned, after looking at the deleted copy, I do have to agree with NYB. It was entirely negative in tone and would have likely fallen under WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page; it just happened to have been deleted a bunch of times before that. –MuZemike 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The 2nd and 1st were keeps. So if we do want this recreated we get a userspace version and DrV it? If so, I'd like to request the version deleted by the 3rd AfD be userfied to me. I'll dig back and find what was keepable about 1 and 2 and use that as a starting point. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't see any of those articles, but I'm guessing that the most recent version was a gross violation of our BLP policies, and as such it shouldn't be userfied either - i.e., it should stay invisible to the public. If the result of the second AFD was "keep", then maybe that one could be userfied - if its content is not potentially libelous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Fine with me I suppose, but given that it wasn't deleted for being libelous, I assume that the 3rd should be fine too. I'll take either (assuming I get the history). Hobit (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a page that should exist. David Bruce McMahan aka D. Bruce McMahan aka David B. McMahan has had several feature stories written about him in newspapers and magazines, including cover articles in New Times Broward-Palm Beach and Village Voice. He was the subject of multiple lawsuits and has tried to censor journalists and now Wikipedia from reporting on him. He is also a successful businessman and philanthropist who has multiple projects named after him.

The content of the article on Wikipedia was at one time up to standards, but got gutted. The article should be improved and not deleted. There is more than enough information, including direct source legal papers, to fill an appropriate article on him. The page just needs time to stay up instead of being deleted so it can be improved.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-09-26/news/daddy-s-girl/

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/10/memo_to_bruce_m.php

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-09-28/news/feature.html

--66.246.94.130 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I really hate to do this, as the comment I am about to make flies in the face of many of my core policies, but it has to be said: I'm been to South Florida. I've had the distinct misfortune of reading the New Times. It is unreliable, and has such tremendously low journalistic standards that it is on par with trash tabloids. I would never use it as a source in anything. I'd sooner use the National Inquirer. The New Times is NOT a suitable source, ever, period. As for the other sources, anything with blog in the name is genertally viewed with skepticism. A few blogs are editor reviewed and have high standards. The NPR blogs come to mind. Most blogs are not editor reviewed and therefore are not good sources. Also considering this article my view of the voice as reliable isn't that high.

You need better sources. If the man is notable, they will exist. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@66.246.94.130: Your edit here is higly inappropriate. Avoid attacking the closing admin, it never helps an argument. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Joe Arpaio article cites the Phoenix version of the New Times on multiple occasions, and has for some time despite some controversy on that article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugs Malone (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

<ec>Two things. #1, as I listed above, there are plenty of other sources, so if the New Times is really that bad, we can cope. The discussion about the New Times can happen at WP:RSN. #2 Sven, do you have any WP:COI issues with McMahan? Given your relatively short history here (though lots of edits in that time) I figured it would be worth asking just to be sure. I assume you are a returning editor going for a WP:CLEANSTART, but the COI think also seems possible. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no COI. I have the unfortunate habit of unknowingly stepping into existing conflicts, (see the above ANI that I posted in) but this is more of a "I saw something wrong and went after it" sort of thing. As to my knowledge, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006. I only got an account recently because I spent three months abroad and away from Wikipedia, and came back to a new review system, a dramatic increase in semi-protections, and an overall less condusive atmosphere towards IP editing. Before getting the account, I never used automated tools or participated in ANI or AFD, although I did launch one SOCK investigation from my iPhone. Hence my large general knowledge and low specific knowledge. Also I seem to bite off more than I can chew and have terrible spelling, but again, no COI. If you want to give me guideance on anything, please feel free to do so. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The "blogger who appears to be a hack" that Sven speaks of in his "Issue 1" above is Tony Ortega, Editor in Chief of The Village Voice, as it says at the end of the Ortega/VV blog that Sven linked to. Sven, since you referred to Ortega as a "hack", he appears to have now returned the favor by referring to you in an update to his column as a "minion" (see immediately preceding link, "Update" section). I'd very respectfully suggest that it might help keep drama to a minimum, now that you've made your opinion known, if you were to follow through on the intention you stated when you initiated this thread, and perhaps not continue to participate in this discussion. You're free to do as you think best, of course, and perhaps it'll be necessary for you to comment further, at least briefly. But it would be unfortunate if you (or any individual editor here) were to in any way "become the story". This thread shouldn't be about your opinion of Ortega, or his opinion of you: It needs to remain focused on whether we are to have a McMahan article on Wikipedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Tony Ortega did not claim, nor imply, that Wikipedia deleted the article "for money". If he did say or imply that, please do let me know, because that's absolutely false and libelous. But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures. I don't recommend having a brawl about it, and of course Newyorkbrad's wise comments should be very thoughtfully considered. For me personally, a big test for this article, and a challenge perhaps difficult to meet, is WP:BLP1E. Beyond that, the article would need to be thoughtful and respectful of human dignity and would have to work really hard to draw conservative conclusions rather than following a single source as if it is the gospel truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to quote what Ortega is saying about Wikipedia, since I'm not clear that everyone in the discussion is actually reading his blog post (and just to point out - yes it's a blog post, but also the bloogier who wrote it signs his blog posts "Tony Ortega is the editor-in-chief of The Village Voice" - for those not aware of the Voice, it is considered a "reliable source," and not just in the wikipedia context.

From the blog post Memo

UPDATE: Wikipedia's reason for not wanting a McMahan page? According to one of their minions, I'm a "hack."

The last time, while they were under constant attack by McMahan's lawyers, they pulled down references to our articles because, they said, The Village Voice was not a legitimate source of information for biographies of living people.

Say what? I tracked down the Wikipedia minion who had written that, who turned out to be an electrical engineer in England. He sent me some long explanations about the nature of journalism and what information is reliable. But eventually, I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan, but it was easier to say that the Voice wasn't a legitimate source. You can imagine that my respect for Wikipedia took a nosedive at that point.

This time, we get a Wikipedia minion saying that McMahan isn't "notable" and that I'm a hack. You can almost smell the fear, can't you?

Not notable? Well, OK, Wikipedia, how's this for notable. It turns out that moneybags McMahan put on a show earlier this year with his new $3 million race car, and unveiled it with the help of 2010's Playmate of the year, Hope Dworacyk. Notable enough for you?

I don't know. Hedge fund kabillionaire, noted "philanthropist," race car dreamer, Westchester County bigwig, and...oh, he married his own daughter in Westminster Abbey. Is that really not notable enough?

UPDATE 2: And now it's down. Well, we learn once again that Wikipedia is afraid of McMahan (which is fine, we don't expect others to take on these kinds of stories), but that they will continue to slime the Voice as their reason for taking down information about him.

For the benefit of Wikipedia editors, who still may not understand this situation, the Voice is doing things the old-fashioned way here. We are reporting what court documents revealed about a relationship between a very notable super-rich old guy who abused his grown daughter for years. Those facts are contained in court documents which are available here and elsewhere. Normally, that is the bedrock of what Wikipedia considers legitimate sourcing. In this case, however, McMahan's money talks.

(emphasis added)

I'm sticking my nose in because I find this particular incident fascinating on many levels. The collision between journalism & wikipedia, and the awful, awful story that this whole discussion is about.

You guys should really get a handle on your "minions" =) illovich (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the identity of this "minion", their source of said "minion's" information, the reason their word (if it was ever actually given) should be believed, or why it's impossible any of the other provided reasons would not justify any particular course of action, remain mysteries. I was tempted to just slap a bunch of {{fact}} tags in the above, but re-factoring someone else's comments is a faux pas. Between several plausible and supported motives versus unsubstantiated hearsay, I think it's fairly obvious what further discussion should be predicated on. - Vianello (Talk) 22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knO5Ad7cD0M is this an appropriate source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.201.102 (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

National Cristina Foundation

As long as this is being discussed, someone should have a look at this edit. I reverted, but perhaps the IP who made it should be dealt with and a revdelete imposed. Also, please examine the link to the Village Voice story recently inserted. Admins should watchlist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've revision deleted that edit, and a similar edit to the talkpage. I gave the IP a final warning, as the edits were from several hours ago. They have, however, already had one block for a similar (deleted) edit. If someone else feels a block here is warranted they'll get no objection from me. I haven't looked at the Village Voice link yet. TFOWR 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the talk page history. The libelous edit summary is still live. IMO the talk page should be deleted entirely. Also please look at the link to the Voice story in the article. Perhaps that should be revdeleted, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries have been deleted as well, now - thanks for catching that. I'm still catching up with the Village Voice link/ref. TFOWR 17:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a link to the same Voice story mentioned in the first post of this thread containing the accusations against McMahan. It's not relevant to the Cristina Foundation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've revrted it and semi-protected the article. I have not revision-deleted the Village Voice ref, however. (I may yet, and have no objection to anyone else doing so). TFOWR 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to this issue, some time after TWOFRs post an IP posted a link on the articles Talk Page to a YouTube video alledgedly about "Bruce McMahaon's dark past". I have deleted the link and related comments - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

External publicity

This whole sorry mess is now being posted about on Reddit, which has an unfortunate habit of publicizing "interesting" Wikipedia vandalism - see discussion here and be sure to view the image linked at the top of the discussion page, which is visible to anyone who sees the link on Reddit's front page. When we spend our time dickering about what we should do instead of just nuking the offensive material, this is how the world sees us. That's apart from the harm being done to a living person (again, see image linked in the discussion there), which is horrendous and irreversible. This whole lengthy discussion did nothing to prevent either issue - whereas immediately deleting the BLP-violating material and reconsidering it afterward would have prevented it. One ounce of action beats any amount of debate, every time. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The original Reddit link to the Village Voice article, from yesterday: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/dooud/rich_guy_has_an_affair_with_daughter_gets_called/ - as you can see, they're pretty miffed about this guy's behaviour. This is what a person who claims to be the original editor of the Bruce McMahan article says about it:

Thank you for linking to Tony's article. I'm glad to see this scumbag's past dredged up again.

I can offer some possibly interesting perspective on this incident. I was the Wikipedia editor who first created the Bruce McMahan page several years ago. I used the original Broward/Palm Beach New Times articles as my main source and was even nice enough to not call him out on his mail-order PhD.

Once the article entered Google and became a first-page hit for "Bruce McMahan", Bruce's hired gun from the law firm of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP (www.linerlaw.com) emailed me proposing changes to the article. What a fuck up! The idiot didn't even know he could edit the article himself. I ignored him.

Bruce's PR firm wised up, and vandals began blanking the page. I kept restoring it, and we went back and forth. His PR firm soon figured out that they could actually re-write the pages instead of vandalize them. A resume was posted over the article. When I and several editors pushed back, several new but deeply concerned editors began inserting outright lies then tried to weaken the language of the daughter-fucking incident and bury it under mounds of glowing hagiography. They accused me and a handful of editors as being members of a conspiracy to destroy Bruce. One of his daughters even jumped in with a ridiculously long apologia in the discussion page. The volume of edits and sock puppets knocked the fight out of me, but a handful of other editors kept up and actually expanded the article to cover far more of the daughter-fucking incident than my original stub.

Eventually, Bruce contacted Jimbo Wales, who directly intervened and had an admin settle the debate in favor of scrubbing ALL references to Bruce's daughter fucking from the article. For the next couple of years, the article became a paean to Bruce's charity work with the National Cristina Foundation and other bullshit. Bruce won. It stood this way for a long time until someone noticed that there was a random fluff piece floating around Wikipedia and proposed to delete it. Fuck it, I decided, and I voted to kill it.

Reddit, I implore you: vote this link up. Get it to the front page. Make Bruce McMahan and other rich people realize that when they try to suppress information with the tools of coercion and deception, free-speech-loving individuals will turn around and blow it up to the stratosphere.

So, yes, thanks for caving to the guy with the money, Wikipedia. 94.193.244.17 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

When do I get my money, and how much will I get? TFOWR 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, to be clear, I have nothing to do with this. Bruce did not contact me, I did not intervene. There is no prohibition by me or the Foundation on creating an article on this topic, and never has been.. Years ago, Brad Patrick had conversation with some people about this; he may be able to explain more if he is interested. But he did not, to my knowledge, intervene back then. As always, I am a strong proponent of WP:BLP and WP:RS - those policies are clearly relevant here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• As for what Tony Ortega thinks of us: [REDACTED]. HalfShadow 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Insufferably long comment

I believe I've now discovered and examined all or nearly all the articles and web sources that are at all relevant: I've probably sifted through and read well over 200 pages, including court documents. I do not choose to provide my opinion of the facts presented in the media; other editors can examine the available evidence for themselves. I will say, however, that I don't think it's a worthwhile or justifiable exercise to attempt to shoot the media messengers in this instance. Nor do I think it's useful (or appropriate) for any of us to try to stand in moral judgment, based on our interpretation of the facts we have available. If anyone here finds he can't refrain from doing so, can't think of or discuss this issue without moral indignation coloring his thinking, this article and related ones available on the web may be of considerable use. The suggestion is not to be construed as indicating any opinion about the facts that have been presented on either side in this matter.

A procedural note is probably in order. While the article was in its most recent (4th) AfD, a user tagged it under CSD G4, and it was, in fact, deleted as a "speedy". While that tagging was no doubt made in all good faith, the article probably didn't meet G4 since the just-deleted article has been described as being very negative, while the previously deleted version (AfD three) was anything but: it was described as having been "whitewashed", and as a vanity piece. CSD G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version".

Some of the "external publicity" about this has already been mentioned and even quoted. There's a very great deal of it, and it appears this thread is being followed pretty closely in some corners of the web. ( A good reason for choosing one's words deliberately here, I think. ) As might be expected, some people are hoping for and trying to promote a "Streisand effect", and others believe just as strongly that the allegations should never have been published at all. There has been some suggestion of a conflict of interest re one editor along with a corresponding reference to a previously disclosed real-life identity ( I do not say "credible" suggestion, note ) and there's a different, previously-involved editor who has expressed great indignation off-site at what he sees as the improper suppression of this article. That editor has made accusations that target that indignation back to Wikipedia; and it's my opinion that it wouldn't be very extraordinarily improper ask him whether he might have some potential conflict of interest, given certain individual factors. I mention this not because I think it needs to be investigated (I don't) but because I think it's appropriate that editors should be forewarned of it. Each side in this conflict is sure it holds the moral high ground, each side just knows it's on the side of the angels.

As I see the question, there are two distinct ways we can decide whether to have an article about this. We can base a decision on rules, or we can base a decision on values.

If we're to base our decision on rules then I think Jimmy is exactly right that it comes down to BLP1E. That question resolves to (a) whether McMahan is also notable in our very-specific and admittedly idiosyncratic sense of the word on Wikipedia for his race-car development, his success as a hedge-fund manager, his wealth, or his philanthropy, OR (b) whether the coverage about the father-daughter controversy has been broad-enough and persistent-enough in reliable sources to call for inclusion in Wikipedia. If either condition (a) or (b) is met then our rules dictate that a carefully-written, non-sensational article that includes the topic currently at issue here should not be deleted.

In the course of looking into the question, I saw a great many mentions re "condition (a)" about McMahan. That's it exactly: there were a great many mentions re that condition. The NY Times mentioned the sale of a $30 million condo (furnishings and artwork included), Playboy mentioned his race car development, some trade publications mention his work as a hedge-fund manager, there were a few mentions of his philanthropy, and one or two of his great wealth. I saw nothing in-depth about these topics, however, no "feature" articles about McMahan in any of these contexts or roles. It's possible I missed something, of course, but I tried carefully to be thorough. It's a borderline case, a judgment call, and I'm not going to argue the point with anyone, but it's my view that McMahan's notability apart from the one big issue that's current is probably not sufficient to warrant an article.

So what about "condition (b)", then? Well, there's a great deal of material, multiple articles, from Village Voice, and the follow-up official blogs. ( The New Times in other locations is also Village Voice Media, btw, as I understand it. ) And there are two articles in the New York Post that I know of: one essentially follows after the Village Voice and one introduces denials and counter-accusations against the long-lost daughter, made by a different daughter and (same) half-sister. A lot of editors will disapprove of the Village Voice and the New York Post, of course, because their respective editorial outlooks don't suit. I have nothing to say about that, but it's my opinion that they're both reliable sources, have sufficient editorial oversight, etc. There will be editors here who disagree with that, of course, but I think any such debate would be moot. A case could be made that it's due to McMahan's success in getting civil lawsuits sealed in multiple jurisdictions, perhaps quite a strong case, too, but for whatever reason I was unable to discover any other reliable sources that touched this story. The Village Voice directly addresses the issue, of course, this apparent lack of extensive coverage elsewhere, but the fact remains. Oh, there was a new story today in English at thaindian.com, too. That's all I'm aware of: It's my overall opinion that our condition (b) probably isn't met, either.

What, then, if we base our decision on values? Before I really looked at this in-depth, I was sure that the "values" decision had to come down in favor of having an article: I completely understood the great indignation that the Editor of the Village Voice has expressed. I'm fairly sure I still do understand that, actually. I would almost certainly feel the way he does, were I in his shoes. But I can't work myself into the same state of indignation after looking at this as closely as I now have. There's no moral high ground here, in my view; the angels aren't on anyone's side. They're probably all just quietly weeping somewhere. Whatever you believe about the facts presented, whether you believe in guilt or innocence or some combination of the two for the accused or accusers, what we have here are terrible, devastating personal consequences, a real tragedy. If we're going to base our decision about this on values, then it seems morally right to me to leave the personally involved to suffer through the grief of this as best they can without all of us here shining a spotlight their way. I realize that others may disagree in perfect good faith, of course, but that's my view of this matter. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as an exceptionally thoughtful, well-reasoned, and empathetic comment. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Amazing. Makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully supporting Ohiostandard, after spending an hour or so familiarizing myself with the previous article versions and some of the online articles. And i'm an inclusionist. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohiostandard makes a good case that the article falls into a "grey zone" of notability, between articles that pretty unambiguously need deleting and those that pretty unambiguously need keeping. Within this grey zone we have a collective choice, and Ohiostandard raises the issue of "values". I'd suggest that there are two concrete things to inform the choice: i) WP:NOTNEWS (the fewer sources there are on a BLP subject, the more a Wikipedia article takes on the qualities of a news source rather than an encyclopedia - especially in view of Wikipedia's typically high Google ranking) ii) the notion of the "Public interest". Within the grey zone, we're balancing a subject's desire for privacy with the public's right to know. The moral strength of the latter depends on the interest involving more than prurience; for example, it's more reasonable to say that it's in the public interest to have corruption in public office reported than, say, adultery. Bottom line, McMahan falls into the grey zone, and on both considerations I've suggested, I think the choice should be not to have an article. Rd232 ^talk 08:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Other article venues where this has spilled to

• The Village Voice
• Streisand effect

Just an FYI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I haven't really edited many articles, in fact I finally just created an account because of this incident. Doesn't the fact that there is such a fervent discussion over McMahan's inclusion/exclusion point out that he has enough notoriety to warrant inclusion here? Is it simply because there are no major articles giving a complete biography in several publications that means he shouldn't be included? As soon as you willingly step into the public light, i.e. a public unveiling of a car with the help of a playmate (which absolutely is an attempt for attention for his product), you lose your right to anonymity. Certainly, the article should be balanced, giving all available information. But deleting an article of a notable public figure because they're not famous enough ignores all of the other articles on Wikipedia that certainly have garnered much less attention. I'm not implying that anything untoward happened, but given the allegations, simple deletion smacks of impropriety. BTW, if I've made any faux-pas's regarding my post here, let me know, still trying to figure this all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a touchy subject. One group of Wikipedians are against keeping articles from deletion just because their notability is Wikipedia-related, & they often win the discussions. (I don't always think their opinion on the matter is correct, but that's besides the point.) In this case, I would believe you have a point here if this squabble over an article about this guy makes it to the news beyond The Village Voice or the New York Times -- for example, it gets picked up by one of the major media networks in the US or in Europe. Or the incident gets picked apart in the next book on Wikipedia. Until then, while I weakly agree with you on this there just isn't enough evidence for notability; or to put it another way, if I'm going to spend time writing an article on a living person, I'd rather work on one of the major government officials of Ethiopia -- we don't have an article on their Minister of Agriculture, for example. In the long run, an article on the Ethiopian Minister of Agriculture will help more people than on this guy. -- llywrch (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible DRV

I know this is going to be wildly unpopular, but our primary concern here should be adherence to our own policies, primarily, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:N. Deleting one-sided attack articles is certainly beneficial and desirable, but if a subject satisfies the WP:BIO section of the notability policy, and the article is built from verifiable facts, does not violate BLP, UNDUE or NPOV, then I think we should have it. We should never prevent creation of an article that satisfies the requirements of these policies just because the subject is controversial. I hope this will be taken to DRV and thoroughly discussed after all these meat/sock issues are resolved. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than one article

A cursory search led me to find mention of McMahan in Genetic sexual attraction and Streisand effect (I removed it from the latter), but I have a feeling some POV pushers may have, upon deletion of the BLP article, peppered mentions of McMahan throughout WP. I am far from an expert on BLP policies, but if McMahan is not notable for his own article, then I doubt that using his alleged "controversial relationship" as an example in other articles is appropriate; possible vandalism. Anyway, just wanted to bring this to an Admin's attention The Eskimo (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And just an aside, I was simply casually browsing the ANI thread, and am now fully aware of the controversial information about this non notable individual without actively "looking" for it. I for one hate when I follow a discussion only to find the gossipy stuff courtesy blanked or whatever (just out of sheer curiosity), but I understand why that is the case, and if this information is potentially libelous, well, I'm just saying... The Eskimo (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, though, this information is not libelous as he has already settled all court cases (at least according to the Village Voice). If in fact it is still available through the CT courts, the information in the article should be verifiable. Also, I understand the need for multiple sources, but ignoring a source because of a purported yet unproven bias is another. The Village Voice and The New York Times are both legitimate sources, whether or not one agrees with what they say is a different matter entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen is that a BLP article should be written based solely on the notability of his business ventures, ignoring the controversial content for now. If the article stands up on its own (and doesn't get deleted as non-notable), then a discussion should be started on the talk page about whether or not to include the controversial material. At that point, certain important issues can be discussed, such as policies regarding biographies of living persons, how much focus, if any, should be giving to the controversy, and whether or not the Village Voice is a good source for the article. Let consensus work it out before including any controversy, because, in the future, you're going to need to link to those discussion to defend any deletion attempts that will surely pop up if the thing about his daughter ever makes into the article. A slow and non-controversial re-start would be the way to go if someone want to try another stab at this. The Eskimo (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

this last suggestion seems a sensible way of resolving this in an orderly manner. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what is going on here is a perfect and chilling example of the Streisand Effect. Or maybe not, because in this case, huge resources are thrown at removing material, and the resources appear to be winning. Maybe it should be re-inserted under that aspect. As far as Genetic sexual attraction goes, McMahan was removed from that also. A 20 word mention, followed by three sources was removed as "not sourced that his meets subjec of article." Can we demand a least literacy when articles are being censored? Where is the outrage?

In Mia Farrow, the following sentence stands unopposed: "Farrow and Allen parted after Farrow discovered a sexual relationship between Allen and her adopted daughter Soon-Yi. During the subsequent custody battle involving Farrow's and Allen's three children, Farrow filed charges that Allen had molested their daughter Dylan, then seven years old." The assertion is completely unsourced, no-one bats an eye. BsBsBs (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the difference there is that the Mia Farrow article has facts about Mia Farrow, albeit unsourced. The genetic sexual attraction article should only include material relevant to the genetic sexual attraction phenomenon. In this case, it is a well-sourced fact that David Bruce McMahan had a sexual relationship with his genetic daughter, but there's no evidence or source that genetic sexual attraction was a factor in their relationship. Hence it's out-of-place in that article. 192.18.1.36 (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. So someone has sex with his daughter and I have to prove that "genetic sexual attraction is a factor?" BsBsBs (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely unsourced? A source can be added for a few sentences at a time. Source 22 in the article sources the statements you are quoting, with things like "Dr. Leventhal headed the hospital team that was asked by the Connecticut State Police to investigate the claim that Mr. Allen molested Dylan last August at Miss Farrow's summer home in Connecticut.","Mr. Allen's lawsuit to gain custody of Dylan and the couple's two other children" and "The doctor suggested a connection between Miss Farrow's outrage over Mr. Allen's affair with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn,[...]"[8]. It could probably be sourced a lttile bit clearer, but it is all there. Fram (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What Have I Started?

Hello there, minion here. I just got a message on my talk page reminding me that this was here. Honestly once I saw a few of the more reliable users and an admin had gotten involved, I stopped checking in. If you look at the origional posting, WAY up top, you will see that before any of this media coverage spilled out, I was concerned about three issues. Media issues not withstanding, I thing that these issues have run their course in discussions, and move to end this mess.

Point 1: See below on my opinion on the Voice.

Point 2: I don't see any recent activity. We can bring this up again if it becomes a problem again.

Point 3: If an editor in good standing wants to create a well balanced and properly sourced article on this man, then I would have no objections. In the meantime, I see these pages being salted as a good thing.

Now it would appear that in my absence, the editor of the Voice has decided to drop a few levels on the pyramid. We are now in the orange and red areas. This begs the question. If the Village Voice is making statements that Jimbo Wales is calling false, is resorting to personal attacks, and is a blogger without editorial review, why do we consider him a good source? I think it's time we reexamine the Village Voice as a reliable source to be used in articles.

I know that I'm not exactly uninvolved, but I think it bears being mentioned. Sorry if this causes more drama than it should, but at this point, I view the Village Voice as an anti-Wikipedia crusade, rather than a constructive source of journalism. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean when you say "is making statements that Jimbo Wales is calling false" – you are evidently talking about claims made without evidence, and whose truth Jimbo Wales is in a good position to judge (i.e. accusations of undue influence on Wikipedia). But it's not necessarily coming across that way. Hans Adler 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from Jimbo from above in this ANI:

But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures.

That is what I was referring to. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A PR Disaster

This is becoming a PR disaster, and it will hurt Wikipedia in a big way, if it not already does. Jimbo shot himself in the foot by becoming involved. If an article is truly killed due to mere non-notability, a Jimbo Wales doesn’t have to show up. Him showing up proves that there is much more to it. I have worked for more than 30 years in advertising and PR for large corporations. My specialty: Disaster management. First order of business: Take the CEO out of the picture and coat him with as much Teflon as available. I know how to astroturf without getting caught. I ran “enthusiast” websites with a well hidden agenda.

Not notable? Mr. Mahan himself would beg to differ. There is his site for his version of his biography. . There is mcmahan-philanthropy.com.. There is McMahan’s own car website with a pitbabe to boot. And those are just the first three on Google (which shows that high level of expensive SOE is at work.) If the man is not notable enough, then 75% of Wikipedia should be thrown out. A philanthropist that helps children who lost their legs to landmines and who marries is own daughter is highly notable, if you ask me. This scandal doesn’t pass the vaunted WP:Duck test at least not with me.

I am mentioned eight times by name in Wikipedia. I’m not notable at all. Does anybody patrol the pages and scrubs them, because I am a nobody? You need to be a McMahan to be extended that courtesy.

At Wikipedia, five editors and a few well chosen sock puppets (with a VPN, and one PC each – we know how fingerprints work) literally can change history. With a largish PR firm and a lawfirm, one can literally throw hundreds of well informed and well behaved editors at an issue – without getting caught. And I have no doubt that this is what is happening here. Can I prove it? No. But I can tell you how it’s done without even a twitch of the needle of a checkuser tool.

What if McMahan would hire me? I would take the job. I hawked cigarettes, and I don’t smoke. I would have advised him to NOT do what is done here. DON’T suppress. It will bite you big time, as Streisand effect shows. It did’t work before the Internet either. Say “Yes, I did it, I’m sorry.” Contrition works miracles, especially in the U.S.A. “Look, we all made mistakes.” Is anybody hounding Woody Allan or Roman Polanski? Own up to it, and push your good side. Surround yourself with kids with one leg. Who can hate you? The world will forget quickly that you buggered your daughter if you don’t remind the world every waking day.

Wikipedia would gain a lot if it would defend this article against interference. Let’s face it: Hedge fund owners are not high on the respectability scale anymore. Incest? No very popular. Heavy handed suppression of news? Not liked in this country. Wikipedia could look like a white knight that defends the virtues of democracy and free speech. Wikipedia defending its editors against a heavy handed, well armed posse would give the MSM the desperately needed opening to write about McMahan without receiving a fax “followed by registered mail.” Instead, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. Sad, very sad. BsBsBs (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at with all of the above. The VV editor made statements that indicated WP was paid off to ignore information regarding this person. An editor brought this to Jimbo's attention, and he replied with a short, but strongly worded statement denying it. Jimbo's statement was completely in keeping with his character. He often comments on controversial issues when asked. Had he not spoken out, anyone could have claimed that "Jimbo's silence on the issue is deafening." I am not sure why you seem to think this is a PR nightmare...McMahan is not really that well known (it's still to be determined if he even warrants and article). Whatever controversy exists has not been widely covered from what I can tell. Regardless, WP does not report the news, nor is it a gossip column, nor is it a place to give Mr. McMahan advice on how to handle his public/personal affairs The Eskimo (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

When the New York Times pays attention, then is a disaster, right now it is a couple of editors against a blogger. I for one have no idea who these people are, and I really don't give a s***. I brought this up because an editor at the VV was making potential libelous statements about Wikipedia, and because there already was meatpuppetry and confusion involved. I don't care if the man gets a page or not. If it meets the requirements for a page (without using Village Voice as a source) then it should have the page. I got involved because of the libel. I stayed because some blowhard with an agenda decided to turn a procedural delete into a conspiracy. Because people paid attention to this blowhard, it became what it is. We should have ignored him and moved on. It should have been done when with when I left the first time. An attack article was deleted, a puppet was blocked, and the admins were made aware of the potential libel. Instead, this head editor published a bunch of garbage without bothering to understand how Wikipedia works, and as a result, we're still here.

MOTION Anyone who is not an admin or staff should stop posting here and ignore this mess. Let the pros sort it out. We're only feeding this fire and making things worse. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A Proposition

Strike all that above. I am not sure I understand your post well enough, and re-reading my reply I think I may have assumed bad faith. My apologies if so.

I have a bit of a sinking feeling about this whole thread, going all the way back to the most recent AFD discussion. I want to assume good faith, but I can't help but wonder if this whole thread is being perpetuated by interested parties in order to keep McMahan's name "out there." Therefore I am going to make a bold proposition, which I suspect may be met with skepticism that I am somehow in cahoots with one or the other involved parties. And if this is a horrible idea, please feel free to say so. I am not an admin, but I wonder what others think about possibly courtesy blanking, revdeleting, or whatever the proper procedue for blanking this discussion would be due to the follwoing reasons.:

We have a very long and detailed discussion that:

1. Involves a living person, who no longer even has an article on WP due to notability and other reasons.

2. Is peppered with potentially libelous allegations from the sources in question sources that he had a sexual relationship with his daughter.

3. Contains statements that, though I would not consider to be legal threats exactly, are insinuations that WP is setting itself up for legal ramifications based on its action/inaction in regards to this subject (depending on who you are talking to at the time.

Is it even possible (or withing precedence) that this thread be blanked? Perhaps some sort of message box that reads something like "This discussion has been courtesy blanked due to containing controversial information about a living person who does not have a WP article. In the case that an article is one day created that passes notability guidelines, this discussion can be reactivated following admin review."

Anyway, I would support this and will step away to leave it to others to discuss, as I am feeling a bit icky about the whole thing. The Eskimo (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(sorry about the typos- it was a long post and I wanted to pound it in before an edit conflict occurred. The Eskimo (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read this thread, and I'm trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Indeed, this whole thread is full of libelisms (including from respected editors). So the guy married or was accused of having sex with his daughter and wants to hide it? For some reason, someone is intent on it being out in the open? Why is it so important to everyone? What the living heck is going on here? Long time admins posting long creeds, a new user claiming to have been here for forever (always suspicious). Why is this so damned important? Half of this feels incredibly astroturfed to me. Would someone clear the damned thing up? I have the same sinking feeling, Eskimo, like all of a sudden realizing half the things I read in the world have been changed thanks to someone's thought police (thanks Bsbsbs).Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's what happened:

1. I brought several problems with an article (see my original post in the top section,) to the ANI, and the article was subsequently deleted. Note that this is the second deletion.
2. One of those problems was an allegation by an editor at the Village Voice, who implied that the article was deleted the first time because the subject bullied Wikipedia. As far as I know, this is a complete fabrication by the editor. The real reason it was deleted the first time is because it was whitewashed and in terrible shape.
3. When it was deleted for a second time, (this time because the recreation was a blatant attack on the subject,) the same editor called me a minion.
4. Jimbo Wales got involved. (This is a statement of fact, I don't think it is a bad thing or a good thing, just something that happened.)
5. Reddit caught wind.
6. Because of point numbers 2 and 3, and aggravated by points 4 and 5, we have spent a large amount of time and effort talking about this topic. Little of it has anything to do with the original posting reasons, it is mainly focused on whether or not this person should have an article.
7. Other than the allegations of libel, which is still an issue, my origional points have been addressed. The socks were blocked and are now inactive, and the article is gone.
8. Also, this is ANI, so plenty of drama that may or may not be constructive.

Hope this helps Sven Manguard _Talk 00:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Forceful intervention in an on-going discussion

I started a discussion on Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games regarding how the article was emphasizing low-priority concerns while neglecting the severe adverse impact of the Games on the city hosting it. Perhaps it was my frustration which made me cross the line of civility while starting that discussion. Anyways, the point is that User:Lucy-marie has forcefully intervened twice in the discussion: first blatantly deleting my comments and then archiving it. According to her, the comments raised by me were not "related to the content of the article". I'm still learning how to have a meaningful discussion with other Wikipedians (I admit that I cannot give diplomatic replies) and this experience definitely didn't help. Not that I'm keen to participate in the discussion but "closing" or "archiving" it was rather too extreme and deeming my concerns as "inappropriate" and "irrelevant" was uncalled for. I'm pretty sure that Lucy would archive the discussion again as it doesn't serve her point of view. Therefore, I would like to seek administrators' intervention in this issue. --King Zebu (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't notify the user about talking here, as the page's rules mandate. I have corrected this for you. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have previous with Lucy-marie so won't take any action either way here, but as far as I can see, with comments like "Some people have twisted brains. It is absolutely disgusting to see that some Wikipedians here are rather too keen to highlight "clogged toilets", "empty seats" and "Delhi Belly" but the article barely mentions the fact that India (home to the world's largest concentration of poor people) spent billions of dollars on a 12-day sporting event. For any sane person, the latter is the biggest controversy related to the 2010 CWG.", "I will just strive to improve the article and not bother much about starting discussions because they will ultimately be "deemed irrelevant" without any logical explanation" and "Ah, I see that you are not an administrator. Interesting." (and editwarring with one of our most experienced sports writers, with an edit summary of "It seems that some people do not understand the difference between an encyclopedia and news outlet") the only one heading for any kind of block or warning here looks to be you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not your personal soapbox. – iridescent 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a forum and that was made abundantly clear in the original edit summary, It seemed appropriate to then close the discussions when it was restarted in an identical vein by the same user who has now reported this to the ANI. The user was given a full explanation as to the reasons why the discussion was closed and the language used by the user in their comments were incendiary and inappropriate to the talk page and Wikipedia as a whole, as demonstrated above by Iridescent. The user appears to be someone who is pushing an agenda and a specific POV and someone who is unfamiliar with the rules and procedures of Wikipedia. I request that the user be either warned or blocked for a short period of time for being deliberately disruptive, rude and incendiary. Users cannot post incendiary language and then complain bitterly when someone says it is inappropriate. The user also seems to fail to realise all users are the same regardless of weather they are an Admin or not. I have been on Wikipedia for a few years now and understand what I am doing. I may though make mistakes from time to time but believe this is not one of those cases. This user believes Wikipedia is a place to discuss anything, anywhere, which it is not. Wikipedia is here to discuss article content and not POV push. I would also request this user be warned as they have made malicious claims against me such as making a "forceful intervention" and making personal attacks and POV pushing which are unfounded and cannot be allowed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lucy-marie's action of archiving that particular discussion. It was starting to get heated and personal, with approaching borderline NPA infringements. It would have worked as a cool-down measure if it had remained, but since the archive/cooldown-measure was undone/unapprecuated, we'll just have to monitor the situation more closely.

Oh as a final note to this post, the discussion that King Zebu started and Lucy Marie deleted was originally titled "Some people have twisted brains" before it was renamed as "My two cents". Though the title was since changed, the discussion remains the same. But with that sort of original title setting the stage for a discussion .... Zhanzhao (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Heavydata being uncivil

Resolved

 – At least let's all pretend like it is. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Heavydata multiple times, and he will not stop being uncivil to other editors. I made a report at Wikiquette alerts. He said that he'd stop being rude. But right after he said that he made an attack page. I've requested directly to the user, Nyttend, who deleted Heavydata's user page, that he'll show what was on the user page. This is getting really annoying, so please help me out on this. Endofskull (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See the userpage, which I've now restored. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, turns out someone else made it. Nevermind that. But other than that, Heavydata been uncivil lots of times. He's gone over what I think should be allowed. Endofskull (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If I read the WQA discussion correctly, he agreed to change his communication methods; your misinterpretation of the vandalism on his user page seems to be the cause of the most recent comments directed at you. I tend to agree with his comments; he's agreed to moderate his actions, and you need to now give him the space to do so. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it best to delete the userpage again, especially in light of Tony Fox's comment. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could probably just blank it, it's not really worth having visible. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DUDE, would you knock it off already?! I said I'd stop, and all you're doing now is making things worse. I have no idea what you have against me, I'd appreciate it if you simple left me alone and stopped posting these ridiculous messages on the notice board. I have one question for you:

What do you want from me? Heavydata (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here, look at the second paragraph (The first one was the one that started this in the first place, so ignore that): [9]. Is that OK with you? Heavydata (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm sorry about that Heavydata. I guess you really have changed. Good job. Please keep doing that, and you'll be absolutely fine. So, I'm going to mark this as resolved! :) Endofskull (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Explosion of IP attacks

AIV is getting buried at an rapid pace by bot reported attacks from IPs such as this. Not sure what to do about this. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reported the IP. Could you list the other ones, please? Endofskull (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Their posts literally never get seen. HalfShadow 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're all being reported at AIV. Endofskull (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating what I said above. Now, what to do about this seemingly coordinated bot attack? Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

RBI, deny and DNFTT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see nothing. HalfShadow 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See the history. It's changing rapidly [[10]. It looks like MaterialScientist figured out a rangeblock or 2. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see this as an issue; if the vandalism isn't actually making to the page, I simply don't care. HalfShadow 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the targeted article should be semi-protected immediately so that AIV won't get flooded with more reports relating to the same vandal; I've already requested the page protection at RPP. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This has stopped, hasn't it? I declined the RFPP because the article has moved off the main page, but that's easy enough to change if the problem persists. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Violations of Talk page guidelines

The Universe Is Cool (talk · contribs · logs)

As can be seen from the history of the user's Talk page, he has removed a series of warnings posted by other editors about his editing and his behavior in violation of WP:TPO. I would have reverted his changes. However, because of the number of edits and intervening undos or blanking, it would be difficult for me to do. My request is that the user's Talk page be reconstructed and he be counseled appropriately.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to blank warnings, however it is taken as de facto evidence they understand the issue and have read it. If his editing behavior is a problem, then he has no quarter or excuse since he's been receiving the notes (whether they remain or not. ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a long list of items that an editor can do to his own Talk page at WP:TPO, but as far as I can see, it doesn't include blanking warnings. Wouldn't it be helpful to add this item to the guidelines, along with your description of the implications of the blanking?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See the very bottom of that section: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but archiving is preferred. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." In practice people are allowed wide latitude in blanking (even if it's uncouth or just bad mannered) but it means you're responsible for reading it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That page is mainly about article talk pages. The relevant policy is at WP:REMOVED. Looie496 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, that resolves the issue for me (and I'm glad I didn't revert anything).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes well they shouldn't be allowed to blank warnings. The only people that tend to blank warnings are the ones who seem to be attempting to hide their behaviour. All it does is disrupt the flow of communication and many times we've ended up having disputes or disruptive users carrying on because they have busy talk pages and no one has the time or patience to piece together their fractured talk pages. Unless there is evidence the warning was given in bad faith it should be archived after a normal period of time like everything else. Blanking talk does not serve the community.--Crossmr (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD non-admin closure

NAC reverted, community has sufficiently expressed its displeasure with the conduct involved

Resolved  – NAC reverted by Bali ultimate SnottyWong converse 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Can an admin take a look at this non-admin closure and revert if necessary: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise). I don't think that this nomination was "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", which is part of the WP:SK policy that the closer references. The nomination points out notability issues and is clearly not an attempt to "end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Also, there was a vote to merge the article already, so speedy keep doesn't seem appropriate here. Colonel Warden often comments about AfD's he deems inappropriate because the most likely outcome will be a merge, not deletion. It appears he is trying to take this to the next level by actually closing AfD's he deems inappropriate. SnottyWong converse 01:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Non-admin, but this doesn't look like vandalism or disruption; in fact I see none of the criteria at SK have been met. Merging is acceptable after an AFD if it's agreed on the tpage of the relevant article. You should have noted that the vote to merge was yours, and in any case that is only a criterion for speedy keep if the nominator withdraws and/or suggests it. → ROUX ₪ 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with your assessment, but as I am somewhat involved (I agreed with the merge at another venue) I can't really do anything about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Without getting too deep into the specifics of this particular incident, the Colonel is increasingly trying to use his own interpretations of policies to bully, hector, and harrass other users and stifle debate at various AFDs. Policies are tools, not weapons to be used to further someone's pet wiki-philosophy, and the Colonel needs to understand that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I forgot to disclose that the one vote to merge was made by me. SnottyWong chatter 01:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I've reopened. Problem solved.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks. SnottyWong talk 01:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of this issue. This editor has been stalking me a bit lately, removing prods without explanation. They seem to be adamant in their anti-deletion views. I see a couple of admins have left some cautionary words on this editors talk page. Hopefully this will calm things down a bit.--RadioFan (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC) If there is evidence that this was a pointy close, he should be blocked until he unequivocally states he won't repeat the behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC) The discussion has been restarted and we observe that not a single editor has agreed with the nominator's proposition that the article be deleted. Nominations of this sort are sadly very common and their outcomes are therefore quite familiar. When a merge discussion is already underway for such an article, it seems to be disruptive to nominate it for deletion as this is forking the discussion in a forum-shopping manner. SK criterion 2.4 exists to curtail such process abuse and seemed quite appropriate. When SK criteria apply then the whole point of that subprocess is that it be used speedily so as to be effective in shutting down an inappropriate discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC) And no-admin closures are only to be used in clear cut cases when it is a non-controversial close. A long time user has also made an argument for deletion at this point.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Colonel, you are adept at pointing out that no one has agreed with the nominator, however you seem to be blind to the fact that no one (out of about 10 editors) has agreed with you that any SK criteria apply to that AfD, or to similar AfD's. Continuing to argue your point will not change this. Accept that you were wrong and don't do it again. SnottyWong spill the beans 13:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC) i think the colonel probably did not follow policy but after reading this[11] i can see why he thought that SK 2 4 nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion applied. the colonel should probably have contacted an admin since this was going to be controversial, but i can see why the colonel might have thought this was an ok thing to do. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC) IIRC he's done this before, so no, I would not assume good faith here. And following the the reversal, it has all (one flawed IAR and one "they're all notable" notwithstanding) gone to the delete or merge end of things. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC) i only see 2 keep votes. 1 is yours and the other was someone in the original merge discussion. that doesnt sound like "all gone to the delete" to me. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) You are misreading it completely, then. I and someone else right above mine called for deletion, and there have been 4 calls to merge following the re-opening. dream Focus' keep will certainly be discarded, and JClemens is not as bad but still just a WP:ITSNOTABLE jingle. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC) im sorry i meant i see only 2 delete votes, yours and the person from the original discussion. and i see that you called someone pathetic[12]. this does not seem constructive, and you probably shouldnt say whose votes count and whose dont since you are involved and this is not the place to discuss that anyway. Aisha9152 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I called the response pathetic, not the user. When said user essentially lies about the rationale I used for my deletion opinion, I find the term more than fitting. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I have stricken the term, so we can avoid going down side-tangents, though. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC) i have a question if someone put a link to this afd under the discussion under the main merge discussion page[13] would that be canvassing? Aisha9152 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC) No, just a link that says "this article has been proposed for deletion. The deletion discussion is here" is fine. Just don't say anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) well i mean because the discussion for the merge is actually on a different articles talk page and i think the people opposed to the merge might not be watching the page but were in the original discussion. Aisha9152 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Getting back to the original point here, it's clear that the speedy closure of this debate was a move not supported by consensus. I feel it is important that the message be sent to Colonel Warden than this sort of thing is not acceptable and that he acknowledge consensus is against it. We don't all have to agree here, but we do need to be able to acknowledge and abide by consensus even if we happen to disagree with it. This problem goes beyond just this one afd closure, the Colonel has been issuing a lot of orders lately. Policies are not meant to be used as instruments of war to silence ones opponents. Indeed, we should not even be thinking of one another as opponents as that creates the type of battleground mentality that has a tendency to crop when someone is overly confrontational and bossy with other users and makes broad declarations that seem to indicate that their interpretation of policy is the only valid one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC) You might be better of looking at your own conduct first and making an effort to be more collegial. Unless youre trying to make folk laff at the idea youre a worthy foe for someone like the Colonel, your inflammatory language - "try a little harder colonel" - is only going to escalate matters especially following your uncivil and crude response to the Colonels policy based keep vote. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC) "Worthy foe?" Whose trying to make who laugh here? I don't want to be anyone's foe, that's the whole point. I don't wish to take orders from the Colonel and it's important that people be willing to acknowledge when consensus does not support their position, something I am willing to do, and as we can see here [14] it is not something the Colonel is willing to do in this case. I have no interest in forming an adversarial relationship with the Colonel, but when someone shows up at an afd and implies you are a moron and they are here to correct your stupidity with their superior policy knowledge, it does tend to rub one the wrong way. That he now appears to be collecting evidence to support his view of how great and wise he is [15] tends to support the view that he is digging in his heels and preparing to fight rather than being willing to acknowledge consensus is against him. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC) i think feyd has a point. originally i thought colonel was out of line but now that i see how the people who disagree with him act like in their example of beeblebrox's behavior to the colonel, or tarc's behavior in general and to me personally here [16] saying to mind my own business in the afd discussion i wonder if colonels actions were the result of weeks of frustration with people. maybe he did not know the right way to deal with the situation. Aisha9152 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed, Beeblebrox. Though I did vote to keep the article the early close was completely out of line and there will be consequences if it happens again. Enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I actually came to the conclusion that this was getting too personal and have buried the hatchet with Colonel Warden. Hopefully we've all learned something here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to see someone from the same wikiproject, involved in the discussion coming along to bury any talk about their compatriot. Even better when they don't sign their name so we have to dig through the history to find out who did it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Another rev del

Diff and edit summary please Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this really need to be revdeled? It just looks like harmless vandalism to me. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RD2 mostly because of the edit summary. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But I fail to see how it is grossly degrading and insulting. By your logic, if the aforementioned diff satisfied RD2, then just about one in every two incidents of vandalism would qualify for revdel. Honestly, somedays I feel like revdel is being unnecessarily overused. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was Osama bin Laden, I would be appalled that such a degrading personal attack would ever be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I mean, saying that he's Jimbo Wales is probably worse than saying that he's the pope. This is clearly a gross slur against Mr. Bin Laden, and must be removed immediately. Buddy431 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I kid, I actually agree with Fastily, that Rev. Deletion is used far too frequently. Buddy431 (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions about these rev/dels. First, does this edit summary qualify since it attacks another editor? Second, do we have (or are we going to start) a page like AIV rather than using this page? Thanks ahead of time for your time in answering these. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This really doesn't qualify for RD, and it would be a stretch to delete it as such. The diff is in no way grossly degrading and insulting. And yes, there is a discussion in progress regarding the establishment of an RD noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Time_for_WP:RFRD.3F. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear - it was not the edit that was a problem it was the edit summary. It looks like another editor agreed with me and did find it (and the many that followed) to be a gross insult to a fellow editor. I hope that there are going to be a hard and fast set of criteria for these rev/dels so that we regular editors don't get confused over things. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note for any who are wondering what edit summary I was using as an example please take a look at the revision history here [17] since the specific edit summary in question has been deleted. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's just run of the mill vandalism, WP:RBI and move on. Jimbo can take it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:AbsoluteGleek92 and lack of communication

This user does controversial edits to film articles everyday without leaving an edit summary. There’s a lot of good edits and there’s some that go against the WP:MOSFILM. The problem is that the user has been given warnings every month since they signed up in July of this year to use an edit summary, and has not given a single response or sign of acknowledgement. We would like to communicate with this user, but it seems impossible. I think this is a clear case of disruptive and tendentious editing. What should be done about this in order to encourage collaborate editing? Mike Allen 05:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, and this may be part of the problem, is that there was, especially in the early going, very little actual communication with this user. The first dozen or so contacts consist solely of templated warnings, and the bulk of the page (i'd estimate 90% of it) is nothing but substed warning templates. Any actual human contact is really buried there. Just to stretch AGF a bit, and take the side of the accused, if I had gotten what looked like a series of automated messages the first 10 times the "you have messages" bar showed up, I may not understand that real people are trying to communicate with me. The WP:UWT templates certainly don't look like a real person trying to talk to someone, and for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, it could just look like some automated process which is easy to ignore. He may be resisting communication because he legitimately doesn't know anyone is trying to actually discuss things with him. This is where the UWT templates can go wrong, especially in light of WP:BITE. I am not saying this is necessarily the case with this user, just that it is one possibility besides the idea that he is willfully ignoring you just to be a dick. --Jayron32 05:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but he has never communicated on any talk page. I'll leave him a personal message and if he doesn't respond, block him. Hopefully one of those will do the trick. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He makes a lot of good edits (template changes and other tidying up) bundled together with other edits that are not helpful, and sometimes make no sense. Rather than making one edit at a time, he makes several all at once, and offers no explanation for his actions. The templating did get out of control, and I am one of the culprits. But, when no response was forthcoming, I kept trying to prod him into a response. Obviously, this did not work. Hopefully, Doug's message might. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine, if that's how you're going to play it, I'll add edit summaries if it'll make you people shut up. AbsoluteGleek92 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you add a side of civility to go with it? The request that you use edit summaries is not based on a whim, but on sound and well thought out policy that makes perfect sense. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle Again

He's been very active today, reposting rejected stuff from long ago. Could someone clean out all the subpages at User:Grundle2600? I'm not sure how to even look at them, but he's retrieving from somewhere, and this is my first guess. PhGustaf (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten started, but its a sysiphian task, the list is here: [18] There's probably 40 or 50 or so. I am going to bed soon, so if any other admin wants to take over, that's cool... --Jayron32 05:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some useful things in those subpages; it's not all rubbish. Jonathunder (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, its not that, taken in isolation, they are necessarily bad. It's that, in the hands of the long-since banned Grundle, they are being used to continue his disruption. --Jayron32 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600's subpages: user talk —DoRD (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

They're not very useful if they're being used disruptively by a community banned user. If someone wanted to make legitimate use of them they would have done it already. Wikipedia is not a webhost or online storage: delete the lot to help prevent the ongoing disruption. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Retain the userboxes and talk page archives, but much of the rest appears to be aborted articles or userfied copies of deleted ones. Will this all have to head to MfD, or can an admin just can it unilaterally, given the snowball's chance in hell nature of the indef ever being lifted? Tarc (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the pages caught my eye, and I sent it to MfD. Let's see if it can be dispatched without drama. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we really have to go through that? I mentioned his sub-page on Michelle Obama's arms here recently and an admin deep-sixed it. Here are a couple of others that can only be useful to Grundle's POV campaign User:Grundle2600/Obama Bear Market and User:Grundle2600/Teleprompter. The guy is banned and he's only here to disrupt. Take his toys away. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and User:Grundle2600/Reann_Ballslee. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

sock block needed immed pls, & CU for underlying range

TungstenCarbide XXX (talk · contribs) again. → ROUX ₪ 05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this Elsie? --Jayron32 05:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All I know is it's the 30th incarnation of TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs), whoever that was originally. Can't we hardblock that username or something? → ROUX ₪ 05:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Temporarily forgot that one. I have blocked per quack, however a CU would have to look into a possible IP-level block or rangeblock. I should note, however, that according to several prior CUs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TungstenCarbide/Archive several have declined to block the underlying IP as either impractical (collateral damage) or ineffective (uses too large a range). --Jayron32 05:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New edit filter needed

Vandals have been using a new trick to get around the abusefilter:

Examples (possibly objectionable content)

Extended content
FU<nowiki />CK<nowiki /> YOU CU<nowiki />NT I WILL RAPE YOU

this is becoming common and we need a new edit filterAccess Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the above example be removed and hidden, in order not to give instructions to other possible vandals. RolandR (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This probably belongs here. —DoRD (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely undiscussed controversial climate change move needs reverting

A less than a month old account that originally claimed to be a WP:CLEANSTART case and still has no obvious link to the user's previous identity has just moved Climate change denial to Criticism of Climate Change (yes, complete with the wrong capitalisation) without any prior discussion. To avoid a move war, can an uninvolved admin please move back so that a discussion at WP:RM can be started cleanly. Thank you. Hans Adler 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done and move protection enabled. Toddst1 (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, can you or someone provide a diff to the account's claim of cleanstart? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

da diff Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See new section below, which I have been preparing since I started this report. Off to a lecture now. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, and I was just thinking I'd seen this user's editing style before.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem... See here**Terra Novus's Diff**..I will stop editing this article if it really is such a issue due to me being a recent WP:CLEANSTART, but I hope that the more experienced editors involved will fix this article's WP:NPOV issues...--Novus Orator 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As a relevant aside, I'm about to close the Climate Change ArbCom case (once I have breakfast) and will be posting the details later today. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About the user

After some additional research, here is some further reading:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Edit warring on Cryptozoology articles – 13-15 September, ANI discusses what to do with the disruption caused by the Gniniv in cryptozoology area
• Gniniv claims to retire (15 September)
• First edit by Terra Novus claims clean start (18 September)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Terra Novus/Archive – 28 September, user asks for CU to clear them from suspected connection with FellGleaming
• User talk:Carcharoth#Confirmation – 1 October; user goes to an arbitrator's talk page for rubber stamping of their "clean start" after it came out that they had not notified anyone after disappearing while community action against them was discussed
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#User:Gniniv / User:Terra Novus / "Novus Orator" – 4 October ANI discussion
• Undiscussed highly contentious move in climate change area
• Extreme POV editing in climate change area

This seems to be a competence problem rather than bad faith, but something needs to be done. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage this editor to take this opportunity to completely leave all controversial topics, or at least to return to his initial account. To Terra Novus, if you continue having problems like this with the new account, I think you'll quickly be banned, since you will be taking too much community time when people have to figure out what you're up to. If you want to keep trying to improve controversial topics, and you want a fair hearing, you should go back to your other account. Really, I would recommend getting out of contentious topics altogether, since candidly, you don't show a sensitivity to the types of things that will get you in trouble across the board. But for maximum leeway you should surely go back to your first account. Only if you are extremely confident that you can stay out of all controversial topics altogether with this account, as well as any areas in which you've previously edited, is there any remotely plausible chance that you will not be sanctioned under this new account, at least in my opinion. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is quite clear in its statement that editors who decide to place {{retired}} on their original account and create a new account should not return to edit the articles/subjects that they previously edited as it could lead to WP:SOCK issues. If the intent was to simply keep editing the same way, one cannot claim cleanstart. One can hold an WP:Alternate account for specific purposes, but at this point, the new account does not meet them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits at the Soviet ministry articles

Resolved

 – editor already warned, reported at AN3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Harrypotter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he is creating two articldes on the same topic; the People's Commissariat for Finance and the Ministry of Finance of the USSR, and all other commissariat and ministrial articles on the topic of the USSR. The organizations are the name, sources say so, these organizations were renamed. At the same time, the organisations' structure and its duties and responsibilities stayed the same after ther renaming process. Creating TWO articles ON THE SAME topic is ludicrous. Also he is copying material that i wrote on the ministry pages on the people's commissariat pages, so the pages become redundant.

List of examples:

• see his talk page, he is unwilling to discuss a solution
• See the pages of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and People's Commissariat for Finance revision history, he is creating articles which has copied material from the ministry articles' i wrote. See his recent edit on the Council of People's Commissars. Sources say it was renamed, Soviet sources from the renaming process says it was reorganised, I don't really give a dam about the reorganisation process seeing these organisation had very little effect on the basic structures on these ministries.
• he creates redundant second articles like this one (link) and copies the text of the Ministry of Finance articles, he has done the same thing to the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs on several occasions. It may not be vandalism, but it is REALLY unconstructive and thats the reason for why he should be blocked for 24 hours, because of his uconstructive edits. If you do this, he might stop his unconstructive behavior. --TIAYN (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that redirects already existed from the OLD name (commissariat) to the NEW name (ministry). What Harrypotter has done is copied the text from the ministry article into the redirect (without accreditation!), removing the redirect. This may simply be due to him not being particularly familiar with Wikipedia, but he ought to respond to explanations that this is not the way to do it. TIAYN has now restored the redirects, which is the right thing to do. As long as Harrypotter does not edit war over this, or try to do any others, there shouldn't be a problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Further, User:Magog the Ogre has warned him about copypasting, and I have advised that any new information he wishes to add needs to go in the existing article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Harrypotter has been here since June 2005 and has made over 12,000 edits, so he should be rather familiar with how Wikipedia works by now... Fram (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice on his talkpage that another editor is arguing that the commissariats and the ministries should have separate articles [19]. I have no comments as to whether that view is correct but I have left a note that it is the copypasta that is the significant problem - he needs to create the articles properly.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Soviet sources say reorganised/renamed, modern scholarly sources say renamed, this means, the People's Commissariats and Ministries are just the same, there is no need for two seperate articles covering the same topic, when the article in itself are very small and sources are already very scarce. --TIAYN (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a content discussion for another place. And could you stop marking all your edits as minor please. If you have the 'mark all edits as minor' option turned on, could you turn it off. Thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

here, the Soviet law say transformed, but never say they dissolved the Council of People's Commissars and created a new executive branch, known as the Council of Ministers of the USSR. It says transformed, and it says that for a reason. Yes, it is a content issue, but it is a serious one and when editiors act as unconstructive as he does, it is hard to improve the coverage of these ministries. --TIAYN (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are now good suggestions on Harrypotter's talkpage about where to discuss whether one or two articles are appropriate (especially as you appear to have merged two into one at some point). Harrypotter's faulty process in how he recreated the articles does not invalidate that need for discussion on the underlying content dispute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just a brief note to opine that Trust Is All You Need is correct, historically speaking, that the "People's Commissariats" were simply renamed "Ministries." An American analogy would be the renaming of the "War Department" to the "Defense Department" — the name change does not indicate an institutional change, only a change of nomenclature, and there should not be two articles established on that basis. Carrite (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember to notify users when reporting them to ANI. Harrypotter has now been notified. --Stickee (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I declined a block at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Harrypotter reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result:declined). I also recommended the users file a dispute, that this is not appropriate for an administrator noticeboard yet. And frankly, to reporter: the fact that you got turned down at AN3 and brought the matter here (without making a link) is forum shopping. I'm marking this as closed, as there is no new information. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - also was turned down at AIV.  7  00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu has already left the building

Resolved

 – An editor apparently mistook the closing admin for one of the sockpuppets. Page deleted by Risker (talk · contribs) as requested. –xeno^talk 14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only have I left the building, but I left in style. Three times now, each time to the catcalls and brickbats of many adoring fans and haters (sadly more haters than fans).

Perhaps you could delete the ridiculous accusation of sock-puppetry on my old user page? I was curious to see if anyone had left any messages and was surprised that anyone would be stupid enough to have recreated the old user page!!!

Thanks. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realise why this happened. Should have realised. Thanks Xeno/Risker. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I couldn't even post here to say I'd responded to the CSD for all the edit conflicts! No worries TBSDY. Risker (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Left, but still editing as an IP isn't quite the same as left. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that's a bit odd - if it is who s/he claims to be. I'm pretty sure that's well outsite WP:Vanish with or without self-proclaimed style. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the WP:VANISH rules were written with the intent of ensuring that false accusations of sockpupetry would remain on vanished users talk pages. But I've been wrong before.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Tbsdy lives (talk) exercise WP:VANISH, or simply retire? TFOWR 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication they exercised RTV. –xeno^talk 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He somehow persuaded Arbcom to enforce an out-of-process and contrary to policy deletion of his usertalk pages, so he managed to vanish rather more than would be allowed to editors in good standing. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

and now has the audacity to ask that a false claim of sockpupetry be removed.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake, no-one is complaining about the removal of a mistaken sock notice. What I'm complaining about is how come he gets to have his talk page deleted as being forever gone and in special circumstances, but then carries on editing as an IP. It was strongly implied that if he returned the talk page would be restored. The IP's contributions are clearly his. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Kellie Pickler

Resolved

High school kid using IP inserting nasty comments about girl who shot down his date offer or some such. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Merridew behaviour

Resolved

 – Only one way this is going to end, and the complainant will not like it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Per [20], [21] and [22], I ask an uninvolved admin to block Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) for disruption. This is a continuation of a pattern of abusive editing on Merridew's part to impose his preferred styles on articles over objections. He is now accusing me of "harrassment" [23] for undoing his undiscussed changes to the styles established in articles that I previously edited. Merridew was banned by arbcom for past stalking and abuse of multiple accounts. His current arbcom sanction mentions " follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts". I submit he has failed to do so. I believe, at this point, his behaviour is more than serious enough to warrant a block. I would block him myself for disruption, but other admins have felt I am involved. (I will be offline for many hours now.) Gimmetoo (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are involved; and very much so.  pablo 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute, and a kinda lame one at that. Is there a version that is more frequently used in other actor bios? Has this been discussed in a style guideline perhaps in a wikiproject? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about colours or styles or my editing; he's decided to target me. Merridew 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• this statement
• ANI632#obstruction of ref clean-up
• ANI632#Gimmetoo, again
• ANI641#RexxS behaviour (which was about Gimme' reverting me)

Merridew 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not going to lie, after reading over those diffs, and your ANI report, it looks like you, Gimmetoo, are the one who has been doing all the harassing. If there's a content dispute, take it back to square one with Jack and discuss it civilly. For the record, Jack is more than willing to talk about his edits. On a side note, considering that you yourself do not have all too stellar of a track record, I encourage you to not hurl stones at other people's glass houses when you live in one yourself. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that last bit isn't very fair. One 12hr block for 3RR and one temporary indef to confirm that an alt account was genuine does not make one's abode a glass one. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Fastily's summary of the interactions between Jack and Gimmetoo/trow. It is clear that Gimme is the one being tendentious and unreasonable, and has indulged in hounding behaviour over a period of several months. Gimme seems to believe that he owns certain articles and interprets all disagreement on their content or presentation as a personal affront, and I'm sure I don't need to say that that is a totally unproductive and irrational attitude. It is also worrying that Gimme takes such delight in bringing up Jack Merridew's (very distant) past bad behaviour, as though it's prima facie evidence that Jack must be in the wrong now. That is quite obviously wrong too. I urge Gimmetoo to leave Jack the hell alone and stop being so precious. This is beyond tiresome. Reyk _YO! 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed this, before Gimmetoo/trow finds themselves having a major issue. Blocking Merridew themselves would result in a desysop RFC. So don't do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User attempting to ban and delete discussion on Jerry Brown talk page.

In the California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown's article, over the last several months there has been many photos and portraits placed and/or removed by consensus. Naturally, these photos have been moved to the talk page for discussion. Some users think some photos are bad, some don't.

But User:Off2riorob has come along and began an edit war over a photo in the article.[24][25] And then this user began deleting all the images under discussion in the Jerry Brown talk page.[26] When the photos were placed back, he removed them again with the edit summary including the phrase "Discussion is over", [27], this despite this user being in an edit war over photos. This user continuously removed all or some of the photos. When I attempted to discuss this photo issue on the user's talk page, the user moved the photo to my talk page and stated:

"The picture I have posted here is unworthy of any discussion "[28]

When explaining that there is no content or photos "unworthy of discussion" on article talk pates, User:Off2riorob responded:

Yes, unworthy of discussion, there is nothing to discuss at all, the pic is close to attacking and never had or will have any chance of insertion in the article, so , nothing to discuss at all.[29]

Slanderous WP:BLP issues aside, I strongly believe there should ALWAYS be discussion of ANY content, particularly in something as important as a major candidate for governor of the most populous state in the United States. A user attempting to "ban" and delete discussion of anything should not be tolerated. This user needs to be reminded that they don't have the authority to deem a topic "unworthy of discussion." --Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Former Governor Jerry Brown.jpg

Jerry Brown at 2008 California State Democratic Convention, San Jose, California, March 2008

I am not attempting to ban or delete discussion at all. As for the pics, I did not delete them I replaced them with the links for access, the discussion about the infobox pic is imo over, the clearly best pic is in the infobox.there is no reason to have a picture farm on the talkpage, I was especially wanting to remove this pic as it has no chance of ever getting in the article and as such does not need to be on the talkpage, it makes the subject appear angry and imo is a negative portrayal, user Oakshade has reverted all my good faith edits and I don't see what more he wants. I am a complete neutral in the American current elections and there is some awful partisan editing occurring across multiple such articles. Like this, what is the insistence to keep negative pictures on the talkpage that will never ever have any chance of insertion in the article, this pic I would remove on sight, so what discussion is needed and why insist on keeping it on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Comment, I also object to the title of this section. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  I changed it. Hope that helps. --TS 20:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I removed the bizarre bit. It was attacking Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care much about this, but as far as I can tell this is an official gubernatorial portrait. What's the problem? Or is that some other edit war? --TS 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the image in dispute is File:Former Governor Jerry Brown.jpg. –xeno^talk 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) that one →

Near as I can figure, the odd painting size is the issue -- which is not really worthy of an ANI complaint at this point (indeed, the file name in 2008 was apparently a bone of contention - with two different pictures bearing the same file name?). I think the game of using ugly pictures and other political silly season work should be viewed with a jaundiced eye for all articles. It certainly does not appear that Brown has much negative material in his BLP, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I see that now in the hist of the article. –xeno^talk 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He may not be the cheshire-cat, but that's definitely a smile there. Most likely the picture was taken whilst he was speaking, but as Freudian as it may be, I don't see any anger in the picture. a_man_alone (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - if we're actually talking about this picture - [30], why are we showing another one in the discussion? I'm confused now. a_man_alone (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User Off2riorob attempted to remove both, one from the article (the official Governor portrait because Off2riorob didn't like it) and the other as well as all photos from the talk page so they couldn't even be discussed.--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The glob pic imo is a poor representation of a living person and I boldly removed it from the article, it was replaced as notable, although it has no citations to support that the picture is notable for inclusion even though it is a poor representation of a living person, I requested citations to prove it is notable. user Oakshade replaced it and in an effort to reduce the effect of the picture I then reduced the size, it was also imo quite large, user oaktree then reverted my edit and again made the picture bigger Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If by "glob pic" you mean the Official Governor of California portrait, your opinion is noted but it is only your opinion. To clarify, it was a different user who reverted your removal of the Official Governor Portrait, not me.[31]--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:E brownjr.jpg

Official gubernatorial portrait of Jerry Brown painted by Don Bachardy

Not worthy of an ANI complaint? I'll tell you what isn't worthy of an ANI complaint: nearly every single whining complaint on ANI! This board was originally designated for admins to communicate with one another about matters of importance, not every petty edit war in existence. Just stop it and learn how to pursue dispute resolution. Leave this page for its designated purpose. --TS 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Stacy Naoto Kodani

I'm not sure what needs to be done about this page, so I was hoping an admin can look at it. Three different new users (probably all the same person) have tried to remove most of the content from the page, and the more recent two have also nominated it for deletion. The most recent prod tag says that the information on the page has helped compromise "important accounts" [32]. This person obviously has some concern about the page, and I have no idea what the proper way to address it is. Calathan (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD, since I disagree with it. They can take it to AfD if they wish, but I really don't see much "personal information" in the article. Certainly nothing that couldn't be found from a google search anyways. Silverseren^C 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment since I realize I mispoke, the first and second accounts tried to remove most of the content from the page, but not the third account, who only placed a prod tag on it. The second account did put on AFD tag on the page, but didn't follow through and actually create the AFD discussion. I ended up removing that AFD tag when I reverted the edits that removed most of the content from the page, but perhaps someone could help this person start an AFD discussion. Calathan (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Forsyth, not run over by bus

Resolved

 – Semi'ed by Dabomb87. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Bruce Forsyth article, I see several edits from IP addresses, all looking much like this diff, adding information on death today. I cannot find any news reports confirming this, and a look at Twitter shows only a couple of tweets about a rumour.

Perhaps this article could be semi-protected for a time until the situation is clear? --Pete (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum civility issue

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

Can a previously uninvolved admin please instruct Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) not to use such language when commenting at my user talk page? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why, what's wrong with it? And since when did admins get to "instruct" other editors?Parrot of Doom 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're looking for an admin who hasn't been the target of Malleus' blunt language? Good luck with that. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Parrot, if you actually read it, there was some cursing it. Seems that he is also has a nice block record of that also. I don't even see why he keeps getting unblocked early, but then again it isn't my issue.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to read that three times before I understood it, but thanks for presuming I hadn't read something about which I was commenting. I think that says more about you than it does me. Parrot of Doom 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Parrot, Sorry, I left a note on your talk page. It is my fault for not assuming good faith.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• You're on a hiding to nothing here. Using fuck as an intensifier is not inherently incivil. Even if it were, Malleus is immune to any criticism of how he speaks. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jclemens, in that case, any admin other than myself stating such in a post to his user talk page, would be appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And why would I want to kick that hornets' nest? Any of us who've been around for a while know how Malleus conducts himself, how he responds to attempts to change it, and how effective the community is not at doing anything about it. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't take action myself, but it's my belief that an RFC based on long-term incivility is well overdue. Nobody should be fireproof here, however well-connected they may appear to be. The break may well be when one's own supporters give up the ghost as being no longer sustainable. I'll leave it to others to decide that. Rodhullandemu 23:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Using "fuck" as an intensifier is inherently uncivil, in the context of our policy WP:CIVIL. I can't take action here either but accord with RHE that a RFCU might be the next step. --John (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a rule for long term incivility anyways? Knowing admins to unblock you ain't cool.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because your version of civility might be different to another person's. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't what the policy says. It says (in part) "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor... can ... result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." I'd say this outburst is probably blockworthy in itself, when taken alongside MF's history, though it may be worth taking the context into consideration, something I have not (yet) examined. --John (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that, what happens if another admin just unblocks him?--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Then another one will just block me again. It's happened before. What I continue to find curious is why so many admins like John are just slavering to find any reasn to block me, when I do far more for this project than they could ever dream of. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's just the arrogance that is anathema to this project, and is arguably the supposed source of your immunity. Contributing here isn't just the content you've provided, but I've also argued on several occasions that there are two dimensions to being here; content contribution and collegiality, and it is on the latter point that you appear to be missing the point. See above: "nobody is fireproof". You may have allies, for now, but that may not last. With great respect to your content contributions, a holistic and collegiate attitude might save you from perdition, but it has to be said that I don't see your usual acolytes flooding to your defence right now. Hmmm? Rodhullandemu 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For fucks sake, not this thread again. Out of pure curiosity, would it have been any better if Malleus had said "I believe that you don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about."? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 00:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. There comes a time when to enjoy the picnic, you must swat the wasp. THis has been going on for far too long. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Admins are neither the naughty words police, nor supposed to look away when casual abuse of other editors happens. Sometimes, the former becomes or is part of the latter.

A lot of thin skinned people are sensitive to naughty words, which is why we try to discourage them, and sometimes have to whack someone for using them. But we really need to focus more on casual or directed abuse.

Malleus (if I may paraphrase some years of familiarity) seems to believe that naughty words never transgress into outright abuse, and has a higher threshold for what's abuse than the community writ large. The community does not as a whole agree with that, hence WP:CIVIL and various editor abuse blocks that have happened and will undoubtedly happen again. There is an ongoing debate about where the line should be.

IMHO - Malleus put the first foot "wrong" but the two of them were starting to engage in a bit of mutual combatantry there. The wrongness was into the grey area but not across the line in a clear manner, and was clearly more of an exasperated utterance than a focused intentional insult. These are not good, but "admins are not the naughty words police".

With that said - Malleus, please knock it off. Cirt took it as a personal attack. You're pushing too hard when people react to you that way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt didn't take it as a "personal attack" at all, he saw it as an excuse to have me blocked again, along with his mate Rodhullandemu. A rational personal looking at the circumstances, should one ever be found amongst wikipedia's administrators, might even conclude that the incivility was on Cirt's part, even though he didn't actually use a naughty word. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why did he come here for an opinion? And I specifically deferred blocking you, or whatever, to an RFC. I'm amazed that you have any idea what a "rational person" may think, given your history, but, I do urge you to read our article on paranoia before take one step further forward. As I read it, your credibility here is rapidly going down the drain, and that isn't up to me; it's up to you. So fix it. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)