Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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, 31 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)

I've decided to cut short this ridiculously long discussion by noting the administrative consensus for a topic ban on User:Smatprt from all articles related to William Shakespeare, broadly construed. Admins dissenting please note here before the end of the month or I'll just cut the link to the subpage and formally notify Smatprt of the topic ban. --TS 23:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the ban. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Paul Siebert, Justus Maximus, Karl Marx, Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, …

AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert

I note with disappointment and regret that recent developments are leaving me with no other choice but to draw attention to the behavior of the above editors.

The facts of the case are as follows.

(1) On 5 October 2010, at 12:57 (UTC), I included in the article “Communist terrorism” the following passage with a quote by Marx (that apparently no one here had been able to trace since 1996 when it was mentioned by Edvard Radzinsky), under the section “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders”:

“In his article, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna”, ‘’Neue Rheinische Zeitung’’, No. 136, 7 Nov. 1848, Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.””

To which I provided the following references:

“Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Vol. V, 1959, pp. 455-7. http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me05/me_05_455.htm; for English translation see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm”

On 6 October, at 03:54 (UTC), AndyTheGrump (in his own words) “amended Marx to full version.”

On 6 October, at 03:56 (UTC), AndyTheGrump posted the following statement on the talk page:

“I have amended the passage to give the quote in full. As it stood, the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis, arguably distorted the intended meaning.”

What I felt to be particularly discourteous and offensive was the fact that AndyTheGrump made absolutely no attempt to provide any evidence as to (a) what the intended meaning was, (b) why the quote as initially provided by me was “distorting” that meaning, and (c) why he thought it had been my intention to “distort” anything.

(2) On 6 October, at 10:53 (UTC), I included the following passage in the above-mentioned article, under the same section:

“Thus, in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky (1918), Lenin wrote: “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence.””

It was my intention at a later point, when I had the time to do so, to include an observation made by Robert Service in his work A History of Twentieth-Century Russia to the effect that Lenin in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky advocated dictatorship and terror, as well as provide the following quote from Engels’ On Authority (which Lenin uses to support his own position on dictatorship and revolutionary violence, including state terror):

““To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.””

It was (and still is) my sincere belief that the above quotes would have served to illustrate the views on the matter held by leading Marxists. Nor can there be any doubt that the quotes were relevant to the section entitled “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders.”

On 6 October, at 16:41 (UTC), Paul Siebert (in his own words) “Removed the quote form [sic] “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky””, adding that “Lenin does not use a word “terror” there at all.”

As I pointed out, Lenin must have used the word “terror” in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky at the very least in the Engels quote he is using in that work for the simple reason that (a) Engels’ original text (and English translation) has the word “terror” and (b) the English translation of The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky itself has the word “terror”.

Paul Siebert unreasonably dismissed as “irrelevant” not only the Lenin quote I had included in the article and the Lenin quote I suggested on the talk page, but the entire The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky.

On 6 October, at 16:51 (UTC), without adducing any evidence to substantiate his statements, Paul Siebert posted the following on the talk page:

“This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there. The word “terror” is mentioned twice in the foot notes. Lenin does not use it”.

Without providing any explanation as to what the footnotes were about, Paul Siebert insisted that the Russian original which he is able to read does not have the word “terror” (except, as already stated, “in the footnotes”), but that it has the word strakh which means “fear” and cannot mean “terror.”

Apart from the fact that his own interpretation or translation of the Russian text clearly constitutes original research, Paul Siebert continues to insist that the word strakh does not mean terror despite the fact that it does so:

(a) as is evident from the context;

(b) as is evident from the Oxford Russian Dictionary;

(c) as is evident from the English translation (online version available at www.marxists.org: [1]);

and

(d) as any educated Russian speaker can confirm.

In addition, Lenin’s endorsement of terror has been confirmed by a number of respected historians, e.g., Robert Service in A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p 108:

“Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror”

and Richard Pipes in Communism: A Brief History, p. 39:

“He [Lenin] was quite prepared to resort to unlimited terror to destroy his opponents and cow the rest of the population.”

It is evident from this that the words “This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there” constitute a false statement.

In light of the evidence, Paul Siebert must have been, or subsequently become, aware of the fact that his statement is false.

On 8 October, at 17:06 (UTC), Paul Siebert posted the following statement on the talk page:

“it is worth noting that Bolsheviks didn’t start terror immediately after coming to power, which can be demonstrated by the fact that death penalty was completely abolished by them in 1917.”

The fact is that the Bolshevik government did not abolish the death penalty. It confirmed the abolition thereof enacted on 12 March 1917 by Kerensky’s Provisional government. Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917 and had expressly ordered his followers not to support the Kerensky government (Richard Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 1996, p. 15). In addition, after coming to power, the Bolshevik government actually restored the death penalty in respect of certain crimes (e.g., Fanny Kaplan was executed on 4 September, 1918) and the CHEKA (the secret police established by Lenin in December 1917, i.e., immediately after Bolshevik takeover of power) was granted discretionary death-penalty powers by Lenin 1921 (Figes, 1998; Volkogonov, 1994). Lenin himself declared that it was “not possible to make a revolution without executions”; ordered the Red Terror campaign in September 1918 (Pipes, p. 56); and “the transformation of the war [WWI] from a conflict between nations to one between classes had been a central plank in the Bolshevik platform long before 1917” (Richard Pipes, Communism, 2001, p. 41).

It follows that it is legitimate to question Paul Siebert’s good faith.

It also follows that it is legitimate to ask (a) why Paul Siebert is making false statements and (b) why he is using such statements as a pretext to exclude relevant material from the article and/or discussion.

It must be noted that both my initial contributions and subsequent observations were in response to the call to help improve the article; were relevant to the section under discussion; and were clearly made in good faith.

By contrast, not only have Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump displayed discourteous and offensive behavior from the very start, but they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist agenda, impose their own biased views on others, and preclude any balanced and objective discussion from taking place.

Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump have repeatedly attempted to conceal or deny historical facts linking prominent Marxists with terrorism, such as, that Marx was known as “The Red Terror Doctor” on account of his endorsement of terror as a policy; that both Marx and his associate Engels made statements in support of terror/terrorism; that Marx wrote, “there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism” (and that this quote in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism is annotated approvingly by Stalin); that Engels defines revolution in general “as rule imposed by means of the terror that the arms of the victorious party inspire in the reactionaries” (and that this definition is quoted with approval by Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky); that they were personally involved in armed insurrections (amounting to terrorism on account of their intention to establish a dictatorship based on terror); that they are discussed in scholarly publications on terrorism (e.g., Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, in the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism), etc.

In summation, it appears that the above-mentioned editors have effectively hijacked the article for their own purposes and are doing as they please with total impunity. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I have requested the editor Snowded to advise me on the procedure for taking the matter to a higher authority but I received no reply. Being new to Wikipedia, I hope this is the correct place for lodging the above complaint. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the request Justus, best to place on my talk page as your article talk pages are very very long and its easy to miss things. If I had seen it I would have advised you against the above--Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See this previous thread from ANI a week ago, where JM's editing was discussed. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message about this request on the user talk pages of AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, thank you for informing me about this discussion. To make it more productive, can we ask Justus Maximus to do the following:

1. To try to separate a content dispute between them and a number of other editors from behavioural issues, because the former is not supposed to be a subject of the current thread.
2. To provide at least one example when they tried to seriously comment on the quotes from the reliable scholarly sources provided by me. This sources contradicted to the edits proposed by them, however, they rejected them under a pretext that these sources were "Marxist apologist".
3. To answer if they consider themselves a novice or experienced editor. This answer is important, because, if they believe they've already became an experienced editors, they are supposed to be responsible for violations of civility norms on WP pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus yet again chooses to label me as 'pro-terrorist'. I consider this a baseless gross personal attack, and ask him to withdraw this immediately. Should he not do so, I intend to seek Wikipedia arbitration over the issue.AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note:AndyTheGrump has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but per WP:LEGAL the statement that someone makes "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;"[2] is a perceived legal threat, and even much more serious one, because propaganda of terrorism, by contrast to libel, is a felony. In connection to that, taking into account that both Andy and Justus can be both considered as new editors, I request Access Denied to re-consider their decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin; I was only commenting. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider the comment you just quoted a legal threat. If they had said "I'm going to report you to law enforcement for spreading terrorist propaganda, maybe, but I see no real accusation of terrorist propaganda, let alone a threat of reporting it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations in propaganda of terrorism are perceived legal threat per WP:LEGAL--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Justus Maximus comment, "...they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda...." is totally unacceptable and he should be blocked for incivility. Otherwise, his comments are long and rambling, and he does not clearly point out what his dispute is other than a content dispute. TFD (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, "strakh" means a "state of fear" or just fear in general, though for the purposes of Marx and Lenin, it is quite clear that they were speaking and advocating a form of terrorism. In this, the original poster is correct. I just wanted to point that out. Silverseren^C 17:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Though, Justus, what Paul meant from this is that your quote “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence” doesn't even have the word terror in it anywhere. And Snowded asked for you to be involved in the talk here. Other than those two edits, you have not been involved in directly editing the article, though I notice there is an expansive amount of discussion on the talk page. Is there really anything that has to do with ANI here? Silverseren^C 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone tell User:Paul Siebert that forum shopping is frowned upon, he has posted here on this thread the Justus is making perceived legal threats (I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked) But he has also posted the same thing Here thinking Access Denied was an admin and he posted the same again Here on Toddst1 talk page. This strikes me as someone shopping around looking for the right result and Paul ought to be told to quit it mark (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that, from what i've seen from the talk page of the article in question, all three, Justus Maximus, Paul Siebert, and AndyTheGrump, have all been editing in a manner that expresses POV editing and/or possessiveness of the article. In terms of this and what Mark has shown above, I believe something definitely needs to be done in terms of these three users together, as they have all exibited editing that is frowned upon or not allowed on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked". Had I wanted him to get blocked, I would be able to report him many times, because his behaviour is highly insulting and violates many WP rules. Regarding possessiveness, I admit that the talk page is a mess and that it is hard for a newcomer to follow the course of the discussion, however, before throwing accusations in "possessiveness", one has to read the discussion in full. I proposed to discuss a way to reconcile what Justus' and my sources say, whereas he simply ignored my arguments calling my sources "Marxist apologist". My proposal to edit a dubious section on the talk page and to re-insert it into the article after a consensus is achieved, a tactics that worked fine for, e.g. WWII article, was simply ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the section were you were Bold and removed it, then yourself, Igny and snowed Snowed edit warred to keep it out? With all three of you hitting 3r along with a couple of ip`s which lead to the article being locked out? mark (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the section which I temporarily moved to the talk page section to re-write and re-introduce into the article. Since this section contained obvious nonsense, it would be incorrect to let it to stay in the article during possibly endless dispute. In addition, I proposed some concrete way to reconcile both points of view and make it neutral. All of that has been ignored by the editors belonging to another party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢: that page is a mess. Large sections of it use the rhetorical style of FOX news pundits (illegitimate associations between unrelated ideas designed to promote a particular anti-communist viewpoint - effectively a form of right-wing Mad Libs), much of it is aimed at attacking Marxist theory by leveraging revolutionary practices, and the general behavior of all involved parties is (shall I say politely) less than optimal. If the page weren't locked I'd simply go after it with garden shears and a trowel; right now I'm just hoping that we can settle the issues with some straw polls. if you all want to go and drop your votes on the straw polls I opened, and if we can get a reasonable consensus that way, it might just put a stop (either way) to some of the shenanigans. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is a promising new editor who we would like to keep—funnily enough I was just admiring an edit of his (this one), which turned up on my watchlist. His "legal threat" was so vague as to be meaningless; plus he's a newbie, presumably not familiar with the labyrinthine ways of Wikipedia. I think it's appallingly bitey to immediately block him indefinitely for saying "I am aware that Wikipedia policy is to discourage recourse to legal measures, but given the grossly offensive nature of this statement, I see that I have little choice." If *I* said that, it would be appropriate to block me, but a newbie? Come on, what's wrong with having a word with him and explaining that talk about legal measures isn't merely discouraged on Wikipedia. Unless there is general objection, I'm going to unblock him in a while, and advise him to withdraw the offending statement. Toddst1, I'm aware that you have already advised him what to do, but I don't think starting with an indefinite block is a good way to get people to listen receptively. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

• Please give your opinion below about my intention to unblock:

An undertaking to retract the legal threat is all that is required for a legal threat block to be lifted. I don't think that consensus is required, since it says that in WP:LEGAL. Get the undertaking first, then press the button. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, obviously, this legal threat was just an inadequate response of a newbie on continuous insults and perceived legal threats from Justus Maximus' side (repeated accusation in such a crime as propaganda of terrorism are the perceived legal threat). Obviously, the Andy's response was highly emotional, however, taking into account that both these editors are novices, and taking into account that Justus Maximus has been warned many time about his unacceptable behaviour, this reaction is understandable (although not excusable). In addition, we all are partially guilty in that, because we where too tolerant to a newbie Justus Maximus. I do not understand why another newbie has to suffer from that our mistake. In my opinion, the block can be lifted immediately after Andy will agree to retract this threat.

Secondly, I propose not to forget that this issue has only tangential relation to this thread, which has been initiated by Justus Maximus and it is de facto a renewal of this previous thread. Therefore, I propose to return to this topic, especially, taking into account that the norms of acceptable behaviour have been explained to Justus Maximus now, and the experienced editor who initially voluntarily decided to coach him/her through a collaborative approach by that moment gave up and does not see any value in continuation of a dialogue with him[3]--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll leave Andy blocked for now, since he rather dances around a really unequivocal withdrawal of the offending statement.[4] I can't blame him for being a grumpy Grump just now, though, and I hope people are watching his page and are prepared to unblock if/when he does withdraw it properly, for instance in line with Toddst1's crisp post. It's late in my timezone, so I won't be watching. But as I said, it would be nice to keep this editor. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I think you should unblock. This is a good new editor and even experienced editors would be driven to distraction by the situation on that talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy should now be unblocked, as he has withdrawn his threat of legal action. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for handling that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Return to Justus Maximus

Shall we return to User:Justus Maximus and that wall of text again.He's still (as in last week's ANI) turning what is basically a dispute about the interpretation placed on historical events by later scholars, into what seems to be a personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as Communist terrorists. Justus must somehow be persuaded that people are allowed to disagree with him, and further that he must not accuse the people who disagree with him of being closet Marxist terrorists. Snowded has been very patient, but I don't think he's got anywhere, Andy has been blocked after an unwise remark about legal action, and is waiting to see what we do. Paul Seibert is I believe correct that in the US at least, advocating or publicising terrorism is a criminal offence, so JM's unreasonable accusation of Andy goes beyond your average ad hominem. I don't see him warned for it, and I think a forceful warning from someone who can follow up an 'if you do this again you will be blocked' threat is the very minimum that must be done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to say that accusing someone of being a terrorism advocate warrants a warning plus a short block, but given the time since the comment the block would end up being not so much preventative as punitive. So, I agree that a "final warning" of sorts where any further personal attacks or general incivility warrant a good 2-3 day block, especially if they are along the lines of accusing people of terrorism related things. I'll deliver a templated final warning, but anyone else should feel free to expand on it (or replace it) with their own composition. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Elen and Ks0stm on forceful warning. Accusing other editors of criminal activity is not acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps [5] from one of those already in this conversation is germane, using the clearly problematic assertion "Firstly, before we continue I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats. Are you going to do that?" on 17 October. As you note, accusing others of criminal activity is not acceptable, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh...that's one of those cases where I choose to solidly assume good faith in his intent and assume low clue in his word choice. I'd go for advising a little less strong word choice/rhetoric with that comment. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

When I posted about this issue I noted that, since Justus Maximus is a newbie, the immediate sanctions against him are premature. I believed -Snowded ^TALK's voluntary mentorship would resolve the situation. However, our tolerance towards this newbie resulted in a block of another newbie (Andy), who faced the situation which, according to his limited WP experience, seemed unresolvable by him, and, as a result, resorted to legal threats.

However, the issue is not only in accusations in criminal activity. Justus Maximus seems to deeply misunderstand the policy: he believes that based solely on his vision of the subject he can accept of reject sources, which he arbitrarily calls "reliable" or "apologist"; he believes that based on the sources available for him he can reject what other sources say; he does not understand that commenting on a contributor is not acceptable; he does not understand that drawing own conclusion based on few quotes from historical documents taken out of historical contest is absolutely incorrect, etc. Someone, who is not considered by him as a personification of the devil (in other words, not I) should explain that to him. Any help is appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps JM would voluntarily go through a set of lessons (Mono's program comes to mind, but I believe it is still under construction, so perhaps one similar to it) with the objective of teaching him such core policies as Reliable Sources, No Original Research, No Personal Attacks, etc, to the point where he could explain what the fundamental meaning of these core policies are? At any rate, for the time being, he should be kept on a very short leash regarding personal attacks and civility (in line with the warning I posted on his talk page). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would really be very helpful if a few other editors would explain OR and SYNTH to Justus, he either does not understand or is not listening. --Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd do that (I'm usually good at such explanations) except I don't think it would have any effect at this point in time. JM is smart enough to be very cagey intellectually and determined enough in his viewpoints that he is unlikely to willingly back down. Honestly, I think the best approach would be to warn him for disruptive editing, and if he keeps it up give him short block to get his attention. he needs to have a reason to settle down and listen, because he's (obviously) having a lot of fun spinning out arguments to support his position at the moment. --Ludwigs2 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

With regret I think you are right, it will take a block to get him to listen --Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think some of the above comments do appear to confirm rather than negate the impression that there is a bias here.

In particular, what the comments appear to ignore is:

(1) that AndyTheGrump engaged in personal attacks on me long before I even addressed any of the editors involved in the discussion.

(2) that Paul Siebert has been employing false statements as a pretext to exclude relevant material from the article and/or discussion.

(3) that editors like Paul Siebert are habitually permitted to use original research in their arguments whereas I am being attacked on the rare occasions I happen to do so (and only when requested by other editors to explain why I believe something to be the case).

(4) that at no point has it been explained how personal attacks by editors such as AndyTheGrump differ/are less offensive than mine.

Until such time as issues like the above have been objectively addressed I cannot but regard such comments as a continuation of personal attacks on me started by AndyTheGrump Justus Maximus (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, if your statements like those regarding the word strakh, Lenin's endorsement of terror, and the Bolshevik abolition of the death-penalty are not intentionally fraudulent, then why won't you admit that they are false and retract them? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it. But it is no excuse for more incivility and more original research. You have certainly crossed the line with serious accusations against other editors and lengthy discourses at Talk:Communist terrorism. It appears you are unwilling to follow the policies that WP imposes. TFD (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is evident from Justus Maximus's last statement that he has no intention of apologising for his grossly offensive personal comments, but instead chooses to continue his misrepresentations and insinuations. I am therefore going to seek a solution through the relevant Wikipedia channels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, of course I am prepared to apologize for any of my remarks (1) should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments" and (2) if you retract, and apologize for, your own personal attacks that, after all, were made first, logically and chronologically speaking.

As a sign of good will, I hereby give you a chance to do so by explaining why you alleged that I had "distorted the meaning" of the Engels quote.

Justus Maximus (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it

Then please apply that principle impartially to all.Justus Maximus (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, can you please provide a link to the supposed 'personal attack' of mine that was "first, logically and chronologically speaking". At that point, we can at least see what I said, and what preceded it.

As for "grossly offensive personal comments", if you are unable to accept that calling someone 'pro-terrorist' is grossly offensive, I can only conclude that you have a strange concept of what the words 'grossly offensive' mean. As has been pointed out several times already, it could reasonably be interpreted as implying illegality on my part. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Which 'Engels quote', JM?

Justus Maximus seems to have taken the opportunity here to repeat allegations about me, without providing any evidence. Can I ask how long I'm expected to wait for his response before citing it as further evidence of his non-compliance with Wikipedia standards? To ensure he has seen this, I'll post a further notification on his talk page, but I see no reason to wait indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, can you please provide a link to the supposed 'personal attack' of mine that was "first, logically and chronologically speaking". At that point, we can at least see what I said, and what preceded it

AndyTheGrump, I meant of course the Marx quote. You ought to know exactly which personal attack I'm referring to unless you didn't read my post, above. If that is the case, please read it first.

Meanwhile, I repeat your statement below:

"the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis arguably distorted the intended meaning" - AndyTheGrump, talk page, 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC). Surely, you recall your own statements don't you?

The way I see it the facts of the matter are as follows:

(1) You claimed on the talk page that Marx’s article containing the statement on revolutionary terrorism (“The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna”) was obscure and you had not been aware of its existence. However, as I pointed out, it couldn’t have been obscure to students of Marx given that it was quoted by Marxists such as Kautsky. Moreover, Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism is a Marxist classic. It follows that (a) as a historian specializing in Marxism you ought to have known where the quote was from, (b) as an editor participating in a discussion on Communist terrorism, you ought to have been familiar with a Marxist work on Terrorism and Communism, and as neither (a) nor (b) appears to be the case, (c) this raises very serious and legitimate doubts about your competence to participate in such a discussion.

(2) By claiming to know what Marx’s intended meaning was, you indulged in original research and took a pro-Marxist stand.

(3) The fact is that Marx is telling a lie in that article. The truth of the matter is that the number of demonstrators killed by the National Guard was between 6 and 18. Here’s what actually happened:

“When the National Guard tried to disperse the protesters, there were clashes, which escalated on 23 August. The Academic Legion, though refusing to join in the repression, was reluctant to side with the insurgents and stood back, a mere spectator to what followed. Lacking the support of the very people whom they regarded as their leaders, the workers stood no chance. Demonstrators were beaten with the flats of sabres, bayoneted and shot. Between 6 and 18 workers were killed, and between 36 and 152 seriously wounded (depending upon whether one believes government or radical counts). When the fighting was over, women from the more prosperous quarters of the city garlanded the National Guards’ bayonets with flowers … The Democratic Club shouted down Marx, who was then visiting Vienna, when he tried to argue that the violence was a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For Engels, 23 August was the moment when the middle class abandoned the cause of the people: ‘thus the unity and strength of the revolutionary force was broken; the class-struggle had come in Vienna, too, to a bloody outbreak, and the counter-revolutionary camarillasaw the day approaching on which it might strike its grand blow’. But Marx found that it was not only the middle class who were deserting the revolution; there was little sympathy for his ideas even when he addressed workers’ meetings. On 7 September, he left Vienna, grumbling at the stubborn refusal of the workers to see that they should be waging a class war against the bourgeoisie” (Mike Rapport, 1848:Year of Revolution, London: Little, Brown, 2008, pp. 230-1).

It follows from the above that Marx’s use of rhetorical flourishes like “massacres” and “cannibalism” was intended to deceive the readers and incite them to armed insurrection on false pretences. It is beyond dispute that the primary intention of the article was to incite to armed insurrection, as correctly observed by the authorities who closed down Marx’s paper on that very ground.

(4) The quote as initially provided by me illustrated Marx’s endorsement of terrorism and was relevant to the section “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders.” By contrast, the “intended meaning” as implied by your statement was irrelevant. It follows that your assertion “the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis, arguably distorted the intended meaning” is uncalled for and lends itself to being interpreted as deliberately offensive.

As already stated, I am prepared to retract any remarks of mine (1) should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments" and (2) if you retract, and apologize for, your own personal attacks that, after all, were made first, logically and chronologically speaking.

So, if you are indeed interested in peaceful cooperation between editors, all you need to do is retract and apologize for your offensive remarks. It's very simple. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold up a second. JM, are you seriously saying that the "Marx quote" is the bit where it was stated your edit "arguably distorted" the meaning of the source? That's not a personal attack, by any stretch of the imagination. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks that way, HandThatFeeds. It's worth noting that the (half)quote we were discussing was in the article even before JM got involved. He (usefully) provided a link to the original source, and correctly added the ellipsis to indicate it was part of a longer sentence. I provided the remainder of the sentence (though there are two different English translations available, and I think I used the wrong one - as I've noted on the article talk page). It is also worth noting that at the time I made this revision, JM made no suggestion that I was being offensive. This attempt of mine to make a perfectly reasonable edit to a contentious quote to provide some context has only later been identified by JM as part of a Marxist plot to censor him. He initially seems to have been unaware of the standards which apply to Wikipedia, and took any attempts to persuade him to conform to them as 'suppression' of his preferred sources. Almost from the start he was accusing others of 'falsehoods'. He has since argued that he doesn't agree with the need for reliable sources if they contradict his 'ethics'. He has chosen yet again to make a personal attack on me on the most ridiculous grounds. He writes that 'as a historian specializing in Marxism you ought to have known where the quote was from' which is surely an indication of his complete detachment from reality: I'm not a historian, and have never claimed to be. Neither have I actually claimed to be a 'specialist in Marxism'. I had merely earlier pointed out that the Marx quote wasn't in any of Marx's major works (it isn't), which is why I'd asked where it was from. Justus Maximus chooses to insinuate that I knew where it was from all along, and then uses this bogus assumption to 'prove' his ludicrous conspiracy theories. The man is clearly incapable of logical thought on issues he has any emotional involvement with, and thus cannot be anything but a liability as a Wikipedia editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The persistent refusal by Justus Maximus to conform to Wikipedia standards

As will be evident from the earlier section started by Justus Maximus here, he has consistently refused to conform to Wikipedia rules regarding civility. In particular, he has repeatedly described another contributor and myself as 'pro-terrorist' - a grossly offensive personal attack. He has also repeatedly been asked to withdraw such statements, and refused. He shows no interest in adhering to other Wikipedia norms either, and has instead argued that his 'ethics' override the need for reliable sources. On his own talk page he suggested that a "Marxist apologist brigade...controls the whole Wikipedia project" here, which seems a clear indication of his attitude towards Wikipedia, and should in itself be sufficient grounds for concluding that he can contribute nothing useful. I therefore suggest that he be banned from further editing until he withdraws his grossly offensive personal attacks and gives an assurance that he will conform to Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, please see my response above. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus, you are just wasting everyone's time, most of all your own. Wikipedia is not the forum to present original ideas and interpretations. I suggest you voluntarily refrain from editing anything to do with communism for some time. Work on other articles and learn how cooperation on Wikipedia works. I you do not do this voluntarily I will have to propose, that a topic ban be placed on you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, I think there is a severe WP:COMPETENCE problem. Apart from the above discussion Justus appears to be editing an old version of AN/I to respond to threads, but does not appear to understand what he is doing? I've tried explaining as best I can but he is having trouble with understanding what I mean by an "old version of the page". Anyone else that can weigh in with help would be appreciated. Talk page thread --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that Justus Maximus has still refused to withdraw his grossly offensive personal remarks about me, in spite of having quite sufficient time to do so, and in spite of making several edits to Wikipedia since my last comments in this section. He has instead insisted that I withdraw 'personal remarks' about him first, though the only example he has (eventually and reluctantly) given any real reference too was clearly not offensive at all (he didn't seem to think so at the time either, see my last posting above). I will not deny that I did indeed later make some personal remarks, but any inspection of the relevant talk page will show that this was only after he had began his malevolent insinuations and aspersions about other editors, and nothing I said can be remotely comparable to his characterisation of another editor and myself as 'pro-terrorist'. He further insists that it be 'established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments"', entirely reversing any reasonable burden of proof. I have shown a great deal of patience since my perhaps hasty reaction the last time he made this slur, but am now in the position where it appears that no sanctions are to be taken against him, and his remarks remain in Wikipedia files. As a new contributor, I could probably cease participating in the project, and walk away with no great harm done (his characterisation is so ludicrous as to be hardly credible), but I hardly think it is conducive to my long-term participation in Wikipedia to have such offensive comments available for all to see, and for Justus Maximus to continue unsanctioned. I don't intend this to seem an ultimatum, but I do have to ask whether other editors would tolerate the same situation, or instead withdraw from the project? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I note that it is not for you to decide which of your remarks are offensive to others, but for those affected by your remaks to do so. Your assertion to the effect that my quote "distorted the intended meaning" was offensive to me as it wrongly implied that it had been my intention to distort something. I did not immediately react to your offensive remark precisely because I wanted to avoid conflict and was hoping that it had been a mistake on your part. Your subsequent behavior demonstrated that it had not been a mistake, in particular when you exhibited a clear pro-Marxist or what I called "apologist" bias. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't get to decide what is offensive. Disagreeing with a position you have advanced is NEVER offensive, no matter how controversial. The way it is expressed may or may not be offensive - I have not see Andy say anything that constitutes a personal attack under the WP:NPA policy. I have not seen you being rude, but I have seen you making extremely personal comments about people's political beliefs, to the extent that you appear to be accusing them of something that might be a criminal act in the US. Ascribing offensive motives to people who oppose you is a breach of Wikipedia policy, in your case what you have said is a personal attack. You should not do so again, and should redact the instances where you are accusing people of supporting terrorism, otherwise you do risk being blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I point out at this point that my comment about how the truncation of the quotation from Marx could arguably have distorted its meaning need not even have been directed at Justus Maximus, but at those others who had previously truncated it. Had he bothered to raise his concerns, I would gladly have clarified this. In any case, I suspect this particular supposedly 'offensive' comment is only being raised by JM in order to justify his claim that I was 'offensive' first. I'd argue that even if I had been (I wasn't, at least by intent), this would in no way justify his gross and continuing mischaracterisations of my attitude towards terrorism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider that picking at a sore does not generally make it heal? Meanwhile, you assert on the article talk page that the IRA became peace-loving when it became Marxist, and that the "terrorists" were "right wing" which shows something, I suppose. [6] shows a great deal of the problem is that some editos "know" when all they are supposed to do is simply use whatever the sources say, and no more. Collect (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, can you explain exactly how this is relevant to the subject of this section? And by the way, you completely misrepresent what I wrote, as anyone can see from the link you gave. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

you appear to be accusing them of something that might be a criminal act in the US

Absolutely not. My remarks such as "apologists for Marxist terrorism" (14:19 17 October UTC); "attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism" (13:09 17 October UTC); "attempt to justify Marxist terrorism" (08:45 18 October UTC) refer in all cases and without exception to Marxist terrorism in the historical context of the section under discussion, as ought to be obvious from the context. In other words, I was accusing the above editors of supporting, justifying, whitewashing, etc. terrorism as advocated/deployed by Marxists in the past. It follows that my remarks are well beyond the jurisdiction of the US or any other country I know of and cannot be construed as "accusation of a criminal act" by any stretch of the imagination or the law. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You've missed out the one where you accused me (and another) of promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda" at the start of this section. How can someone have an 'agenda' which promotes terrorism in the past? You're only making things worse for yourself, JM. I'd suggest for your own good you should either apologise ant retract your comments, or go edit Conservapedia instead - someone else can then remove your mischaracterisations, and we can all get back to doing something useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How can someone have an 'agenda' which promotes terrorism in the past?

He can perfectly well do so in the sense of "justify the use of terrorism by Marxists in the past", as already explained and as evident from the context. You appeared to deny the fact that Marx/Engels advocated terrorism, Paul Siebert appeared to justify the terrorist activities of Lenin, etc. All these issues were in the past. It isn't my fault that you refuse to understand. It seems to me it is you who are wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous allegations of "libel", etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He's still (as in last week's ANI) turning what is basically a dispute about the interpretation placed on historical events by later scholars, into what seems to be a personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as Communist terrorists

Not quite, I'm afraid. The dispute was primarily about Marx and Lenin's endorsement/practice of terrorism on the evidence of their own writings and other sources. I have in the meantime provided sources such as leading Socialists/Marxists confirming this to be the case. If it seemed like a "crusade", this is due entirely to certain editors' persistent and unreasonable refusal to acknowledge the sources. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, how exactly do you reconcile your last statement about your suggestion that I was promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda" with what you wrote earlier: "I note that it is not for you to decide which of your remarks are offensive to others, but for those affected by your rema[r]ks to do so".

As for me denying "the fact that Marx/Engels advocated terrorism". You have yet to provide WP:RS which adequately shows that this is "fact" rather than opinion, though once again this is off-topic, since the issue here is not whether Marx or Engels advocated terrorism, but whether your ludicrous assertion that I am 'pro-terrorist' is permissible on Wikipedia. Please stick to the topic under debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are playing your usual games again, aren't you? I have never disputed anyone's right to feel offended. My dispute was solely in respect of the suggestion that my remarks fell under US or any other legislation I am aware of. My remarks regarding Marx and Lenin's endorsement/practice of terrorism were intended to illustrate the historical context of the debate which has no bearing on present terrorism or legislation concerning it. So, sorry, but it is difficult to see how your campaign can succeed if you can't even get your facts straight. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus has just posted a request that I "stop threatening" him here. Since it is evident I made no threat there, can I ask that this is also taken into account when considering action against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus appears to be editing an old version of AN/I to respond to threads, but does not appear to understand what he is doing

Objection: I edited an old version of the page inadvertently, having followed a link to an old version posted by Snowded on my talk page. Being unfamiliar with ANI/Wikipedia procedures I thought that was where I was meant to respond. It does not appear that the problem is recurring now that I see I was following the wrong link. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, enough

This page is for requesting administrator action, not for endless bickering. There is one issue here - Justus Maximus, at one point you said that your opponents (who were at that time Andy and Paul Seibert) were promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda". That statement is out of order, and you have been asked by both parties to withdraw it. You will also find a number of contributors on this thread saying that you should withdraw it. You have stated that what you meant was an agenda in terms of what interpretation of history they support, which statement would not be objectionable under Wikipedia rules. Are you prepared to refactor any statement which Paul or Andy believe is saying that they promote terrorism, so it is either struck or else it is clear that it refers to historical interpretation not to modern activism. If you will do that, then no furhter administrator intervention is required. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the goddess Sophia in her incarnation of (H)elen has finally spoken! I was beginning to fear we were going to be subjected to the childish pranks of certain editors till the end of time. Of course I am prepared to refactor some of my statements should this be thought necessary. However, my concerns regarding the false statements made by Paul Siebert (see above) do remain an issue. We can't have an objective and constructive discussion on an article if editors resort to false statements in support of their personal opinion and original research. Could you please advise me as how/where these issues may be addressed? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the section title "The persistent refusal by Justus Maximus to conform to Wikipedia standards" is inaccurate and (deliberately?) misleading. I have never refused any such thing. I'm simply asking that the same standards be applied impartially to all, including to editors like Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Justus Maximus did remove "pro-terrorist" above: [7] Kansan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Let it be noted that I have removed the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the ANI section "AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert". I couldn't find it anywhere on the talk page though. I will take another look later and promise to remove/refactor it by tomorrow. I hope my concerns regarding Paul Siebert's statements can now finally be addressed so we can continue the discussion in an objective and amicable manner. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked Justus Maximus until such time as they give a straight forward answer, without attempting to make it conditional upon other related matters. Any admin is free to undo my action upon being satisfied that JM has fully complied with Elen of the Roads request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  fine with me; ... drawn here by an amusing edit summary ;) Jack Merridew 20:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bravo on successfully biting a newbie. Did not Kansan just note above that Justus Maximus in fact removed the offending phrase? Did not Justus Maximus just state above "Let it be noted that I have removed the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the ANI section". Sheesh, did't you people read the thread before acting? --Martin (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"[D]id't you people read the thread before acting"? He made the allegation repeatedly, as he himself notes (he even provides timestamps for several). He removed one instance, while still equivocating and trying to use other issues to delay things. This raises an interesting question. With him blocked, would it not now be correct to remove the offending phrases. I don't think it would be appropriate to do this myself, but I'm not happy to leave them indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How about you AGF? Justus Maximus stated "I couldn't find it anywhere on the talk page though. I will take another look later and promise to remove/refactor it by tomorrow.", people have to sleep you know. I had trouble finding that single instance on the ANI page and you haven't posted diffs of any other, as far as I can tell. --Martin (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Bravo on successfully biting a newbie" The fact that JM is a newbie has already been taken into account. I was absolutely satisfied when, in a response on my ANI post, a neutral editor agreed to supervise JM. You also probably noticed that, despite I was one of two primary objects of JM attacks, I tried to abstain from this discussion as much as possible, except the case when another newbie has been blocked as a result of our too tolerant attitude towards JM.

However, in my opinion, JM made absolutely wrong conclusions from our acts of good will towards him, namely, he decided that his behaviour, with exception of one phrase, is quite acceptable. However, it is not. He repeatedly comments on other contributors, he claims that I (as well as some other editors) have an agenda (is it acceptable, in your opinion?), that I (as well as some other editors) am an apologist of some sort (is it acceptable?). And, more importantly, he does not understand the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, namely, neutrality: the fact that he found few sources that support his POV seems to him to be sufficient to reject the well sourced arguments of others. As a result, his voluntary supervisor gave up and now he sees no use in collaboration with him. Another neutral editor is currently trying to explain quite obvious things to him on the Communist terrorism talk page, without any signs of success so far.

In summary, I support this block and I would like to see real signs of good faith from JM's side before the block will be lifted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. I am ready to explain to him his major mistakes if he will express a desire to listen. He may leave a post on his talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ellen of Roads did state "You have stated that what you meant was an agenda in terms of what interpretation of history they support, which statement would not be objectionable under Wikipedia rules". She then requests "Are you prepared to refactor any statement which Paul or Andy believe is saying that they promote terrorism, so it is either struck or else it is clear that it refers to historical interpretation not to modern activism.". To be fair it seems that Justus Maximus did in fact comply with Elen's request in good faith, as Kansan posted evidence shows[8]. Justus Maximus even goes further and states "I couldn't find it anywhere on the talk page though. I will take another look later and promise to remove/refactor it by tomorrow."[9]. Having complied with Elen's request in good faith, I don't understand why Justus Maximus was blocked in the first place. --Martin (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, everything else is acceptable behaviour in your opinion?

Re "remove/refactor". In actuality, the situation cannot be resolved so easily. JM openly and repeatedly claimed that Marxism = terrorism. Therefore any his claim that someone is pro-Marxist (Marxist apologist) sounds as implicit or even explicit accusation in promoting terrorist views. I expect him either to provide a solid evidence that Marxism is terrorism (which would be impossible, because it is a well recognised scientific doctrine), or to take an obligation in future to refrain from any personal comment on anybody in a context of Marxism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Before taking this rather pointless debate any further, can I suggest that people take a look at JMs talk page, where he writes that 'as confirmed by several editors there I have complied with Elen of the Road's request to remove or refactor the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the relevant text'. He seems to be under the misapprehension that it was only the final instance of his repeated mischaracterisation that was at issue, and thus shows no understanding of what the problem was in the first place. As has already been pointed out by numerous contributors, he shows a complete lack of awareness of what Wikipedia standards are. He has repeatedly disrupted the talk page on a controversial issue with WP:SYN and personal attacks. He has shown no evidence of accepting that WP:RS is what matters in this context, rather than his 'ethics' as he earlier argued. As his talk page shows, he is still firmly convinced that Wikipedia is in the grip of a Marxist cabal. Given all this, unblocking can only result in further disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The basis of LessHeard vanU's block is "I have indef blocked JM until as such time as the comply fully with Elen of the Roads request". However Justus Maximus had already complied with Elen's request to remove references to "promoting terrorism". Elen stated that mention of an agenda in terms what interpretation of history you support as not objectionable under Wikipedia rules. I think Justus Maximus took Elen's word in good faith and refactored the comment as requested and stated that he would check for other instances of the comment and remove them the following day, presumably after a night's sleep. After Elen herself stated that the primary issue is the reference to "promoting terrorism" should be removed and once removed no furhter administrator intervention is required, it is unfair to claim Justus Maximus did not go far enough when in fact he did precisely what Elen asked him to do. The remainder of the issues is related to content and should be dealt with elsewhere, I don't think whipping up hysteria and wiki-drama is a legitimate method of dealing with some of the issues of content that both sides validly raise. --Martin (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no hysteria or wiki-drama. A community was tolerant towards JM for long time, and even now we all are ready to collaborate with him as soon as he will agree to observe normal behavioural standards (e.g. to avoid constant repetitions of the mantra about others' "false statements", etc). However, as you can see from his recent posts on his talk page (where he, for instance blames another editor in his own sins), he is not ready to do that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)

This is an issue that has gone on for months, the most recent events are chronicled at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Brady_scorecard.2C_maps:_saga_continues, where there are also links to previous threads on the same topic. The issue was decided by consensus months ago, and suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming "There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling" to his arguments, despite being given links to more than 30,000 words of discussion, as Mudwater demonstrated. He has been warned, has been treated respectfully and politely by both myself and Digiphi, but continues to push this POV. His arguments have not changed, yet he continues to add this content against consensus. At this time his actions merit "disruptive editing", and I'm asking for a topic ban on this. Rapier (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and had a good look at the article history. It is clear that JPMcGrath is trying to edit against local consensus. His language and approach might be a low level of tendentious editing, but it's mostly a content dispute. I will warn him to cease edit warring at the risk of being blocked. I saw no 3RR violations. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What I am seeing is tedentious editing on both sides of a "no consensus" poll on the talk page.

The response to a "no consensus" is not to go edit war over it on the article itself. It's to go back and try again to find an option that everyone agrees to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding an option that everyone agrees on may not be possible in this case. The discussion has gone on for more than seven months and now exceeds 30,000 words (yes, really). Many of the editors who have participated in the discussion have agreed that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to this article would violate NPOV by pushing a particular political agenda and by providing a soapbox for an advocacy group. Some have also stated that the map does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of the different states' gun laws. Others have suggested that the map might be appropriate for a different article -- for example, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, or Brady Campaign, which currently does include the map -- but not this article, which simply describes the gun laws of the 50 states in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible. At this point somewhat more than half of the editors have agreed on this, with a sizable minority not agreeing and saying that adding the map would be okay. Still others have floated the idea of balancing the map by also including another map that supports an opposing view, but there does not appear to be such a balancing map. Anyway, the article without the maps has achieved a very neutral point of view by simply presenting the facts of the laws, which are the subject of this particular article, without adding opinions of any kind. As I said, many editors have agreed that not adding the map is the best course of action. But editor JPMcGrath has refused to accept this and keeps adding it back. This is indeed contentious editing, as it has the effect of disrupting the article for the apparent purpose of advocating a particular political point of view. Here are links to the various discussions that have already occurred:

• Archived discussions:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on the article talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, adding the "Brady scorecard" to a state would be analogous to adding the NRA scorecard on a candidate (or anyone else's scorecard, for that matter) to a candidate's Wikipedia article. Having said that, YESPOV is indeed part of NPOV. The main point, though, is that editors must work in good faith to pursue consensus on how to present contentious topics. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. While this isn't the place to argue content, I'll simply clarify that buried in those arguments is the point made by myself and others that an NRA map would be just as inappropriate. We aren't trying to push one point of view or the other, we're trying to remove all point of view and simply list the laws in an encyclopedic manner. When third-party analysis of raw data get interjected that is when POV problems occur, and as Mudwater stated above, there are already articles discussing the political debate about gun laws. The maps are included there and continuing to add them here despite clear consensus is the problem. Rapier (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a new clear consensus on that point. What I see is several editors who were on one side of the July "Remove all maps or not?" discussion - which an apparently uninvolved admin closed as "No consensus" - continuing the discussion and asserting now that you have consensus, without the participation of most of the other side.

Nothing in the new discussions invalidates the July discussion. No effort was made to revisit it with another clear poll / RFC. It seems like some previously active editors are less active now, but that doesn't invalidate their participation in the last clear poll / RFC type discussion.

ANI is not a replacement for going back to the page and holding another RFC. If those other editors are gone and it's a new consensus that's fine. But this is not the place - and attacking the lead map proponent for disruption is not the right approach - to solve the no consensus problem. Do it right, on the article. Get a consensus. If it's still "No consensus" then accept that. If it goes your way this time, with whoever shows up to bother to participate, then he will need to accept that as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We've had seven months and more than 30,000 words of discussion, including a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and a Request For Mediation. A majority of editors -- including myself -- feel very strongly that adding the Brady Scorecard map is an egregious violation of NPOV, and also distorts the facts, while other editors don't agree and think that adding the map would be okay. It seems to me that if many of the participants agree that the map would be a major NPOV violation, and pushes a one-sided political agenda, that trumps other editors saying that it would enhance the article slightly by providing an attractive graphic of summary information. Also, part of why JPMcGrath's editing is tendentious is that he keeps saying that editors such as myself have not explained why adding the map would violate NPOV, when in fact we've just spent the last seven months explaining it, over and over and from many different perspectives. There's a difference between "you've explained the reasoning behind your opinions at great length and in many different ways, but I still don't agree," and "you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinions," but the difference seems to elude JPMcGrath. So, I find it hard to believe that prolonging the discussion any further would have much benefit at this point. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, that debate is still going on? As I recall, the main issue with that map is that it presupposes certain things and gives a value judgment as to each state's attitude toward gun control. The problem is whether that map presents an unbiased assessment. Since they themselves are its authors, obviously they are going to judge which parameters to be used. Now, if you had a similar map from the point of view of the NRA, those two maps would be interesting for the reader to compare, and see if they "agree" on each states' attitude toward gun control, even though the groups are obviously on opposite sides of the issue. That is, the NRA might consider a restrictive state to be a "bad" state, and the Brady bunch might consider it to be a "good" state - but it's possible they might rank the states the same way, just flip-flopped in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the forum for content dispute, but to clarify the argument is that all maps offer up a POV that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic listing of state laws, not that the "Brady" map alone should be removed. Let's please be clear on the prime mover is, and not allow this to become an issue directed at a single point. Rapier (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that a map like that could be useful, IF it were verifiable and not pushing a viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be useful in the context that Bugs describes, but it's simply not acceptable to keep readding it as it's been done here. There needs to be the wider context that Bugs is talking about if there's any chance for this kind of advocacy ranking to be relevant in a general state article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've un-archived this thread to allow for further discussion, per User talk:JPMcGrath#Warning. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post my response as soon as I can get it together. — JPMcGrath (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Response by JPMcGrath

First, I should point out that several of the statements made by SeanNovack are inaccurate:

• He says that "the issue was decided by consensus months ago", which is untrue. That there has never been a consensus is made clear by the RfC here, and by Mudwater's multiple statements that "about half" of the editors agree with him.
• His "suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming" comment appears to suggest that my attempt to get others to address the justification for their WP:NPOV claim was something new. In fact, I had been trying to get them to address this question from the beginning.
• His suggestion that the fact that there had been "more than 30,000 words of discussion" means that my questions about the justification for removing the maps had been answered is nonsense. That there was a great deal of discussion does not in any way suggest that the discussion contained an answer, and the unwillingness of participants to point to an answer strongly suggests that it is not there.

That said, I spent some time writing a response that went into this conflict in great detail, but then realized that rehashing all of the details of the disagreement would be tedious, not on point, and would ignore the central point of this discussion, which is the accusation of tendentious editing. According to WP:Tendentious editing

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view."

I have clearly stated that I believe the article badly needs summary material, so that the reader can get a feel for the overall state of gun laws in the United States; as I put it at the outset of this conflict, the article is "all trees and no forest". The maps are intended to ameliorate that problem.

I do not believe that in any way fits the definition of tendentious editing, so I would like my accuser, SeanNovack, to explain what is it in my editing that qualifies as either sustained bias or a a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view? What exactly is the bias or viewpoint?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you are the only one that feels that summary information is necessary. Others feel it 'may be helpful', and the rest of us are saying that summary information is inheriently biased by the person doing the summary and has no place in this article that is supposed to be an encyclopedic listing of gun laws by state. The summaries exist in other articles, they simply have no place in this one. Rapier (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again JPMcGrath is saying that other editors have not stated any justification for the position that the Brady Scorecard map violates NPOV, and distorts the facts, and so should not be included in the article. I would encourage anyone reading this to click through the links I posted above, and look at some of the previous discussions, and see whether or not there are in fact very extensive postings on exactly that topic. Also, the term "tendentious editing" definitely applies, because JPMcGrath is ignoring what many other editors have said, and is continuing to add the map, which is very biased and advocates for a particular political position. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) - bit of a mess

Following User:Racepacket's recent move of The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) to Cornell literary societies and subsequent editing, User:Cmagha has cut and pasted the original version of that article to The Irving Literary Society and in the process removed all the edit history as well as creating an unattributed content fork. Also, Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1 was not moved when Talk: The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) was moved to Talk:Cornell literary societies and is now stranded, although I've added a link to it at the newly titled talk page.

I then contacted Cirt because he was the administrator who handled the original restoration of the article after this deletion review, if nothing else to merge the page history of Cornell literary societies to the fork The Irving Literary Society. Although, that's only one aspect of this tangle. However, he suggested [10] that the issue should probably be dealt with here. I will notify User:Racepacket and User:Cmagha of this discussion as well as the talk pages of the relevant articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that almost all of the sources deal with a group of four of the student literary societies that existed at Cornell from 1868 to 1888. The sources cited indicate that the Irving (a coeducational literary society that included members from a variety of fraternities) held its last known meeting on May 23, 1887. A current undergraduate fraternity claims (without sources) that the Irving was "absorbed" into that male-only fraternity and that its membership has continued over the years as being co-extensive with the fraternity. They have incorporated a link to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) into their website used for rushing and member recruitment. I cannot find any secondary sources to support this claim or the continuation of The Irving as a registered student organization.

To fix up the article to reflect what the sources say (e.g., a discussion of a number of co-equal literary societies) I moved it to Cornell literary societies and changed the phrases "The Iriving and its peers" to "the literary societies". I have also found a number of WP:SYN, WP:OR and mischaracterization of sources problems, which I am trying to fix. As for the latest step, which is User:Cmagha restarted the Irving-centered article at The Irving Literary Society, there are problem because WP:ORG provides "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." So, absent a sourced connection to the Irving, the present-day local fraternity would not justify a separate article. I suggest that we place a notice on WikiProject Cornell, and mobilize an effort to improve the Cornell literary societies article and perhaps start an AFD on the latest content fork. I only became aware of this problem yesterday, and was not aware of Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. A would appreciate any technical help in correcting any mistakes made in the move. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I heard from two of the other editors after the title was changed; was somewhat confusing. There is room for both concepts, Racepacket's idea of a general article, and one on the Irving. The Irving article has been through review twice, the original AfD and then the petition to restore under deletion review. What has been harder to understand is the perceived animosity (language such as 'outrageous') and the persistance of the opposition to the article, despite some excellent help along the way. As Racepacket indentifies questions re: factual citations, the editors will address.--Cmagha (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how deletion review is not perfect. At a glance the article looks well crafted, and I think it was for this reason it passed an AFD review. The editors didn't actually take the time to read the sources for the article carefully and compare them with the wiki article. The article should never have been allowed to be recreated. It's chalk full of original research, misconstrued sources, peacockery, and inflated claims that have no supportig evidence. The main editor who contributed to the article has a clear conflict of interest and has repeatedly reverted and or ignored the advice of multiple experienced wikipedians who have tried to point out wiki policy regaurding original research, verifiabilty, etc. Those of us who supported deletion in the first two AFDs got tired of arguing and didn't participate in the deletion review process. If anything the re-created article is worse than the ones that got deleted before. Sigh.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ouch. I didn't learn how to revert until someone asked me to help with vandalism about a month ago, so that looks a little dubious, above. When compared to the original, this article does look spiffy, in part because of the great, if not somewhat tonal, coaching.--Cmagha (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't blame the deletion review process per se. As poor as the "revised" article was (and still is in its current fork), it probably did have sufficient sources to minimally establish notability, at least for the mid-19th century Irving Literary Society at Cornell. Notability is the only remit of deletion discussions and reviews. They are not concerned with content and style issues unless there are BLP or copyright concerns. Content and style issues and COI concerns need to be addressed through ordinary editing. But whether there is eventually one article or two, the current title of the fork The Irving Literary Society is not suitable and should be moved back to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). As was pointed out at AfD: The Irving Literary Society, there are multiple distinct Irving Literary Societies in the US, several of which are more notable than this one, have a longer history, and are still in existence. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved and relinked the article Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. I have tagged the article The Irving Literary Society. However, "don't bite the newbies" can only go so far. I am a bit troubled by the apparent meatpuppet relationship between Cmagha and at least Coldplay3332. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• So this is resolved? We can just concentrate on improving both articles, Cornell literary societies and the Irving Literary Society? By the way, Coldplay3332 and Cmagha are very different people. No meat; no sock.--Cmagha (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• No it's not resolved. The original request to administrators here has nothing to do with content disputes, it was simply:

  1. that someone repair the wholesale cut and paste you made from another article or advise on how to make proper attribution in this case

  2. that the fork The Irving Literary Society be moved back to its original title, The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University), over the redirect. Only an administrator can do that.

  Voceditenore (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have supplied the required attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• As previously reported at ANI, it is again raining sockpuppets/meatpuppets on this issue. The accounts that appear to be now involved are: User:Cmagha, User:Wehatweet, User:Coldplay3332 and User:Lebowski 666. There are still behavioral issues involving tendentious editing, misuse of sources, POV, synthesis and COI of a chronic nature. Racepacket (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Funny, I just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha. Good to see it wasn't just me having this concern.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Flatscan for fixing the attribution problem. How about Voceditenore's other concern that we've gone back from The_Irving_Literary_Society_(Cornell_University) to The Irving Literary Society after the cut and paste. Please note, WP:TITLE says, "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown)." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User Triton Rocker

Could someone please deal with Triton Rocker (talk · contribs) who's third edit after coming off a one month ban was to make a personal attack on my editshere in direct validation of a civility ban that has been imposed on him at British Isles Probation Log. Just in-case Triton Rocker says he didn't understand the scope of the ban here is the actual words left at his talk page by Cailil (talk · contribs) You are being placed under a behavioral editing restriction. This account may be blocked if it is used to make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil,personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton really doesn't like me so I'll leave this for another admin to decide, but the fact that this was their third edit after coming off a month long block combined with the rest of their block log leads me to favor an indefinite block. Maybe point them at the standard offer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• IMHO, I saw Bjmullan request that TR retract his statement earlier. Having viewed the post and Bjmullan's own phrasing above: "...was to make a personal attack on my edits". Clearly, it's directed at the edits, not the editor, as per WP:CIVIL. Sure, TR was careful to put a paragraph spacing between his own statement regarding bad faith and the generic and non-directed "...It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise...". By Bjmullan's own statement, it was an attack on edits, not an editor. An over-reaction IMHO, and although a bit of warning is possibly due, there's nothing actionable here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker was not only commenting on my edit at British Sky Broadcasting but accused me of provocative editing in general without producing any incident to back up his claim. A clear case of not assuming good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be sheer sophistry to argue that In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him. is a comment on edits, not the editor. I am not a great fan of bureaucratic definitions of civility, but a direct accusation of bad faith is about as personal as it gets.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan's edit was to change "Britain" to "UK and the Republic of Ireland" in more than one place after another editor had chnage dthe infobox to "British Isles". One source uses "Britain" only. The other uses Britain pretty much except for page with map (hunted down) showing the location of it's offices in UK and the Republic of Ireland. Subsequently there was a bit of an edit war between named editors and IPs. Isn't this what WP:BISE was supposed to resolve? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's so much activity on his talk page and block log it's a bit of a maze, but I thought at some point there was an agreement that he would stay away from this whole "British Isles" conflict. In any event "I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him" certainly is an accusation directed at an editor. Any time a user accuses another of acting in bad faith they need to be damned sure that is what really is going on, and should always provide diffs to substantiate such a claim. Especially if they have a notice on their talk page proclaiming that there is "too much snooping and snitching on the Wikipedia" and a section header they added so that everything below it is identified as "harassment." We don't need this kind of battlefield mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm waiting to see what his fourth edit is. And btw, there's no way to read "provocative and bad faith edit" as something other than a comment on an editor -- especially since ABF was specifically called out in the notice of his civility probation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am writing this for individuals who are new to this dispute and unaware of the issues involved. For those individuals who are already up to speed, please excuse some repetition as I make my introduction.

"Good Faith" has been established at WT:BISE that none of the contestants enter into edit wars, adding or removing the term "British Isles", without first consulting the community.

Mr Mullan, a support of the contingent who have for some time been habitually seeking to replace the term "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland", did so here; [11]

• The 'edit' was not in good faith. Why?

The topic is about satellite broadcasting to the British Isles. It was agreed by the community that the terms "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland" do not include the Isle of Man nor Channel Islands which exist in the geographic area British Isles. They do not. A simple Google search taking seconds shows that the company broadcasts to the the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Common sense tell us that any signal going to the UK and Ireland would have to include at least the Isle of Man and more than often the Channel Islands. Therefore, Mr Mullan either knowingly or negligently introduced an error into the Wikipedia to support the ongoing campaign.

Mr Mullan is very aware of the issue of dispute and previous discussion. It is very difficult to read the editing introducing the error as but a provocation or a testing of the waters to see how far he can go. Courtesy would have been to brought it to WT:BISE but in this case there is no possible contention British Sky Broadcasting broadcasts to all of the British Isles.

* Why is our time being wasted there and here? It is just more LAME DRAMA.

My comment regarding my previous experience was not uncivil. It is either true or false. I could provide many example if anyone cares. Mr Mullan has an obsession with with me because of this British/Irish issue, follows my editing into other areas where he has had no interest, reverts my work and habitually reports me. This is just one more example.

I consider this a provocation where, e.g. the summaries are prejudicial and do not reflect the reality of my works. One such case would be the topic on Queen Elizabeth II, e.g. [12][13].

I would like to make it clear for newcomers to this dispute that I do not have a political or nationalistically motivated POV. My POV is that politics should be kept out of area which are not political and that the Wikipedia is not the place to decide international geonaming. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR Blocked

Well Sarek, now you've seen that fourth edit. I have imposed a one year block. There is not the slightest indication that this editor is ever going to get the picture. Looie496 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that Triton Rocker has been given a block. However he accused me of following him around and used Elizabeth II as an example of where I followed him. For the record, I first edited at the article on 14 January 2010, Triton Rocker made his first edit nearly eight months later on 22 September 2010. His third edit at the article was to remove a large section of the last paragraph from the lede. Surely he must have realised that on such a high profile article that the lede would have been discussed and agreed on the talk page? Triton Rocker continued his usual MO of making edits without first getting consent, personal attacks and not assuming good faith. I quote him from the talk page: Miesianiacal, I appreciate the "Monarchy of Canada" is one of your things and you want to make a big issue of the Canadian-ness of Elizabeth II. Putting your personal interest aside,..., Considering the similarity of your interests to MIESIANIACAL, regarding the 'Monarchist League of Canada' et al [5], can I ask you both not to use this topic for your own political soapbox?. And finally here is the edit summary from DrKiernan (talk · contribs) after reverting one of Triton Rocker edits; unexplained, contentious, potentially misleading....Bjmullan (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Logged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A year's block? lmao, I see this "civility parole" has been taken to the extreme as was to be expected. Simply incredible. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's incredible that he couldn't restrain himself in the face of multiple warnings. Support 1-year block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No BW it's become quite clear that TR doesn't take Wikipedia's behavioural policy seriously. He can count himself lucky we're still using blocks of definite duraion. All TR needed to do was be civil and AGF. Endorse 1-year block--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good block.  Sandstein  13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well played Bjmullen. AGF: the gift that keeps on giving. Triton sounded like a sensible bloke actually, Bjmullen certainly never had anything substantive to counter on any content point of his, so in a way I'm happy he has been released from the depressing need to learn the game himself to be allowed to participate in such complex and debate worthy issues like, does a satellite signal obey geographic or political boundaries, and whether we need references for such daftness. Go and do something usefull with your life Triton, come back maybe when the Irish issue has had it's own arbcom case, and people are put under real civility restrictions, which enforce the whole policy, not just the easy bits that any old gamer can pick up and use so easily as a weapon, and which actually foster real mutual respect, not the fake kind, and allows real, relevant and clueful content argumentation to come first, not last, in these tedious face-offs. Still, what's next on the BISE agenda today. 'Does the British Isles have a coast?'. Well, that sounds like a perfectly normal question to ask, *AGF mode ON*..... MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR should've stayed away from the BI stuff, until his sanction expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban instead of block?

I don't have a problem with a one year block, considering he just doesn't get it despite repeated warnings and blocks. However surely a better solution would be to just ban him from the British Isles area entirely, and interaction bans for any editors he's been in conflict with over the issue? This would allow him to get back to other areas of editing where he's apparently been productive. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering his campaign against "snitches", I suspect that he's going to have problems wherever he edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it's a good point. The reason I didn't propose a full topic ban last time was becuase TR already has Black Kite's limited ban (topic banned from editing) in place and I thought the civility parole would resolve his interaction issues - it clearly hasn't had that effect. That said TR did have a history of editing constructively at motor bike topics and I'd hope that when he comes back he returnes to constructive editing, thus banning him from what seems to be a hot-button topic for him might work - I'm open to discussing it anyway--Cailil ^talk 13:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This result seems odd. Apparently "commenting on editors rather than edits" is a blockable violation of a civility parole, and therefore a violation of WP:CIV? OK, if that's the operating rule, it should be applied everywhere, to everyone; that could make ANI a little complicated; some comments in this multipart thread appear to me to be comments on an editor. It seems to me, for instance, somewhat difficult to categorize speculation about future actions of an editor as "commenting on edits", since the edits haven't happened. So, could someone explain precisely why [14] is such a terribly uncivil edit? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I don't find the comment overly un-civil. However, a striking-out of it wouldn't hurt either. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

While standing alone it wouldn't have been blockable, Cailil's civility parole specifically called out assuming bad faith. Since TR explicitly made an accusation of bad faith editing in the diff above, it was a clear violation of the parole.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation, Sarek. The "civility parole" invoked CP01 of WP:GS/BI, which does not refer to assuming bad faith, and so doesn't directly authorize any sanction specifically calling out "assuming bad faith". Or are you arguing that "no assuming bad faith" is authorized implicitly in WP:NPA or WP:CIV, which are mentioned in CP01? Furthermore, the application of the "civility parole" [15] mentioned a "consensus" at ANI, and the link goes to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Expansion_of_sanctions_at_WP:GS.2FBI, where I don't see the specific wording of the specific civility parole for Triton discussed. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording of his notification was quite clear. If he didn't like it, he should have appealed it -- and screaming about a "kangaroo court" is not an appeal -- instead of violating it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Any phrasing of any appeal could have been construed as a violation of AGF... Gimmetoo (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The user's talk page ("If you wish to harass me, please do so below.") in combination with the history is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality Wikipedia is better off without. However, the longest previous block was 1 month; it's possible that something less than a year would be better, like 3 months - assuming that there is any hope of the user reforming. (And if there isn't, we might as well indef now as wait for more trouble.) Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Call me an old softy, but I believe TR should be only topic-banned for a year. AFAIK, his behaviour on other topics is cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion with NcmV at the implementation thread that kind of ban is problematic. However, as I said in the civility parole notice I'm happy to review it after 6 consecutive months of 'clean' editing on wikipedia (not just a 6 month holiday). That goes for the ban too - I'd be happy to review it or let it be reviewed by the community after 6 consecutive months of constructive editing. The ball is firmly in TR's court all he needs to do is accept and abide by policy in spirit and to letter - if he does that then the restrictions will be lifted--Cailil ^talk 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker came off his one month block @ 14:55 by blanking his user page. One hour and eight minutes later on on his third edit he attacked me. He never retracted nor did he accept that his edit was wrong. I believe that trying to get Triton Rocker to abide by any rules here would be very difficult. I fully support the one year block. Just for information (particular to Triton Rocker and MickMacNee) my name on Wikipedia is Bjmullan and not Bjmullen, Mullan or Mr Mullan. I would thank you to respect that. Bjmullan (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about respect. In response to this 'attack', you threatened Triton in not one but two places, you went to his talk page saying incivil and baiting things like "When will you ever learn?", and you filed this ANI report, all before he had even made another edit, let alone had a chance to accede to your demands to redact the comment and flaggelate himself. You should frankly count yourself lucky that the adminning of this topic area is so transparently one sided. Wait a few minutes, and I'll probably get a months block for mispelling your user name, even though it was clearly just a mistake. Any admin interested in your insinuation it was anything other? I didn't think so. Or maybe you can petition for me to be put under a spelling probation eh. I'll start saving my pennies to fight the case you will clearly inevitably bring for mental anguish. You do anything and everything except actually defending your content edits, so if you're looking for respect, don't look in my direction, I am not one of these people who believes AGF is indefinite and one-sided. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

On good faith, and being taken for total mugs

OK then, if people think that we should all AGF to a man in this topic, let's take a wander to the BISE page and examine the latest report shall we? It concerns the novel Storm Warning. Nobody really knows anything about the article or the book, but that's not really important. User HighKing, whose last god knows how many edits have been in or around BISE (I stopped after 500, SPA much?), has clearly gone looking for an article that uses the term, and has found one he thinks he can get the term removed from. It's usage there is not inaccurate, and it has yet to be established why the original editor used it (nobody is even bothering to ask), but HighKing has helpfully suggested how it can be removed, anyway, and asked if anyone has any arguments for or against this, in the wonky way that has somehow been established for BISE, even though supposedly, polling is evil. There are of course, no compelling arguments either way, but for some reason, we are not allowed to question HighKing's reasons for making this, and other, suggestions, without ever coming up with a guideline to mandate such a systematic programme of literary changes. So, would an admin like to suggest what the good faith response to this situation actually is, without breaking the holy AGF? Unless or until admins get real, and call a spade a spade, and deal with it as a whole, then the only thing that will pass for enforcement in this area is this sort of gaming nonsense, while the pedia gets systematically cleaned to adhere to a certain POV, i.e., that 'British Isles' no longer exists as a term, and any and all usage of it at Wikipedia has to conform to completely ridiculous sourcing requirements similar to that applied to 'terrorist', or 'palestinian', infact, even worse half the time. This is time wasting POV pushing nonsense, and it is no suprise people like Triton, who are not prepared to play the game, are so easily eliminated from it in this way. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick you were already warned this month for your behavour at WP:BISE xfd[16]. This is an enforcement thread of an editor under editing restriction. Your issues with BISE and other users are a seperate matter. If you have an evidenced and substantive issue with another user then put it to the community in a concise and neutral way, so that within the parameters laid down in the Troubles RfAr or the BI topic probation we can deal with it, or open and RFC, or try mediation - there are multiple avenues of disute resolution to try. However, wikipedia is not a soapbox and your above edit is in breach of that and of WP:BATTLE. Take a step back and reconsider your approach, and seriously if you have evidence of people misbehaving show me I'm happy to look at it--Cailil ^talk 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention that Mfd. That was in effect a mini-Rfc on BISE. And the majority opinion of uninvolved editors who bothered to comment?. Their consensus was that it was an illegitmate cabal-like venue which is responsible for POV pushing. What a shocker, a complete surprise, you could have knocked me down with a feather. What was also not a surpise, was that this outcome was completely, totally, and utterly ignored. Just like it is repeatedly ignored here. Just like it would be repeatedly ignored after a full Rfc. Mediation? Would not even be accepted, let alone approached in good faith. Prior arb case? Out of scope (infact, it is the reason HighKing moved into this dispute full time). No, the only people who can do anything about this, short of another arb case, is you lot, and pretending that this latest incident is somehow completely seperate and unrelated to the behaviour I outlined above, is really not the way to go. There is no actual rule that I'm aware of, that you are supposed to restrict yourselves to investigating just the content of the initial report, not least if there is an underlying cause, which there so clearly is. If you want to prevent such reports coming every few months, until the end of time, then for crying out loud, stop ignoring these things. Nobody is ever going to take this through an Rfc just to be ignored, and it is arguably far too late for that anyway, the root causes date back years, and it is far too beneficial for the gamers to keep the status quo for them to ever take any notice of such a thing. On that score, from where I'm standing, Bjmullan's threats, demands and general incivility towards Triton fell foul of every single paragraph of BATTLE. And that was from a grand total of five or so edits. It all worked out pretty well for him though eh? He is the guy laughing his ass off right now at having eliminated an opponent from BISE, because he is now free to carry on and resume the TE style discussion which it looks like another poor and unsuspecting example of that extremely rare beast, a relatively neutral and uninvolved at BISE editor, Quantpole, is about to experience. Maybe he will lose his rag eventually too, find out that nobody in the admin corps even cares why, then say something daft and get himself put under probation, and then suffer the same fate as Triton. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Gamers? Jeepers, ya get involved with BISE & you're labeled for life. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick you aren't going to get another warning. Stop soapboxing. Stop treating wikipedia like a battleground. And stop attacking other users. Your above edits in this thread[17][18][19] and on TR's talk page[20] are in violation of these policies.
If you have evidence of disruption by other users present diffs, show patterns of behaviour in diffs and leave out the editorial please - we can all can make up our own minds whether the diffs constitute disruption or not.
Again if you want to present evidence of something go ahead but do so in concise and neutral way with diffs. If you are unwilling to do so, and unwilling to attempt dispute resolution you should not make edits that disrupt enforcement threads related to it--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am about as unwilling and unable to deal with this issue, as everybody else was unwilling and unable to deal with POV pushing on Climate Change, or on Isreal-Palestine, or on Macedonia, etc etc etc. You want diffs? Well, i gave you enough info to be going on with, but if you want specifics, what about this from Bjmullan just now, Perhaps you could explain why you think using UK + I is wrong. That was after the person he is speaking to had already stated how he thought it was wrong. This is just the latest example of precisely the sort of incivil and tendentious editing that is the reason editors like Triton are so easily gamed off of that page and into a year's block. You will note that this is Bjmullan talking to the editor who is also relatively new to BISE, and merely trying to give his opinion. So, now you have a diff, what now? Am I still soapboaxing or disrupting this thread with an entirely unrelated issue? Should I still fuck off to the looney bin I apparently rode in from and castigate myself for not having written all this up in an Rfc before mentioning it, or is someone actually going to step up here? And before anyone says 'not blockable', I am only after just the slightest indication that admins will even acknowledge that this one particular edit, which took 5 seconds to find, is an example of incivil/TE behaviour (i.e. in this case, do not deliberately ignore other people's already stated opinions). I won't bore you with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern needed to get a block if not stopped, I just want to see if there is any market at all among the admin corps for enforcement of this kind of problematic behaviour, to give all of us who are heartily sick of it, just some indication that NPA/AGF are not the only things that matter here, and that the whole of CIVIL is relevant under this civility parole regime, not just the easy bits. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Agree. Unfortunately, when, like TR, you are already under restrictions you are easy meat if you can't keep a cool head. Bjmullens edit was not good but TR knew he shouldn't be getting involved in edit wars. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Mick it is very necessary to "bore [us] with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern" - otherwise we have nothing to go on. We don't do content disputes here on ANi, and if you want to raise an actual issue you need to show context, edit patterns, evidence of misconduct, relevant policies/decisions etc.
As regards the edit you mentioned yes Bjmullan's remark was unnecessary as was Quantpole's use of "disappointing". The conversation is a bit circuitous and the remarks mentioned (by both) are unconstructive. It is a borderline abuse of talk-space by both, but one that could be solved by striking. It is something the patrolling admin (TFOWR) will probably look into ASAP and if he misses it I'll poke him to remind him about it.
I warned you Mick to stop soapboxing and that we don't need the editorial. Stop screeding in wikipedia talk-space or you will be blocked for abusing it yourself--Cailil ^talk 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what Calil, the only Rfc I'm ever likely to file, is over your apparent wish to give more of a shit about people 'disrupting' non-article space noticeboards, than doing anything about a report of actual POV pushing in actual articles. Which thanks to your game-winning block of Triton, continues unabated. Not that you give a flying fuck of course, for obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mick I warned you, I told you it was your last warning, and I answered your question. Your above reply fails WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOAP. I'm giving you one opportunity to redact your remarks or I will escalate the matter--Cailil ^talk 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• BTW I've never blocked Triton Rocker--Cailil ^talk 20:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's spot on, Mick. All the admins involved here seem far more concerned with talk page etiquette than with the POV pushing, some blatant, some subtle, that continues unabated at the BISE page and elsewhere in connection with the British Isles issue. It sickens me to see what's going on. Triton received a totally uncalled for block and sanctions against him were imposed almost unilaterally when he wasn't even allowed to defend himself, and on it goes. The current block of one year is surely a joke! Triton's remarks that caused it were entirely acceptable under the circumstances when, faced with an editor who disregarded the rules at BISE, he had no option but to complain. I cannot comprehend how supposedly intelligent people, like the involved admins would have us believe they are, fall for this BISE shit hook, line and sinker. I can only assume they have little or no experience of comparable matters in the real world. It's so obvious what's going on here that a baboon would be able to fathom it out, and if that baboon had the wherewithal would impose topic bans on a small number of certain other individuals who are the real root cause of the problems here. The likes of Triton and a few others are merely reacting to a scandalous situation which is being ignored by the few people (admins) capable of doing something about it. LemonMonday Talk 17:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton was not banned from discussing the topic, and that's what Triton was doing. Triton's edit seems reasonable and quite civil. I support removing the block entirely. I also support removing any civility parole from Triton at this time. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To make my position clear, I also support removal of the block and the civility parole for Triton Rocker. They are counterproductive in the current environment, and were both imposed in a situation of gross unfairness. LemonMonday Talk 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

LM you were warned to stop forum shopping about this. Your edits are displaying a clear battleground mentality further edits to the project like this will be prevented by block. This is your last and final warning--Cailil ^talk 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, it seems that you exist here simply to hand out warning and blocks. Much more of it and you'll be featuring in the Guinness Book of Records. I don't know what you mean by forum shopping and this so-called battle ground mentality. I am merely expressing a view on this very difficult matter, is that a problem for you? Well, it seems to be because every time I return to Wikipedia - and yes, I don't edit that often - you are not far behind issuing warnings and blocking me, no matter what I have to say. If I was not such a generous person willing to assume good faith I'd think you were deliberately targetting my remarks. I note in these threads copious amounts of dialogue the contents of which far, far exceed your own strict requirements for civility and other issues and yet you don't bat an eyelid. Why is that? I said To make my position clear, I also support removal of the block and the civility parole for Triton Rocker. They are counterproductive in the current environment, and were both imposed in a situation of gross unfairness. That is my view. It's obviously not your view but I can't help that. My comment is highly relevant to the current debate even if you don't like it. Your constant warnings and blocking threats are debilitating. Please stop them. Incidentally, it might help if you actually offered some views on the points being made here rather than doling out threats and blocks like there was no tomorrow. LemonMonday Talk 20:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarify - sorry Cailil, it wasn't you that blocked me it was User:Jehochman, but you do issue one hell of a lot of warnings and as I say, it would be useful if you actually put some views forward about the whole British Isles thing - what you consider to be the root causes and how these might be dealt with etc. LemonMonday Talk 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Point being LM that TR's restrictions have been approved 3 times by community that discussion is over. Brining up again in hope that another admin will remove it is forum shopping and I've asked Jehochman to review your posts in light of my warnings.
"The whole British Isles thing" is under community probation and I will enforce that probation to the best of my ability on both sides. If someone puts forward a case showing in a neutral and cogent way that anyone has been violating that probation I am happy to act on it. But I will not let incivility and ABF pass - that's where problems on WP start.
If we can encourage people who don't like each other to work together productively everyone wins but if someone would rather flaunt WP:5 then they will just be prevented from doing so--Cailil ^talk 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bringing it up in the hope that another admin will overturn it, rather that the community will reconsider it. Anyway, I see what you mean by policy shopping here. I thought PS was looking for a policy to support your POV, something that happens a lot at BISE. Maybe both meanings are right.. LemonMonday Talk 21:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing my forums with my policies. LemonMonday Talk 21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's usage there is not inaccurate". And that phrase neatly encapsulates all I'm finding depressing about this whole "meta-BISE" debate. It's not inaccurate to describe London as being a city in Eurasia. It's also staggeringly unhelpful. This book involves a plane crashing off the Western Isles, and there's seriously an argument being made that we should say it crashed in the British Isles? Really? Surely we should be saying it crashed off the Western Isles? But "not inaccurate" is a new mantra at WT:BISE. "Not inaccurate". Rather than strive for precision and accuracy it's argued we should justify terms because they're "not inaccurate".

There are, obviously, times when "British Isles" is as accurate as it gets. When we're discussing extreme points of the British Isles, any alternative simply doesn't cut it. When the largest area that something occurs in happens to be the British Isles, any larger area simply doesn't cut it. When a source uses the term "British Isles" any other term simply doesn't cut it. And yes, there's POV pushing. Big surprise there. That's in large part the whole reason for WT:BISE existing - to address the POV pushing. But make no mistake - this isn't a one-way push with blind admins not noticing or - worse - siding with one faction. Like every other POV area on the project, it's a a two-way street with both sides (apparently) oblivious to the fact that they're partisan.

So what can I do? What am I not doing that I should be doing? Well, my first goal was to tackle the uncivil POV-pushing. Really - what is the point in tackling civil POV-pushing while turning a blind eye to personal attacks? Was I wrong to adopt that approach? I don't believe so, but I'm open to suggestions. And really, as an admin, what special powers do I have that Mick, say, doesn't? Well, I can block editors for breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Beyond that - not much. Mick can start an RFC just as readily as I can. Would it be appropriate for me to start an RFC or other form of dispute resolution, or would it be better for me to leave it to Mick, LemonMonday or anyone else?

Right now I'm pretty jaded about BISE. When I've tried to mediate in POV disputes in the past both sides behaved more or less equally well (or badly...!) This time it's like one side has a suicide pact. It is fair to say the sanctions have been one-sided to date. It's also fair to say that one side has behaved far, far worse than the other. Both sides push their POV; one side pushes it in such a rude, aggressive manner than it's impossible not to react. I'm really - really! - not big on WP:CIVIL or civility blocks or sanctions. The fact that I've been prepared to block editors for WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc should speak volumes. I'd love to be a position where we can start looking at civil POV-pushing, but I'm not going to do that while incivility reigns supreme. Shouting loudly and attacking other editors does not make you right, any more than speaking ultra politely - but the latter at least makes for a far more collegial working environment. TFOWR 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it you seem to be doing a good job at BISE, but when a detailed examination of the whole British Isles problem is carried out it can be seen that your efforts are actually not helping at all, in fact they are having a detrimental effect. This is because as Mick and a few other have noted, thy do not get to the crux of the matter. Have you ever stepped back and asked yourself the question - "Why do we permit a single user, now assisted by an 'apprentice', to push the anti-British Isles POV to the extent that he has been so successful at it that he now commands a whole project to support his actions"? It's a long question, and a big one, and it requires a big answer. To date a number of us have posed the question but no one who can do anything about it has answered. Maybe you could try? LemonMonday Talk 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps LemonMonday either before or after MickMacNee has produces his thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern you could layout your detailed examination of the whole BI problem for us all to see? Bjmullan (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the long term pattern. Just keep on clicking the older 500 link. LemonMonday Talk 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I paranoid? or has this ANI report turned into a Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks that way but I make it a habit not to read the ramblings of Mick I just scan them and look for the comments he invariably makes about HighKing no matter what the subject. Mo ainm~Talk 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's consider what would happen if I wandered away, taking Cailil and Black Kite with me. BISE would descend into precisely the kind of civil-free nightmare it's been in the past. So that's my number one priority - civility, not answering the "big questions" one side wants me to ask for them, but that they can't - apparently - be bothered to ask themselves in an RFC.

And there's an even bigger question, which you've missed: why do we permit a single user, or group of users, to push any POV? Whether it's pro-Greece or pro-Macedonia, pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, pro-British Isles or anti-British Isles - it happens all over the project. What you're missing, LemonMonday, and I had thought I spelled it out in the post you replied to, is that BISE is about more than just anti-BI. It's about pro-BI pushing, too. As a project we don't have a good answer for POV pushing. I don't have an answer, either. But I believe, strongly, the answer will only come when we recognise that POVs never stand in isolation - there's always an opposing POV. You state "a number of us have posed the question but no one who can do anything about it has answered". Who, exactly, can do anything about "your question"? I'm not going to block civil editors on your say-so. You, however, have as much ability as me - perhaps more so - to raise an RFC. Again, I had thought that I had spelled this out in the post that you replied to. I reiterate: I have the ability to deal with civility. You have the ability to deal with apparent POV pushing. It just requires you to put in the leg-work, and run the risk that other POVs may be identifed. TFOWR 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gone way off track. Poor TFOWR, minding his own business when suddenly this turns out to be a critique of of his abilities as an admin monitoring the BISE page. Never mind mate, I think you're doing an excellent job. ;) If there is no further action to be taken shouldn't this be closed? Jack forbes (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wise words Jack. I total agree with your comments. Bjmullan (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Calill, I could care less what you think anymore. Take me to whatever venue you like, I will relish the opportunity of showing exactly how biased and one sided you really are wrt Irish issues. The POV pushing is carrying on at BISE whether you get your finger out of your ass or not. Well done. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of us learn to live (over time) with Mick's rants, but this is now getting abusive to one of the few admins bothering to put time into a difficult area (see TFOW's comments above on civility). Would an uninvolved admin take a look at this? --Snowded ^TALK 13:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks

Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

• Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
• Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
• As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [21] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [22] (20 October) and [23] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.

Responses to some points presented above:

1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
5. The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.

It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[38] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [39][40] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[41]

Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[42] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [43] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[44] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[45] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[46]

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [71] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[72]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[73][74]

Communicat is often less than civil.[75] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [76] and the statement that earned him his first block is still there on his user page without any retraction or apology.[77] Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.

The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.

The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.

As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article by Winer.

Overall, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.

Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.

Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [78] and [79]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues here are already discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum ^@) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that Arbcom has been requested to include Nick-D as an involved party. The relevant posting reads: Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.

Interested parties may care to note that Nick-D earlier refused consent to open and decisive mediation in respect of his own conduct, including partisan editing and gross POV bias. Communicat (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem on BLP noticeboard

• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)
• Griswaldo (talk · contribs)
• The Founders Intent (talk · contribs)

Ronz (talk · contribs) and user QuackGuru (talk · contribs) have unfortunately teamed up to stonewall a debate on the BLP noticeboard here. The debate has been going on at length for a few days, with Ronz as the sole figure claiming that there is some BLP issue. He has presented no evidence that there is any BLP issue involved, despite being asked repeatedly to do so. Yesterday I made a final request for him to explain why this was a BLP issue [80]. he refused to do so, quibbling over other details with other editors [81], [82]. I reminded him again here [83] that he needed to give an explanation, yet he was still non-responsive and tried to mark the issue as 'stuck' [84]. Consequently I closed the issue 'resolved as unfounded' [85]. there was then a quick series of reverts: Ronz [86], Griswaldo [87], Ronz again [88], Me [89], Ronz again [90], Griswaldo (who removed the archive entirely) [91], and I restored it here [92]), and then finally QuackGuru stepped in here. [93]. His involvement is because he and Ronz have been spamming my talk page (something like 50 or 60 posts between the two of them over the last couple of days- check the history), and have been discussing me independently [94].

As far as I can see, Ronz is engaged in desperately tendentious editing, edit warring, user page harassment, and possibly wp:canvassing, all to cover the fact that he cannot make even a mildly convincing case that there is a BLP issue about Barrett. As other editors have reminded him, he is a bit sensitive on the issue of Barrett, and I can accept that, but he's gone a bit off the deep end with it this time.

I'm also a bit tired of the way he plays political games. He is repeatedly saying things like "It was worth a try looking for ways to work with you"[95], or "If you're not willing to discuss the matter" [96], or "Can we work out some compromise" [97], or "shall we get a third party to work with us both" [98], as though he were actually interested in achieving a compromise. But each time I try to work with him he back-peddles: here I ask him what he'd like for a compromise [99], but he says he doesn't have anything in mind [100]; here I suggest that we take the issue to wikiquette as a third party [101], but he refuses [102]. This is such an obvious effort to create the impression of being reasonable while actually being completely unreasonable - essentially another stonewalling tactic like his refusal to explain the BLP issue above. it's very disconcerting, and I don't quite know what to do about an editor who is so obviously comfortable trying to game the system.

I'll go notify him and quackguru now, and leave the discussion up to you guys. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm probably the biggest BLP Hawk on this site, but I can see no issue here. In order to assess the reliability of a source, one needs to discuss the credibility of the person making the claims. Everything here looks like fair comment and justified discussion. I think stuff like this should probably be aggressively archived once a conclusion is reached, and pages ought to be {noindex}, but even that's probably being over-cautious. Nothing here is libellous in my quick checking, and nothing is gratuitous. (Of course, I may be missing something.)--Scott Mac 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion on BLPN dispute below --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Two FYIs:

1. Ronz has apparently decided to boycott this ANI discussion and respond to commenting editors on their talk pages (e.g. [103], and see his explanation here). I anticipated this, but I don't suppose it makes much difference.
2. It seems likely that the WQA listed below will be closed and merged in here, to avoid separate discussions. I'll remove the link below if that happens. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronz

(merged related discussion from WQA per suggestions there)

Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to think that he can act unilaterally in ways that are, in my view, disruptive to the project.

I encountered Ronz when I engaged an RS/N request regarding Weston A. Price and a source being used in that entry by fringe health critic Stephen Barrett - see here. The consensus in this discussion, as well as a similar discussion at the FT/N, has been that Barrett, while a notable critic of contemporary fringe science/health theories is not a reliable source on Weston Price, or the historical context in question. User:Ronz appears not to accept this and has been acting disruptively in relation to those whose comments appear to him to be at all critical of Stephen Barrett. In fact he appears so "sensitive" to criticism of Stephen Barrett, that others regularly comment on it when they encounter his behavior - [104], [105]. Over the last few days Ronz has being acting disruptively in this area, at times under the claim of WP:BLP and of protecting Barrett from "libel" and "defamation".

• Removing talk page comments he doesn't like, then collapsing them after being reverted and edit warring to keep them collapsed, and then finally after being reverted again putting his own subject headings over the comments.
• Issuing BLP warnings to editors who in good faith are trying to evaluate the reliability of Barrett as a source - Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, BruceGrubb, and Griswaldo
• Unilaterally deleting talk page comments, claiming that they are BLP violations - [106],[107]

I should note that Ronz did not refactor the comments he deleted or ask the editor who posted them to refactor the comments but instead chose to remove them in entirety. When he started these deletions a couple of editors who objected, reverted him, myself included. I tried to tell him to get some outside input on the BLP matter since he appeared alone in his belief that there was a violation. He made no efforts to do so, and just kept reverting. It was made clear to me that since a BLP concern was raised by Ronz I should not edit war to restore them so I stopped reverting him, and instead started a thread at the BLP/N. Not a single editor commenting at the BLP/N has agreed with Ronz assessment of there being BLP violation in the deleted text, yet Ronz is now trying to WP:GAME the system by tagging the conversation as "stuck" and later as having "no consensus". He did the same thing at the FT/N discussion, also declaring it "stuck" and edit warring to keep it in, despite a clear consensus on several matters. He doesn't agree with the consensus of course, and it relates directly to Barrett's reliability as a source on Weston Price, of course. In my view this activity is disruptive. Ronz clearly has a "sensitivity" when it comes to Barrett and it isn't helpful. What can be done?Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The actions of removing other people's comments, hiding them, edit-warring on closing discussions, and the use of BLP warnings on other users involved in the discussion does seem like a major issue that needs to be addressed. These are not actions that a good-purposed contributor to Wikipedia should be making. Silverseren^C 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Block Ronz for 24h in order to prevent further disruption. Basket of Puppies 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that 1) Ronz has been notified, 2) has chosen to respond on individual talk pages, rather than here at ANI, and 3) Basket of Puppies' comment is, at this point, an unimplemented suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd support BoP's suggestion, just for the continued refactoring of talkpages. Ronz can carry a torch for Stehpen Barratt all he likes, but that doesn't give him the right to rewrite what other people wrote, or try to unilaterally shut down discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just received a message from Ronz on my talkpage. It's rather odd for him not to discuss the issue here and instead badger people on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When someone tries that with me, I usually just delete the edit and tell 'em to come here. It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was about to suggest that it's probably wise for Ronz not to put in an appearance here - he's so far into the red on this issue that I don't think there's much he can do to salvage things. But I'll bow to Elen's suggestion as being both more honest and more practical. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First, "As long as discussion is happening, blocking is not required." The FTN dispute is moving along nicely in contrast to where it was just a day ago. I've indicated that I will continue to discuss the BLPN issues, just in a venue where WP:CON and WP:TALK are followed. Are there any other disputes that aren't being discussed that need to be? --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion between Ronz and Ludwigs2

Ronz, there's still the above-mentioned issues to cover:

1. disruptive editing: your refusal to provide a meaningful rationale for the BLP dispute, your refactoring of talk page comments without discussion, and your tendentious efforts to keep the from being closed as unfounded despite your refusal to provide a rationale.
2. user page harassment: Your multitudinous posts to the user talk pages of the people you are arguing with (since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me), mostly argumentative posts or warning templates.
3. gaming the system: deceptive practices such as your attempts to make it look like I wasn't trying to cooperate with you, or your initial intent to avoid this ANI thread.
4. apparent canvassing to help an edit war: why else would QuackGuru (who had not participated in the BLP thread to that point) suddenly appear to carry out a revert just moments after you reached your 3rr limit?

As far as I'm concerned these all still need explaining. each individual act may or may not be explainable, but as a whole they speak to a definite intent to disrupt things sufficiently that you could block losing a BLP discussion that you had no grounds to begin in the first place. That is not responsible editing. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations being made in good faith. If there are, my apologies for missing them in this morass. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually expect you to respond, Ronz. I'm simply reminding others that the problems go far beyond the trifling thing you present. I trust that they will examine the case thoughtfully and make up their own minds about it. --Ludwigs2 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think you made one in good faith? If so, point it out and I'll address it. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I made all of them in good faith. I may be wrong, and I will certainly accept whatever the consensus here is, but this is precisely how it appears to me. If you have a different explanation of what happened this would be the time to share it. Frankly, I don't see any other explanation for your behavior, but I don't like this explanation, so I'd welcome a different one one. it's up to you. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The evidence I've provided for your "apparent canvassing" accusation demonstrates otherwise, as does your comment of support [108]. Pick one where you're not making the same mistakes of misrepresenting the situation and not assuming good faith. There's got to be at least one in all of them. I can't believe I've haven't overlooked something. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to see good faith, Ronz, you're not going to see good faith no matter what I do. That is not my problem. I'm happy to let others decide the issue after reviewing the material; I thought you might want the chance to explain things, but you should do what you think is in your best interests. The only observation I'll make is that attacking me is probably not in your best interests right now. You don't really have any credible evidence that I've done anything in bad faith, and casting aspersions wildly in the hopes that one might stick is just going to reinforce the idea that you're trying to game the system. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry everyone for stirring him up like this. I don't believe he'll stop. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL - God, you are such an incomparable ###. You're going to play the wounded buffalo card to the hilt, aren't you? Well, be it as it may. all the evidence is on my side, and while no one may want to do anything about it, there's not much you can do about the facts of the matter. --Ludwigs2 04:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparent canvassing

Responding in good faith to Basket of Puppies's request that I address some of Ludwigs2's accusations:

I don't see this as a good faith accusation. Ludwigs2 apparently doesn't understand WP:CANVAS, and misrepresents the situation, in violation of WP:TALK (especially WP:TALKNO) and WP:AGF. I made one revert, so wasn't at any 3rr limit. I did work to change his misrepresentation of consensus there (a WP:TALK and WP:CON violation on his part), and indicated so in my edit summary [109] and in a comment to Ludwigs2 [110]. I changed the summary again [111] and continued discussing the matter with Ludwigs2 [112] and Griswaldo [113] [114].

I contacted QuackGuru 14:33, 26 Oct two hours earlier than my first edited related to the supposed canvassing 16:42, 26 Oct. My reason for contacting QuackGuru was to let him know I noticed that Ludwigs2 was treating him similar to the way he was treating me.

To answer Ludwigs2's question, why else would QuackGuru appear? I think it would be best just to take Quackguru in good faith that he actually meant what he wrote in his edit summary, "heavily involved editor shoudld not close the thread when there is possible BLP issues." [115] --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Behavior of Ludwigs2

Ludwigs behavior in this dispute demonstrates an inability to understand or follow Wikipedia's behavioral policies/guidelines, especially WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CON, and WP:DR: Besides his contributions to this ANI, his talk page provides ample additional evidence: User_talk:Ludwigs2#BLP_concerns [116] User_talk:Ludwigs2#Thanks_-_Weston_Price_discussions User_talk:Ludwigs2#Collapsing_text User_talk:Ludwigs2#Marking_your_ArbCom_requestsUser_talk:Ludwigs2#BLPN. If an editor would like diffs, I'm happy to provide them. I doubt there's much need to look beyond the evidence he's provided here in his accusations against me. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If no one is disputing this, then what would be appropriate motions? --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No one disputes what? You're just making unfounded claims again. Provide actual evidence and explain yourself. Simply linking to discussions and to policy pages is pretty meaningless. Not to mention that you're claiming that he has violated virtually every policy he could have. When people look at your links and don't see the violations what are they supposed to do? This is the same frustrating behavior you're exhibiting on the noticeboards and talk pages.Griswaldo (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide more foundation for any claim I've made. I am looking to take a break soon, so how about what I've already gone into detail on the "apparent canvassing" accusation? Or maybe the very brief response to his comment of support[117]? --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, the canvassing accusation is pretty insignificant here. I'm not entirely sure why Ludwigs2 even made it. You were discussing him with another editor, who knows if it was WP:CANVAS by the letter of the law or not. Either way it has nothing to do with what brought us here, which is your disruptive talk page behavior. Tackle that instead please.Griswaldo (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait. This section is for discussing Ludwigs2's behavior. Sounds like you want to discuss mine. I'll wait and see what specifics you offer to see if the discussion should remain here. Can you indicate a specific talk page? Diffs and relevant policies/guidelines would help too. No rush though. I won't have time til after my break. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And around the circle we go. There is nothing to respond to Ronz, see above.Griswaldo (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN dispute

You asked for a review. We reviewed it. No one is seeing any issues.--Scott Mac 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to BLPN, then note the comments there by two other editors at 12:37, 24 Oct and 14:50, 23 Oct.

Further, there is nothing written in WP:BLPTALK on how to handle material "related to making content choices." The exception was made initially 04:37, 25 November 2007 , and appears to be related to discussions beginning here on preventing exceptions to BLP in talk space. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The addition of the exception was mirrored with a talk page comment with no responses: here --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone with no involvement on the other arguments it all (as far as I remember), your behavior on this board itself is disruptive. Users have presented a number of clear, specific complaints about your behavior. Your response to every one of those complaints has been (paraphrasing) "I don't see any legitimate complaints". That's not a response--it's a refusal to listen to the complaints. I'm not saying certainly I support a block since I haven't looked at the details, but if this is the same way you were behaving in other places, it's no wonder to me that others are questioning your ability to work collaboratively. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of behavior

This is not an isolated case. I had a content dispute with Ronz not even a month past and the same pattern of behavior showed up. A search of ANI archives will show lots more. WP:AGF I think is being abused and used as a shield for his behavior. I also agree with the observation of gaming the system. The way he posts on talk pages, the way he refactors comments, and the way he edit wars are technically not in outright breach of guidelines, or if breached, there is some token understandable reason. But taken all together and with its regularity I think Ronz's behavior is unsupportable and is causing a poisonous atmosphere. Lambanog (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to this ANI posting you made on October 6th? "Ronz's editing behaviour" --Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci if you follow the trail of breadcrumbs you'll also find at least 3 other AN/I reports ([118], [119], [120]) and 4 WQA reports ([121], [122], [123], [124]). I'm sure these were the instances Lambanog was referring to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is the ANI dispute I brought up. But this issue should probably be looked at thoroughly. There are many other instances in the ANI archives. I see a pattern. Lambanog (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Motion to block Ronz for 24h

• Support Basket of Puppies 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you be providing rationale at some point? --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This. Basket of Puppies 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to do so. Each of them? --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll tackle one while I await your response. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support It is very irritating to other editors to continually object to their edits without providing reasons and it is an abuse to use Wikipedia as a battleground. TFD (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Where/when did I not provide reasons? I've been accused of such a thing, but I don't see any good faith accusations, so haven't bothered to respond. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• support, An RFC/u might be in order as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you be providing rationale at some point? --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, you really ought to stop badgering people. I am now thinking a block of 48h is more appropriate. Basket of Puppies 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working to resolve disputes in good faith. Please do not work to prevent me from doing so. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz I havent even looked at BLPN issue, I think its warranted with just the behavior I have seen here at ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifics, please. What have I done here that concerns you? --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - obviously. I'd also like to recommend that that Ronz be topic-banned from any article or discussion relating to Stephen Barrett or QuackWatch for an indeterminate period. Ronz seems to have a particular problem with objectivity when it comes to Barrett, as various editors have commented on, and when Griswaldo asked him whether he has some COI with respect to Barrett of QuackWtach [125] he refused to answer [126]. Whether or not he has a COI, his obvious investment in the issue does seem to get in the way of consensus discussion. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Ludwigs2 demonstrates and inability to understand or follow WP:AGF. Additionally, WP:COI and WP:HARRASS. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - I support a minimum 4 day block, and an indefinite block on any pages related to Stephen Barrett and BLP. He has demonstrated a disregard for WP:NOTHERE. Indefinite blocks on BLP should last until he demonstrates WP:AGF toward editors and policy. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate where I'm not following WP:AGF. I'm happy to provide more evidence per WP:AOBF regarding Ludwigs2. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I would also support an RfC/U. Lambanog (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ANI is not for any editor or group thereof to penalize an editor where the case was not made that anything specific elil acts occurred. This looks more like a set of opinions, at best, for an RFC/U, and not really strong enough to carry one out. Collect (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Note I've added a block template for a 48h block for this user on his talk page. Will an admin please technically implement this block. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 02:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, "I'm working to resolve disputes in good faith. Please do not work to prevent me from doing so." --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Who's prevented you? You've had a Talk page, two Noticeboards, this space and 12 days to resolve issues. We're done. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz we're here because people have exhausted their patience for your antics. You keep on saying that you are working to resolve disputes in good faith but the reason why people have no more patience for you is that you are in fact simply making unfounded claims and posting links to policy pages that supposedly back your position without ever really answering questions or providing evidence of any kind. Good luck with that. I support a block if it will help but a topic ban from anything related to Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch would be much more effective.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your obvious frustration.

I'm working to resolve disputes here, at BLPN, at FTN, and elsewhere.

"you are in fact simply making unfounded claims" No, I'm not. If you think there are any good faith accusations against me not already addressed, please indicate one. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hilariously, Ronz added a warning to my talk page. Basket of Puppies 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on Ronz behavior here, but yes, adding a block template to their page was out of line. If an admin actually blocks them, they'll add the template. Please don't. Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, tho the overwhelming consensus to block Ronz is clear. I'll admit I added the blocknotice in haste, tho, but in good faith. Basket of Puppies 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Daywalker is not "probably right", they simply are right. Please make an effort to understand when and how templates are used before using them.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Basket - I opened this ANI, and even I think you're pushing this a little hard. would you mind bringing it down a few notches? --Ludwigs2 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm off to move a table. Basket of Puppies 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested assistance from an admin. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Reading this whole thing gives me a headache. I see a group of editors who seem to be ganging up on one editor to get a block. Accusations are being made quickly and no one seems to be allowing time for any answers. It looks like everyone has already made up their minds before anything is even said so heck, let's just block Ronz and get it over with. No, that's not how we are supposed to do things here at Wikipedia. Trying to follow the different discussions here are almost impossible. How about everyone just calm down a bit and if this needs to continue than please lay out your questions clearly then allow time for them to be answered. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Questions have been laid out clearly. Ronz doesn't answer them. It is an established pattern of behavior, in fact the very pattern of behavior that brought us all here in the first place. I suggest you read Hans Adler's post below because it is quite enlightening. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• CG, I'm sure it might look that if you just wondered in here. We've been at this for at least 13 days now, and Ronz's pattern of behavior has shown itself the entire time. His prior involvements show it, and editors from the past seem to comfirm it. Ganging up, that's what threads in ANI usually look like when someone is being reported; are you surprised? Cool off? Thanks for coming here to tell us that, who knows what might have happened. :rollseyes: The case is clear, and the choice should be clear. An admin needs to act now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Crohnie, I notice that you also supported Ronz in the separate ANI discussion regarding Ronz's behavior I started earlier this month. May I inquire upon what your good opinion of him is based? Did he help you with something here on Wikipedia? Do you know him in real life? Do you have similar experiences? Is this support you give based solely on a reading of the conflict? If the latter, what do you make of Ronz's behavior? Do you think it is commendable? Do you think he is behaving properly? For example do you see nothing provocative with his habit of posting dry messages to the user talk pages of people he is in disputes with that do not actually offer compromises? Is that something you would do too? Would you agree with the proposition that the other editors here, not only Ronz, should be accorded an assumption of good faith as well? If you have a hard time understanding what is going on, why are you defaulting to support for Ronz, instead of providing a neutral comment? Lambanog (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT Ronz has accused The Founders Intent of being drunk ([127]), accused Griswaldo on more than one occasion of not asking questions in good faith(Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues), repeatedly used claims of off topic as well as not follow WP:CON and WP:TALK to avoid points raised by other editors, has engaged in apparent Wikipedia:WikiBullying (see Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, Griswaldo and BruceGrubb), has tried to use Stephen Barrett's unreferenced (and per Talk:Weston_Price#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words easily disproved) claims about Price in a biography about the Price himself not whatever organizations happen to bare his name, and disrupting the talk page with what many of the editors both there and on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues see as a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. This is worth far more than just a 24h block in my view.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Seb az86556's comments below. A 24 hour block seems unlikely to have any non-punitive purpose, and that's not what blocks are for on Wikipedia. We should be thinking longer term or not at all. Kansan (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis of an idiotic imposition of punishment. Help him become a better editor by offering him advice on how to resolve disputes. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should not be punitive. I've suggested other options below that are not punitive. I think your suggestion to have people help Ronz become a better editor is fantastic, but I don't see any volunteers. Please note that mentorship is one of the options below. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I've gotten Ronz in touch with some people who may help through some off-wiki e-mails. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Err... what exactly would a block do?

No, I'm not playing naive, I mean it; there are only two possibilities: either this is meant to be some sort of punishment with a humiliating for-the-record note in someone's blocklog, which is not what blocks are for; or there really is some behavior that hails from conviction in which case the issue is only postponed for 24 hours. If people really think that this behavior hails from conviction and thus won't cease after 24 hours, then please open an ArbCom case or whatever and try to get the user banned (not suggesting anyone should get banned). Head-on-a-stick isn't the answer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Head on a stick might be warranted when the block suggestion was indefinite or much longer. 24h, however, seems to me to be a short block. Ronz behavior and actions during this ANI thread have demonstrated his continued disruption and lack of desire to work collaboratively and adhere to policy. (I admit my own actions last night were less than stellar, for the record.) Blocking Ronz is not meant to humiliate or punish, but rather to prevent the continued disruption that is happening and ongoing. Basket of Puppies 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, FYI, indefinite blocks are far less punitive than time-expiring blocks because they require blocking administrator to stay in contact with the blocked account and work out an understanding for conditions for returning to normal editing. With a time-expiring blocks, administrators often vanish for most of the duration of the block much to the chagrin of the editor who posts unblock notices and forces other administrators to try to figure out what a decent rationale for unblocking would look like. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Earlier this month, I started an ANI discussion on the subject of Ronz's editing behavior. Nothing was done. Perhaps nothing could be done at that stage, but what surprised me was how the couple of editors that did speak up pretty much supported and condoned Ronz. 3 weeks later it would seem he was only emboldened by the previous result and has poisoned the atmosphere for at least 3 other editors. I would venture the opinion that the bad experiences of these latest editors were unnecessary and avoidable if more decisive action had been taken earlier. If admin actions are only preventative then I ask what would have been the proper course to prevent this re-occurrence? If it was possible to go back in time three weeks to the earlier ANI discussion knowing that if nothing was done 3 more editors would be offended by this editor what remedy should have been suggested back then? Lambanog (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block notice posted by non-administrator

This was a mistake and Basket of Puppies has apologized
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[128] Why did Basket of Puppies add a block notice to the user talk page of Ronz? Basket of Puppies is not an administrator and an administrator has yet to comment in the section above. A non-administrator simply cannot post a block notice on another user's talk page in this way. That seems like disruptive and provocative behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I added it because of the overwhelming consensus to block Ronz. I noted this above and asked for an admin to review and implement the block. Basket of Puppies 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)I was quite confused by that myself. Basket of Puppies appears to be confused about how it all works. Maybe someone ought to explain it and point out the protocol. Unless there is some background I don't know I don't see why WP:AGF wouldn't apply to this situation, though I admit its quite bizarre. If Basket of Puppies should have known better then the situation is quite different of course.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) agreed this conduct is highly counterproductive and disruptive. I would like to hear his explanation for this action The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I think BoP just screwed up. I doubt it was intentional, but you should let an Admin handle those types of notifications. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) How can any "overwhelming consensus" be determined in just over two hours after posting a motion? Contributors to wikipedia, for example administrators or arbitrators, are in lots of different time zones, so 24 hours is the normal period to allow, just as a courtesy. Mathsci (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I believe that's quite enough. We all see it for what it was, an ignorant mistake. Don't be disruptive yourself to prove a point that's already been made. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Please try to remain civil. I repeat that 24 hours is the normal period of time to allow to see how the community at large feels about a particular motion. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)Let's just all calm down here. I don't think anyone disagrees with you, Mathsci. BoP has jumped the gun rather dramatically here and misused a template to boot. I personally think it was an honest mistake, but if you don't please do whatever you feel is appropriate. However, I don't think we ought to dwell on this issue any longer since no one is in disagreement here. The Founders Intent, please tone it down because I'm sure Mathsci is also responding in good faith here.Griswaldo (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) You're right, I shouldn't have placed the notice. I am sorry and will never do it again. Basket of Puppies 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Review

I have reviewed all the background here (which was not fun), and it is clear to me that Ronz has behaved in flagrant disregard for community norms of editing. It's a textbook case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, taken to an extreme. Because Ronz is a valued editor with a clean block log since 2007, I have left a message on his talk page summarizing my conclusions and asking for an acknowledgement that the community does not accept this behavior and a commitment not to do anything like this again. Because the time of day makes it likely that he is asleep, I would like to leave the issue unresolved until he has a chance to respond. If any other admin feels a need to take action here, however, I have no objection. Looie496 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand or agree with what's going on here. I'll admit that this is pretty much tl;dr. It seems that no one really agrees with Ronz about a BLP violation here, and he needs to accept that. The prolonged back-and-forth doesn't reflect particularly well on either Ronz or the other parties involved. Edits like this suggest to me that The Founders Intent (talk · contribs) should absolutely not be editing any BLPs until s/he reads and demonstrates an understanding of WP:BLP.

  I do think people need to recognize the context here: a small handful of people with grudges against Stephen Barrett have historically used Wikipedia as a platform to defame him. I don't see any reason at all to think that any of the participants in current dispute are so motivated, but that context might explain the apparent oversensitivity to BLP issues evinced by Ronz. I don't see a need to block anyone here; all of the participants seem to be beating a dead horse and fighting for the sake of fighting on some level, so I'd rather just see everyone drop the sticks, take a few days off, and come back with a bit of perspective. MastCell ^Talk 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to make something else clear here, to MastCell, we were editing the Price article not Barrett. No one can be shown to have a "grudge" against Barrett (and if you didn't mean us then you're just off topic). Please show it if you can, and bring it to the Barrett talk page. That is all. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Mastcell -- 1) I do think people need to recognize the context here: a small handful of people with grudges against Stephen Barrett have historically used Wikipedia as a platform to defame him. -- That helps to explain why Ronz has such a clean block log despite a history of behavior like this (see Hans response below). 2) ...all of the participants seem to be beating a dead horse and fighting for the sake of fighting on some level, so I'd rather just see everyone drop the sticks, take a few days off, and come back with a bit of perspective. -- I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume that you just haven't looked into the situation enough. Ronz has been stonewalling any resolution to any of the issues being discussed and forcing people to go to numerous noticeboards because of his stubbornness, while refusing to accept the input from those boards. What you are seeing here is a number of editors trying to engage him over and over without any success. Those of us who have been wasting our time with this for days now probably don't appreciate the mis-characterization of this as problem caused by us. I'm not going to defend every action of every editor who has been arguing with Ronz, but in general I would advise an appreciation for what Hans wrote below because it is dead on.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I'm not on review here. Please keep your opinions on the subject matter. Not being perfect at every edit does not mean I deserve to be blocked from editing. At least I spend my time here at WP trying to affect good content, and not judging others work. Try walking even a minute in my shoes. Anyway, what Looie496 has stated is to put it mildly, and what Griswaldo said is dead on! Ronz is a smooth operator with years of practice at this combination of wikilawyering and naivete. The way he whips out WP:TALK at the drop of a hat on multiple editors in this incident can make your head spin. I don't consider him to be a valuable editor in his current state of behavior, and there is no need to assume good faith on his part; since he has shown none. I would go so far as to say that term "good faith" has been way overused as a shield from facing the truth by him, especially considering his accusations of bad faith about other editors. No, he needs to go and be taught a lesson that WP is not a courtroom (it's an encyclopedia), and we don't need any "wikilawyers" of this type. The way he has clung to the protecting Barrett, you'd almost think he was Barrett himself. No this is more than just normal and expected protection of WP articles, especially considering his involvement in the last big Barrett blowout. Ronz's threats on talk pages, misapplication of policy, and OCD on Barrett need to be properly addressed by the admins. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that Ronz is purposefully ignoring the issues that have been raised. This edit alone shows that he refuses to engage in discussion, not to mention his actions of replying on numerous users' talk pages (including my own). At this point, the issue with Ronz is less anything to do with the Stephen Barrett discussion and more the fact that Ronz seems to be purposefully trying to work around policy and get his own way, saying that any complaints against him are either users assuming bad faith or users violating some policy. The amount of wikilawyering on his part spread across these sub-discussions is extraordinary. I believe that something definitely needs to be done here, if Ronz refuses to acknowledge the faults of his own actions. I am sincerely hoping, however, that he will acknowledge them after he reads Looie's message. If not, then actions definitely need to be taken. Silverseren^C 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but why not go with the above-stated consensus to block Ronz? Basket of Puppies 04:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just add that I'm as (If not more) disturbed by the gamesmanship that goes along with the tendentiousness. I mean, when he feels free enough to pull this kind of ad hominem trick right in the middle of an ANI discussion about his behavior... what do you do with that? and that's just the latest - you'll find a string of 15 or 20 such ploys on my talk page. He obviously still believes that if he can turn this around and undermine my credibility he can 'win' (whatever it is he thinks he's trying to win). Granting that he's good at it - his methodology for undermining other editors is smooth, polished, and seemingly well-practiced; good enough even to work against me, which is saying something - but that's not really a good thing. Whatever else happens, I'd prefer not to see him walk away from this discussion in the continued belief that undermining other editors is an acceptable way to achieve editing goals on Wikipedia. I don't know what it will take to convince him otherwise (well, actually... never mind), but I want to make sure that this concern is properly and fully registered. --Ludwigs2 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have had very occasional contact with Ronz, spread over more than two years. My impression is that Ronz is mostly active in two areas:

• spam
• Stephen Barrett.

The first takes by far the greater share of his time and activity, and his very inflexible mode of operation is optimised for it. Sometimes he overreacts, but it's easy to get away with that in that area. For some reason he treats editors with whom he disagrees in the second area in essentially the same way that he treats spammers. Since these good-faith differences of opinion require rational discussion rather than warning templates and threats, this predictably leads to regular conflicts.

I don't recall Ronz ever changing his mind about anything when confronted with evidence, or ever admitting that he may have made a mistake at some point. I don't remember seeing any dispute involving Ronz that wouldn't have entitled his opponent(s) to get their money back because "this is not an argument, it's just contradiction". The good-faith explanation is that Ronz simply doesn't have the cognitive abilities that are required for full participation in the Wikipedia process.

This give some insight in what Ronz is doing most of the time, and how his behaviour in a context of suspected spamming, while far from ideal, is at least somewhat adequate, probably making him a net positive to the project. This dispute from over a year ago demonstrates that Ronz pursuing his Stephen Barrett agenda in exactly the same way as if he was fighting spam is not a new phenomenon at all, and that the only thing that varies between the various conflicts he is getting himself into this way is how the other parties react. His own behaviour is schematic, consisting mostly of templating and adding diffs to template messages. Sometimes he writes a sentence of his own and adds a diff, which is more often than not the diff of the message to which he is responding. This is essentially a refusal to communicate, coupled with a series of unfounded (since the diffs typically point to evidence of disagreement rather than evidence of wrongdoing) attacks.Hans Adler 10:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update - Ronz has responded to Looie496 on his talk page, but again appears to be avoiding what has been asked of him. He is also threatening to retire.Griswaldo (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Griswaldo, can you check the first diff? It appears to be from an article. As far as planning to retire, that's not much comfort. Basket of Puppies 20:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • A retirement template, he has a template for everything, doesn't he? We've been duped, and made fools of here by the process. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no need to be so dramatic. Let's give Looie a chance to explain himself a little better and let's also give others a chance to respond here. I think we have several viable remedies that are not punitive but might help prevent future disruptions like this, ranging from a clearer admission of problem editing and more specific promises to improve his behavior to a topic ban from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch. I hope others will comment on these and/or propose other remedies.Griswaldo (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Followup

It is my impression from the response on Ronz's talk page that he is very chastened and fully understands that his behavior in this affair is decisively rejected by the community. Accordingly, I am not prepared to impose a block at this time. I am aware that several of the editors who have been caught up in this feel that nothing less that a long block would be adequate. I completely understand that attitude but can't quite get there myself. It should be clear, though, that any future behavior resembling what we have seen here will draw a rapid and vigorous response. (For the record, although I personally am not going to do a block, if any other admin feels that a stronger response is required, I will not make any objection.) Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie I don't see that in his response. He has only admitted to being wrong about the talk page deletions based on BLP and not the general pattern of tendentious editing. How does his promise prevent him from freaking out the next time Barrett or Quackwatch are discussed? If we don't set some kind of precedent here we'll have to start from scratch the next time he starts this because we're not left here with any remedies for specific behaviors nor any promises to stop those behaviors. I'd like to see more specific promises from him at the very least or else a topic ban from the problem area. Consider the depth of the problem in that area as expressed by Hans.Griswaldo (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What about mentorship? I guess I'm just not convinced that Ronz understands exactly what the problem is and how he will need to alter his future behavior when confronted with similar situations. I do not see such an understanding in his response. A mentor might help with this. Any volunteers?Griswaldo (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dumbfounding!! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: While I'm not all that perturbed by this - I didn't actually expect anyone to impose any overly-strong sanctions - I do have to say that I'm not entirely satisfied with this outcome. Sure, Ronz has claimed that there is "great deal he wants to change in his approach to editing" and admitted that he engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing, and I do expect that he will be a bit more cautious in his approach (at least for a while) if only because he will recognize that he's under observation. But I don't really get the sense from the short comment in his talk that he's gotten the bigger picture here. Disruptive editing is only the most superficial aspect of the problem: I don't see anything here that indicates Ronz even recognizes that there are problems with wp:CIV, wp:AGF, or wp:CONSENSUS in his behavior. If he tries the kind of manipulative crap that he's pulled on me here and in my talk page again I'll drag him back here so ANI so fast it will make his head spin, but right now I don't even see any recognition from him that he's guilty of it it, much less that he's sorry for it or interested in changing it.

Frankly, I think you got suckered by the wounded buffalo act (that's an old Hindu story about a clever water buffalo that escapes its traces and runs rampant through the town, smashing everything in its path; when it finally gets its front hoof caught in a snare, it limps and moans and shakes its head mournfully, knowing that good-hearted people won't punish what they see as a poor, dumb, wounded animal). That's fine - I approve of good-hearted people, and would rather we err on that side than the other - but if you want to make this decision then I am going to hold you responsible for ensuring that Ronz actually comes to understand the need for good faith consensus editing. It's not good enough that he continue doing what he does in a lower key; he actually needs to change his editing practices substantively and show more respect for other editors, otherwise (sooner or later) he's just going to come right back to this. Are you willing to take responsibility for seeing to that? --Ludwigs2 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, you and (particularly) The Founders Intent should be grateful that your conduct in this dispute has largely escaped scrutiny thus far. Quit while you're ahead, instead of keeping after your pound of flesh. MastCell ^Talk 04:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF here and assume that you didn't intend to threaten Ludwigs with that comment, because otherwise it could be construed as "back off or you're next". If anyone has actually stepped over the line their behavior should be looked at (Ronz, Founders Intent, Ludwigs, myself, etc.). I'm happy to have my own behavior scrutinized, but not as a distraction to the current discussion. If you want to start a sub-thread or a new one please do. Regarding the current discussion what do you think of my three suggestions above? 1) A more definitive set of promises by Ronz, 2) mentorship and/or 3) a topic ban from Stephen Barrett/Quackwatch related issues? Thanks for staying focussed here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a threat, because a) I'm not really much for threatening people, and b) I would not feel comfortable blocking Ludwigs2 under pretty much any circumstances, because of our previous interactions elsewhere. It's exactly what it sounds like: an expression of distaste for the fact that people who haven't comported themselves particularly well in this dispute feel entitled to make a lengthening set of demands about its resolution. MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Says a johnny-come-lately who hasn't spent the last 13 days dealing with this. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Your idea of vindicating Ronz, is to attack his accusers. Of course I've gotten frustrated, and I think WP understands it. Find me the WP:SAINT policy that requires I be as perfect as Jesus. I don't think anything you've said has a leg to stand on. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 13:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Either way, can you please comment on the topic at hand. Looie has suggested that option 3 might have some merit on his own talk page, but unfortunately not here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

MastCell: If you have specific problems with my behavior you are welcome to raise them, here or in my talk - seriously, I'd be curious to see what you think I've actually done wrong. I know most of my strengths and weaknesses as an editor: I know I'm a stubborn, self-righteous hard-ass when I get my goat up, but I also know that I'm utterly reasonable, generally thoughtful, and always open to proper discussion. I don't lie, I don't manipulate, I listen to others carefully, and (in all honesty) I get thoroughly pissed off when others abuse that respect I give them. If you think I shouldn't get pissed off when people lie about me or try to manipulate me... well maybe you're right. But I'm not going to apologize for completely appropriate anger.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason I get in these conflicts is that I insist on reason on topics that a lot of editors don't want to be reasonable about. That comes off particularly pushy sometimes - there simply is no way (in this context) to point out to someone that they are not adhering to reason without them taking it badly, and that goes doubly for editors like Ronz who are accustomed to seeing themselves as being on the right side of conflicts. If you want to fault me for poor logic in any particular case, please do so; I'd never do what Ronz did in this case, ignoring and subverting reason in order to maintain some preferred POV. If you want to fault me for the way I approach being reasonable, please do that as well; I'm always interested in new discursive techniques. But I don't think you really want to fault me for using reason, even if I am hard-assed about it. There's little enough of that on wikipedia as it stands. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Three other options

As I've mentioned above I do not think the current response from Ronz is very reassuring in regards to preventing future disruption. I have proposed three other options above, and on Looie's talk page. They are not mutually exclusive.

1. A much clearer admission from Ronz that covers the tendentious talk page editing in entirety and a specific promise not to repeat this behavior in the future.
2. Mentorship to provide Ronz with a resource to help him self-regulate at times when he would otherwise fall into the disruptive pattern of editing.
3. A topic ban from any issue related to Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch.

All of these options are meant to be preventative and not punitive. I personally favor #3 given the apparent history Ronz has with Stephen Barrett related discussions as well as the benefit he seems to be to the project in other areas, but I'm amenable to any of these options. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with a hesitancy on #2. I'm not sure if mentorship would be very worthwhile, but i'm willing (and hoping) to be proven wrong. Silverseren^C 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, I read this and see that you were all given a response from the administrator about what Ronz said yet you are all still screaming for your pound of flesh. What does that say? I'm out of here on this one, good luck to all of you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, how on earth is this "screaming for a pound of flesh"? People are not satisfied with the remedy because they do not think it will prevent future disruption. When that is the case they should discuss other remedies. No one is screaming for a pound of anyone's flesh, and we're not arguing against consensus here, just the solution of one administrator. Indeed the consensus seemed to be to do something more substantive. Do you think, of he got a mentor, that someone would receive their "pound of flesh"? Can we stop with the over-dramatic commentary now please. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• If no administrators are interested in making further comments, it might be time for this thread to be moved to a subpage or possibly even archived. Mathsci (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hold on there. For your information, Looie was not the first administrator to comment here. User:Elen of the Roads supported a 24 hour block proposed by Basket of Puppies well before Looie involved himself here. I don't see a retraction from her anywhere do you? The overall consensus has been that a remedy of some kind was needed here, and Looie agreed with that. He seems to believe that an adequate remedy has been found but some of us are confused by his rationale. Also Looie has given some degree of support for option 3 on his talk page. I've asked him to respond regarding these issues here. Can we please hold our horses on this? I suggest actually taking a stand on the options presented instead of asking for the discussion to be hidden.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    (This is only meant as a clarification!) Elen of the roads was not an admin when she supported the block. I assume that she still does (unless the instant a person becomes an admin they change!) but Mathsci may not know that she has since become an admin. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What was initially a discussion of a specific incident has morphed into a discussion of long term issues, which ANI is not best placed to handle. User:Ronz has declared an intention to retire. Such options have been abused in the past to shutdown community debate, but in view of the above discussion, it may be best to accept it at face value and to bear in mind the option of an WP:RFC/U should he change his mind or later return, if concerns continue. Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly closed move request at Cambridge

The move request at Cambridge was closed by User:Born2cycle (so a non-admin close), despite it being a contentious debate and to my eyes without a clear consensus for a move – quite the opposite. I can't see a RM review so am posting here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the user who closed the discussion was very strongly in favour of moves at Plymouth and Dover (making over 30 edits at the Plymouth discussion). This would be a problematic close even if they were an admin. Quantpole (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a {{db-move}} tag which Born2cycle placed on Cambridge, so that the move shall not be implemented pending discussion here. JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I also think someone entirely uninvolved in any of the related proposed renamings should close the discussion. Regardless of the result, which is clearly controversial, it needs to have the legitimacy of someone entirely uninvolved, so it cannot be challenged later purely on procedural grounds. MRSC (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Note, I have removed the closure formatting on the Cambridge move discussion added by Born2cycle based on the complaints on that page and this thread. I have avoided moving the page back myself as I have been involved in explaining why a move is not a poll (see diff) with the almost identical Plymouth move discussion. Considering Born2cycle's apparent confusion on how consensus is supposed to work, their conflict of interest and the fact that it is not a ballot, it seems quite inappropriate for them to close such a robustly discussed move request. Fæ (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Concur - I'd hate to be the admin trying to straighten this out, but it is clearly a contentious move and needs a fresh set of eyes. Also, how long are these discussions typically held open for? I would have thought this one is still active, with new editors still commenting.

Several page move/disambiguation discussions have been started simultaneously. While they are all slightly different cases, it is useful to at least be aware of the others. For the record, we have Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall, Talk:Cambridge, Talk:York, Talk:East York and Talk:Lincoln (I may have missed others), and a discussion at the village pump. GyroMagician (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's completely inappropriate for Born2cycle to close any move discussions; much of his/her editing seems to be somewhat of a mission to move pages.  pablo 10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also re-targeted the redirect at Cambridge to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, pending closure. It makes no sense to break wikilinks when it may not actually be necessary. (Depending how the admin closes it). Personally I'd read Born2cycle's closure statement as a !vote in the discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see also this which again is a non-admin closure of a discussion, with clearer consensus but for a different name to that which it was moved to. It seems Born2cycle has a very poor understanding of the move process and how decisions are arrived at.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to Cambridge, as it appears that the discussion may not have been properly closed. I'll leave the question of a final close to someone else, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the discussion and will close it shortly. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the review. For the WP:IAR-required good reason of trying to help with the backlog at WP:RM, several editors who are non-admins but knowledgeable in naming policy and experienced in these discussions and decisions have been ignoring the rule about non-admins avoiding controversial RM discussions to close quite a few contentious debates. To make up for it, I, for one, have tried to provide detailed reasoning in my closings, as I did in this one. I've had one other closing challenged like this [1], and the reviewing admin approved[2] with the following note:

I'm an uninvolved admin, and have read through the move discussion. B2C is correct; those who opposed the move did not present any sort of argument for why we should ignore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy. While Wikipedia generally works by consensus, we must adhere to established policy and not fall victim to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. I have therefore completed the move request and moved the dab page to ...

The issue of being a non-admin closing a contentious debate was not raised, and I've continued to try to follow this lead to "not fall victim to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments", including in this situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Decision to move back

I see that the discussion has now been closed "no consensus" with a decision based largely on the following assertion:

"Page hits (7) are not much use in this situation because, for all we know, every US city searcher might be typing Cambridge, Mass (or clicking on Cambridge, Mass when it shows up in the search result list)."

Page hit counts tell us how relatively popular all "competitors" for a given name are, regardless of how readers get there. For the most part, anything listed on the relevant dab page is a "competitor" for the name in question, and Cambridge, Massachusetts is clearly one of those "competitors" for "Cambridge". Just because some readers might type "Cambridge, Mass" (I wouldn't) to get to that article is no reason to discount its high page view count relative to its "competitor". Since we have no way of knowing what searchers might be typing to find any topic, this reasoning invalidates how almost every primary topic decision I've ever seen has been made.

I agree that Cambridge, Cambridgeshire might not be the ideal new location, but, as I noted in my closing, no other alternative was discussed in the original discussion. I suggest that that discussion should be held separately, but a need for a better alternative is no reason to leave this article at Cambridge. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarly surely, the need for a better alternative is no reason to move it.  pablo 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course the need for a better alternative is not a reason to move it. The reason to move is that it is not the primary topic for "Cambridge".

Cambridge, Cambridgeshire might not be as good a place for it as "Cambridge", but almost every use of every term that is not the primary use of that term is in the same boat. If that were a reason to not move articles then almost no move from a better name because there is no primary topic for that name would be justified.

The guideline for disambiguating cities in England says to "use ceremonial or administrative divisions wherever it is possible"; moving this page to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire is fully in compliance with that and every other policy and guideline that applies to this situation. Yet this move was reversed, partially because, apparently, the name specifically indicated by guideline was not good enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't an appeal like this forum shopping?

Also, one big question... was there anything wrong I did in my closing? What is the basis for the reversal? I followed the reasoning and explained the error I see in it above, but what I didn't see was an evaluation of my reasoning, or how I might have made an error. I know in the court system for an appeal to reverse the decision of a lower court, some error has to have have occurred at the lower level, and I think there is good reason for that. Otherwise, any non-admin controversial decision can be appealed for no reason other than forum shopping. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any "non-admin controversial decision", so the problem shouldn't arise. WP:RMCI#Non-admin closure says:

"Non-administrators should restrict themselves to:

• Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);

• Where there is no contentious debate among participants; ... "

David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I thought an admin had closed it wrongly I would have asked them first, but as it was a non-admin closure I had two reasons for bringing it here. I felt it needed an admin to look at the closure and review it, as it was a closure that should only have been done by an admin. And more practically it would probably require admin tools to undo the move and tidy up afterwards, if that were required. So not forum shopping, just asking for help from editors with the authority and tools to properly review the closure.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with you requesting the review of my closure via this ANI. My issue was with how the review was apparently done.

First, the reviewing admin apparently did not review my closure reasoning at all, but instead simply evaluated the discussion from scratch.

My point is that if challenges to decisions (of admins or non-admins) don't review the decision but simply re-evaluate from scratch, the effect of that is to encourage using the challenge process as a kind of forum shopping. That is, any time one doesn't like the outcome of a decision, you can apparently simply challenge it to get a second opinion. There is a big difference between reviewing a decision previously made and deciding whether a significant error was made or not, or making the decision anew without regard to the soundness of the previous decision. I suggest appeals courts in the "real world" do the former for very good fundamental reasons that have to do with human nature and so apply here too.

Second, if this decision has any kind of precedent-setting effect, by ruling that page view counts have limited utility, I suggest it removes the ability of anyone to make a decision about primary topic in most similar situations. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to make your opinion known then you should have done so in the discussion rather than closing it. There are two reasons why this has been reviewed - firstly it was a non-admin closure of a contentious debate and secondly you were clearly involved in other very similar discussions. If either of those situations occur in the future I would expect the closure to be reviewed. To avoid this happening again is quite simple: don't perform non-admin closures of contentious discussions and don't close discussions where you are clearly not impartial. Really, I would stop complaining about this because it is you who has caused all the problems, not anyone else. Asserting that your incorrect close should be viewed as some sort of super-vote is ridiculous. Quantpole (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not complaining, just trying to understand what I did wrong. So any close by a non-admin of a contentious WP:RM discussion, at least when that non-admin is involved in "very similar discussions" is incorrect and should therefore be reversed and re-evaluated anew? Shall I file an ANI for every such "incorrect" close that occurred in, say, the last year? Or shall I do that only in the cases where I disagree with the outcome, hoping to get a reversal? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A closure of a move request by a non-admin is not automatically wrong, but is more liable to be appealed on the basis that the correct procedure wasn't followed. Now you may argue IAR all rules at this point but in this case you also don't appear to be able to evaluate consensus very well and are clearly not impartial with respect to British settlements. If you can find other requested move closures which also had so much wrong with them then I would suggest bringing them here or relisting at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just adding a few words of approval for B2C's actions - clearly they're not exactly in accordance with the "rules" about non-admin closes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - there was a huge backlog at WP:RM some time ago, which has now been brought down to quite reasonable proportions partly thanks to helping out by non-admins like B2C (and myself, a bit, though I've tended to be rather less bold). I don't necessarily agree with all the decisions, but the same would be true about closures performed by an admin, and after all nothing is irreversible (particularly when we're just moving articles about rather than deleting them). To return the suggestion he made to me a while ago - perhaps he should consider becoming an admin, to reduce the controversy associated with his closures?--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think being an admin would have made this closure any better. The non-admin thing isn't a big deal to me. However, the closer needs to be seen as impartial. To use the legal analogy, if evidence came to light at appeal that the trial judge was not impartial, that technicality might be enough to overturn a conviction or force a retrial (depending on the jurisdiction); it might also result in disciplinary action against the trial judge. In this case it was closed in agreement with his POV. This sums it up to me, replace "Plymouth" with "Cambridge". The two discussions are very similar, with significant overlap in contributors using similar arguments. I count 13 (of ~24) of those support/oppose comments on Cambridge have also commented on the Plymouth move - which is an indication of how strongly related they are. Participating in one discussion whilst simultaneously closing another which involves much the same arguments from much the same people is clearly incorrect.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth

• Would anyone like to close the similar discussion at Talk:Plymouth? DC T•C 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Anne

Resolved

• Queen Anne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I request an independent review of the closure of Talk:Queen Anne#Requested move by the same user using similar arguments to those used on the Cambridge move. Fæ (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reviewed. And I endorse the close.--Scott Mac 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that. Not sure if it is normal or appropriate but it might be handy to add your endorsement to the discussion to avoid any further challenge. Fæ (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Might not be a bad idea. Add my endorsement as well if you wish. NW (Talk) 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since multiple reviews by admins have occurred of this non-admin decision in a contentious discussion, would anyone please care to review both my close (now hidden) and the new close of the discussion initially raised here? Thanks. Talk:Cambridge,_Cambridgeshire#Requested_move. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

I'm slightly loath to bring this one up since I actually agree with the result, but again there did not appear to be consensus for this requested move. Quantpole (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest there are two definitions of "consensus" that are often conflated:

1. The "consensus" of those participating as determined by giving equal weight to every "vote".
2. The "consensus" as determined by evaluating the arguments and assigning weight according to how well each argument is in concert with the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions.

I try to make my closing decisions per (2) sometimes conflicts with (1), and concede that was the situation in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:4cneortic

Can someone look at User:4cneortic? I have no time right now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a SPA targeting suspected sock-puppet accounts. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Winchester2313

Regarding Winchester2313 (talk · contribs):

1. User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs)'s history long precedes my recent interactions with him, but I have been watching his interactions with other editors. It is only when our paths have now crossed as editors in a number of talk pages and articles, that his problematic and negative attitude to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN have hit me directly, all while he spouts various WP policies to defend his essentially indefensible behavior.
2. User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) has in the past been requested to stop edit warring, see: (a) User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Menachem Mendel Schneerson; (b) User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Elazar Shach; (c) adding defamatory stuff User talk:Winchester2313#April 2010, (d) requested to stop blanking, vandalizing pages and personal attacks at User talk:Winchester2313#May 2010 and has been requested a few times on other talk pages to stop his intimidating behavior on several pages that he violates WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT when editing.
3. At Talk:Elazar Shach he has displayed crude and ruthless behavior, name calling against editors who disagree with him. He has intimated that he is WP:OUTING as he taunts them "Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...)", that he's a "a brainwashed robot" (violating WP:NPA), as he directs his attack against User Yonoson3 (talk · contribs) naming him as Jonathan Rosenblum.
4. He attacks subjects of articles: as a "blatant liar" and accuses others who point out his faults as "desperate lies" (violating WP:NPA).
5. I have also asked him to clarify his user name, see User talk:Winchester2313#Your user page, may be associated with other blocked puppets.
6. In the past there was a case against pro-Chabad POV editors who swoop in on subjects their movement dislikes, not to mention control their "own" articles, and create havoc by attacking and harassing editors who disagree with them. At that time the case was brought against 4 pro-Chabad POV editors who are now not as active (one was blocked subsequently, two are not as active), but where they have left off User:Winchester2313 has picked up the cudgels.
7. In the past case ArbCom left the door open that "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings: "Chabad movement...if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed."
8. I have repeatedly asked him to stop his confrontational behavior and to engage in good faith discussions, see User talk:Winchester2313#Let's talk at Shulchan Aruch talk page; User talk:Winchester2313#Yitzchok Hutner; and most recently stop his vandalism User talk:Winchester2313#STOP your vandalism FINAL WARNING but his favorite weapon is to ignore my pleas and to keep on reverting.
9. He is conducting an edit WP:WAR at the Yitzchok Hutner article, not allowing me to add references and citations (see the diffs of my work that was in progress on citations [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] there are a few more) while he blanket reverts them all in the process violating WP:3RR, and hurls accusations, as he has done at other editors in the past in the hope of intimidating them away. He has already reverted the Yitzchok Hutner article 4 times [138] [139] [140] [141] in 24 hours with blanket reversals in utter violation of WP:3RR that destroy my good work and ignoring pleas to talk at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions.
10. While at this time User:Wincheste2313 is one of the most pro-Chabad POV editors who is very active, there are in fact a few more editors like this who pop in and out, almost never creating full identities on their user pages, who are blatant pro-Chabad POV editors who use all forms of WP:LAWYERING to harass other editors away from articles they wish to edit their way.
11. This is a very troubling development and I again wish to bring to the attention of the community the inherent threat to Wikipedia's open editorial style when such one-issue POV editors work in a loose federation and confederation to impose their will and drive out others they deem as their foes who disagree with them. In this regard see the serious threats that Wikipedia has confronted at the: (1) TM case; (2) Scientology case; (3) LaRouche case; (4) CAMERA case as well as at the (5) Chabad case, that are all related and must be seen as similar dangers to Wikipedia's editorial independence.
12. User:Winchester2313 must be sanctioned for his own mounting violations. Wikipidia is not fair game to editors working from only one point of view. Thank you. Most sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the user. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also by me [142]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

USER:IZAK has in fact been relentlessly accusing both myself and various other editors of some type of ongoing 'Chabad' conspiracy for some time, and which is blatantly untrue. I do not act in concert with any other editors, and while I've only been on Wiki for a relatively short time, have (and continue to) tried to learn the rules well and adhere to them. To a conspiracy buff like IZAK, this becomes WP:LAWYERING, as if removing unsourced and highly contestable material, as I've done at Yitzchok Hutner is wrong.

More recently, User:IZAK has resorted to repeatedly threatening me (and others) on various pages, while continuing his allegations of 'Chabad POV', as if that were some type of crime?! Some recent examples include [143] [144] where he continues to allege a Chabad-conspiracy (despite there never having been any strife between Chabad and Breslov ?!!), and where he relentlessly lobs insults/accusations like: 1. "something you should be acutely aware of as a member of Chabad that worships a dead rabbi and sees nothing wrong with that as continuing the dynasty of a deceased ruler, regardless of who his predecessors were." IZAK (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 2. "but that does not mean that when pro-Chabad POV editors start getting involved in articles outside of purely Chabad topics, such as you have done by downgrading and in a great sense also demeaning historical rivals to the Chabad movement," 3."What I said was that pro-Chabad POV editors have taken it on themselves to attack articles about targets they hate, and that includes the article about Berger. Please do not twist my words, and enough of going around in circles". IZAK (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 4. "There are so many various splits in the Hasidic world, just see the dozens in Template:Hasidic dynasties that it would be impossible, absurd and reckless for one or two basically pro-Chabad POV editors to decide who and what is or is not a Hasidic dynasty in the world and history of Chasidus at large."IZAK (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC 5."Let's get this straight, the issue is not Chabad which deserves and gets lots of WP:NPOV from me and other editors, the issue here is the proven pro-Chabad POV editors who need to exert utmost care when entering a domain that has potential WP:COI with the subject matter at hand, since it has been proven again and again that when a controversial topic intersects with so-called Chabad party lines, then proven pro-Chabad POV editors such as yourself, Yehoishophot and Winchester jump in and often create a WP:WAR, when if they just stepped back, and at least focused on the pure Chabad topics it would be more understandable and productive for them and the rest of WP. IZAK (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 6."Why do you just wish to keep on fighting and quite obviously violate WP:CIVIL yet again? There are better ways to be productive, try devoting serious time to improving as many articles in your supposed realm of expertise at Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism and not running and rushing to attack subjects and editors you don't like." IZAK (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see [145] where again, accusations of a Chabad conspiracy are inserted by IZAK to derail a discussion as we are informed that;

"You fellows start the problems yourselves, so you only have yourselves to blame. Stop acting innocent. Stop harassing editors and edit warring at the Rav Shach-type articles and any topic that Chabad deems to be "enemies of Chabad"! For example, even though Orthodox editors do not agree with Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism you do NOT find them spending time attacking them and their notable people, as Chabad editors do with their "hate list" topics. It becomes very tiresome, and I must warn you that in the past when such behavior, with clear evidence of group editing taking place, that sooner or later the entire group will face the music. This is not just my imgination or prejudice talking, but please take a long hard look at what happened over the years with the: (1) Transcendental Meditation movement case; (2) Scientology case; (3) Lyndon LaRouche case; (4) CAMERA case and why the (5) Chabad movement case is similar and came dangerously close (for you) of serious measures against you. If you persist in your violations and threats and harassments with your pro-Chabad POV edit warring, you will leave me no choice but to reopen the case against you as you create an environment of hostility and insults that makes it impossible for other non-Chabad editors to tangle with you out of fear and the sheer drudgery of having to put up with your constant mischief making. I have a very simple word of advice for you, just remember, all the time, that Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org!" IZAK (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) and then that; "Well at least you agree with me and prove my point with the abominable way User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) is carrying on right now. I am always open to reason. You make a big error when you falsely accuse me of "anti-Chabad POV conspiracy theories" because (a) it's not a "theory", and (b) I am not "anti-Chabad" and (c) the way it has worked over time is that pro-Chabad editors do work in tandem..."IZAK (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It should again be noted, that the subject matter of this latest tirade had no connection to Chabad at all, and merely highlights User:IZAK's ongoing war against his imaginary opponents.

He then takes to threatening me with "more formal actions" if I don't "mend my ways" [146] further accusations of sock-puppetry followed by more threats [147] and [148] [149].

I have tried to respond to User:IZAK's issues directly, but he seems determined to force-feed his agenda and edit-warring unabated. Requests for WP:SOURCE and WP:VERIFY are simply met with accusations of WP:LAWYERING !! Upon informing User:IZAK of my intention to file a complaint regarding his behavior [150] his response has simply been to co-opt me with this spurious action. Winchester2313 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Winchester2313 for your response. I thank you also for the liberal quotes of my warnings, that you obviously at no point took to heart. Your POV agenda is evident even to a blind man. I have no problem with providing any sources, I have been an editor since 2002. That is not the issue. The problem is that you deploy "slash and burn" tactics when encountering editors who disagree with you. Your points about all the other Hasidic groups is an obfuscation and utter red herring argument. None of them do what the pro-Chabad POV editors get away with. For example in the Yitzchok Hutner article : First I try to add in material. Then Winchester swoops in and blanket reverts [151]. He says he'd like "sources." I work on improving the article based on links to other Wikipedia articles, he still reverts everything again [152]. Then I try again by adding more material and while working on sources, all very good, Winchester blanket reverts everything yet again [153]. I try to add sources and improve the article and he reverts it all again [154] as I tried to put the material in with sources to improve the article and I ask Winchester to take it to talk. He refuses to talk and Winchester reverts everything 4 times violating WP:3RR. Then out of the blue, Winchester decides to talk about stuff he has reverted that is not in his version of the article. So if he cuts it out, Winchester has the best of both worlds, he cuts and demands talk after the fact, like a surgeon who wants to discuss how well he has done amputations. That is not the way it works. Material is included and then discussed, requests can and should be made for sources, but not with hot air threats in violation of WP:CIVIL, everything is NOT chopped out in bulk by blanket reverts and then put on the butcher block for "discussions" for me to "defend" while Winchester holds on to his revert button and has already cut everything he does not like out. He is acting like a literal gatekeeper violating WP:OWN as he frazzles those he disagrees with by abuse of WP:LAWYERING and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, not to mention his lack of WP:CIVIL and WP:E. It is pointless to debate with an automatic habitual reverter now, (a) because I don't like edit wars (I hate them as I am sure most normal people do to avoid confrontations) and so I avoid them like the plague!, and (b) because Winchester has slashed the material he disputes, a lot of it, out of this article so the discussion is hypothetical, it's not about what should be in the article, it's about what Winchester decides should go into the article since by inclination and habit I am an inclusionist, and (c) the deeper ramifications of Winchester's antics are now in question that need to be dealt with. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Either the rules WP:VERIFY and WP:SOURCE apply to User:IZAK the same way as to everybody else, or they don't. Which is it ? Why do you demand the right to insert controversial information without sources, and then complain when you force an edit war? Winchester2313 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, you already had this discussion about it, see Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Rabbi Hutner and Chabad Lubavitch and the information about Hutner's positions against Chabad was sourced a long time ago, so don't attribute this to me. IZAK (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, I have never removed a single credibly sourced statement from this or other articles. In fact, I spend a great deal of time adding references and citations to most articles I edit. The material you mention was restored with sources and I never edited it again. Speculation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Winchester2313 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Winchester2313: The following diffs [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] (there a few more that show I was working very hard to make them accurate) prove beyond a doubt that I was working dilligently on providing sources at the Yitzchok Hutner article, and that instead of joining my pleas to you to join in WP:CIVIL discussions multiple times, instead you chose to violate WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:3RR amounting to one huge load of WP:HARASSMENT for which you, in addition to your past violations like this with other editors over the last year, you should be censured as the admins see fit. IZAK (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my sloppy linkwork in my response above - this is a first for me and I'm just learning how to use the [diff]s etc. I'd appreciate any help if anybody can clean my above post up.... Winchester2313 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding some of your other claims, I never 'outed' anybody, in fact it was another user who broached that idea [164] and I merely went with the line of questioning, as it did seem strange that the blog and most of the suspect information linked to it (and dumped here) were authored by.....Yonoson Rosenblum' !!! Winchester2313 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Winchester2313: So you admit to doing it. The other guy didn't "broach" it, he did it and you joined him wholeheartedly with the same explicit intention and wording "Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...)", and you attacked him that he's a "a brainwashed robot" (violating WP:NPA), as you direct your attack against User Yonoson3 (talk · contribs) naming and hence outing him as "Jonathan Rosenblum" who happens to be a well-known respectable living person. This just proves my point about pro-Chabad POV editors working in tandem to gang up and devalue and crush a hardworking editor (at Talk:Elazar Shach) who was making good faith efforts and you mercilessly joined in in cutting him off at the knees. You should be apologizing instead of affirming and confirming your violation of WP:OUTING. Here are the names and diffs of the others you joined in with Yankev26 (talk · contribs) violates WP:OUTING [165] attacks him and violates WPLIBEL against this notable living person with his own WP article, and insults: "Removed impossible lie". Londoner77 (talk · contribs) accuses an editor of "ignorant rants" and joins the WP:OUTING spree: [166]. But they have not been as active and as vehement as you have been for almost one year now. IZAK (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Viriditas

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

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked, blocking admin has left a legthy explanation of his position, ultimately agreed with the unblock himself. Side discussions about BLP policy and on the RFA process can happen elsewhere. There's nothing left for admins to do here. Collapsing large discussion for page readibility purposes --Jayron32 05:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

---

long discussion now closed. Collapsed for readibility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to undo a week-long block of Viriditas, imposed by 23skidoo, but want to check consensus first. 23skidoo has been an admin since 2005, but not an active admin or editor recently. He arrived today at Talk:Juan Williams, his first edit since June, and reverted archiving that Viriditas had just completed. The archiving was apparently to remove personal attacks from the page. I don't know the rights and wrongs of it, but 23skidoo complained on Viriditas's page about his attitude, Viriditas objected to 23skidoo's arriving out of the blue to unarchive, and said he was meatpuppeting for other editors on the page. 23skidoo responded by blocking him for a week. See the exchange here. It's so obvious to me that this is a bad block on so many levels that I was tempted to undo immediately, but we're not meant to do that, so I'm bringing it here. There have been objections to the block on User talk:Viriditas and User talk:23skidoo from Mastcell, SPhilbrick, Roux, Off2riorob, and myself. 23skidoo's response here.SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Support unblock. I was considering doing this earlier, but wanted to see 23skidoo's response first. As this is now here, I think consensus is to overturn the block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) unblock. something's wrong this week... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unblock. I'm willing to AGF that there was a good reason for the block, but I can't see anything that would stand up to scrutiny. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Support unblock. Having read 23skidoo's response, this is not a legitimate block. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC) On the fence: I encourage people to read 23skidoo's response on his talk page and not dismiss it as tl;dr. The point he is trying to make is certainly very valid. While I don't think the block was entirely proper, neither do I think that this archiving was proper. NW (Talk) 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Even if one assumes the archiving was improper, that's not the reason for the block given either in the blocklog or 23skidoo's response. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC) No, that I understand that. The claimed reason was a "a bullying aggressive tone that is counter-productive to civil discourse on Wikipedia." 23skidoo backed up that assertion with evidence, of which the archiving was just one part. Still not sure if a block was the proper way to handle it, but it was an option, and I am not convinced that it was out of order. NW (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC) "Not out of order" to one editor is a pretty low hurdle. The question is whether the block was "in order", and most replies so far say this block was not. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC) On the fence per NW. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Reduce to time served as per Jclemens' summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Weak Support - This block seems to have been a bad response to Viriditas' bad behavior. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unblock - clearly there are issues, an administrators that is basically inactive for one and a claim of involved in the dispute' Also support Administrator SlimVirgins not rushing to unblock out of process and attempting discussion and then bringing the issue here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with your second sentence. I also hope that no other administrator will rush to unblock and curtail this discussion. What has happened so far is setting a good precedent. NW (Talk) 18:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Support unblock, perhaps the archiving was improper, but this wasn't the reason given for the block -- the reason given indicates a highly improper block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) But the "reason given" isn't the only explanation we have to work with. Block summaries should not overrule lengthy explanations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Reduce to time served per NW and 23skidoo's response. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unblock, note that block was improper in the unblock entry in the log. → ROUX ₪ 18:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unblock, with note in block log per Roux. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unblock. The tools were misused here and I can't support a revisionist attempt to make a bad block into a faux-good one.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Support roux; "time served" is not sufficient in this case. The block was inappropriate. Indeed, I think it could be argued that 23skidoo's response merit a block. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC) No, definitely not. While it's questionable whether 23skidoo should have imposed the block at that time, an uninvolved admin given the explanation here would likely have reached the same conclusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I'm uninvolved, and I did not reach the same conclusion given that explanation. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unblock now, and note that it was an incorrect block in the log as suggested by Roux. Consensus seems pretty clear, this wasn't a good block and it should be undone sooner rather than later. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC) "Hell no" on "unblock now", discussion is underway and lively. Once it peters down a bit, an uninvolved admin can determine consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) In the meantime, we're driving off an editor who shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) And how do we know that, when Viriditas hasn't edited their talk page since the block was imposed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) I think the arguments of almost a dozen uninvolved editors here are pretty compelling, but apparently you're willing to block any admin who considers that an indication of consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Support Unblock or Change of Block Length BUT AFTER an uninvolved admin or community consensus determines (a) if a block was appropriate and (b) if so, for how long (a day? a week?) - unless 23skidoo can provide sufficient rationale for why a block by an involved admin was appropriate. It would have been easy enough for 23skidoo to get an uninvolved admin to review and (if warranted) block to ensure no impression of impropriety existed. After that, possible review of 23skidoo's actions and if any repercussions for such are warranted. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Agree with roux. unblock plus note in block log. This was a hasty and unwarranted block.--RegentsPark (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Support unblock with message in unblock. Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) *Strongly support block. As one of the editors who was being treated roughly by Viriditas I wish to place on record my support for the actions of 23skidoo in placing a temporary block on an editor who was - to put it mildly - very intimidating in his approach to me and to other editors. 23skidoo noted some of the wording used by Viriditas in his explanation for why the block was imposed. There are often tensions when one is passionate about a topic one is editing. We are all accustomed to those. But as an editor who has a reputation for working to achieve consensus and who has been awarded Barnstars etc and complimented for my spirit of compromise, I was a little startled to read text like the following from Viriditas - directed towards me and to others: (All of these can be seen in recent edit summaries and notes left on various talk pages by Viriditas.) "Anyone who continues to use Wikipedia to fight these battles will be taken to task". "You either go with the sources or you don't edit." "You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple." "If you didn't already know this was wrong before you added it, then now you do, and I've set you right. Don't do it again." I'm sure no one reading the above would feel comfortable being on the receiving end of such abrasive messages. I've been involved in edit wars very occasionally over the years and I'm not accustomed to such blunt and heavy-handed diktats being handed down from one editor to others. I support the block, as long as it is only for a few days to help him cool off. And I hope that when Viriditas returns in a few days time, he will try to be a little more sensitive to other editors. I contribute to many different articles on Wikipedia and enjoy being part of the community. I don't want to be too frightened to edit because an editor is so aggressive in his interactions with other editors that I am intimidated. Davidpatrick (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) That all looks like sound advice to me; I'd suggest getting a thicker skin, taking the advice without jumping to complain about a user you disagree with, and learning about our blocking policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I've reviewed every discussion I could find and it looks to me like exactly the kind of "admin cowboy" block that should lead to a quick desysopping and for which Wiki should have a process in place for desysopping short of arbcom-- the very problems with abusive admins that have been oft-discussed of late. Wrong on many levels. I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC) And what, may I ask, has Davidpatrick done wrong here? Kansan (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Disagreed with Sandy Georgia? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) uncalled for on my part. See SandyGeorgias talk page. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unblock asap with note in block log that this was an improper block. The Admin should lose his bit, anyone who hasn't been using his tools and then suddenly swoops in with this sort of block is not an asset to the project. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Why? Don't we always say that it should be uninvolved admins who are dealing with things? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) As an uninvolved admin, my first impression is that this block is not in accordance with the blocking policy. As far as i can tell the block was for the "meatpuppet" accusation. I don't think such an accusation itself warrants a block but certainly not a block by the admin it was levelled at. If I'm missing something please explain. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I realize that the majority of people here are rushing (not sure why there is such a frantic rush) to determine the primary issue of the blocking. Am I being a fool to hope that someone might stop the rush for just 2 minutes and read the actual examples of abusive messages that were referred to by 23skidoo when he placed a warning ahead of imposing the block? If the abusive messages written by Viriditas were PART of the reason for the warning about and then imposing the block are part of this - then surely that is pertinent? Or does no one care about the underlying issue? And/or does no one care about Wiki-Bullying? Davidpatrick (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unblocking right now would be a bad thing For the record, folks, I'm strongly considering blocking anyone who undoes this block in the next little while. Consensus is in the process of being determined: waiting a couple of hours isn't going to make much of a difference in a 1-week block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I'm strongly considering blocking anyone who blocks anyone for undoing the block.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I'd recommend striking that pretty quickly Brewcrewer, impersonating an admin isn't going to end well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Erm... he was quite clearly joking; it was a completely reasonable comment; don't be so ridiculously abrasive. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC) He was joking. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) and then i'll block anyone who can't take a joke.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Keep your jokes on your own talk please and stop adding to the three-ring circus at ANI where important matters should be discussed without sideshows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Joke or otherwise, making such a joke could very easily confuse newcomers, and impersonating an admin, directly or indirectly, shouldn't be tolerated. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) And for the benefit of Viriditas block log, I encourage the original blocking admin to undo it with a note that it was wrong and a link to the discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Frankly Sarek, doing so will simply be adding to your growing list of blocks which the community has had to call you here on. I would strongly advise against it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (too many edit conflicts)Yes let's all start blocking one another. It sounds like fun! Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Too many edit conflicts caused by unnecessary childish comments like the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Wow Sandy..... You know, sometimes a little light humor helps defuse situations and reminds us that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not that important. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Unless you happen to be the editor on the other end of an unfair block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) If wikipedia is that important for an editor on the other end of an unfair block, perhaps the unfair block will serve as a well needed wikiBreak. NickCT (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I am not so well-versed as the majority of people posting here about Wiki policy on blocking and I don't claim to be. All I hope is that those who are concerned for the civility of Wikipedia will take a little time - and not rush to judgement one way or the other. The thing that bothers me is just the tone of the comments dished out to me and other editors (I was not alone). See talk page Veriss (talk). I have a reasonably thick skin. But I love Wikipedia as a community. And I just think it's a terrible shame to have heavy-handed comments thrown at people with the air of "do it my way or leave Wikipedia". Perhaps I'm being too utopian in my thinking. But aren't we supposed to be trying to maintain a civil discourse on Wikipedia? Surely we don't want people to be intimidated or left feeling battered when editing in good faith? Davidpatrick (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I don't see any real dissent here. Consensus of almost everyone who has posted on the subject was that this was a bad block. Unblocking seems to be the obvious next step. What there is not yet consensus for is what should be done about 23skiddoo. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Agree - there's enough of a consensus to justify an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) On a related note though (to GW's post), we have AN/Is for a reason. We should follow their procedures or they become meaningless. Sarek's growing or not list of blocks (which...) should be irrelevant to us following procedure here - even if (as it seems) such a stern warning reminding us to do so is required. Sufficient discussion time has not concluded The user (at least last time I checked) did not request an unblock There may be valid reasons (as brought up above) for the block or a portion thereof, and the validity of the block under same or similar grounds should be reviewed by the community and/or uninvolved admins to determine whether a reduction is warranted or a block removal. And once a consensus is met, then perhaps we decide what actions or sanctions or whatever towards 23skidoo are warranted by the improper/proper/undecided block placed by him/her. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Robert, I completely disagree - we have WP:BURO and WP:IAR for good reason. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Agree Don't forget WP:DONOHARM (alright it's actually about BLPs but I think the concept of doing no harm applies here as well). Leaving a bad block in place while we waste further time discussing it is potentially doing a lot of harm. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this discussion is going to be closed as "good block", even if it turns out there are other grounds for which a block may be justified: the rationale given was completely against policy and the block should be undone immediately. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I realize that the majority of people here are rushing (not sure why there is such a frantic rush) to determine the primary issue of the blocking. Am I being a fool to hope that someone might stop the rush for just 2 minutes and read the actual examples of abusive messages that were referred to by 23skidoo when he placed a warning ahead of imposing the block? If the abusive messages written by Viriditas were PART of the reason for the warning about and then imposing the block are part of this - then surely that is pertinent? Or does no one care about the underlying issue? And/or does no one care about Wiki-Bullying? Davidpatrick (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Part of the underlying issue is that you brought a personal dispute from a user talkpage to an article talk page (see WP:BATTLEGROUND), and then 23skidoo restored them after they were removed. See this diff in which Viriditas pointed that out to 23skidoo. You may note from the discussion here that very few editors opining have had such a strong reaction to the commentary as you did; it does take two to tango, and copying a talk page discussion to an article talk page, followed by an admin sweeping in to reinforce that action, helped feed the flames here. I'm sorry if my comments above (about "talking to", which in no way meant any sort of warning, hence the wording "talk") appeared to conflate desysopping of an admin with anything related to you; that was not my intent. My intent was to point out that you are working on a contentious BLP, sourcing in BLPs and enforcement of talk page commentary is stringent, and you had a hand in the blowup. Dispute resolution processes are available on Wiki if you thought Viriditas was out of line-- bringing a battle onto the article talk page was not wise. Had you taken your concerns to WP:WQA, this whole affair might have been avoided, and Viriditas wouldn't have an unjust block on his blocklog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (ec) I think the discussion here is healthy, but it's also important not to keep Viriditas languishing under this block. There's clear consensus to reverse it, and I can't see that changing. It would be better if 23skidoo would undo it himself, but he seems to have gone offline (something we're not meant to do after a contentious block), so I'll be undoing it shortly unless there are strong objections and good reasons not to. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) SV, have you by any chance checked the timestamp on that block you're criticizing him for going offline after? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, 23skidoo blocked Viriditas at 06:13 26 Oct, which was within 12 edits and two hours of his returning after a four-month break, the first time he had blocked anyone since January 2009. He went offline one minute later. He returned around 30 hours later for three minutes, responded with an explanation, then disappeared again. That compounds the inappropriateness of the block, in my view. Admins know they have to stick around after a contentious block to explain themselves and undo things in case they've made a mistake. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) FYI HJ Mitchell has unblocked. It seems SarekVulcan immediately swallowed his idea of blocking any unblocking admin... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)No, I looked at the discussion, saw that there was a clear consensus that I was on the wrong side of, and decided not to block. There was a good hour of lively discussion there -- the result was much clearer than when my block was overturned while discussion was ongoing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Ah... my apologies GW and <redact>DP</redact> PK. I was under the impression (from previous AN/Is where very similar situations occurred) that in such, the community having sufficient time to respond, and actually analyze the issues at hand trumped that. Interestingly, there have been admins who've gotten "screamed" at for not allowing the at least 24 hours, even when it was a snowball's chance... And, I guess I'd expected an uninvolved admin to maybe... separate this into it's core components for proper comment. (1) Was the block warranted, (2) Should it be removed post haste, (3) Was 23skidoo's actions inappropriate, (4) is a block under different grounds warranted (thus simply requiring a change of rationale). But, that's just my opinion on what may have made the jumble above more readable. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, many of us do care about wikibullying-- particularly from admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I have, as GW says, unblocked Viriditas. There were several issues with the block, but I don't think it's appropriate to say that it was abusive. I believe the blocking admin acted in good faith, but the consensus here appears to be that he erred in making a block. I would recommend that this discussion be closed with 23Skidoo advised to seek comments at ANI or another appropriate venue for potentially questionable blocks in future and Viriditas advised to avoid appearing to inflame already heated situations and everybody else advised to go write an article, offer a review, block a vandal or something else that benefits the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not certain I can agree with "good faith", since it seems more likely that the block was more of a "I'm too angry to consider the consequences" thing. But I do agree that claiming abuse is premature until we at least get a comment from Skidoo; it's very possible that Skidoo intended to come back after cooling off, apologise, and lift the block. Skidoo needs to cool off and then recognise that it was a bad block, not be blocked desysopped as suggested below: how do we justify that as a preventative measure without hearing Skidoo's response to this thread? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) The block was made at 06:13, 26 October 2010, followed by a notice at 06:14. Skidoo's next edit was at 12:44, 27 October 2010. If Skidoo "intended to come back after cooling off, apologise, and lift the block", or "needs to cool off", is 30 hours enough time? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I had overlooked the time of the block and assumed it was skidoo's last action before going offline, since that's what the discussion appeared to be suggesting. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Desysop 23skidoo According to WP:ADMIN, the next step is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges or Wikipedia:Administrator review/23skidoo. It would be a welcome change to see it work for once, but what is the difference between RFC/U and Administrator review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Jumping the gun. Let's wait to see what 23skidoo does and says when he returns. This proposal is too hasty. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Agree. Desysops can also only be enacted by Arbcom, as far as I'm aware. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Agree w/ Theresa/Giftiger - If 23skidoo is big enough to drop the block himself I think we can call this resolved. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC) @Giftiger wunsch, you're correct, unless 23skidoo is open to recall; and even if that's the case, I don't think anyone who was involved in the Herostratus fiasco wants to do that again, at least not for a very long time and with better systems in place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC) SandyGeorgia, IIRC, anyone can request an admin review, including for admins who have done nothing wrong - simply to get feedback from the community. It is in that case, very similar to an editor review. And of course, we know what RfC/U's are generally used for. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC) @NickCT, he didn't drop the block himself. And we don't stop admin abuse by sweeping it under the rug. If we were talking about an active admin, I might understand; the re-appearance to block is a concern. @ Robert, I still don't know which venue is more useful for a case like this, but it's high time we all started using one of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) He's not online. It's not as if he refused to unblock. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC) IF a venue was needed: Assuming enough people believe 23's actions were abusive: RfC/U (Abuse of Admin Tools) Assuming enough people simply wanted it reviewed by uninvolved editors: Admin Review Sad thing is, very few are stopping to decide or determine if a block was warranted - and very few are willing to wait till 23 gets back to provide justification/apology/etc. Seems a bit too early to decide which when we havent even engaged in a discussion of the why/who/how with all parties involved. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Before an RFC/U, the first port of call should be discussing it with the user. Since they have not yet been afforded a decent opportunity to reply, this is quite simply premature until there has been input from skidoo, and an RFC/U should not be started at this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Ummm GW, I believe I said that (directly above you, and at least once in the other conversation sections). ;-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Not quite the same thing, I was specifically mentioning that a RFC/U can't be started without first trying (or preferrably exhausting) the option of discussing with the user first. I hope I didn't give the impression that this was in response to your comment, it's just a general, unindented bullet point on the section. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Let's wait. It's premature and irresponsible to move ahead until we here from the admin. Let's step back for a bit and wait. JodyB talk 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with everybody else who says that we ought to give skidoo a chance to respond. While there are some serious issues to be discussed, for sure, I'd also like to remind everybody that there are no angry mastodons here. Kansan (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) There should be a chance for the Admin to respond, however I also agree that this is a serious matter. Letting him respond doesn't mean we hat this, archive it, and hope everyone forgets.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC) The key thing is for skidoo to acknowledge that he wasn't the one to do any blocking which was called for. Desysoping is not happening, and should not happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't mind seeing a short block tossed on SandyGeorgia for clear violation of WP:NPA. WP:ANI is not for frivolous attmepts to form a lynch mob, and he ought to know better given how long he's been around. Jtrainor (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Way over the top. Blocks are not toys. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Perhaps that's why he's not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Pot, kettle, black. Who's the one trying to form a lynch mob? StrPby (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Response from 23skidoo So much heat generated and so many things written. Some of them fair questions and comments. Others heated and under-researched. C'est la vie. Nothing changes on Wikipedia... It would take too much time to respond to every comment offered. And I don't think it would advance the matter to do so. So I propose to be pragmatic and deal just with a few key points. 1) SlimVirgin wrote: It would be better if 23skidoo would undo it himself, but he seems to have gone offline (something we're not meant to do after a contentious block) I placed this block at approx. 10pm MST on Monday October 25. It did not seem contentious then. And indeed 36 hours went by before it very suddenly became "contentious" among approximately 12-15 people. This thread started at 17:50 UTC on Wednesday October 27. I am not aware of any mandatory obligation to stay on-line 24/7. Maybe some people can. But as much as I love Wikipedia - I also have an outside life. It helps one keep a perspective on matters. 2) Personally, I think it would have been prudent to take a little more time to consider the matter of the block and allow me the courtesy of being able to respond to some of the questions raised. But a majority of people on this page couldn't or didn't wish to wait an hour or so for me to be given an opportunity. My happening to not be online during the exact hour that someone people felt this issue had to be resolved (on Tuesday morning I learned had I lost work, and my priority became seeking a new source of income) (edit: a typo created an unintended smiley in the original version of this post) denied me the opportunity of responding to misperceptions and misinterpretations before conclusions were made, judgements decreed, actions taken. 3) A decision was made by an administrator to over-rule my block. So be it. I'm not going to fight it. That matter is therefore over. 4) If the original material is read slowly, carefully and looked at - something hard to do in a frenzy of feeling "something must be done in the next hour", I think my action stands up. It was certainly a good faith action. And not done in anger or anything like it. 5) If you bother to look me up, I have been registered on Wikipedia since January 2003. I have contributed to over 12,000 unique pages. I have made over 36,800 edits to date. (And several thousand more prior to signing-up when I was still using third-party computers). I have been an administrator for 6 years. I am proud to say that I have helped in the finding of consensus in many an edit war. 6) I have already posted my reasons for imposing the block on the talk page of the editor in question. Despite a warning about not archiving/deleting article talk page text (some of which was very recent) and a clear reference to his wiki-bullying that was (and is) very apparent to anyone who actually bothers to look, his response was to accuse me of being a "meat puppet" without offering any evidence for what was a baseless charge. This was consistent with his documented wiki-bullying of two separate editors within the preceding day. In the light of that I thought that he should be blocked to give him time to cool off. Should that block have been for a week? That's a fair question. Perhaps it should have been for a shorter period. My hope was that the time off from editing would enable him to cool down. And reflect on the tone of his writing to other editors. 7) I don't think it is the intent of people on this page to submit me to a "Star Chamber"-like inquisition for having acted to stop an editor making a groundless accusation against an administrator after a clear warning had been given to stop archiving recent talk page posts. And to give that editor a time to cool off after his well-documented wiki-bullying. In any event, I am assuming good faith on behalf of my fellow Administrators. I don't subscribe to the views of cynics about how Wikipedia conducts itself. 8) I'm sure that there are more important topics with which we can all busy ourselves - including the general improvement of Wikipedia to which we all give so much of our time and passion. And I for one would like to see a greater civility in all discourse on Wikipedia - among both editors and administrators. Life is too short for the alternative... 23skidoo (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I find this an adequate explanation, which includes as much of an apology as we are likely to get. I am not one to care much about the form of words which accompanies the sentiment. And I think we have wasted enough pixels on this. Can we build an encyclopedia now?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) "It did not seem contentious then. And indeed 36 hours went by before it very suddenly became "contentious" among approximately 12-15 people. " - this is not entirely accurate. At least three people, self included, posted both to your tpage and that of Viriditas indicating problems with the block in a very short time after you blocked. → ROUX ₪ 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (ec) You went offline one minute after blocking Viriditas, one of your first actions after a four-month break. You returned 30 hours later for three minutes, then left again after posting an explanation but without sticking around to sort things out. Admins should never act that way, unless they leave a note making it clear that anyone can unblock without consulting them. I'm concerned that you don't see how inappropriate this whole thing was, 23. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I was totally with you until got got to 8. 'Tis bad form to answer a charge of "you did something wrong" with "don't you have better things to be doing" Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I agree about #8, but at the same time, it does not change the relevance (or lack thereof) of #1-7. So perhaps, as #8 isn't really a point about the situation, we continue by evaluating #1-7? Not suggesting you wouldn't already be doing that - but pointing it out before this becomes a debate on #8 and skips addressing the rest. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I'm good with his thinking here especially his attitude. He's not being hateful or spiteful and I think we understand that he did this with good intentions although the decision itself is questioned. JodyB talk 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Two thoughts. i) is 23skidoo's rationale compatible with Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks? ii) if there's any lesson to be had from recent ANI debates on similar situations, which 23skidoo presumably missed, it's that blocks like this are better discussed by the community before being made. Rd232 talk 21:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I am old enough - in human years and in Wiki-years - to know that one cannot please everyone. So I am appreciative of responses like the ones by Wehwalt, JodyB and Rd232. And while I am disappointed in some of the others - that is life. Theresa Knott feels that it is "bad form to answer a charge of "you did something wrong" with "don't you have better things to be doing"". So do I. Which is why I was so careful to express the sentiment that WE (not "you") have better things to be doing. We are all in this together. Something that Wehwalt expresses perfectly for all of us: "I think we have wasted enough pixels on this. Can we build an encyclopedia now?" So I am not planning on responding to each and every opinion expressed. I will say this though. I commend HJ Mitchell for his gracious and calm way of dealing with things. His thoughtful handling of the matter has just resulted in the expression of a positive attitude from the editor whose actions had triggered this issue in the first place. That is ultimately all I hoped to achieve. It would have been ideal if that result could have been achieved earlier. But better late than never. I think we have all learned something from this. So thank you HJ Mitchell for leading us to that. 23skidoo (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Well, in any event, he shouldn't have been the one to determine a block. But the calls for his head, especially from people who have been here for a long time, and hold responsible positions here, outrage me. I ask them, could you do your best work under a sword of Damocles, ready to come down on you at your first mistake? Sorry if that sounds like a campaign speech, too much time at the Nixon library ... can we close this thread now?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) There is a discussion going on at WT:RFA about what's wrong there. Rather than looking at the what's happening at RFA for the reasons we should be looking at what's happening here. As far as I am concerned established (however that is defined) editors being blocked is a bigger deal than someone losing the admin bit, but for whatever reason the opposite holds true. You talk about the sword of damocles hanging over admin's heads, but at least they can still actually edit if desysopped. At the moment it seems that it is the regular editors who are in danger of being blocked under flimsy grounds by trigger happy admins, and they cannot do anything once blocked. Apologies for getting all meta. Quantpole (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Hmm well if you desysop admins for making one mistake then you'd run out of admins pretty quickly as it is impossible to never ever make an error of judgement. It's certainly not true that you can't do anything while being blocked., that's what the unblock request template is for. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 23:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Oh joy. You can try and beg another admin to let you carry on improving the encyclopedia. If the admin bit was easier to lose then maybe it would be more willingly handed out. The situation with blocking established editors over the last couple of weeks has been farcical. Unless a block is cut and dried (e.g. 3RR, arbcom enforcement) then I don't think any admin should take it upon themselves to make a "judgement call" to block an editor. It should be by consensus instead. Quantpole (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Oh I completely agree. Established users who aren't under some kind of Arbcom restriction, or who haven't gone nuts should not be blocked except in exceptional circumstances. I just think that an admin who makes 1 error of judgement shouldn't be deadminned. They should be criticized but not lose their bit over one incident. A havbit of doing so is a different matter. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 23:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Time to put the pitchforks down please. Bad blocks happen, and as far as bad blocks go, this one appears to have been pretty middling: I've seen worse, I've seen less bad. As far as explanations for actions not supported by consensus go, this tends to be one of the better ones. He called it like he saw it; community consensus differed. No good reason to take away the bit has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Recapping what we've learned here: Important BLP issues are lost in the shuffle at ANI; BLP doesn't really matter, does it? We've seen that at RFA lately, too. An admin can return from a four-month absence, not answer why or how that occurred, make a really bad block and then not stick around to deal with the queries, but others will rally 'round and even attack editors who suggest something should be done about admin abuse. Admins can bully and threaten other editors who challenge a bad block and ignorance of BLP. Adminship is pretty much a "for life" job; when admins close rank, there is no offense to the lowly editor worthy of even an RFC/U. Business as usual; admins can abuse others as long as they want, until/unless their offenses rise to the level warranting an arb case. Oh, and to the editor who suggested slapping a block on me for raising these issues: knock yourself out. Blocks are thrown around so wantonly these days that having a block log no longer means much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) BLP was never discussed in this thread, there is not much rallying around several admins were highly critical of the block, no idea what you are talking about when you say admins bullied editors who challenged a bad block. When is this supposed to have happened? You 4th point might have some merit. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 23:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Sandy, feel free to run for adminship. I'll gladly offer my support despite (or because of?) your attitude about it. I have some perspective on doing what I thought was the right thing, and getting completely ripped a new orifice for it at ANI, and I can think of a bunch of other administrators who have similarly run afoul of the community. One mistake does not a desysop'ing make. Should there be a trend, it would be a much more relevant discussion. I've never gotten in trouble for a bad block, but mostly because I rarely block anyone with more than 10 edits. :-) Come sit on this side of the fence for a while, see how life is when you try an use the tools appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I do "sit on that side of the fence": I get regularly ripped every time I archive a FAC (and sometimes for promoting them, too). Your argument would make perfect sense ... were it not for the sudden re-appearance to block an editor. Had he been around, doing routine admin business as usual, the whole thing might not smell quite so fishy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Fishy? I thought you were usually on the receiving end of conspiracy theories, Sandy!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I mostly concurr with User:SandyGeorgia's summary of this episode. I wish I didn't. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Lisbon lion67's use of wikipedia for advertising

Lisbon lion67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have tried unsuccessfully several times to get this user to stop advertising their facebook group in wikipedia.

As you may note from the several beginning diffs above, I have warned them that this addition violates WP:COI, WP:N\WP:WEB, and most of all, WP:UNDUE(WP:NPOV). As they have not taken the warnings to heart, and have decided to continue edit warring(if even doing it in a slow, drawn-out manner), I am taking what I term a spam/advertising incident here for more eyes.

They have been notified of this thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I might speak in my defence (Not sure if this is the place to do so, but I'll try anyway), I have now made revisions to the account, which I have tried to update, but the user Daedalus969 keeps watering down the article to a very vague account. I have removed anything that could be construed as advertising myself or my own page. I am simply trying to present an accurate account of this very notable campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisbon lion67 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good and understandable, but we have talkpages for a reason. Instead of reverting and reverting what seems to be borderline-advertisement, ow about making your point on the article's talkpage and waiting for people to discuss it. Right now, I see you edit warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, I wasn't really aware that it would come up like that. The way I saw it was that someone was trying to remove the specifics of the campaign. I understand now why that would happen. I have made changes to the article (saved on my computer) but I'm scared to try putting them on the article for fear I get reported and blocked from editing. What should I do? Put them on here for someone to review if they fit the guidelines?--Lisbon lion67 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You could put them on the talkpage (only the bit you want changed) and ask for comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just done that. I have basically put on my revision to the discussion part. If no-one responds, how long do I wait before going ahead with the revision? --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Consensus doesn't work by failure to respond. Consensus is worked out amongst editors; meaning you wait until people respond, you don't give them a time limit to do so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but if people review and have no problem with it, they may not leave a comment. It seems only if I put something that is contentious will people respond? Also, most people don't ever look at the discussion pages, they only look at the article. If there is nothing on the main article (as is currently) about the campaign, I'm not convinced people will review the discussion page to see what might be said? Would I be out of order to provide a revised contribution to the page, with an expanded discussion on the discussion page? --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For someone rather new here, you're in no position to say that 'most people never look at the talk pages'. It is actually the direct opposite. Most editors here use the talk pages, as that is how consensus is developed. By discussing and not edit warring, as indeed, the latter usually ends with a block.

As to order, yes you would. Many editors would notice, as when a page is watch-listed, any changes to the corresponding talk page show up in the watchlist. It isn't possible to only watch one part.

Lastly, just because people don't have a problem with it, that doesn't mean they wouldn't post. This isn't something that is going to happen right away. You need to give it time, and you need to be patient about it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am having to learn very quickly, we all had to learn at some point. I have now focused my attention to the talk page of the article. How do I know if and when I have consensus and can then proceed with revision to the main article? --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Studiodan

Strictly for educational purposes, I recommend that everyone check out that guy's user page. A certain wikipedia policy is coming to mind, but I can't think of what it's called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User Page Guideline WP:FAKEARTICLE, I am actually tempted to through it into the main space its so well done. Either Way I saved a copy for my personal files The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I just feel sorry for the chap endlessly wanging his todger and never getting any satisfaction. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's tragic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 23:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks--Studiodan (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What, on the poor chap's John Thomas? I should hope not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok this takes the cake more than any of our lame jokes The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What's funny about this exactly?--Studiodan (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Circumfetishist"? That's even funnier than "Pro-circumcision Cabal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I know it sounds strange, and I wasn't even aware such a sick fetish existed until a few years ago, after I learned about someone who edits here on Wikipedia, and has been doing so for over 4 years (I even have screencaps from circlist where he explained how he finds the act of circumcision erotic)... now he edits wiki articles related to circ. You have no idea who you've gotten involved with Bugs (regarding this particular circumfetishist I'm referring to. He's sick, as in need of help).--Studiodan (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

I could argue that there is equally an uncircumcision fetishist or two, especially the ones who use the term "cabal" - or maybe "obsessives" would be closer to the truth than "fetishists". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't say nobody told you. If you want to know who it is, it's not hard to find out... you have Google.--Studiodan (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care if someone is a circumfetishist or an uncircumfetishist. What I care about is ensuring that wikipedia reflects proper sourcing and isn't used as a vehicle for trying to achieve artificial notability and undue weight for fringe theories and viewpoints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll only find archived material there.--Studiodan (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, it's not what a userpage is for. Please change it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of them just look so sad; like Eeyore, but not. Haploidavey (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hate to Be a WP:DICK but does anyone else think WP:MFD might be appropriate here or let sleeping dogs lie? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering the page's content, being a "dick" would be appropriate (:P) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The information there is draft, for temporary archival purposes, to copy and paste as needed. I've never had any intention of misleading anyone into thinking it's an article, and as far as I can tell, placing temporary draft material there is an accepted use of the user space. If you think it would be better to move it to another space, such as an archive page, I can do that.--Studiodan (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is accepted use, but NOT on the main userpage. See Wikipedia:UP for assistance in creating a subpage where you can place the draft to work on it "unmolested". Whose Your Guy (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll do just that.--Studiodan (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A firmer policy knot: I see a potential problem ahead - this person is pointedly an SPA (a tip: just look at his contracisions... um, circumbutions), here to push a POV in the guise of "correcting" the pull of the "circumfetishists" circle, which means that his edits should be give a good hard look, so that anything that's not Kosher can be yanked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I have always been uncomfortable with the SPA label. If his actions are running afoul of WP:SOAPBOX, then fine, but lots of people have narrowly-defined interests and areas of expertise. I'd prefer to see his behavior categorized as leading astray of Wikipedia policies, such as not being a vehicle for advocacy, per WP:NPOV or some such, rather than labeling him as an SPA or other label. I don't know much about him outside of his behavior here at Wikipedia, so I'd like to focus the discussion on that behavior. --Jayron32 05:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Um... a single purpose account can only be judged by their behavior on Wikipedia. What other evidence would we have access to? And so far we have an announcement of a specific fringe viewpoint, and editing limited to articles related to that specific topic, so I think "SPA" is a perfectly legitimate label. Whether he is, or will become, a disruptive SPA depends on his editing, which is why I suggested keeping his contributions under observation. Right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of POV-pushers on this subject (assuming they're not just all one guy), and it's been going on for several years. The word "cabal" first appears in the Circumcision talk archives around 2006. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ADMIN ATTENTION NEEDED ASAP

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

• This particular user ID began last winter, and there is no question it's an SPA, as every bloody one of its edits is on this topic. Being an SPA is not against the rules as such. But they do bear watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • One thing I'm concerned about are the items he keeps saying in reference to, apparently, a specific wikipedia editor. Without naming the editor, he skirts the personal attack rules, or so he thinks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • He actually quotes my surname in a Google search, in support of his claim of "circumfetishism". I have to say, I consider this a personal attack (and a BLP vio), and I'd be grateful if somebody else would delete it. Jakew (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The user Studiodan's user page has internet links which "out" user Jakew as part of one of the more nakedly offensive personal attacks I've seen on wikipedia. I ask that administrators (1) REV-DEL all such references to Jakew; and (2) INDEF the user Studiodan and clear his user page. He's a user with a demonstrable, specific agenda that involves not just pushing a fringe viewpoint, but making offensive accusations against wikipedia editors. He has somehow flown under the radar for nearly a year, but he is massively over the line at this point. Another of his links is a count of everyone who has edited the circumcision page, as part of his attack campaign against Jakew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've reverted the page to the version between the fake article and the mission statement, and (I hope) revdeleted the versions with the links. I hope I've done it right. If his 'article' contained similar outing, I am happy to go back and delete the entire thing.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• I haven't blocked him, but I have warned him that any repeat will result in indef without warning. If other admins feel a block now would be better, be my guest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Jakew told the whole of the planet what xyr name was back in 2005. A little less of the "outing" hysteria, please. The name-calling and labelling of other editors stands as a problem without trying to pile other things on top of it. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am minded to consider blocking him, if he is using an editor's last name, that is outing, pure and simple. Elen, congrats on the promotion, although I opposed you. Given the fact that many users tend to keep their identity private, any chink in that defense can be disastrous. I would suggest that he be blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

He is using a last name Jakew himself used. It isn't outing to use a name the person you are talking about revealed themselves. It might be disruptive, but otherwise Uncle G and Elen are right (although the rev deletion wasn't needed IMO). Prodego ^talk 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. In 2005? That's the trouble. If the user has guarded his privacy since, I think we should respect that. Everyone has early mistakes on the wiki. The intent is still the same in the case of Studiodan.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ondertitel Open threat of edit warring, personal attacks, general uncivil behaviour

I encountered Ondertitel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over at Crack intro. Like many internet subjects this often attracts editors using less than stellar sources. He made several additions to the article. I checked them, and while a good portion of them were fine he did attribute some information to some self-published sources. I removed those bits and stated as much in my edit summary. He restored them and I began the process of explain WP:RS and WP:V to him. His replies have been full of insults and now has an open threat of edit warring on the article talk page. I'm going to keep undoing your undos until you execute your threat and call an administrator that tells me to attribute it already and stop it. As such he should be blocked until he rescinds his threat. I also previously warned him about NPA, CIVIL and OWN, but his follow-up comment is full of more of the same. His initial comment, for which I warned him, Don't blindly follow sheeple and use your brain., is followed up by I consider your "challenge" trolling/nut kicking/demotivational the way you did it., and you are a demotivational asshole,. There is a serious problem with WP:OWN here and his response to any opposition to his edits doesn't put it in a favorable light. Since he's specifically requested someone whack him, I suggest someone fulfill it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Myself (User:BarkingFish) @ WP:VPP

Hi. A highly unusual step, I know, but I am reporting myself to the AN/I amid a claim that I am acting and behaving in Bad faith at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Reintroduction of Username policy against random usernames, a claim made by User:Camelbinky. I made a tongue in cheek attempt to explain the point of the thread, by posting my own nick in a random format, as done earlier in the thread by User:TreasuryTag, who didn't seem to attract comment. My own reply to Camelbinky was less than civil, I am aware of that, but quite frankly, the fact that people can't see what I am aiming at is annoying the hell out of me. Admin attention is requested to the thread, and I will accept whatever action is proposed in response to my behaviour. BarkingFish 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not-even-remotely-admin comment If that comment had been directed at me, it wouldn't bother me too much; the problem of course being the subjectivity of civility. My feeling is that if you already see why it was potentially problematic, there's no point in doing anything now because it'd be punitive. We all lose our cool sometimes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed by BarkingFish and also not concerned about the issues raised. I have had a look and nothing seems especially bad. Basket of Puppies 03:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Weeeell, someone could block him for a second, or slap him with a trout, or say, sternly, "don't bark like that again, Fish!" And then we move right along. Take care, Fish. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I like Drmies' plan. Hence:

• Support: Slap the Fish with a Trout until it stops barking. sorry, couldn't resistROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• trout and move on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI needed

Can somebody block Grundle's latest IP, 74.98.44.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It appears he has a new range. Grsz¹¹ 04:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The following articles were created by sockpuppets of banned user User:Grundle2600, and so need to be deleted:

Aiyana Jones

HD 10180

Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking

Megaleledone setebos

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation

Sack tapping

Spinoloricus sp. nov.

74.98.44.223 (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if they have, most of these feature significant contributions from other editors, so they would be ineligible for speedy deletion under the persona non grata criteria. Several may be eligible for AFD discussions. The first one, for example, seems to be a WP:NOTNEWS issue. If there are articles which have been recently created by Grundle, and feature no significant contributions from editors in good standing, please feel free to list those here. But merely being created by Grundle is not enough justification to throw away the significant work of those that edited the articles after him. --Jayron32 04:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that IP was Grundle. He does this with all his socks. Goodvac (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Was going to comment the same thing. It was his "witty" response to the above. Grsz¹¹ 04:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:128.189.129.43's repeated legal threats

128.189.129.43 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for legal threats. The NLT policy was explained to them on their Talk page, and instead of retracting it, they have repeated their threat. Corvus cornix_talk 05:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access removed, left a note refering them to Mike Godwin. --Jayron32 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that a good idea? Godwin resigned on October 22nd. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TSbay spam only account

Tsbay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per their contribs, this is a very slow, but spam only account. They've never done anything in the 2 years they've had an account except repeatedly try to add the same link to the same article. Should be blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done The account has been blocked for spamming. In the future, spam only accounts can also be handled through WP:AIV. --Jayron32 06:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a fresh diff, last time I took something there it was removed for not happening in the last 3 seconds.--Crossmr (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Floyd C. Bayne

Floyd C. Bayne was deleted today per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd C. Bayne, but the article was re-created. Newly created account, User:Libertyactivist, keeps removing the {{db-repost}} template. Help there would be appreciated. Thanks! Location (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The tag said I could remove it if I think it didn't fit the speedy delete criteria. I have done nothing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyactivist (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the page. Full protected. The answer if you disagree, is not to engage in disruption. Please see WP:DRV. -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP problems at AFD discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Colegrove is attracting various nasty comments about the subject. They may all be true, but they still violate BLP. I can continue to police them, but I'd rather appreciate it if someone just SNOWed the discussion and protected it. I nominated the article, so obviously I can't do it. I notified both the creator and principle contributor when I nommed the article for deletion, and no word from them since then. Neither is active.--Chaser (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, though not protected unless it's really necessary. Is it? --John (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of that smells like socking to me, but ... dunno. *shrug*. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Jason Ross (actor)

Jbr055 (talk · contribs)

This editor, claiming to be the subject of Jason Ross (actor), has edited the article to contain what may be perceived of as a legal threat as per WP:LEGAL. (See here.) In the process, s/he also removed the template directing editors to the article’s deletion discussion located here. With this edit, I reverted the article to its state prior to this editor’s edits. The phrase containing the possible legal threat is as follows:

…[T]his page has been comprised. I am the subject of this listing, and have had this article about myself, a current actor on UK television, US and Australian television, modified without consent. This matter is currently with my attorneys due to restriction of trade and potential libel of the person concerned. The offender has been asked to desist his constant, incorrect edits. But when you are a telelvision personality and you have someone who knows you personally, attack your listing, you have to protect your name and corporate identity. As an international actor, journalist and documentary maker my name is everything to me, so any attempt to discredit it will be dealth with directly, and without hesitation.

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: There is also a legal threat made by the same editor at the article’s deletion discussion, which reads as follows:

This is Jason Ross and I find the above comment offensive in the extreme. I am an international actor and television journalist, currently starring on BBC telelvision in the UK, am on TV in Australia in 3 states, and debuted on TV in the USA in September 2010.

Please desist from your petty attacks or I will take further action. Wikipedia have been very helpful in identifying the identity of the person above and I thank them for their help, the matter is now with my lawyers. Some people never learn until lawyers are involved - again! So sad... God bless..

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the user's name, language, and method of posting, I say it screams vandal, and I doubt this is Ross, or anyone connected to him. Permablock user for legal threats and move on. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done blocked per WP:NLT. --Jayron32 06:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As the likely target of the legal threat (I removed unreferenced info and nominated the article for AfD), can I ask why I wasn't informed about the threat or this incident report? Can I also be assured that "Wikipedia have been very helpful in identifying the identity of the person above" did not happen? Surely my edits were within reason and within policy and any requests by this user should be ignored. The-Pope (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As Sven Manguard said, this is most likely a vandal. So "Wikipedia have been very helpful in identifying the identity of the person above" is nonsense, as Wikipedia doesn't give out personal information of its editors to anyone. Goodvac (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

...except in accordance with relevant policy. I make no representation in this instance (and have no knowledge that would enable me to do so), but this is a high-traffic page, and I think it's important to point out that there is a specific privacy policy that covers this.  Frank  |  talk  09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

user:2nd Alternate user name

2nd Alternate user name (talk · contribs) needs blocking per Alternate user name (talk · contribs). Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

user is back as 216.75.7.68 (talk · contribs). Need a rangeblock perhaps. → ROUX ₪ 08:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

not surprising; one of the custodians will sort this, methinks ; Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done 04:14, 28 October 2010 Zzuuzz (talk | contribs) blocked 216.75.7.68 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Block evasion) -- DQ (t) (e) 12:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melniboné

User:MickMacNee nominated the article for discussion with a slim rationale. I asked him to elaborate and got this response. Thats all really. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember to notify editors when reporting them to ANI. I have now done this for you. --Stickee (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Stickee, had to pop out Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

we let Mick edit here... why? Jack Merridew 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never really had the patience to read through Mick's tl;dr replies I've seen on this page in some other threads.. but this edit is horribly WP:POINT stricken. It stands on it's own its so pointy. I'm with Jack here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a pointy attack at the Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#Melniboné discussion, where I noted the lack of references and that the original editor had picked out the sentence with British Isles in it for deletion. It's a short discussion, you can see the background for Mick's action there anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block's aren't supposed to be punitive, but... argh! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick isn't necessarily the bogeyman he's sometimes thought to be. He comes in for a lot of flak because some folk believe using naughty words is forbidden, which is, frankly, crap. Mick speaks his mind, and frequently calls a spade a spade (actually, he usually calls a spade a "bloody spade", but that's by-the-by...) He's a regular at WP:ITN/C where he usually voices a contrarian viewpoint, which is welcome (well, by me at least). I genuinely believe Wikipedia needs editors who aren't afraid to voice unpopular opinions.

Mick does occasionally stray from the path of WP:SPADE onto tl;dr territory. That's a shame, as I think that beneath the walls of text there may be a valid point - but this isn't an issue for ANI.

What is an issue for ANI is WP:POINT. This report, and the circumstances that led to it, is not the first time Mick's tried to make a point like this. The common feature here is Mick's support for the term "British Isles" (albeit dressed up as apparent disdain for the term). Mick would be better served either taking it to an RFC or, if Mick feels that that won't, for whatever reason, work then dropping it altogether. I'd prefer the former, but really I don't care just so long as this is the last WP:POINT made. TFOWR 12:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:Codf1977

Resolved

 – Harassment appears to be from the other direction, and a 48hr block has been implemented to emphasize this point (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the negative result from the following SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codf1977 I still strongly believe that User:VHarris44 is controlled by User:Codf1977 and that they are merely operating from another PC and location.

Codf1977 claims on their talk page to be retired and uncontactable via their wikipedia account but, the very next day after my difficulties with VHarris44 and the opening of the SPI they have immediately re-emerged and posted a lengthy exposition of their view of my dealings with VHarris44 here: User talk:TFOWR#Rangoon11's filing of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codf1977 and his other actions yesterday.

Leaving aside the fact that it appears highly inappropriate for Codf1977 to post a message of complaint of that nature about me on another user's talk page without informing me, I believe that Codf1977's immediate re-appearance and immediate highly detailed account of their view of VHarris44's behaviour shows that Codf1977 and VHarris44 are one and the same. This may not be provable from IP searches, but in my opinion it is clear from the editing behaviour of Codf1977 prior to 'retirement' and VHarris44 yesterday, and from the fact that VHarris44 was aware of information about my university which had been deleted from my talk page prior to their even opening their account (but which Codf1977 was fully aware of).

Prior to their 'retirement' Codf1977 was almost obsessively trying to attack pages that I had either created or edited e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#UCL Articles created or edited by Rangoon11. I felt very strongly that they were trying to harrass me, although I was not able to convince others of this. In my view this behaviour is now continuing via other means. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping of the first order, you have made allegations that I have harassed you before here at ANI, on your talk page and on Shell Kinney talk page here and on each and every time it came back as no.

Your accusation that I am editing from another computer is groundless and false as I have made clear on the SPI you filed yesterday, the reason for the post to TFOWR was, because I had concerns that you gamed the system, fanning no knowledge of SPI when you yourself had been through the process yourself not three weeks ago. I wanted a second pair of eyes to look over what went on. Codf1977 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon11 is clearly forum-shopping of the highest order. You've pissed off enough people on Wikipedia that there could in fact be many people who would create a new account and follow you around. Blaming one specific user again and again who has been technically declared to not be related is harassment on your own part. The history of your userpage is available to everyone - getting university info might just be easy. You're possibly correct that this new, random userid is harassing you and that you might need to follow up with that, but your accusations that it's a specific user again and again is not going to end well for you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have blocked Rangoon11 for 48hrs for clear harassment. Going to any possible lengths to try to implement a block due to a clearly mistaken belief (considering technical SPI) requires action. Enough is enough, and considering the block log of Rangoon for NLT, it's about time for this action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would comment that I voiced a similar suspicion as to a connection between the VHarris44 account and the suddenly reactivated "retired" account Codf1977 at my talkpage following comments from another admin. I understand that there is history between Rangoon11 and Codf1977, and suggest that that makes R11 more sensitive to the possibilities of sock puppetry - and, of course, the fact that CU is not magic pixie dust. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge the pixie dust. That said, when SPI says no technical way, and there's no other valid method of linking the accounts, continue to say "nevertheless, stop the harassment from person X because I'm just magically sure it's him" is reproachful. It is in itself harassing. Colonel Warden has given him great advice to follow after this 48hr block is up. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no way to "prove" Vharris44 is not me. I will repeat again for what it is worth, that I have only ever edited WP from this account (plus the odd IP edit by accident when not logged in). I freely admit to checking my Talk page every few days or so, The reason for responding this morning was out of anger that despite the fact I had taken the decision (in part as a result of Rangoon11) not to edit WP any more but to go off and do something else for a while, Rangoon11 was appearing to be intent on trying to rubbish my reputation. Since my areas of interest are reasonably narrow any attempt at an alternate account would be spotted a mile off so my reputation here now and in the future (if I ever decided to resume editing) is based on my behaviour and logs. The reason for the post to TFOWR's talk page was after looking at the set of events yesterday I felt that Rangoon11 gamed the system for example here claiming that he was "not sure what to do about it." when he knew about SPI, then waiting for three hours in the hope someone else might open the SPI, before doing it himself. Codf1977 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block threats for disagreement on style

There is a long standing disagreement between editors over the style of the article Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth, in particular over whether the article should be written as a lipogram. I understand that some editors have strong views that such a style is not correct for WP but the talk page history shows that may editors have supported this style. Whilst I fully accept that admins should step in to prevent edit warring and other disruptive behaviours I do not thing that they should take sides in the argument and threaten those who support a lipogram with blocks. Unfortunately Fut.Perf. has recently placed this warning notice on the talk page, banning further discussion of the topic:

"Participants in the discussion should be aware that any argument based on the premise that the "lipogram" quality of the title should be preserved is self-evidently contrary to policy and therefore will be ignored in the closing of this discussion. Editors who persistently push for such arguments contrary to policy may be blocked for disruption " Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem here. Writing the article as a lipogram is both contrary to MOS in general, as well as the concept that we should write accessibly. → ROUX ₪ 12:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This guy has repeatedly been told that this is a settled matter. The article was unreadable and contained many fictions and half-truths generated to avoid using the letter "e." It was pure self-indulgent wankery, with no regard to writing a clear, accessible encyclopedia article. It's just disruption at this point, and edits to degrade the article into a lipogram should appropriately lead to blocks.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A lipogram is not a "style of English". It is an artificial constraint that an author imposes on himself (and on the reader). No such constraints are appropriate on an encyclopaedia which aims to be usable and accessible.

Lipogramatic versions of this article were well-nigh unreadable, and contained inaccuracies. The history of this sorry article contains such ridiculous conceits as removing the 'edit' sections, using 'Anglic-group' to mean 'English language', using "aught-six" to mean the year 1906, and more seriously, changing the names of people - including the author.

There is no more reason or sense in writing this article as a lipogram than there would be in writing the article on Shakespeare as a sonnet, randomising the article on Schrödinger's cat so that it deletes itself 50% of the times it is clicked on, or writing the article on the Mona Lisa in the form of an oil painting. Fut. Perf. is correct that attempts do do so are disruption. pablo 12:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the stance Fut Perf is taking on this. There's been quite enough fooling around already and that one editor continues to use the same ridiculous affected manner at the talk page and at the previous ANI report amounts to trolling, clear and plain. CIreland (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also fully agree with Pablo and Bali, this is a no brainer. Future Perfect is entirely correct. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block for WP:DISRUPT should OP attempt this line of editing ever again across Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a disagreement on style. It's a forceful end to silliness. --Onorem♠Dil 13:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this on AN/I only a few days ago; there is no way on earth that the article itself will ever be written in this style. This has apparently been a long-simmering issue on that article, and IMO it is log overdue for an "enough is enough" stance, hence the appropriate warning now at the top of the talk page. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Or a page notice. Is this not what they are for? I have added one. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie

User:Pumpie is very productive, but his edits are mostly incomprehensible, irrelevant and/or incorrect. He has been warned about this repeatedly, and after he was blocked on 13 October, he promised to improve his edits. Well, they haven't. He doesn't respond to questions about where he got his information from, he doesn't correct his errors and he claims to be fluent in English and Greek, which he obviously isn't. See User talk:Pumpie#English language skills for some examples. The errors I found in his latest creation, Gare de Montreuil-sur-Mer, edit summary "new - properly translated from the fr Wikipedia":

• wrong station name in infobox (Gannes)
• mistranslated French "par", which means "via"
• the station did not open in 1846, probably this was copied from another station article
• swapped entries in s-line template
• the station is not on the line from Paris to Lille, probably this was copied from another station article
• he always writes "the station are" instead of "the station is"
• mistranslated French "commune", which doesn't mean "administrative unit" in this context, but "common"
• broken external link

It's incredible that he can make so many errors in such a small article. I'm getting very tired of cleaning up after him. Obviously his knowledge of English and the languages he chooses to translate from (recently French and Greek) is not sufficient to be of any value. I doubt he checks his edits after he saves them, many errors are obvious to anyone who's remotely familiar with the subject. I think he should be blocked again. Markussep ^Talk 13:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

edit of picture

Resolved

 – Commons issue

I am the creator of File:100 1343.JPG, which was uploaded in 2007 as an illustration of the fake railway tickets used by protestors against a rise in fares in the Bristol area by First Great Western, a private railway company, in that year. I was quite new to using pictures in Wikipedia, and I didn't give it a very helpful name.

A couple of weeks ago it was overwritten with a picture of himself and his work by an artist calling himself Marcorelico. This looks to me like an error on his part rather than deliberate vandalism, since he seems to have repeated the upload a number of times. The original file still exists in the file history, but I cannot a way of restoring it. Nor can I notify Marcorelico of the problem, since his username does not seem to exist (not in the English Wikipedia, anyway).

Can someone please restore the picture file? Deipnosophista (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem on Commons -- you should ask at commons:Commons:Village pump. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)