Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by I.want.to.tellyou (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 3 March 2008 (→New user User:Tom.mevlie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    216.231.41.66 Threatening to Sue Wikipedia over VfD

    Christopher Wunderlee, purportedly through a representative named "Greg Levant," is threatening to sue Wikipedia unless the Christopher Wunderlee article, which is currently on VfD, is kept by the community. This is one of the worst violations of the non-lawsuit guideline we have ever seen. In short, he is threatening to sue merely because his self-promoting article has been proposed for deletion. I think the full force of our guidelines should be applied and he should be banned. Here is the specific threat: [1]. Leesome (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless you have proof you are willing to stand behind in court, you should seriously refrain from accusing someone of "self-promoting". Indeed, I think your making this claim here would normally count as a personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block. But consider yourself warned instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if banning the IP would mean an indef block, it might not be best if it is reassigned. The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel. Based on the article in it's present condition, I'd say the article should be deleted, but I'm avoiding getting directly involved. If the article in question doesn't exist, it can't be libelous. How are all the other supposed legal threats handled? I mean, after all restrictive actions? Who do they contact? Why is Wikipedia never sued, with all these BLP cases. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be aware that your statements are being monitored and action will be taken. well monitor this, block for breaching WP:LEGAL. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note explaining why on the talk page. Obviously the IP cannot be blocked for any longer period of time unless there is some suggestion that it's static, so this will just have to do for now. I've watchlisted the article, the AfD, and the IP talk page, but some other people with magic buttons may wish to do the same. If this becomes a real issue we can courtesy blank the AfD, but obviously not until the discussion is actually closed. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just 'splode it? Every entry has been for delete, the only entry not suggesting has been a legal threat and every entry since has been delete and salt. Snowball, maybe? Or too soon? HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try putting the IP into the address bar of your browser, ie http://216.231.41.66/homepage.htm to find that it is actually the IP address of CollinsWoerman architects. This means that it's fair to assume both that someone has received a legal threat from an architect and that there's a good chance the IP is a static one, therefore blockable. --WebHamster 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel terribly strongly either way about the AfDs, but as this author appears to be somewhat upset and has an itchy lawyer finger, maybe it's best to let them run there course so the delete is as valid as possible. I'm also not up on my technical knowledge in regards to IP addresses, but if others are pretty sure that this IP is static then I'm not opposed to lengthening the block. Natalie (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Good catch! seicer | talk | contribs 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted the AfD debate as a violation of WP:BLP. See section below. As for The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel, you couldn't be more wrong. It doesn't matter where you publish something, it is still published. There is no excuse for gross insults to subjects of articles and such lack of courtesy. I suggest an apology is in order to the subject, or to his agent. The IP was warned 3 hours after posting the legal threat, then 12 minutes later he was blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyrenius is absolutely right. Yes, this poor person should not have made a legal threat. And people should never have engaged in the kind of completely failure of courtesy that led to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's my block, I'll point out that blocking indef is SOP for legal threats until the threat is revoked. To quote from WP:NLT: "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." If the IP revokes the threat of legal action, they will be unblocked. If they continue in this vein, they will continue to be blocked. This is how these matters are nearly always handled, and I can't see any compelling reason to handle this matter any differently. Natalie (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's preferable to let a new user know they are doing something that contravenes policy, before they are sanctioned for doing so. They should be given the opportunity to withdraw. They hadn't done anything during the 3 hours after one post. Tyrenius (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, blocks generally aren't sanctions. They are an attempt to prevent further harm and I believe the theory behind insta-blocking after legal threats is that it prevents the user from pushing the lawsuit point, and creating a further chilling effect. And they have been given the opportunity to withdraw - there is a templated warning on the IP's talk page as well as a personal note from myself, explaining exactly why they were blocked and welcoming them back once they withdraw the threat. Once the threat is withdrawn, or once 48 hours has passed, they will be free to edit once again. Natalie (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not complaining about Natalie's block at all, although if forced to choose, I would support the idea of letting the warning stand in a case like this to allow the person to withdraw the threat. But a better response would have been a mass blocking on all the people who insulted the guy in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "VfD"? This guy must be an old user socking. John Reaves 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Loony: a novella of epic proportions

    I've just deleted this as a violation of WP:BLP with its liberal accusations of vanity. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands states unambiguously:

    "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions."

    This has been there since October 2006.[2], after discussion at WT:AFD and WT:BLP.[3] Likewise since 2006, the shortcut WP:VANITY has had a warning:

    Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles.

    There are pertinent posts about this also (under maintenance at the moment).[4], [5], [6], [7]. Neither vanity nor self-promotion are in themselves valid delete reasons anyway, so there is no need to mention them. This applies to the above section also. Tyrenius (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a major difference between "should be avoided in deletion discussions" and "is cause for immediate deletion of an AfD page that makes use of the term". I've restored the page pending consensus for doing otherwise here; maybe the word vanity should be removed from the page, but your action was heavy-handed to the point of ludicrousness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanity press seems like an acceptable term for me, but then again, I haven't tried to promote a vanity press-published book. I'm sure everyone can just avoid the specific word "vanity", if that's the problem, and the AfD can continue as normal. Natalie (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think actually deleting the discussion was more than a bit overboard, especially considering it was two discussions deleted, and not one. If there is libel, you can delete the particular revision in question and leave a note. Deleting the entire page of an ongoing discussion without restoring any part of it is outlandish. Avruch T 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed AfD deleted per WP:BLP:

    Courtesy blanking of deletion discussions

    If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion (AfD) debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.
    "...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[9][reply]
    After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.
    End of material quoted from WP:BLP. Tyrenius (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I think a courtesy-blanking would be more than sufficient in this case, and would ask you to stop making contentious deletions unilaterally. As "inappropriate commentary" goes, suggesting "vanity" is very mild. In the interests of avoiding wheel-warring, I won't restore the pages unless there's a consensus to do so, but I think your actions are getting a little tiresome here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides which, you appear not to have deleted the discussions at all. Please don't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanity as in vanity press is apparently a provable fact here. Just to muddy the waters :-) Feel free to courtesy blank the debates after closure, that is entirely acceptable in these case. {{courtesy blanking}} does the job, but probably no need to actually delete. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Guy, but if we have not received such a request and have no obvious reason to expect one, the default would be to leave it well enough alone. — CharlotteWebb 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "No obvious reason to expect one"? Just above, there is a legal threat. The default is WP:BLP and the onus on wikipedia editors to act pre-emptively:

    Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.(emphasis in original)
    Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends.

    Vanity accusations are clearly contentious and were made as pure editorial opinion.

    Tyrenius (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've courtesy-blanked the pages, as there seems to be something approximating a consensus in favour of doing so. All history is still available to anyone who cares to look, so I don't think it does any harm, and I agree with the substance of Tyrenius's interpretation of WP:BLP (although obviously not with the severity of the conclusions he's drawn from this interpretation). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that is the main reason the server is configured not to allow Google to index AFD pages (despite how difficult it can become for as editors to find a specific AFD at a later date), not that the overall behavior of Google should matter much to us anyway. If we actually do believe the user plans to sue (and is not simply trying to troll us), I would suggest consulting Brad Patrick Mike Godwin before tampering with any of the "evidence". — CharlotteWebb 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend that (not instantly, not overnight, not in a way as to shock people) policy be firmed up to make it clear that a deletion reason of "vanity" is a personal attack on the subject of an article, and not just "not recommended" but a blockable offense under WP:NPA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wales has also stated here that to use the phrase "self-promotion" is a "personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block", and in that same diff called for a "mass blocking" of everyone who "insulted" a particular person by using that and similar terms. These statements of Jimmy's are problematic and over the top. For one thing, WP:NPA does not and was not meant to cover "attacks" against subjects of articles. WP:BLP is better for that sort of concern, and it focuses—and rightly so—on keeping attacks out of articles, rather than on punishing offenders. Second, the text of WP:NPA itself wisely counsels that blocks are not the best remedy against personal attacks except in cases of high disruption.
    The reality is, experienced Wikipedians, including many admins, use terms like "vanity" and "self-promotion" all the time. Does Jimmy really think that each time someone has used it, they deserved to be blocked? Should, for example, Freakofnurture and JzG be (or have been) blocked for popularizing the word "vanispamcruftisement"?
    I submit that if use of phrases like "vanity" and "self-promotion" are causing legal problems for Wikimedia, then a separate policy page ought to be erected stating such. To proclaim that use of such terms merits blocking under NPA is not the way to go. Mike R (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the need to move away from "vanity" as a term of art in discussion. It has an inherent, unavoidable negative connotation and has caused Foundation issues in the past. On the other hand, there are some logistical problems with making a term blockable; would we similarly mandate that vanity press publishers (term in use since the 1950s) be referred to as print on demand or otherwise euphemistically? But more to the point, I am not at all comfortable with the idea that "self-promotion" is an equally damning descriptor. A CSD G11 article on, say, Bob's House of Stuff created by User:BobsHouseofStuff is, with NPOV in mind, a type of promotion and from the source itself. In particular, it is an example of below the line marketing (and wow, that's an article in need of work!). "Self-promotion" has been used in places as a pejorative, but is equally common with a positive connotation (there are many books available on Amazon touting self-promotion strategies for small businesses). Is declaring the hypothetical article above as self-promotion thus any more pejorative or biased than suggesting it meets the requirements of CSD G11, which specifies "blatant" advertising? Obviously it--like most anything else--can be made into a personal attack or otherwise cross the line, but, ceteris paribus, I am not certain that it does. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally in agreement - some cases are self-promotion and I don't see why we should have to lawyer around the point to make it. The end result will be completely incomprehensible AfD nominations and an entire encyclopaedia held to ransom. Orderinchaos 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oy. We deep-six "vanity" & we're back to arguing over "notability" when all we want to do is get rid of articles about teenagers created by friends/would-be lovers, & business ventures with no chance of success or advertising budgets. Let's see an explanation how "vanity" is a bad thing before we consider this suggestion, if at all. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    G11 is not about "self promotion". It is about "promotion" regardless of who is doing it (could be a fan, for example), so that is not relevant to this discussion. "Vanity" and "self promotion" are both used in this context as disparaging terms and are therefore unacceptable, whether per WP:BLP or WP:NPA. They are furthermore needless and irrelevant in AfD debates as neither is a reason to delete. Arguments should be addressed to the worth of article content per WP:N and WP:V. Derogatory comments about living people are not only against the ethos of wikipedia, but are also likely to result in complaints to the Foundation,[10], [11] and should not be used, including for example "scam artist"[12] and vanispamcruftisement. This needs to be firmed up in guidelines and policy. When it occurs it should be removed with a strong warning to the editor who made it. Reinsertion would merit a block. However, at the moment I see such offences are unintentional, and most users would co-operate, once they were made aware that it is not acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your hypersensitivity aside, "self-promotion" is a perfectly accurate description and "vanity press" a perfectly valid consideration and term. "Vanity"? Eh, so what. I'm not seeing the value of your attempts to ban perfectly valid, descriptive, and useful terms merely because you don't like how they sound. I, for one, will continue to use such terms where appropriate, and I think you'll find little support for disciplining editors who insist on precision over knee-jerk hypersensitivity. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that some people, including Jimbo, are being way too sensitive here. Calling something vanity being blockable? What? It's No Personal Attacks, not Might Be A Personal Attack If You Are Easily Offended And/Or Suffer From Blood Loss To The Brain. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ned, I think that statement is closer to being a Personal Attack than nominating an article for deletion as "vanity". :) -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia itself is the world's biggest and best-known example of vanity publishing, so to see wikipedia editors using the phrase "vanity publication" as a way to atttack someone is like the pot calling the kettle black. Meowy 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Accurate or not, calling something vanity or self-promotion is just an expression of an opinion, not a claim of fact particularly. In the US it would be covered by freedom of speech, in the UK it's not libel if the person writing it believes it's true, as far as I know, only if they're knowingly spreading a lie. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Same situation in Australia. Orderinchaos 04:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "self-promoting" is an ad hom? No, it is ad rem -- that is, it speaks to the matter, not to the person. No court would find one one guilty of either libel or slander for writing or speaking the term. What is the Foundation's lawyer take on this? That is an opinion that should matter the most. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA User: Anthon01 and similar accounts on homeopathy and WP:FRINGE alternative medicine articles

    A long standing discussion on the homeopathy talk page about the meaning of WP:NPOV has now spilled over to the talk page of Neutral Point of View itself: [13], for example. I went there to try to explain further NPOV as requested: [14], as best as I understand it. However, part of the difficulty is that these SPAs (or near-SPAs): User:Anthon01, User:Whig and User: Levine2112 have become adept at gaming the system and wikilawyering and charging that any disagreement with them is violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, so techniques that could have been used in the past, like disagreement and confrontation, are no longer useful and in fact quite dangerous. So after realizing that I could not explain NPOV to them (after trying for 6 months or more and dozens if not hundreds of times), I gave up and told them I would not further oppose them or disagree with them (given the current environment on Wikipedia where disagreement over such issues with WP:FRINGE elements is discouraged): [15][16] I repeatedly invited them to suggest new wording for NPOV or the homeopathy related documents as they saw fit: [17].

    I did this since disagreeing with these SPAs is used as an excuse by these SPAs to charge an editor with violations of all kinds of WP policy. However, even when I said I would no longer disagree, I was still charged with violations of WP policy. User: Anthon01 and the related SPAs involved have now accused me of violating WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: [18][19]. It would be helpful if someone would offer some advice, since we are no longer allowed to disagree, even politely, with POV pushers and WP:FRINGE elements. And now even declining to continue to disagree is viewed as a violation of WP policy by these SPAs. So what are we supposed to do?--Filll (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also include User:DanaUllman as another of the SPAs, although this is highly dangerous to suggest since he is under administrative protection from any and all charges of misbehavior, although he has engaged in some outrageously disruptive behavior on these articles over and over and over.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I might also include User: Arion 3x3 and User: Area69 and several others. It is highly likely that we are entertaining a few sockpuppets and meat puppets on the page, as User: JzG has previously suggested.-Filll (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your frustration with civility seeming to be valued over NPOV contributions - and I admit that I don't have the solution to that - but I have to say that you're not really telling the whole story, here. Your repeated response of "Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks." could probably be seen as stonewalling. Aside from that, I don't see any problems with your activity on the talk page. I do think some of your comments are a little melodramatic, though; are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement?


    As a more general warning to the community, I have to say that we need to somehow make sure that WP:NPOV is being valued on as high a level as WP:CIVIL, because the actions of the editors to whom Filll refers above and others like them - all of whom I believe are acting in good faith - are presenting a very real threat to the quality of Wikipedia's articles on pseudoscience. I think we need to take notice of that before too many more contributors are driven off. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I repeated myself by cutting and pasting because it became too tedious to rephrase the answer after answering the 500th time in slightly different wording. With all due respect, what I take from your response is that we should abandon NPOV. Ok, fair enough. I should expect to see the policy pages rewritten accordingly then?--Filll (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What you should take from my response is that I am in wholehearted agreement with you that we need to make it harder for SPAs to attack NPOV in a good faith manner, but that I'm frankly bereft of useful proposals in this regard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why you feel you have to say 10 or more times this is dangerous? I don't see any reason why you have to repeat what you have said more than once or twice? Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation is, an SPA like User:Anthon01 is allowed to ask the same question 500 times over 6 months and keep asking if he does not like the answer and venue shop until the cows come home, but he now charges someone who gives him the same answer more than once with uncivility. Does anyone notice this? He is allowed to of course since he is an SPA with few edits and a newbie and a FRINGE promoter so of course we have to be fair blah blah blah. Ok so be it... We are creating a hellish environment because we have to cater to SPAs like Anthon01 at the cost of reducing productivity. DanaUllman also has spammed the page with the same material hundreds of times over and over and over, ignoring the discussion before and rebuttals of his arguments and then spamming again and again and again with the same material since we have to be fair to the FRINGE and avoid WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Filll (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't ask the same question 500 times. I'm sorry but you are grossly misrepresenting what has gone on here. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement? The slightest disagreement or hint of problem is used as an excuse from these SPAs and POV pushers to charge someone with a violation. Some days ago, even calling someone a "homepathy promoter" was used as an excuse to demand administrative sanctions against some editors (more than once) and this received considerable support including from admimistrators. It was only though extraordinary means that this complaint was thwarted otherwise there would have been administrative sanctions for using the foul uncivil curse of "homeopathy promoter". And since then, things have escalated where even milder affronts have lead to charges of uncivility and violations of WP:AGF. What is happening is that in the frantic efforts of the community to remove all disagreement and incivility, you are handing an immense set of weapons to POV pushers and socks and SPAs and trolls. So be it. You want this, you got it.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But no actual sanctions were handed out, correct? This is why I find your assertions that answering people's questions is "dangerous" a little hollow: nobody's been sanctioned for civil disagreement.
    That aside, though, I agree with you that we need to find a way to enforce WP:NPOV as diligently as we enforce WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, enforcement is done by uninvolved admins, and, while it's really easy for an uninvolved admin to swoop in and recognize civility violations, it's much more difficult for one to recognize POV-pushing, especially good faith POV-pushing as is going on there.
    I hung around Talk:Homeopathy for a while some time ago, in the hopes of finding a core of moderates on both sides who could work out content disputes while isolating the extremists on each side. I found several such moderates on the science side. I found none on the pseudoscience side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One problem is that uninvolved admins are not a renewable resource. Consider this: If I notice an edit conflict, I will read the arguments and form an opinion. I can then either hand out blocks out of the blue sky, or I explain my opinion and warn the parties - ups...now I'm suddenly an involved party. In many of these discussions, especially on the science/pseudoscience border, most educated and sane neutral observers will choose a side and stop being uninvolved. For an excellent example, see talk: Waterboarding, where one editor has complained (paraphrased) that "all admins who come to this page support one side! We need a neutral admin to handle the issue!"--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am acutely aware of that problem, and indeed it's more or less why I'm not handing out any article bans. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh I see what you mean. Yes User: Whig has been sanctioned more than once. User: Anthon01 as well I believe. User: DanaUllman has as well. Some others have as well. Some others are listed here. --Filll (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These spurious accusations of incivility are a serious problem. Anthon01 has hit me with these several times. When called to account he apologizes[20] but the sincerity of his apology is undermined by the fact that he keeps on doing it.

    This behavior is damaging in several ways. It inhibits debate because (as Filll says) one never knows when honest and civil disagreement will bring a charge of incivility. Even if there ultimately is no sanction, it's draining to have to respond to the accusations. But far more importantly it undermines respect for WP:CIV as a policy when people see it being used speciously as a way to hound others. Editors have learned that flinging meritless accusations of WP:CIV wears down their opponent and carries no cost to themselves. We need to stop that.

    Again, this is not about civil behavior, which I fully support. It's about gaming WP:CIV through a constant drip-drip-drip of empty accusations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am gaming WP:CIV? I believe this happen twice between us and I apologized soon after without any reservation. I even invited you back to the discussion. IMO, I don't think two mistakes make the case that you are trying to make. Anthon01 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are only the two examples where I was the target. There are lots of other examples involving other editors. I'll leave it to those involved to supply diffs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not receive any mention on my talk page that I am being discussed. I will make comments later. Anthon01 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, this is not about you personally but asking for general advice for how to handle a group of which you are just one member allegedly. Of course, clearly I am at fault. And perhaps my account should be deleted and I should be permanently banned from Wikipedia? I will volunteer to leave immediately since I have offended so many and violated so many rules by suggesting we follow WP:NPOV which of course is a deprecated policy and I was stupid to think we should follow it.--Filll (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made it personal by placing my name at the top and mischaracterizing some of my statements. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this another ad-hoc invented rule that we now have to follow? "No using people's names in subheadings on discussion pages?" I have never heard of such a rule. Does this apply to all the spurious civility complaints you and your compatriots have opened against me? Can I complain about how you "made it personal" when you placed several baseless "civility warnings" on my page? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Filll insist that his POV on NPOV and minority subjects is the right POV. I went to NPOV to get feedback from univolved editors. The key term here is interpretation. Does anyone here believe that there is only one interpretation of NPOV and minority subjects? Anthon01 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His interpretation includes, that the article could be 98% criticism! Would anyone like to vouch for that? Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Filll. What did you mean here[21] and here.[22] I think you should respond. You accused me of quite a bit here (without notice), and now are afraid to respond to my defense? Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Raymond suggested you back off a little. You responded Nothing succeeds like excess.[23] What did you mean by that? And why did you delete that suggestion and statement from your talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a prime example of what we've been talking about. I suggested that Filll tone it down a bit; he responded with a good-humored remark that maybe he was being excessive. And now Anthon01 wants to take him to task for it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no assumptions. I asked him what he meant? You took it as a joke which is fine. I don't know that it was. He quickly deleted your suggestion and his response that you call a joke. Another editor considered his involvement on the NPOV page in this issue to be melodramatic and possible stonewalling. Anthon01 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem here is one big pile of unrelated users with similar POVs on the subject of homeopathy in particular and alt med in general: Whig (talk · contribs), Anthon01 (talk · contribs), Peter morrell (talk · contribs), DanaUllman (talk · contribs), and so on. Going further afield, we find more users with eccentric beliefs as far as science is concerned, such as Martinphi (talk · contribs).

    I would suggest that the first batch of these are classic tendentious editors. I haven't looked at Martinphi's contributions recently, so no comment there. Singly, these chaps aren't too hard to cope with: their incessant POV-pushing is relatively harmless, as you can see by the result of Dana Ullman's brief attempts to insert homeopathy into Beethoven; as a group there is more of a problem. I actually don't have an easy solution here. Whig and Peter morrell should have been banned long ago, or at least topic-banned, but the truth is Wikipedia has no easy way of coping with the user who pushes one POV all the time in a civil manner. Moreschi (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, so as a starter why not topic ban them both? Can we get a community consensus for that? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic ban who and for what? Anthon01 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no cause for topic banning me whatsoever. —Whig (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would favor at least temporary community topic ban for both of these SPAs and maybe a couple of others. It would calm things down tremendously and allow several articles to be returned to productive editing after they have been mired in a slow decline for months on end. I have received even a private communication from a pro-homeopathy editor who is so disgusted with the antics of these SPAs that he wrote me "I don't think I will be doing any more edits to the homeopathy...there is very little wrong with it but folks just keep pounding away at minutiae...not happy with the direction it is heading in and have better things to do with my time <expletive deleted> it...its just a big waste of time and who cares wikipedia is not respected anyway..." (with permission). Now when not just the pro-science editors but the pro-homeopathy editors are losing heart, you know we have a problem.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And what of your stonewalling and melodrama? Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree - not that I pretend to be an uninvolved admin (I'm about 90% uninvolved, but I realize that that's not sufficient). There are quite a few topic bans I'd like to hand out, and neither side would have a monopoly on them. But there are a few anti-homeopathy editors who aren't being totally intransigent; if things haven't changed since I was there (I've only taken a cursory look at most of the more recent stuff), the same can't be said of the pro-homeopathy types. No, wait, I think User:Smith Jones was interested in achieving a reasonable consensus, if memory serves. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How does any of this have to do with a cause that I should be topic banned? Do you have a specific complaint with respect to my edits and will you provide diffs? —Whig (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs if considering a topic ban. Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a similar problem with Wndl42, who apparently believes that disagreeing with him is automatically a violation of WP:CIVIL. Kww (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the consequence of deciding that WP:CIVIL is more important than any other policy on WP. As you sow, so you shall reap.--Filll (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Moreschi and JoshuaZ, if you want to topic ban them, my understanding is that you don't require any further community consensus, because the articles are under probation, and the editors in question have been notified. You probably would have to add your names to the list of admins here though. Addhoc (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic banned for what? Anthon01 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm a friend of Anthon's and he mentioned this at my Talk. I totally disagree with him about the content issues (particularly, a central precept of homeopathy, dilution to zero percent, is definitely bad science. It's simplistic, however, to dismiss all homeopathy as currently practiced as mere fraud). However, it's important to me that we dispute ethically, even when we are in the right, and my experience (unsucessfully attempting to mediate some of the dispute at some of the contentious pages, e.g. Quackwatch) has been that the "pro-science" camp, perhaps out of frustration from experience longer than mine, is often distinctly uncivil. That is, I answer the above complaint "[t]his is a consequence of deciding that WPCIVIL is more important than [...Undue Weight]": CIVIL would not be such a problem if the pro-science camp could be more civil. For example, right here: "Sorry, I guess you do not understand that you have won and are therefore correct in all respects and are free to change NPOV policy as you would like and any articles as you see fit.--Filll (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)" (from the NPOV talk). I don't mind sarcasm, myself, but these reactions don't propel consensus. I don't doubt that Anthon has been pig-headed about some things, but his obstinacy is overwhelmed by the relentless incivility (such as calling him an SPA, which is worse than simplistic). Anthon may lean to PoV pushing, but the "pro-science" group pushes back quite hard, and relentlessly. To which I can attest, because they regard my attempts to seek consensus (unwelcome by either side, mostly) as hostile. Both sides stubbornly resist me, but to my great annoyance, the pro-science side is frequently uncivil. There is definitely more heat than light in this. Pete St.John (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I was not being sarcastic. When I have explained NPOV repeatedly and my explanations are rejected, I have very little choice except to escalate, which is uncivil, or to give up. Rather than take the uncivil choice, I gave up. What is wrong with surrendering?--Filll (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You said Although the "in proportion" phrase gives us the right to make it 98% or more critical of homeopathy, I think that makes for a less useful article. You think because I don't agree with you farout interpretation of NPOV that I should be banned? What is going on here? Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I agree wholeheartedly with most of the above. I definitely favour continuing to take action against uncivil editors and, frankly, those seem to be more commonly found on the pro-science side than on the pro-homeopathy side. I don't think most of the pro-science editors even object to enforcement of WP:CIVIL. The concern is that people are being banned for incivility, while the friendly, good faith POV pushers (who are also found on both sides) get mostly a free ride. We're doing a good job of enforcing one Wikipedia policy, but a piss-poor job of enforcing the other. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for that is extremely simple. 99% of people who care about pseudoscience, are True Believers. Which usually leaves the defenders of NPOV in the unenviable position of explaining policy to a never-ending succession of new (and often "new") users; couple with that the fact that the most determined proponents of [pseudoscience have learned to game the system by never-ending querulousness and you have a recipe for meltdown, eading to situations like the present hoeopathy problem where the article is repeatedly hijacked by people who apparently believe that concentrations of less than one molecule per bottle of a product somehow have an effect, an extraordinary claim if ever one were made. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy is completely correct. That is the reason we have a mess. And recently I have had people lecturing me about how 20% constitutes a majority, and something practiced by 2% of the people does not constitute a FRINGE practice etc. Oh well. We cannot do a thing about it because it would be unfair to tell someone that 20% does not constitute a majority..--Filll (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not accurate. —Whig (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider that this AN/I was sparked by a discussion yesterday on the NPOV page regarding the interpretation of NPOV in minority topics. Anthon01 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A root part of the problem here is WP:COI, so maybe this should be taken up at the WP:COI noticeboard, Several of these editors are identified as professional homeopaths and are viewing this as an opportunity to promote their profession and whitewash any mainstream views or negative views of their profession. Now Peter Morrell is a world famous homeopath but is quite able to accommodate the rules such as NPOV and RS of WP. Others are less able to, and so their WP:COIs start to interfere with their editing of these articles.--Filll (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion at WT:NPOV was posed by Anthon01 "in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group", and quickly seemed to turn into a pile-on by pro homeopathy editors, accusing others of being anti-homeopathy and discussing Filll's reaction rather than focussing on the topic. It does look like forum shopping, trying to get outside support for disproportionately small representation of the mainstream medical view on the homeopathy article. There does seem to be an idea that NPOV can be treated in isolation, where as I see it the answer is in an integrated view of the relevant policies and guidance. If that can be clarified in principle it might help, but that requires restarting the NPOV discussion and avoiding getting into excess detail like the claimed percentage of Indians using homeopathy. Either way, the issue is going to have to be sorted out on the talk pages of the relevant articles, and that's a wearying process as has been said above. .. dave souza, talk 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a RS/N that helps editors flesh out RS. Like RS/N, my reason for asking the question at WT:NPOV was to get a more informed opinion besides the 60/40 formula proposed by some editors, including Filll. The use of word counts and percentages to reflect NPOV, although workable as a framework upon which development can proceed, seem too simplistic a method and may not effectively reflect NPOV, WP:STYLE, WP:LEAD and other guides and policies. Consider that in some cases one sentence can balance 10 others. I perhaps mistakenly expected expert feedback by editors not involved in homeopathy pages on the WT:NPOV talk page. On the Homeopathy talk page, Filll, has recently, on several occasions claimed to be an authority on NPOV. He would like me to accept his explanation of NPOV. Unfortunately, with the caveat that I might be misinterpreting his statements, he has made statements in the past that make me question his neutrality. Anthon01 (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All suggestions made in response to questions from Anthon01 and other prohomeopathy editors, most of whom are SPAs, about what NPOV policy means, were summarily rejected by the pro-homeopathy editors. The pro-homeopathy editors seem to be sure they know better than experienced mainstream editors what NPOV means, what FRINGE means, what UNDUE means and so on. So I guess the question is now in their court; they have to tell us what NPOV means according to them, or at least propose some meaning of NPOV, because after 6 months of trying to explain, I and most of my fellow editors are basically repeating ourselves over and over, and all of our suggestions are being dismissed, often with extreme prejudice. So, I challenge any and all pro-homeopathy editors, why not write a document describing what you believe NPOV is, or what the policy means, that you feel would meet your needs, beliefs and biases, and present it? It is easy to just say no no no to everyone else, but why not present your own ideas and defend them? The ball is in your court.--Filll (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from the above, I think there is another big problem in Talk:Homeopathy. It would not be appropriate to insert it here, but I will mention here that I have created a page on the issue HERE.
    Feedback there would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And so it goes round in circles, descending in a tight spiral into cloacae overflowing with the fecal detritus of the benighted. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Could this be because NPOV is a science and IGNORE is an art? And editing Wikipedia as much as sientific must also be an art. Art and science contradict each other same like NPOV and IGNORE do. It is human nature and it creats friction. So pseudo-science supporters need to convince science supporters that the psuedo-science is science and science supporters need to defend science. Same like Galileo had to convience the reluctant Church that the earth is round not flat. If both sides understand what this is about and not go on Witch hunts and persicution of the other side for upholding their believes we will come to harmony not distruction. So question each other believes and motives but learn to step back and give each other room to grow in knowledge. Igor Berger (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David Fuchs

    I've spent the last 24 hours trying to decide if I should really blackbox it and leave the project. I wrote this to be a summarry, but maybe someone else would like to examine it.

    Having spent two months revamping the hulk article, and getting it up to Good Article status, to have another editor blank repeatedly what I and others had worked hard on, was frustrating. To be the third editor to revert his edits, and the first to invite him to use the talk page, I was shocked by his response, which attacked me for violating WP:OWN, and having failed the GA. The refusal of an admin to use the talk pages, and to continue to attack me is bad. That he's been dismissive of consensus is worse. When I offered a simple starting place for consensus, his reply was plain. I was no longer welcome on the article. As such, I delisted the article, and will be moving on. I am not sure where I went wrong, that after two others reverted him without comment, it was I who was attacked. I do care about the article, and given how much I put into it, I feel justified in watching over it. But it has been edited by others since (4K in added material), and I've been open to other improvements. I do feel that having hit GA, I was also justified in making sure newer edits added value, not just bytes and hype, to the article. To have all my work repudiated is bad enough, but to have it all come under a pile of attacks is enough for me to leave the project. When admins model that sort of behavior, it's not hard to understand why so many people leave.

    Am I right that his actions were poor, if not outright wrong? ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing, at first glance. I need to look closer into this. Oh, and FWIW don't leave, we can't do without good editors like you. Black Kite 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i agree. this other guy is acting like a rela prick but its important to assume good faith and continue to try to colelaborate with him. i have seen many instances of users who seem kind of unhelpful when they first join but grow to become incredible editors who later even become admins or even presidents. his behavior indicates that he is at least interested in editing the article Hulk so i would recomend that you back off him for a bit and wait here for an administrator to interveine. sometimes engaging someone can be helpful but toehr times disengaging and letting the soul struggle work itself out for the fate of your wikipedia editing careres to be a far more rsafer alternatronive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David is an administrator, not a new user. Your comment "Acting like a rela prick" is a personal attack, and you should be warned that violating that policy on this page often leads to a block. Please - try to make your comments here constructive, and use "Preview" before you save in order to correct the other errors that have pointed out to you many, many times. Avruch T 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also point out Thuran that you didn't need to strip the article of GA status just because I voiced the concern it may not have met the requirements. That's what WP:GAR is for, and I'd rather improve the article rather than going through that process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ThuranX, I do hope you will stay with the project. Thank you for developing a great article. Staying calm and keeping your own behaviour top-notch will produce the best chance of getting calm, reasonable behaviour from other editors, in my opinion. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Staying calm and keeping my own behaviour top-notch" didn't get me anything but hostile responses and accusations of policy violations. I was polite, invited him to use talk instead of just reverting. Three editors say no to the changes he makes, one says 'come talk to us' and he yells at that one. I really wish I'd started a revert war. It would've been simpler.
    As for David Fuchs, he was absolutely clear, not that he had "the concern it may not have met the requirements", he stated that it should never have passed. So I delisted it. When an article no longer meets the standard, it is stripped of the status ,and returned to a lower status. David Fuchs made it clear on the talk page that he does not need consensus to do anything on Wikipedia, and so I am simply enabling his no doubt incredible rewrite, making sure that everything is smooth for him. I am troubled though, that having promised a great rewrite, he dropped all efforts on the page once I left it.ThuranX (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can some other respected editors please stop by the Talk page in question and weigh in on recent activities and actions? Things are getting quite...silly. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And now ThuranX has begun editing the article to remove his earlier contributions, an obvious violation of WP:POINT and WP:OWN. Please, someone else try talking with this valued editor before he completely ruins his reputation and the article(s) he has edited. I have personally run out of patience with him or her and I am now withdrawing myself from this issue. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin gamed 3RR, ignored CONSENSUS, and was incivil the whole while. He stated that consensus is not applicable if he thinks an article needs fixing, thus using Administrative Fiat to establish, by his word alone, a new CONSENSUS. I brought it to AN/I, where no one found his actions to be any problem. Now I'm in trouble for working with the new consensus. I can't win either way. If I argue with him, I'm making a bad article worse, if I undo all my mistakes, I'm a vandal and a disruptor. I'm totally confused, because WIkipedia LIKES how David Fuchs edits, and now I'm doing what he does. he said the article failed its' Good Article Review, so I reset the rating to Fail, and B rating article, removed it fr omteh GA listings, and closed an unneeded GAR. How can this be wrong? David Fuchs says it's right. And consensus here at AN/I is that David Fuchs does no wrong, per Avruch, who points out that as an admin, not new user, David FUchs kenw what he was doing. Note that Avruch finds no fault in the actions, and no one has countered Avruch, thus establishing that consensus is for all of David Fuchs actions. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being childish, Thuran, and disruptive. I never stated that since I was an admin it failed GA; I said it probably would fail if it was taken to WP:GAR. No you are acting petulant and being as incivil as I evidently was. I am not trying to create any sort of fiat; I shouldn't have reverted repeatedly, but your accusations of a cabal are lunacy. I am attempting to cut down the long character history masquerading as publication and characterization, and you complain I'm adding more in. I will not respond to this any more, since you've gone off the deep end. I've said I'm sorry, I offered to be more cooperative, and you've spat at me and everyone who has told you to calm down. If you're so upset, leave. But this tirade has gone on long enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bald faced lie. YOu've never once apologized, you've never offered to cooperate with me. YOu jsut keep saying you know what's best for Wikipedia, and that I wrote a shitty article alone and have OWN problems. I worked with many others. I asked for input throughout, then ran it through three reviews by regular editors of the Hulk page, while it was on my sandbox. After I posted it, I watched it but was careful to avoid OWN, and it grew by 4K. I've thought about ways to continue to improve the article, and had intended to begin examining ways to incorporate the Powers article, and incorporate the work of Grest & Weinberg regarding Hulk's powers. Instead, all you have done is insult anyone who worked on it. I worked to cite all I could in the publication and Characterization sections, ensuring that the rampant In-Universe style of Plot narration was dropped, because it's simple not encyclopedic. I added sources left right and center. Your first edit was to blank all of that. No explanations except "i'll come back and fix this shitty article when I want to".
    Three editors demonstrated there was consensus against you, and you ran right up to 3RR on it, rather than talk. When I reverted you the third time, and invited you to talk, you insulted me. I ignored that and tried patiently to explain WHY things were the way they were and WHY consensus was FOR the state of the page. You insulted me again, and again, and again. Every time I tried, your actions got worse. You instituted a new consensus that the article sucks alone, refuting all existing consensus. but luckily for you, Avruch supports you, and NetKiinetic showed up out of the blue to champion you. I've never asserted there's a cabal going on, but you did have two editors defend you without clearly looking at the situation. That's not a cabal, it's just Wikipedia.
    As for the fail, you stated that the article "really doesn't pass GA standards." That's a FAIL. there's no two ways to interpret that. You said it does not meet the standards. THus, it should never have been given a pass. I have worked hard to rectify this obvious bureaucratic blunder.
    In short, you have shown quite clearly that Administrators do not need to hew to the same rules as editors. I'm simply falling in line behind the new power structure. Really, what's the problem? ThuranX (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had very good experiences with ThuranX in the past, and I'm sorry to see this issue causing him such upset. ElKevbo, I suggest that when someone is clearly upset and frustrated because their article work hasn't been appreciated, calling it silly won't help calm the situation. I don't know what to do to help, I wish I did, but I'm sorry to see this happening. I hope others will stay calm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Labeling this as silly is being quite generous and nice. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. I thought my only comment in this thread was directed at Smith Jones, but apparently I'm mistaken... Avruch T 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since my opinion is being bandied about anyway, here it is: this and the adjacent edit from ThuranX are completely inappropriate and could justify a block, certainly a warning. David's conduct was not the type of editing style I expect to see from admins, but it does appear from the above comments that he recognizes this. On the other hand, bad behavior doesn't excuse bad behavior. I suggest, ThuranX, that you take a step back from this article and get some perspective. Work on something else, take a quick Wikibreak, and come back hopefully willing and able to move beyond this episode. Avruch T 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was asked to read this, I can see that per this, and Emperor's comments at the Hulk page, it's all MY fault. I"m beyond frustrated with this, I'm just sick. All these people who talk about how good an editor I am, and my 'reputation' are clearly mistaken. My editing fails a GA it passed, because David Fuchs said so, and was so bad he overrode consensus to do it his way. He IGNORED CONSENSUS. No one's said anythign about that. He's STILL ignoring consensus, making edits to the page. SO my editing can't be good at all.
    As for my reputation, I don't know who any of these people claiming to know my reputation are; and cannot recall working with any on any article or talk page, so I can only conclude that either they're thinking about someone else, or my name comes up in off wiki places without my knowledge. As far as I've ever seen, my reputation is that I'm one of the pro-vandalism cabal who hate MONGO and who never edit, just lay in wait to pounce on him, and I got away with it once. That's the rep I know I have here. So... to those discussing me elsewhere, either link me so I can see what's being said behind my back, or stop talking and figure out who you're really thinking of.
    I can't be clear enough in my frustrations. David Fuchs broke three major rules, and at best it's been said "not the type of editing style I expect to see from admins" and "Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing". No one has seen anything wrong with his actions. No one has said 'David Fuchs broke rules in ways that get most editors warned or blocked. That he's an admin and knows better makes this worse in my eyes; Admins are supposed to model the best behavior. When three different people revert you, use the talk. When you're invited to use the talk, be civil. He wasn't civil. I ignored it and he was incivil again. And again. I'm tired of writing up the summary, because the events are clear. Only when it was clear that post facto he had 'consensus by absence of objection' did I change and fall in line. I acted in the best spirit of Wikipedia to clean up the things he said were wrong, like a false rating. And I got in MORE trouble for that, with people accusing me of point violations and disruption. And I still don't get it. If people get away with doing wrong, what other choice do I have? Keep fighting him? He was given a pass on his actions here. If I had kept fighting him, I would've been blocked. Instead, I'm in trouble for accepting that I lost and doing the right thing by making the new consensus an actual consensus. And still editors say 'go use the talk page and build a consensus'. But HOW???? David Fuchs said on the talk page that trying to build consensus gets in the way of him fixing the article. How much clearer can it be that the ONLY choice is to accept and abide, because fighting him hurts Wikipedia. No one has addressed this. I've heard lots of 'Cool off' comments, but not one 'David Fuchs fucked up' comment. Why is that? I really am thoroughly confused at this point, and I'm also insulted by the lies that I ignored his apologies. He never apologized. Never. Instead, he went from 'get out of my way' to 'I already said sorry, so get out of my way!', without the intermediate 'sorry'. Then he characterizes me in all sorts of bad ways, after I did what he said, I got on his side to fix the article. There seems to be no pleasing him. I don't even want to try anymore. If you all knew some of the things I've gone through because of Wikipedia... Ask User:Newyorkbrad. He knows I've gone through the kind of Wikipedia stuff that permanently chases off editors, and I fought and stuck around through it. But this imbalance between David Fuchs' actions and mine, and the reception of both has broken my desire to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. To see an editor come in, ignore consensus, build his own false consensus and act on it till by repetition it seems to become real, and then blame those who stood up for the real, existing consensus as ruining articles? It's too much to see that go unchallenged by anyone but me. I'm sorry, but I really just don't want to do this anymore, because the unfairness there is too much to carry and keep looking at pages here. I look at any page on my watchlist, and wonder... how long till I do some amazing digging, and someone completely ignores my work and the work of the others who help, and just BOLDLY upends the article? David Fuchs never even bothered to look at the article's history, to see why the Characterization replaced a long fannishly written and mostly uncited Character History. He blanked out the sources I tracked down. I did everything 'by the book'. Look at my Sandbox and its' talk page for just SOME of what I did with others to make this article good., I may have done the typing and research, but I made sure to get input from many others over and over. David Fuchs didn't bother to ask, or look into ANY of this. If any editor really intends to rewrite an article from scratch, as He has stated is his intent, they should learn to check what's gone before. As an admin, he should already know this. But instead, he acted in the worst possible manner as far as cooperation goes, but no one seems to care. It's too much for me to respect this process anymore, because after all this, someone who doesn't respect the process can just undo it. had he come to the talk after being invited and put a list of things he's like to change, I'd have worked with him. Hulk as FA before the movie comes out would be great. But on the very first thing I offered up for consensus, his response was a POINT violating edit and summary.
    Did I go to far in my recent edits? Perhaps. But when you see the rules broken over and over, and see an admin getting a pass, what else can happen? I shouldn't have called him a fucking idiot. Fucking jerk, maybe, but not fucking idiot. At least that would've been more specific about his actions and attitudes instead of his intellect. But I'm not apologizing for my fixing of the article status, because the rules say whenever someone disagrees with a GA rating, it loses the GA by nothing more than saying 'this article isn't GA'. Because David Fuchs said it never met the standard, that's him effectively failing it at the time of the nomination. I fixed the rating to meet that. And as to my supposed childishness, well, no. What I did was make it crystal clear that I was trying to accept his supposed Consensus. He didn't have it, still doesn't, but he's gotten away with it, none the less. That leaves me feeling hollow defeat, and I don't like feeling that whenever I look at wikipedia. I really don't think that anything but leaving is right for me now. Anyways, I tried to write one "calm" version of my feelings, since no one thinks my other statements were me being serious. It's not fair, and that's that. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ThuranX, I'm sorry if I confused things by trying to help out. It took me all day to track down a very old post, and to realize that I had mixed you up with TheronJ. My apologies for the confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ThuranX, I am unsure how you construed my comments to mean I am saying it is your fault. What I'm aiming at is a "no blame" approach on the talk page so we can actually work towards improving the article and getting it back on track for GA.
    There are problems on both sides but the talk page there is not the best arena for people to air their grievances in such a manner (as it is derailing the whole effort). If you have problems with another editor (whether they are an admin or not) is to get more input (from, for example the Comic Project and/or other editors) and here as a last resort. There is nothing that isn't fixable but you need to stay civil and not take this so personally so we can sort this out. (Emperor (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    There's no way to talk it out. I tried. I tried that first, and I tried it again and again, and so far, not one person has said David Fuchs did anything wrong. Not one. Fuchs hasn't apologized. He went from saying he didn't have to, to saying he already did. No one cares about that. Just that I keep demanding some action, and all I get is 'go take a wikibreak, ThuranX'. Well, hell no. If you all thought a wikibreak was so badly needed, I'd have been blocked. But instead, you're all hoping I'll shut up and go away, and NOT get David Fuchs a clear rebuke. Why? I think it's cause he's short list for ArbCom replacements, and there's a sense of duty to protect him. Well it does no good for the project to get someone like him, who acts without consensus and without apology when wrong, on Arbcom. He doesn't read things through or do research, he steps in, makes a determination, and attacks others. That's not who we want for Arbcom. Not one person here or on the article talk has said one thing about his behavior beyond 'maybe we should think about if he did something wrong', but everyone here is absolutely sure that I'm to blame for all of this. On the talk page, Emperor called for ME to leave it but not David Fuchs, saying all the regular active editors should walk away. IN other words, get out of David Fuchs' way, he can save the article. That's how you blamed me for all of it, Emperor. IF that's how it goes, that community consensus is that regular editors should jsut get out of the way when some new editor runs ramshod all over their work, without discussion of finding consensus, then fine. Community ban me and be done with it. But David Fuchs will just do it again and again until someone makes him accept that he did something WRONG. How many editors are you willing to lose before you make him accountable for his actions? ThuranX (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to totally agree with you. There are quite a few admins who are railroding regular dedicated editors without investigating the whole issue. I do not know if there is a hidden agenda behind this. Are they trying to score points to be advanced? It may sure seem like so. We are losing one edito after another. Even good dedicated admins are living. The Undertoe left, Michael is on protes strike. What is going on here? Have we become so vindictive and venomous that we are blind and not thinking about the project as a whole but as advancment of our own interest? I see this as WP:COI. If an admin wants to be an admin just to have power over other users that admin may need to be desysosped for the interest of Wikipedia project. Igor Berger (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again misrepresenting what I said - I didn't say for you to stop - I said ALL active editors had to take a step back. There was an edit war over that page just staying this side of WP:3RR and it needed to stop. I also think you either need to be civil or take a break as could very easily get yourself blocked and I for one want to try and get this resolved without that. None of this is saying he is right and you are wrong - it is rarely that simple. It is about getting the right result for the article. (Emperor (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Well, I haven't called for a Desysoping, just a formal rebuke and an apology. I'm not getting either though. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that ThuranX has been acting incivil in this matter. It's twice that he's calling editors interferring or comment unneeded.[24][25]

    Moreover, he unilaterally blanked the GAR page for Hulk [26] after PeterSymonds requested for review. Now to be fair, I believe that David Fuchs does not need to "bold delist" this article. David should have given an "on hold for 7 days before delist" approach. This approach would have prevented such drama. The so-called "bold delist" is only for those that fails obviously (e.g. completely no reference or the article is only 10 sentence long) but misunderstood by most in the community. So after some consideration, the April issue of GA newsletter will cover the aspect of "bold delist". OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Super-spam?

    On the Superman music page, a red-link editor has taken a fair amount of time to add track listings for an 8-volume CD collection of soundtracks from the Christopher Reeve films. I have several issues with this, and I would like for someone who understands the rules better than I do to comment on it:

    • The editor is the producer of the CD as well as the author of the information he posted, as he made the point of saying and which started some frustrating dialoge: [27]
    • Despite his denial of shameless self-promotion, he has made a point of it being a limited edition, so we had better order it before they run out. [28]
    • It's not actually available yet, although it will be "imminently" and they are taking orders.
    • It's not going to be in real stores at all.

    So I'm seeing self-promotion as well as original research. What say y'all to this? Is this all proper, or should it be reverted? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He added a great deal of valuable information, cleaning up the entire article. Any consideration of WP:COI problems, if found, should be careful to only pare dow nthat which is a true conflict ,and not the entire series of edits. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clear up a few issues with the above: 1) COI issues are for the sake of keeping it /neutral/, not keeping it off. 2) So, it's limited, so what? Countless items go in and out of print all the time. 3) It's available, and in fact has started shipping 4) What's a 'real' store? Again, countless items can't be bought offline. WHY does that matter? 5) It's NOT original research, it's research. Yes, the person who added it happened to do the 'original' research, but once it's been published, it's perfectly valid for use on WP (at least according to all rules I've read). It shouldn't make a difference who adds the info. Yes, any 'shameless self promotion' should be deleted, but if there's any, it's maybe a few unnessesary mentions of the set itself, and certainly not all the factual info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Every word that red-link has written, in both the articles and the talk pages, has been for the express purpose of drumming up sales. The external links he added amount to testimonials for his product. The page is now essentially a protracted advertisement for his product. All of that supposed to be against wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are refering to Film Score Monthly could it be that they hold an exclusive license to the Superman score? Sorry I do not know enough about the industry, but if you look on Ford article you will find links to different Ford model cars. Igor Berger (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They probably do. I can get a Ford without buying it over the internet, sight unseen, and having to depend on testimonials that the one writing the article has cited. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all part of the game and the marketing machine. I am sure if you go to Star Trek, Marvel comics, etc. you will find the same patern. Igor Berger (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously. I can see exactly what they're up to. I wasn't born yesterday, I can see a sales pitch a mile away. And they are welcome to do it on pages where it's OK. It's not supposed to be OK on wikipedia. I'm just trying to get an admin to comment on it, yea or nay, as opposed to unilaterally doing a complete rollback of that red-link's self-serving entries. I've asked several admins already, but apparently they have larger issues, since they won't answer the question. That's why I posted here, hoping someone would think this might have some importance. Wikipedia is not supposed to be amazon.com. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) This diff shows all the efforts by the editor in question. Among them, I see the questionable track listing, which can be argued as promotional, since it details a product morethan the actual subject, but I also see extensive editing to expand on the topic, including the addition of years, names, musical techniques and rhythms used, detailed explanations of the various musical themes and so on. I note the linked inclusion of the record company name, but I checked, and this editor apparently hasn't touched that article, at least not in the past 50 edits, which go back a few months. This seems to be a case of the expert coming here and pouring out a great deal of knowledge which otherwise would only be available to 3000 folks(or less), and doing so freely with his time. That a portion of his edits seem to have a level of COI (and not an outright totality) can be discussed, but Baseball Bugs needs to AGF here. He keeps levelling accusations, but the editor in question uses the talk page and seems to want to fix the problems. This needs a careful looking at, not broad accusations of malfeasance. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One point to remember is that track listings are pretty much the standard on WP. I certainly see no reason not to have them in this case -- as you can see, they were there before on the page for other releses. And again, I'll point out, that just because something happens to have a KNOWN (and I stress known) limited run doesn't mean we can discount it. I guarantee that many book sources used in WP have sold well under 3000 copies before they went OOP. And in this case...it may not even be that limited. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about track listings being accurate or not. That's a diversionary argument. Every word that red-link user entered in both the article and in his comments on the subject have to do with selling his product. In fact, I was "assuming good faith" until he went onto the talk page and laid down the sales pitch. He is also the author of the book he's quoting. Does that book have verifiable citations in it? As far as "giving freely of his time", well, he's the producer, so it's in his best interest to promote the product and bring money in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I can't get a straight answer from anyone, I have decided to invoke the "be bold" rule and have reverted to February 23, the day before the red-link began laying the groundwork for using wikipedia to sell his product. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As expected, there is now an edit war initiated on that page. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS??? Is it valid to use one's own book as a source? Is it valid to use wikipedia as an agent for selling one's own products, including the book that's being used as the source? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The obvious answer to your question is "No, it is not alright to use Wikipedia to sell one's own book." You have been asked to remove the content that appears to be promoting the book. You have also been shown that some of the user's edits have absolutely nothing to do with his book. The phrase that comes to mind has something to do with baby and bathwater. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My test is whether or not I can tell what they're trying to sell by reading the page. I can't. Add reliably sourced material to an article, which happens to be sourced to a book you wrote is a very mild conflict of interest, and the promotional aspect is very minor. I can't see any promotional tone in the article as it stands. A good litmus test would be "Would an unrelated editor, with the same resource, add similar material in a similar tone." The answer here is yes. --Haemo (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By adding the track listings of his own CD's to the article, he is trying to pique interest. He coveniently adds external links with testimonials. Then you look into buying it and find that this "major release" is limited to 3,000 sets of CD's. Then you go, "Oh, I better get one before they run out!" That's what's going on here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's actually going on here, and what you're ignoring now, is that unrelated editors (as Haemo pointed out above) have evaluated the listings and added them on their own - regardless of the claim you made on the article talk page that anyone disagreeing with you was trying to sell products along with the original editor you disagreed with, this information was going to get added to the article eventually. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I fully intended to go back and re-add legimitate edits NOT made by that one red-link who's trying to sell his CD's here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is against you. No one else finds the sum of his edits to be wholly bad; many find nothing wrong, and a few find some parts questionable. However, it has been pointed out (either here or o nteh article talk) that CD track listings are commonly found throughout wikipedia. A track listing for a holistic collection of Superman music is better off at an article which examines, in depth, the music, than at a separate page, which would certainly be SPAM or COI or both. However, the editor, to my eyes added one section of potential COI, the track listings for a collection he helped produce. given that there's precedence, and that he added a wealth of good fact to flesh out the meat of the article, I cannot support any injunction against the editor, nor any removals on the page. He made an article that if I'd found it before, I'd have thought "this is a thin article with lots of spec and maybeish based writing", into an article that makes me think about the production of the scores and music for the various media themselves. I only considered the marketing because I read it with an eye towards that. While he did add the name of the company releasing the compilation a few times, that company has an article he didn't work on. This is a non-issue to me, and your continued intractability on the matter makes this become a waste of time, too.. ThuranX (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And your blindness to what that guy is up to is extraordinarily frustrating. It's supposed to be against the rules to use wikipedia to sell stuff. If "consensus" overrides that rule, then it's hopeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep acting like he added a great big section that screams "BUY MY CD NOW!!!" - but that's not what happened. He added factual listings of a released product that would have been added anyway by other editors as it directly relates to the page question - he also fleshed out other sections, without editorializing or specifically pimping the CD he contributed to. I think you need to step back here, as your insults and snipes at anyone who disagrees with you (and you do appear to be alone in this) is getting tiresome. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? You're right. I'm blind to what's going on on Wikipedia. I can't see that when editors work hard, its' meant to be ripped to shreds and insulted at length. Now that I know that such attacks and hostility are the new normal, I can see it all clearly. Anyways, this was the last thing I was involved in before retiring anyways, given how my own dissatisfaction with the project and unilateralism has grown. This is just another thread of the same 'only I can see what's going on and save the article' attitude that's driven me to leave, only this one's grounded in paranoia and hubris, not just hubris. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy produces a CD and a book about the CD's; he posts information from his own products in the article; he posts links that amount to testimonials for his products; he makes a point on the talk page of saying that he produced the CD and that it's a limited quantity so you better get 'em while they're available. Original research, spam, huckstering. And that whole scenario is perfectly OK with everyone. I am very impressed. NOT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any discussion, even on the talk page, about how it's in limited quantity should be removed immediately. I agree with Bugs that this is ridiculous to allow, but consensus seems to be against you, sorry. Frankly, the whole article needs serious sources. There's way too much OR about what the music includes, means, and is generally about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus overrides the rules? That is not at all encouraging. But you've given one glimmer of hope, which is to remove anything that smacks of "selling it". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you're already working on it. I modified the external links to remove the obvious self-promotion there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Undent). Baseball bugs has now begun engaging in edit wars to remove all the material, first by hitting the 3RR cap on wholesale reversion, and now, in tandem with Ricky81632, by cutting it back one edit at a time. The blanking vandalism goes so far as to remove two sources erroneously put under External Links, including a press release and an interview with the producers. This level of contentious behavior in contravention of Consensus and policy is clearly the new vogue on Wikipedia, and I understand that administrative fiat permits the institution of new consensus by simply being an admin and saying so, but under wikipedia's old rules, he should be blocked for WP:POINT and BLANKING violations, and probably a 3RR skirting. ThuranX (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Those press releases were intended specifically to hype the product. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look. can you not see that consensus is against you? that many people find the musical information he added valuable? That many find that since many articles about Music have track listings, that at most, this particular set's listings should be dropped, but that a wholesale revert is flat out wrong? He added immense amounts of genuine fact to the article, and not all of it needs to be reverted to 'fix' the COI you perceive? You propose a 100% reversion, but that's flat out stupid. Reverting the addition of dates, titles, and names which were previously speculative or less specific would be a value loss, not a value add. As the community doesn't see a COI here like you do, I suggest you either accept and move on, or consider it a Content Dispute and head to RfC or Arbcom. I also note your don't deny any of the policy troubles I noted above. Consider those before committing more. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even looked at the article lately? Another editor already reverted everything I had reverted, and he along with yet another editor are trying to weed the hype out of the article. Since you won the revert war, those two have now done more work on that weeding effort than I have. Go talk to them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the user you're complaining about acting "in tandem", who I never heard of until yesterday, Ricky81682, is an admin, and I expect admins to know the rules. So I appreciate his looking into this situation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an admin doesn't mean anything. Admins don't have rules. And whether it's coordinated or just observation and a mutual thinking ,working to undo all the work added is NOT the way to go. He added real facts. Not all of it's self-promotion. You assert that 100% is promotion, which can only mean that you think that the very act of contributing is a means of him seditiously attempting to gain our good will to get us to buy his stuff. That's absurd. He confirmed or added dates that were previously questioned. He added names of people who helped make the music. He added musical structure information. Everything he's added has been systematically removed or Fact tagged. It is a horrible violation of AGF, an overly broad interpretation of COI and OWN, it's incivil, and it's BITEy. I think it is wrong, but you DO have an admin on your side, and I can attest from personal experience, admins don't follow rules, and get away with that regularly.
    You need to clearly address how provide names of those who worked on the production of the music for hte films, and dates of events, and musical structure information constittue an attempt to sell the material. I really think your attitude is 'he worked on that, thus anythign he dos has to be a sell' even if he were ONLY on the talk page and doing grammatical edits. You really seem to say 'anythign he does which improves the page may have a net result of earning him profit eventually, even indirectly, and thus it's all bad. Had he not done anything but grammatical changes, but put the CD set on the net, and people came here first to learn more abotu the production of various superman themes and music, and reading the article, bought the product, you give off that you'd feel you'd be justified in asserting he, even in that circumstance, had a COI and should be blanket reverted. You really are just pushing him off the project, not helping anyone. ThuranX (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to take the blinders off and realize that the red-link user's purpose was entirely self-promotional. And stop already with the "assume good faith" lecture. His own words confirm it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For one thing, as far as "driving him off the project", the only articles he has modified are those directly connected with promoting his product. The only "project" he's on is to sell his 3,000 CD's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have never provided a link which shows his express intent to be to hype his product. You have, however, made glue for days. There are at least three editors who aren't you OR mxscore who feel he HAS contributed valuable information. There are editors who feel he is NOT thoroughly self-serving. EVEN if self-serving were a part of his motivation, does that mean the project should throw it all out on some ridiculous principled stand that we would rather go blind than wear glasses? We can remove, after discussion and consensus, anything which gets too close to, or crosses, the line. If editor-based consensus and policy are not acceptable, then call in an administrator. They can make any rules they want. ThuranX (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your change of "written" to "wrtten" is another rule you care nothing about. You are not allowed to change others' comments. I say again, every word he has posted in that article has to do with selling his product. Period. Frequent mentions of who produced it and stuff on the talk pages about how it's a limited edition. That's called a "sales pitch". "Consensus" does not allow violation of the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was a typo. I bumped the pageup key, and must've tapped the delete as well. I didn't notice that I'd accidentally taken out one letter two screens up. Why don't you go ask for a fucking block against me for it? Go on. It'll hide the fact that I've hit the nail on the head: You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and you know it, and you LIKE it. You're here ONLY because you refuse to back down from your position, and you're too embarrassed to reverse course now. Just shut the hell up, let this thread go into archive ,and move on. You have yet to provide any rationale for your opinion other than that anyone who has any interest in anything is suffering COI. Many, or most, if not all editors here write about what interests them. Many work in the fields they write about. Expert writiing is a contentious area, but it gets handled case by case. You're not thinking about it like that. You just want a community ban on the guy and a wholesale revert, and you REALLY have NOT explained why you're acting this way at all. You just keep saying 'he's selling stuff, so I can and msut wholesale 100% revert'. YOu can't defend against the examples given above, and haven't tried. Below, a fourth (or is it more now?) editor adds his thoughts opposing your wholesale reverts and finding value added by the edits of MXScore. Please catch on. You are trying to not just IAR but B(reak)AR, when BRD is in play, and CONSENSUS is against you. Since you don't care about that, though, I'd be glad to recommend to you some admins who have community support for the power to ignore consensus and substitute their own consensus. They'd be glad to help you out. ThuranX (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a look (as a non-involved non-admin) at what User:Baseball Bugs reverted, and frankly while most of the text might be unreferenced, and possibly original research, it was not blatantly promotional or in need of such a wholesale reversion. Sure, you can't just come on to Wikipedia and add "Buy my CD!" to an article. But if you improve an article, and in doing so make people want to buy the product related to it, then what's the problem? By the same token, if an Apple employee were to go and add some decent content to Criticism of Microsoft, it's still decent content. I'd advise Bugs to take a deep breath, talk with the other user to work towards providing some sources for the article (presumably, being associated with the subject he'd know where to look for them), and preferably stop referring to him as a "redlink" or "redlinked user", because the way the term's being used looks to me to be perjorative, ad hominem, and bordering on incivility and/or personal attack. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough of this. You've had enough of a venue here, and no one sees a problem that's actionable by admins. If you want a more extensive discussion, dispute resolution is down the hall. --Haemo (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    New user User:Tom.mevlie

    This is totally unacceptable. And this was the user's first post. I have left a message on the user's talk page - however, I feel this behaviour is so strong that it is unlikely that the user would enjoy being a Wiki editor, and it might be in the best interests of all if this user was encouraged to disengage from the project at the earliest opportunity. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although I may be somewhat biased in my favour, a better way than straight out banning me, would possibly put me on a probationary period, or look at some of my other posts, all of which, were, in my view, productive and helpful to each of the causes in which i donated my opinions to. But the descision rests with the administrators, not with me. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has made some good contributions, including creating the Woodstock Nation (novel) article. I would counsel some consideration of WP:BITE, even in light of the above incidents.скоморохъ 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has apologised to the people he attacked, which we can take at face value. A block now would be punitive, so it would be best if he got on with editing, with a stern note warning that deviation from "productive and helpful" in this manner again will lead to a block to prevent disruption in future. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If necessary, I'll oversight his contributions and pull him aside if this happens again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Also, his above comment implies he knows the difference between a block and ban. That's peculiar for a new editor. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, I thought it was very clear that he's just here to troll. But the evidence is circumstantial, so we can only give him the usual miles and miles of rope before we escort him of the premises. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remarks I left on the Depiction of Muhammad discussion were purely to prove a point, and to gesticulate the fact that we shouldn't depict muhammad, lest someone get offended. Although, i am not the first person to talk to about offending people. Moonriddengirl is correct. I have never met her before, nor had any prior contact, i wrote on her page to see what i could get away with, but also to show that, although wikipedia states that there should be no line drawn between admin and non admin users, it still is rampant amongst the community, i am not trying to shift the blame from me to her, i am merely stating my rationale for saying what i said, and again, i am sorry to anyone who i offended. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I think there may have been better ways to learn about the community than by posting the comment you made to Moonriddengirl. It may be difficult for some to assume good faith in your edits when you admit to having ulterior motives in making them. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course you are correct, but may i say, that i have apologised for my actions, and i have tried to make up for it by posting well in all of my recent posts, i think what people should do, is instead of looking at the mistakes of people, you should look at where they did okay.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that you are mistaken if you think that a message like that would have been acceptable on the page of any user, administrator or not. While the first line of defense against incivility is to ignore it or to provide better counter-examples, there is a distinction between petty incivility and gross incivility. Please note that WP:NPA indicates "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored". As for considering your recent posts, I suspect that posts made four hours ago still technically fit within the definition of "recent". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. Tom.mevlie, I suggest that to restore the karmic balance, that you and I each go out and find 3 users we've never interacted with before, and give them purely positive praise for something good they've done, without any ifs, ands, buts, or negative comments around the same time. Is it a deal? --Coppertwig (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry I do not get it. You are abusive, insulting, and vulgar to a person who you never dealt with before? Just out of a blue you picked her to experiment? What are we lab rats? What is going to be your next experiment? By your own admission, it is not like you got angry at someone for doing something you did not like and in anger say crap to them. Man I would not want you around! Why are you here? Igor Berger (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have only been here six weeks, so I am hardly an expert, but his case smacks of vandalism, trolling, and/or sockpuppetry. I would allow him some rope if that is what Wikipedia policy implies should be done, but I would shorten his leash. My two cents' worth (before adjusting for inflation). Jonneroo (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abysmal behaviour - and I do not believe this user is "new". I submit in agreement with my colleagues above that at the very least a final warning posted to his page with detail in the edit summary - for tracking purposes if it is deleted. I will be happy to post that warning myself should that be the outcome of this discussion - and quite frankly I think that it should have commenced with such a warning (or if an admin has spotted it first with an immediate short block) rather than to belabour the point here.--VS talk 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an obviously interested party, I'm inclined to agree. There are two possibilities here. If this individual is to be taken at his word, he launched a vicious, sexist attack against a stranger to prove a point. Note that his apology for this assault is rather tepidly phrased towards the language use, when according to his own statement above, the entire personal attack was unwarranted. Given his pattern of editing, he is far more likely a sock puppet. In either case, the likelihood of future misbehavior seems high, and a clear warning seems best for the sake of the community. (Note that there is absolutely no requirement for us to assume good faith here now that he has admitted to intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point. (See WP:AGF.) Civility in handling misbehavior is mandatory; naivety is not.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this right: I can call someone a fucking whore, a stupid bitch, a cunt, and escape action, but if I choose a username that an admin doesn't like I get blocked? Dan Beale-Cocks 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my point a bit - username blocks seem to be handed out a lot more readily than other blocks. Good faith editors who chose a marginal username ("confusing"??) face blocking. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given what we are discussing, that was probably the wrong thing to say, and as this whole discussion stem from swearing to prove a point, i'm guessing that someone will probably report you.. Tom.mevlie (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we see that Tom.mevlie clearly does not understand why he was reported. To try to make it clearer - I can fucking swear all I like, what I'm not allowed to do is make personal attacks to other editors, even if that attack has no swearing. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can swear all you like can you? Well then, maybe out of context swearing should be banned, i say out of context meaning not related to an article, like that of Cunt.Tom.mevlie (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia does have a code of conduct. Wikipedia:Civility is policy, though somewhat flawed in enforcement in that it largely depends on voluntary compliance and does not offer easy recourse to individuals who are treated with incivility. Even so, personal attacks are not allowed, whether they arise from disputes or experiments. Even isolated personal attacks may lead to blocking in extreme cases. If you had said that to another editor and I had seen it, I would have immediately issued you a final warning. Blocking is not punitive, but it can be instructive: as set out at the blocking policy, two of its four purposes are to encourage rapid understanding that behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated and to encourage working more productively and congenially within community norms. If you behave in this way again, blocking may well be necessary, whether to make those points or simply to protect the community against inappropriate behavior. While your attack was launched against me, given your own admission here at AN/I that we had never previously interacted, I do not consider that I am in any more conflict of interest cautioning you than I would be handling any random vandal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this right, you have talked and talked and talked, and you cuntheads have done fuck all? This is basically telling the cunts who are vandals that they can do whatever the fucking hell they like, and that is fucking bullshit. There should be one person who dishes out punishments, and everyone can inform that one person, punishments should be always fair but stern, if we discuss like this all the fucking time, then all we get is a cock up someone's arse, and a vandal who doesn't give a fucking shot, fuck all of you, you dirty low cunts, start making sense and wikipeia will stop being a hive of cunheads. Oh, and no this is not my first account, i have been banned three times, but you fuckers can't stop me cuz all you do is have sex with each other's arse holes. I.want.to.tellyou (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest at DRV

    Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 29. User Kim Bruning (talk · contribs) prematurely closed a DRV over an MFD that she also closed (that being Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. Now, this is highly irregular, and her involvement in the initial MFD should have kept her from closing the DRV as well. The whole point of DRV is to bring in additional, uninvolved editors to review the situation, and Kim Bruning is essentially refusing to allow others to comment on this. Now, I have voted in both the original MFD and in teh subsequent DRV, so I will not change this, but could an uninvolved admin please look this over perhaps reopen the DRV, since it was closed by someone who was involved in the initial DRV? While it may not have been her intention, by closing the DRV, Kim Bruning looks to be attempting to prevent discussion for some reason. I have no idea why, but this entire sequence is highly unusual. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The original MFD was contrary to process. You're not really supposed to have MFD's on policy or policy proposals. I closed the original MFD and to be nice I also marked the proposal as rejected, as a kind of compromise. Perhaps I should not have done so, and merely sanctioned the person who made the MFD listing.
    At any rate, the person who had made the listing then went to DRV. DRV allows one to endorse, relist, or overturn an earlier deletion discussion. In the case of this MFD, relisting would be inappropriate (original listing was contrary to policy), endorsing would keep the target page rejected, and it seems rather unlikely that there would be a consensus to overturn. So I closed the DRV, and warned the person making the listing to please reread wikipeida deletion policy carefully.
    As the page has already been rejected, there's really very little left to do here. ^^;;
    --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the closure was incorrectly done and should be reversed. I also note that Kim has been unreceptive to a fairly clear consensus that the review closure was out of process. There is an issue of making an end-run around WP:AFD. Ronnotel (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I'm not entirely sure how an end-run around AFD could have been made, did you mean MFD? I have been applying the MFD rules in a fairly gentle fashion, as a fairly neutral participant. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant AFD. The intent of the authors appears to be promotion of a fringe idea - Delegable Proxy. Since that page seems destined for the ash heap, I believe they see the essay on the same topic as a way to avoid AFD. That MFD policy doesn't recognize this possibility is a major loophole. Any kind of claptrap - personal attacks, hate language, spam, could be dressed up as an essay and, by your reasoning, be immune from deletion. Ronnotel (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, that's an interesting theory. However, wasn't Delegable proxy originally written by different authors than the people making the policy proposal? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the article as Liquid democracy, which is a name I did not invent, as one of my first edits on Wikipedia, basically as a stub, in 2005. I was blissfully unaware at the time of WP:COI. However, I did not since edit that article, and many editors did come along and add material to it. User:Sarsaparilla, later becoming User:Ron Duvall and then User:Absidy, (obviously without intention to conceal or deceive, given the edit histories, and, in fact, explicit connections made, such as with the account creation for Absidy, -- some here seem to have great difficulty with WP:AGF) quite recently expanded it, and it is beyond me why he used, shall we say, "nonstandard sourcing," though I could speculate. Yes, he was interested, as was (and am) I, in trying out delegable proxy here, not as a voting method -- DP for voting is of little interest to me, though some election experts consider it an ideal voting method -- but rather as a method for creating efficient communications networks, capable of efficiently *creating* consensus -- real and measurable consensus -- on a large scale. This is not the place to debate DP, but the point is that the proposer was sincere, and believed that this would either help Wikipedia or would be harmless, and I have the same position. The vehemence of the opposition shocked him, indeed, it shocked him right off Wikipedia. He's young, and did not expect this. I'm twice his age and knew it was possible. The proposal is not a Rule 0 violation, but it implies some Rule 0 violations, particularly when not understood. I would not have proposed it at this time. But I'm not God. User:Kim Bruning is. I'm probably the world's foremost student of delegable proxy, though James Armytage-Green gets more google hits. There have been many other independent inventions of it, around the world, but my own particular vision is DP within what might be called consensus democracies, and, while I'm politically progressive, this idea has attracted quite a few libertarians and anarchists. It is almost as if it was designed for Wikipedia, but I'm not holding my breath. What was proposed here was only the creation of proxy files by users who cared to do it, and a central proxy table where these would be transcluded, and the proposal was explicit that it wasn't for voting, and that proxies did not represent clients, but might be considered by some to reflect a projection of how their clients might vote. If that was found, by experience, to be reasonable. No policy change was proposed, and most of what was feared about the proposal would be policy violation, easily detected and addressed. Go figure.--Abd (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you can't really say I am being unreceptive: See [29] for a typical response. I do tend to insist on not acting hastily, however. I hope that that's ok.--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is checkuser-proven sock-puppetry as work, which is why the whole affair has become somewhat tainted. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. But how can we even determine the proper course of action if the debate is closed before it begins? I apologize for calling you unresponsive and I accept that you are acting with good faith. Ronnotel (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The ABF is blatant. Stop it, Ronnotel. There is now what might be called sock puppetry, caused by the block of Absidy, who has essentially been made into an outlaw by block policy violations, and who, contrary to my personal recommendations and requests, continues to post (not disruptively, by the way, except that it does cause some fuss due to the very determined efforts to detect his posts quickly, something that was never done with even a determined and disruptive puppet master as James Salsman), but prior to that, there were no violations of WP:SOCK. Look, I've seen a certain administrator be extraordinarily blase about real sock puppets and IP editors massively reverting an article, while here, someone who isn't editing abusively, who isn't running a puppet theater, but who, for various reasons -- pretty stupid if deliberate attempts to deceive, and he's not stupid -- dropped accounts and continued under a new name, twice in the relevant period. Only one of these shifts was not accompanied by an explicit notice of continuing identity, which did not stop checkuser requests being filed to confirm what was already openly -- and promptly -- admitted. The sock puppetry charges appear to be designed to claim bad faith in the proposal, thus adding fuel to a "disruption" charge, thus justifying deletion rather than mere rejection. The implied argument would go, if these were sock puppets, they must be concealing the puppet master, who doesn't want to be caught for intentional disruption. But that's not what happened here. There was no puppet master, because there was never an account used again after being abandoned. Check the history. In further process, which is likely to ensue, diffs and all the full panalopy of evidence will be provided, but, one step at a time. I have not even filed warnings on the Talk pages of involved administrators yet, requesting rectification of improper actions, except for one, the indef block of Absidy for what should at most have been a 24 hour block. First offense. No prior problems at all for well over two years of very active editing (under the three names above plus another which can be found with little effort -- but I'm not going to give the name directly. Many here know it, but when a user abandons an account, it's offensive to expose it unless there is abuse involved. Which there was not, period.--Abd (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Well, Kim we do need to remind you that admins should not be closing DRVs for XFDs that they also closed. One of the purposes of DRV is to bring an end to discussion of deleted closures, and that purpose is defeated when someone closes a review of their own work. Heck, we even prefer that if the series is XFD1, XFD2, ... XFD(N-1), XFD(N), DRV, any admin that closed any of XFD1 to XFDN shouldn't close the DRV. If something is terribly out of whack, give one of the DRV regular closers a nudge. Admittedly, we've mostly been busy IRL or distracted lately, or we wouldn't have let closures get to be 6 days overdue... though we are currently down to 4 days overdue... so we might actually need a nudge. GRBerry 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec some more) Be glad to. (nudge) Please review my closure of the DRV! Also check my talk page as some people have left messages there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x 3, reply to Kim's first statement) Actually, the point is that reasonable editors reading and interpreting the MFD criteria disagreed that the MFD was contrary to process. Editors clearly felt that the page was eligible for MFD and felt that your initial premature closure of it was wrong. Now, the initial closure of the MFD was not a big issue, since Deletion Review exists to allow further scrutiny of that closure when reasonable editors disagree with it. The closure of the Deletion Review by the same person that closed the MFD is problematic, since it is essentially YOU closing off discussion of your own actions. A conclusion has NOT already been reached on how to handle the page, as you note above. A discussion was underway at MFD to decide how to handle it, you closed that. A deletion review was started, and you closed that. How can anyone reach any conclusion on the discussion if you refuse to allow discussion to continue, based upon your singular interpretation of the MFD guidelines, where other editors have a different and reasonable interpretation of said guidelines... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, once such a page is deleted, it's just gone, hence you can't do that for proposals, right? I think some people have been trying to go for a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the MFD rules (hey, I helped write 'em, I'm pretty sure we didn't mean for proposals to be deleted, but this doesn't stop people from trying. ;-) ). Anyway, most of the time, the correct action is to tell people off. The remaining situations typically end up with the listed page being rejected, which it did here. I'm slightly less handy with deletion review, so I've just asked a DRV regular to review my approach to the DRV process. (see above) Will that do? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is obviously inappropriate for a whole host of reasons. I had no notion that Kim Bruning was not an admin - non-admin closes can be reverted by any admin to begin with. Kim, there is overwhelming agreement that the proposal is inherently disruptive and disruptive proposals can be deleted. I have no idea why you are making an issue of this or why you feel it is appropriate to "warn" me, but your conduct here leaves something to be desired. I'm reopening the DRV as an inappropriate non-admin close and I would encourage any uninvolved admin reading this to consider speedy overturning and reopening the MFD. --B (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim is a former admin who retired voluntarily in 2005. (Wikipedia:Former administrators#Other #11) As far as I know (it was before my time) there was no controversy. So she can ask for the mop back at any time, and in XfD closings I feel she should be treated as an admin - except that she obviously can't push the delete button unless she asks for it back first. GRBerry 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B: Well, if your interpretation of the MFD guidelines were to be correct, it would be permissible to list even WP:NPOV on MFD at any time. That's obviously not quite correct!
    Perhaps we can clarify the MFD rules. Do you at least understand why it is such a bad idea to delete policy proposals?
    In other news, why are you attempting to delete the page in the first place? You may have provided reasoning other than "policy", but I haven't quite seen it yet? I'm quite willing to accede to WP:WIARM based reasoning. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you provide evidence that WP:NPOV was created by a farm of sock puppets looking to cause trouble or make a WP:POINT, then I would say yes, it could be deleted. --B (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You really shouldn't ask me things like that, you just might get an answer ;-). NPOV is probably rather more dubious. It was created by a meat-puppet of an editor who had been paid to create such pages in the first place (so a meat-puppet of a meat-puppet). Said editor has since left wikipedia in not-so-good-standing. The rule has certainly caused most of the conflict on wikipedia, so we could assume bad faith and say it was intended to be disruptive.
    Getting back on topic, it has since been brought to the attention of the community that said "sock farm" possibly was not in such bad faith as you'd initially assume, at which point any perceived MFD loopholes (either way) are rather much cut off. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read a bunch, and can now clearly comment as a DRV regular closer on the merits of the specific case. As I said above, one of the purposes of DRV is to review disputed closings, allowing those in disagreement to be heard but still eventually reaching cloture absent a decision that the original closure was incorrect. To allow those in disagreement to believe that they have been heard and fairly judged, it is necessary that the DRV closer not only be unbiased, but also to be seen as unbiased. So it is just wrong for someone to close a DRV of one of their own XfD closes (or speedy deletions).
    • Reviewing Kim's talk page, I see five people who had already expressed concern with the close prior to B's notice of taking it to DRV. In theory, he should have become a sixth voice asking Kim to revise/explain the close, gotten rejected by her, and then taken it to DRV. But, since it was reasonably clear that she had already explained the close and wasn't going to be revising it, it wasn't terribly wrong to skip the first two pointless steps and just take the discussion to DRV. Thus I don't think the warning issued to B was appropriate.
    • That half a dozen editors were concerned with her close meant that the DRV should have run. Kim, will you undo that closure and let the DRV run or will you let me do so? I want explicit clearance here... because I intend to offer an opinion in it if reopened. That opinion is that we should in the end do is relist the MFD with clear instructions to the participants to distinguish between whether this is so inherently disruptive that an unchanging archive is inappropriate (thus delete) and non-viable proposal that should be marked as rejected and become unchanging thereafter. GRBerry 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and proceed as you see fit at DRV. On the MFD side of things; as there is (obviously) no exception for disruptive listings (even DRV sanctioned) on MFD, I guess the correct action in this case for any further MFD listings without at least clear WP:WIARM reasoning is now to block the lister. :-/ I hope people won't decide to place an admin in such an undesirable position. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC) MFD listings of project namespace pages cost you way too much time if you try to both follow procedure and be nice about it. I recommend that the future procedure be to close the mfd and block the nominator immediately. [reply]
    WP:MFD#Prerequisites says, "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive ... it can be nominated for deletion." How do you get from that to a decision that listing a disruptive proposal for deletion is cause for blocking? --B (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's the risk you run for trying to use that rule that way. it's really only meant for fairly obviously disruptive stuff, not for serious proposals that people happen to have a strong dislike for. If anyone comes along at any time and says "wait a minute, that proposal wasn't actually disruptive", you're SOL, you see. Editors in good standing have actually said so, and that's where we are right now. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A finding of "disruptiveness" is not something that a single person can veto. The consensus view is that the proposal is disruptive and that it should be deleted and a minority viewpoint that it is not disruptive doesn't change that. --B (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a minority viewpoint at all, then there is no consensus in the strict sense (at best there's a rough consensus). In such a situation, you want to be very careful, as things may yet turn around. As a very recent example: we had a "consensus minus one" to keep the page as rejected, after all. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim, thanks for allowing the DRV to run. We'll see what the community thinks of the decision you made, and at the least those who disagree will believe that they have had a fair chance to be heard. GRBerry 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think it's crazy, but you may well know better than I do. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can a Deletion Review decide to delete an article that was not deleted by prior process? Suppose this were an article, an AfD, instead of an MfD. If an AfD is closed as, say, no consensus, or keep, in spite of most editors voting for Delete, because the closer does what is suggested by WP:NOTAVOTE and considers that the arguments don't support deletion, is DRV the remedy? Has anyone ever imagined so? Why would MfD be any different? Deletion Review is for reviews of deletions! Not reviews of "deletion debates." Is there a tag for articles that says "This article was kept in an AfD that was closed as Keep, but you should now go to DRV and participate if you want the proposal not deleted? Just how much complex procedure do these editors want to create? Simple. If an MfD was closed to keep, improperly, there is an obvious, clear, and in-process remedy, another nomination. Is there ongoing harm from the article's presence? The only disruption here is being caused by concerted efforts to delete the proposal! Is there any evidence presented yet for ongoing disruption other than that? I added some comments to the Talk page. If there is any disruptive aspect to them, it would not be related to the presence of WP:PRX. Rather, it would be that I've clearly expressed intention to pursue dispute resolution, by the book, carefully, and non-disruptively. Which takes time, and which starts with simple discussion among editors. The time is not ripe, as far as I'm concerned, for the next step up that ladder. But if anyone wants to accelerate things, I'd certainly be responsive. --Abd (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are incorrect regarding the purpose of DRV. To quote from it's second paragraph, "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." As I highlighted in italics, DRV can most certainly be used when a deletion debate results in keep and people believe that is incorrect. DRV is usually preferred over repetitive nominations. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets

    I should've raised this issue as soon as I found out the above matter two weeks ago. I have reported several RFCU files on suspicious editors who vandalized Japanese-Korean related articles. Even before submitting RFCU files, I've been stalked by several Japanese editors such as Mochi (talk · contribs), Kusunose (talk · contribs), Amazonfire (talk · contribs) since last December.[30],[31][32], [33][34], [35]

    Recently, editors set up for a poll for naming title of Sea of Japan. As the poll was getting stale, a lot of new users suddenly came to to vote for oppose after Feb. 14th. So I googled my name and found out the 2channel's plot for the poll. It is not one time project, it has been going on since 2004. ウィキペディア (Wikipedia)英語版に挑む 04/05/28

    http://academy6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/english/1085704624/

    On 2channnel, Japanese editors who involve in Wikipeida have posted and discussed which Korean editors to stalk, which admins to watch, which articles the Japanese need to watch and revert, which Japanese editors to support.

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka
    Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuan.C.Lee
    Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Saintjust
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2

    These are the RFCU files on some of them and I have also a list of 2channel's threads. I think to resolve Japan-Korean related issues and to prevent misconducts from meat/sock puppetry, more admimi's watch is appreciated for for long time. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously, Endroit is trying to turn the issue from admins' attention with several blatant lies. That is sad. --Appletrees (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I related to all of this? As I made it clear here, I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel. Please cease your personal attacks, Appletrees.--Endroit (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make personal attack on me just like you have done so. Switching links and altering my comment is a big no no. Well, I saw your name mentioned at 2channel. And you're the one who makes series of bogus RFCUs per your history and accused me of being a socks of Appleby or others with just your assumption. --Appletrees (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did not I ask you why you keep silence about the big meatpuppetry incidnet from Japanese 2channel unlike your past experience at ANI? I think I gave too many times to Japanese editors to stop disruptions.--Appletrees (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    translated by google

    These links are achieved and stored at 2channel which are only partial and as you see, the number in the title says about it is series of discussion for meatpuppetry plots. The 18th is for naming change of Liancourt Rocks. They said about a lot of admins, some of which is against Japanese side such as User:Nihonjoe. --Appletrees (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. This is the first time I've been called biased against both the Japanese "side" and the Korean "side" by the same person. I guess I must be doing my job if both sides think I'm against them. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's it? Got it -_-;; --Appletrees (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Wikipedia is a major topic in 2ch [37]. Considering people talked about Wikipedia article as meat puppet is nonsense.--Mochi (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In your dictionary, stalking is a just fun and worthwhile job? You should change your book. At least have a shame on your misconduct.--Appletrees (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed community ban of User:Miamiboyzinhere

    The user above has behaved in a most unseemly manner over the past few weeks, and it is my belief that the time has come to discuss the manner of a potential community ban. Here is a rough chronology of events:

      • Against consensus, and without discussion, he began to edit numerous articles relating to Orlando, Florida area attractions, changing the location of said attractions from "Near Orlando" or "In the Orlando Area" to the specific municipality, and often in doing so cleansing the name "Orlando" from the article entirely. While technically correct, it has been determined by consensus of other editors that the specific municipality name is less helpful to the reader than the term "near Orlando". Even compromises, such as including the specific name of the municipality alongside "near Orlando" have been attempted, but he continuously ignores even such compromises and pushes his version of the articles to the point of WP:OWNership.
      • He was blocked for disruption 1 week ago, and rather than ride out the block, he began to edit via rapidly changing IP address, creating a nightmarish situation for admins, as first a "Whack-a-mole" series of blocks chased him around for several days, and ultimately resulting in the mass semi-protection of all of the relevent articles (see two prior threads at ANI above). Some of these sock-IPs and atleast one suspected sockpuppet account, can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miamiboyzinhere and at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Miamiboyzinhere.
      • Immediately upon release of his block, he resumed the same problematic edits as the first blocks, and engaged in harassment of another user, but continuously refusing to allow that user to archive their talk page as they saw fit. He reverted that users talk page 18 times (18RR anyone) in less than 20 minutes, leading to his most recent block, a 2 week block.

    Based upon these behaviors, I propose a partial community ban upon the editing of User:Miamiboyzinhere subject to the following terms.

    1. Upon release of his block, User:Miamiboyzinhere is banned from editing any articles related to Orlando, Florida or any of the amusement parks or attractions from that area.
    2. Upon release of his block, User:Miamiboyzinhere is banned from reverting any talk page of any other user
    3. User:Miamiboyzinhere is restricted to using a single account to edit

    How does this sound to everyone? Yeah or nea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Non-admin here. Sounds good to me; I've yet to see much evidence that this person plans to make any meaningful contributions or will respect the community. I just wonder what admin tools will prevent future edits from new IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Off topic, but pertains to user..some one needs to confirm what I am seeing take a look at the suspected socks of the user here, then look at the Ws. Rgoodermote  02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The double-yous? I don't follow? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is suspected of using WP:ANI as a sockpuppet. It was removed. Rgoodermote  02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I seen the IP's during patrol. And Disney World Resort in Orlando category was changed from amusement parks in Orlando to amusement parks Florida. This is eventhough the offial Websites states Orlando in its title. This user definetly has something against Orlando. Igor Berger (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur, upon the evidence given. Has Jayron (or anyone) considered what sanctions would be applicable to the conditions being violated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is this?

    I just recently blocked User talk:HazelAardvark and User talk:Mister Aardvark. These users both did this edit, which I know I have seen before but I just cant remember. Does someone know the sock puppeteer, and if so could you tag it accordingly? Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's Blu Aardvark. Just look at the usual targets (plus Krimpet - dunno why she's a target now) - Alison ❤ 08:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Alison! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought Blu Aardvark had indicated that he was interested in civility. Are you sure this is really him? Corvus cornixtalk 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quack quack. MER-C 10:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Servant Saber - disruptive editing and trolling

    If you check this user's contributions, you can see that he is a long-time vandal. He's always involved in some kind of edit war, and he's been blocked before for constantly breaking the 3RR rule. When other editors revert his disruptions, he calls them vandals, sock puppets, and trolls while reverting them again. When he notices that his trolling is failing due to the persistance of the vigilant editors, he starts stalking them and even reverting their own talk pages after the users that own them perform an edit.

    That said, the report he made above should be disregarded.

    If you decide not to block him, I implore you that you at least keep a close watch on him, as he is likely not to stop. Thanks. Panelgets (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Right. 200.67.71.119, 67.149.157.177, 213.180.164.121, and 87.105.143.103 have all been making similar edits and around similar pages as the OP. As well, they're all pestering Servant Saber. The Panelgets user has made various questionable edits such as [38] and [39]. This is just WP:HA; I've blocked Panelgets and would appreciate if someone can review the block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The indef block of Panelgets is unfortunate (especially seeing as it probably wouldn't have happened yet if he hadn't made this post), but after reviewing his contributions they do mostly seem questionable. That said, I'm not willing to make the final call and decline the unblock request on his talkpage. Servant Saber also needs an eye keeping on him, after being blocked twice for edit warring – and some of the edit summaries are a little unnecessary. See [40] and [41]. —αlεx•mullεr 12:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You gotta be shitting me. The only reason why I was blocked twice was because noone else realized that those whose edits I was reverting were vandals. Now both are indefblocked, amidst other reasons for harassment and sockpuppetry. I'm sorry but there is no way that I can admit being at fault here. --SaberExcalibur! 21:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The unblock request has been denied. Rudget. 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And denied again. Panelgets page has been protected due to misuse of unblock requests, and general trolling. seicer | talk | contribs 14:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres‎

    User:Galassi has created Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres, containing largely the same information as the deleted Known victims of the Babi Yar massacres‎. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a memorial, and Galassi is getting pretty upset about it, making threatening comments and now canvassing other users for assistance. See also the Talk:Babi Yar page for relevant discussion. This appears to be a contentious issue in general, so some input from other admins would be helpful. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not surprised the author is getting upset. "Memorial" is not a valid speedy reason per WP:CSD, and it should go to PROD or AfD instead. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a comment on his talk page about his incivility. I'll wait to see how he responds and if nothing else, it should go through a full AFD. I suspect it'll be a "voting" nightmare but this will give everyone a chance to discuss it. The article could be done {Category:Lists of victims), but it's style is just wrong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone else could list it that would be great -- someone's head might explode otherwise. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged the article for Prod under the condition that it is a replica of a previously deleted article. However, if the user removes the tag and you feel strongly about it, bring it to AfD and make your case. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the prod. Again, the previous deletion was a violation of WP:NOT which is not a speedy reason. At noted on the talk page, there are other lists of victims out there, so there is a possible precedent. If it were an AFD, I might reconsider, but the article's still very new. Whew, this is moving fast! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was surprised it was speedy deleted under WP:NOT/memorial. The nominator and the deleting admin obviously worked too hastily. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, around and around we go! On to the AFD! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, "memorial" is not a CSD reason - but "recreation of deleted material" is. Was the new article sufficiently different? If not it have been best to keep the speedy and let people try DRV; it could have been explained there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is not. Only recreation of susbtantially the same article after an AfD that does not address the reason for deletion. Logically, if the original speedy was correct and the new article doesn't address the reason, then it's speedyable under the same reason as the first, no need to introduce the question of procedure. If the original speedy was wrongly done, or the new article overcomes the objection, then it's a completely new ballgame and the original speedy doesn't establish any precedent. Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry I missed this yesterday. The article is a POV fork of Babi Yar, an attempt to get a named list of Ukrainian nationalists killed at Babi Yar into an article. (The 60,000 Jews massacred there are, for the most part, forever anonymous). There is barely an attempt at answering questions of notability, eg "Numerous other less prominent writers, such as..." followed by a list of nine names. Currently listed at WP:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sockpuppetry/abuse on Council on American-Islamic Relations 2

    RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Possible_sockpuppetry.2Fabuse_on_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations I did not get a response. Why was this archived away? M1rth (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A bot archives things immediately. See "If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet some of the archived threads have posts dated today. I suggest Misza be asked about his bot but meanwhile M1rth, suggest you copy the thread back here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Copying below: M1rth (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When I click "first entry in the "Open cases" section at WP:SPP, I don't have that, but I'm curious why no one has even bother to post a comment on the user talk pages. Why not at least give them the basic warning templates, point them to the talk page, something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to add a short semi-protection on the article and see if that helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the protection's over and it seems calm. Actually the wording they were fighting about seems to have gone their way. Another example of why incivility can be counter-productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MonoBot

    Resolved
     – Bot should be able to handle such cases, but that's been addressed at bot's RFA. No more administrative action required now. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MonoBot (talk · contribs) is going crazy changing spaces in wikilinks to underscores, seemingly not approved as a bot (at least, it's changes aren't marked b), and not responding to requests on its talk page that it stop. I suggest that it be blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked it for 24 hours until it's owner can sort it out; meanwhile, it seems to have been approved, but may be malfunctioning, which would explain the faulty edit summary. It has only been approved for 60 edits anyway, but this needs feeding back. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked its master to look at this behaviour. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, didn't see the notes left here. I should make a page to turn it off :| . The bot is not malfunctioning. You can see in the diff David gave, the person added {{NowCommons|month=February|day=25|year=2008|1=Image:Electrical_Experimenter_Aug_1916.jpg|2=no}} to the image . The bot matched the Image:Electrical_Experimenter_Aug_1916.jpg and replaced Image:Electrical Experimenter Aug 1916.jpg It was nothing on the bot's end... the user just didn't need to add the underscores. Mønobi 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst that may well be the case, the bot ought not to slavishly follow the presence of the underscores. Normalisation of the image names should be carried out. Mayalld (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Thanks, user-malfunction as usual. Doh! I'll unblock for its next run. Already done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When a bot is being tested, it shouldn't be surprising that some edits may have problems. It doesn't seem like a good idea to block a bot during the testing phase (assuming it's working within testing guidelines). This particular bot was flagged, by the way. Gimmetrow 22:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very difficult to gauge whether a bot is, in fact, working within testing guidelines, during the testing phase. You don't know what it's meant to be doing, and whether what it's actually doing is within its parameters. For all I know, it could have been causing vast amounts of collateral damage, being essentially an automated process. As with all blockings, I blocked as a preventative measure until the situation could be resolved, and since this bot did not have a huge STOP button on its page, I blocked and would do the same again. Once I had ascertained that the bot was (a) approved (b) for testing (c) for a limited number of edits only, I evaluated that damage would be minimal and was prepared to unblock. I have seen the damage that rm -rf *.* can cause when I was working at Lucent, so I hope you'll forgive my caution. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Underscores and spaces are hardly the end of the world, though. Gimmetrow 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, if that's all that's being affected. It's a brave person, however, who claims to understand the epiphenomenology of software processes. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John celona (talk · contribs)

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

    User Celona (who has been discussed on this board before) is once again mounting an attack campaign. He is once again editing in a belligerent and disruptive manner: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:American_criminals&diff=prev&oldid=195223525 He is an admitted holocaust denier, and has tended to make negative edits to subjects of jewish descent. He continues to break the peace on the Peter Yarrow page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Yarrow&diff=prev&oldid=195220237 --Jkp212 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes the Jew-spotting works the other way with this editor. Where there's an article about a gay democrat, 2 other categories the editor tends to revile, he sometimes inserts the irrelevant fact that the subject is Jewish. For a recent example, see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cicilline&diff=prev&oldid=194673987 David in DC (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Users jkp212 and David in DC have tried (quite unsuccsesfully) to have me barred in the past. They accuse me of being "an admitted holocaust denier" which is not true. Like everyone else I make comments-some negative, some positive. Some are on articles of Jews, the vast majority are not. My mother is a French Jew who survived World war II. All of this serves to obscure the reason these 2 users seek to have me banned; they want to censor the well verified and sourced fact that one of their heroes is an admiited child molestor who served three months in prison for that crime. These facts were placed on the article well over 3 years ago (by another user) and were continually left on by dozens and dozens of editors through scores and scores of edits until the recent attempts at censorship by these 2 users. Tommorow afternoon I will attempt to trace the 3 year + history of this article's consensus and the bold attempts of these 2 users to impose their will, without notice to any of the previous editors, on this article. John celona (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he claims to not be a holocaust denier, then perhaps user Celona can explain this edit, where he said: "The final solution is a hoax". --Jkp212 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained it before-some user threatened me with criminal prosecution because they found uncomfortable the facts I posted regarding my elderly Jewish mother's life in WW III Paris. My sardonic reply to that threat was to throw his threat back in his face. None of this, which happened a year ago, has the slightest thing to do with you and David in DC's attempt to have me banned so that you can censor the verifiabaly sourced information that one of your heroes spent 3 months in prison for [redacted]]; information which has continiously been on the article (and put there by another user-not me) for over THREE YEARS through dozens and dozens of editors and scores and scores of edits. John celona (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm redacting the comment above, and I redacted it in the other talk page per BLP. There's absolutely no reason why you need to go into graphic detail regarding a crime, and your accounts are grossly embellished with inaccurate prurient detail that is not supported by the sources. That's a behavior issue, not a content dispute.Wikidemo (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, if posting unverified claims of a sex offender conviction on a BLP is the issue... Best to say that right off. From the diff above, it looks like he is adding a category of "American criminal" and changing the "a short sentence" line to a specific "three months." If the claim of the crime (whether pardoned later or not) is sourced, and the length of the sentence is sourced, why should it not be included? That isn't an obvious BLP problem. Avruch T 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer my own question, the sources kind of suck but they are there and nothing that Celona is adding is necessarily incorrect (although things like "criminal" categories give me willies). Avruch T 02:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just to defend myself for a second here, I don't think Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or The Hill or the New York Times [[42]] are bad sources! John celona (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) You seem to be very objective. If you look at the talk page I think you will see clearly who is telling the truth with verifiable sources-and who isn't. John celona (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The content mentioned here is not much of an issue - definitely not an AN/I issue whether or not a 3-month imprisonment should be described as "short." But the statements he has been making in the edit summaries and talk pages in support of his position are unnecessary, seemingly inaccurate, and disparaging. It is already a hot button issue when the subject is sex crime, so embellishing 38-year-old instances of criminal sexual impropriety with details not supported by the sources is something we should discourage. The sourced facts speak for themselves. Having said this, a warning, revision, or BLP report seems to be more suitable than any administrative remedy at this point. It's really just a case of "you don't have to shout to be heard." If he's truly trolling around here adding disparaging material about Jews, that's another thing entirely, but I don't see any proof of that. Wikidemo (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you would please let me know what facts you think are "seemingly inaccurate" I will try to address them. The only fact I have tried to restore to the article (a fact which has been on the article for over 3 years and dozens of editors) are that Yarrow served 3 months in prison. This is sourced by the New York Times, amongst many others. [[43]]. This is the "only" fact I have restored to the article and it is a fact which has been on the article continiously for more than 3 years and dozens of editors and edits. John celona (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't look at the general reference. If I'm not mistaken, the reference I saw for the conviction claim was from the Jewish Baltimore Times, or Baltimore Jewish Times, something like that. It didn't look like a terribly professional source, but if there is a NY Times reference in there it should be cited inline. Avruch T 03:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you. I will add the New York Times as a source tommorow morning. Hopefully, that will be the end of this.John celona (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point here is not about the content dispute. That dispute was settled long ago with a consensus of editors. The point here is that the user in question tends to disregard the views of other editors, attack others, take provocative action, and questions others goodwill as a routine. He clearly sees that other editors would like him to discuss the edits, and gain consensus before making these edits, and yet he does so unilaterally. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not made any edits to the body of the article. I have restored the reversions of a single, well sourced (New York Times, etc.) fact-which has been on the article by consensus for well over 3 years. You continue to revert this consensus version, without informing or seeking imput from any of the dozens of editors who have included this fact in their working on this article over the last 3 years. You have also attacked me, twisted my words like a pretzel and stalked postings I had made months ago, which have nothing to do with this article. John celona (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peculiar fixation on Jake Gyllenhaal

    An editor -- from the evidence, BatterBean (talk · contribs) -- has been constantly recreating a rather odd assortment pages (disguised as User pages), which are cut-and-pastes of Fergie album articles with her name swapped out for Jake Gyllenhaal's. So far, the ones I've come across over the last several months and which have been deleted are:

    This is getting a bit tiresome. He's been left messages every time he tries this, but he immediately deletes the warnings without comment. Anyone want to have a stronger word with User:BatterBean?

    See also:

    --Calton | Talk 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget User:Glow69, User:LeaveItAlone69, User:Scream69, User:CrazyLove69, and User:Livedvd69. I deleted a bunch of these userpages in December, all Fergie/Jake Gyllenhall nonsense, and if BatterBean is the culprit, we should probably dispatch of him from the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any sockpuppetry check? I'd try blocking the IP address and if someone is suddenly autoblocked, things would be interesting, to say the least. I'd fear some more bizarre meatpuppetry here, which is would be quite difficult to follow. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checkusered these, starting with the first few, and all matched BatterBean. I doubt it's worth checking the entire list, as it seems pretty obvious already. Also, that's a lot of work I'd rather avoid. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone blocked the IP address (if it's fixed)? He'll either respond or stop playing around. Passive-aggressive, but works for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that it is a much better idea to discuss whether or not we should allow BatterBean to continue editing Wikipedia with all of these other accounts being used improperly, rather than discuss whether or not the IP should be blocked (or request a formal check).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser against User:Creepy Crawler. He had a JG fetish as well. ThuranX (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice advice

    A user has asked for my advice as an administrator on a matter involving potential vandalism. But I was previously a mediator in a content matter involving him and the alleged vandals. So I feel it would be inappropriate for me to judge their conduct, as I'm an involved party. Could an uninvolved admin review and act on if necessary? Below is a copy from my user talk page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "I advice you for 2 vandaling edits in my user page by same user:this one and other one. Also vandalism is this edit against valid and correct editor. You are admin and you know rules. Regards,--PIO (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)"

    First and third edits look like clear cut vandalism. Was the question whether it was vandalism or not? Looks like edit 1 deserves a warning, and edit 3 a considerably harsher warning. Avruch T 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well my question was, can someone else handle this (warnings, etc). I was rather emphatic at the MEDCAB that no user conduct sanctions would come from me as a result of mediation, and I don't want to be seen as going back on my word to either side. MBisanz talk 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I warned the first user with a level 3 (because they'd had earlier warnings) and the second with a level 2 (because they apparently had not). delldot talk 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding my edit, for which I've now been warned, did any of you actually read what User:Cherso had written to inspire the comment I put on his user page? I very much doubt it. However, I take my warning to heart and humbly apologise if I may have broken any rules. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    219.77.171.224 (talk · contribs) has attacked me both on the talk page of Talk:List of McMaster University people and in an edit summary for List of McMaster University people. GreenJoe 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, not much to do. Give him escalated warnings if he continues, and then report to AIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ownership and accusations of wikistalking

    I've been dealing with a user, Rotational (talk · contribs) for some time now on his style preferences for the articles he creates. In the style dispute over WP:HEAD and {{botanist}} usage, I asked for a WP:3O (here) but got a rather weak reply that offered wise advice on compromise, but didn't really address any of the substance of the dispute. I know ANI can't resolve content disputes, but it has become a bit more than that now. This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style. diff, diff, diff, etc. This display of ownership also appeared in his other sockpuppets (see case) when asked to alter style or consider changes. Since it's become an ownership issue and because this editor has accused me of wikistalking (previous diffs), I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. What to do when one is accused of wikistalking? Is this a clear case of ownership? I've since cooled it as I don't want to continue edit warring and was hoping the TO would be helpful. Appreciate any advice. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the MOS. He needs to follow it; if he wants another style, he should argue for it and see if he can get consensus. Otherwise, I'll personally mercilessly edit the article to follow it. If not, someone else will. I've informed him of the discussion as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style I don't think that editing to conform to one's preferences shows ownership - that would make us all guilty - but Rkitko seems to forget that every edit of mine is countered by a revert on his part. He, of course, feels that his interpretation of the MoS is the only correct one, which puts him slightly below Jimbo Wales and God. Fact is that he does stalk the articles I work on and I resent being targeted by him, especially since I don't dog his footsteps making a nuisance of myself. I don't vandalise articles and I try to make useful contributions, which is sometimes difficult in the face of a vendetta. I've since cooled it is typical of Rkitko's doublespeak, since he immediately trots off and turns his dissatisfaction into an Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. His grievances go back to his accusations of sockpuppetry and his attempts to have me permanently blocked. When that failed, he made a special mission of watching my every move. It would be nice if he could get off my back. Rotational (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't care less about the argument. Rotational, you are putting article with headings at level 5, and have been told about WP:HEAD. I understand the content you provide, but you have to know the formatting by now. Unless you read "primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on" from WP:HEAD completely different than me, it's fairly clear. If you don't want to format articles, just put a {{cleanup}} notice and let somebody who's into that sort of thing take care of it. I've cleaned up some of your articles (and I'll just say that List of florilegia and botanical codices was a ton of useless work because you don't follow any of the structure here), and you should follow the style. It just makes more work for others. I don't understand the desire to put articles in your personal preference, as it will be edited out anyways. Also, Rotational, please provide diffs of reverts from him. The last 10 or so articles you have in your contributions have no edits from him, so he isn't reverting every edit of yours. He pointed to diffs, and it was clear what was going on. It's only fair to ask you to do the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'll note that this is first edit from Rkitko to this noticeboard since September. It looks to me like he asked you to not do that, he went to 3O, he got a 3O response, he came here, specifically about the stalking allegation, it seems. I really don't see him following your around, Rotational. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do admit to going through his contributions every once in a while, but that alone is not stalking. Rotational's articles sometimes show up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page, which leads me to see if any of his other contributions need a clean up. But there is no intent to harass. In posting this here I was seeking advice on how to work with a user that was involved in an edit war with me but refused to discuss the issue with me. Thanks for responding to my request for advice, Ricky. --Rkitko (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed sockpuppet User:Runreston still active

    An earlier checkuser (see here) definitively confirmed that User:Xcstar and User:207.91.86.2 were sockpuppets of User:Racepacket, resulting in a permanent block of Xcstar. Shortly after the ban, User:Runreston was created by Racepacket, following the same path as Xcstar and the most recent sockpuppet check confirmed that Runreston was a likely sockpuppet of Racepacket. Given that Runreston is a confirmed sockpuppet, what is required to implement appropriate long-term blocks on both the sockpuppet and the puppetmaster User:Racepacket who created his newest sockpuppet almost immediately after the previous block. As admin JzG confirmed the "likely" status for the latest sockpuppet (see here), all that is necessary is to impose the appropriate block. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Runreston was blocked indef on 27 Feb by JzG and has not edited since then Xcstar is still indef blocked. The IP has reactivated so I blocked him one week (he had a prior 24 hour block). — Rlevse • Talk • 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ce1988 petty vandalism

    Resolved
     – indef'd as vandal only

    User:Ce1988 has been vandalizing Port Arthur massacre (Australia), and I've had to make 4 reverts to it. I believe my reverts do not violate WP:3RR, as they all apply to the "obvious vandalism" exception, as seen here: [44] [45] [46] [47]

    Anyway, I'd appreciate it if someone could at least temporarily block this vandal. Blue Mirage (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are looking for WP:AIV. Tiptoety talk 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    indef blocked as vandal only acct. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My userpages

    User:Metros is having a bad day and wants to delete my userpages. I'm not advertising anything nor am I trying to promote a political agenda. I am "running for president" to promote wikilove and wikicohesion among editors. Its not serious and I don't expect anybody to vote for me. I am sorry if I caused any problems with it but I am not doing this out of bad faith. I feel it improves civility and makes the encyclopedia work better. Jimbo has encouraged WikiLove in the past with his support for the "Autograph" books.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What would you like an administrator to do about this? This board is for actions to be taken, so administrators will need to know what you're looking to be done here. Your page was nominated for being, as I believe, inappropriate. It is essentially a blog where you're sharing your personal beliefs on how to change the world. This is inappropriate under WP:USER guidelines. The other page I nominated is not "your userpage" and is actually a Wikipedia-space list. (Discussions are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians who ran for president) Metros (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I want an administrator to talk to you about your actions. Why do you keep reverting my attempts to talk to you when I have no bad faith intended.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because your explanations for why you think your page is appropriate belongs at the deletion discussion, not a user talk page. Metros (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting comments on one's own talk page is okay, and what is there for someone to 'talk to him about'? He provided a decent reason for the deletion, has composed himself civilly, and is not acting in a disruptive manner. This is a non-issue. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was explaining my reasoning to him. Using a rollback summary implying vandalism when it is not, is incivil. If somebody thinks something is divisive explain it to me on my talk page, there is no reason to bring it to AFD. I think it is a waste of an AFD since the editor Metros could have just left a friendly message on my talk page and the whole issue could have been adverted.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a waste of a MFD too, but it's there. Silly but just go along with process, Uga Man, and explain your reasoning there. You are not probably going to gain anything by talking to Metros. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did not mean to imply anything by that; sorry if I did. Just meant that you should go to the centralized discussion. Talk with Metros wouldn't do much. At best, he could withdraw the nomination but it would be more effective to try to answer everyone questions, if they are any, at the MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Justanother personal attacks and edit warring on IP address

    Resolved

    An IP address appeared tonight and edit warred on Shawn Lonsdale. Cirt reported to AIV, where the IP disclosed that it was actually Justanother.[48] Because that connection meant the issue was no longer simple vandalism, the matter could not be resolved at that board. Also made personal attack Are you on drugs, Cirt?[49] The Shawn Lonsdale article is under probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS where Justanother was a named party. Justanother confirms his awareness of that probation in this edit.[50]

    Justanother has previous blocks for disruption, edit warring, and personal attacks and has minimal productive contributions. He has been singling out Cirt for abuse for some time. See this thread from Jimbo's talk page in January where he compares Cirt to a crack whore.[51] This is intolerable, and for some unknown reason he isn't getting blocked for it. Cirt has written 7 featured articles, 7 featured portals, 1 featured topic, 18 good articles, and 17 DYKs. I am very concerned about the effect of gross unaddressed harassment on a superb content contributor's morale. Please intervene with the tools. DurovaCharge! 05:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: DIFF, this statement by Justanother (talk · contribs) is false. I am very offended and frustrated by these attacks. Cirt (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked Justanother for one week and the IP for 31 hours. Feel free to review it ... Blueboy96 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the swift action. DurovaCharge! 05:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, Blueboy96. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange behaviour at an article

    A bunch of accounts suddenly started messing with the John Brooke-Little article. What should be done with those accounts? Gimmetrow 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First protect then warn. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange that they're so close together; looks coordinated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, 6 accounts in 7 minutes, and two sets of two names are connected. All but one account looks like a single-edit throwaway. Should these be considered socks, if so of who, and should they be blocked for a single edit? Gimmetrow 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it's plausible it is a coordinated attack, but we should wait before going for a block. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very weird. My hunch is that there are two friends working together to do this; it seems unlikely that one person would be able to log in, open an article, edit it, log out, and repeat this process over and over, that many times, in so few minutes. But I suppose it's possible. The "Hiderek" name suggests to me that the editor is probably not named Derek and that if there are indeed two vandals, Derek is his/her partner in Wikicrime. Jonneroo (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody sticking goatse on articles should be indef. blocked until they explain and promise not to do it again. Corvus cornixtalk 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest protection but I'd rather these guys come out and get themselves blocked. If it goes too fast, lock it down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User creation log. Gimmetrow 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Puppets all indefinitely blocked. I left the puppeter unblocked for now, but anyone else in the mood can go ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go ahead and block the puppeter now; he/she is vandalizing again and was given a final warning yesterday. Jonneroo (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gimmetrow just did; thank you. Jonneroo (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of range block

    I have blocked the 118.137.0.0/16 range for 1 month due to only vandalism (as far as I can tell) coming from the range. I had previously blocked it about a week ago for 1 week due to extensive vandalism, and the vandalism restarted almost immediately upon that block expiring. The following IPs were all used for vandalizing the same set of articles:

    They are all from some ISP in Indonesia. Whoever it is seemed to like adding various MGM-related info to totally unrelated articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Nihon. The following 5 blocks would cover the range 118.137.2.0-118.137.63.255 and only block 15,872 IP's as opposed to the 65,536 that you have blocked.

    • 118.137.2.0/ 23
    • 118.137.4.0/ 22
    • 118.137.8.0/ 21
    • 118.137.16.0/ 20
    • 118.137.32.0/ 19

    Perhaps you may want to minimize the block -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a thought, but this guy keeps switching IPs, and the range keeps getting bigger (there were fewer last time). However, they are all within the 118.137.x.x range. I also left the possibility open for a person to create an account if they really want to edit, so it's not a completely shut door. Just a guard asking for ID. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the update. -- Avi (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    removing other editors comments from AFD

    Resolved
     – AfD close, editor warned about policy

    I'd like to report well... me. I removed this comment from the AFD (which is going to get closed as SNOW) of Norman Bettison (head of West Yorkshire Police). As many of you will be aware, media sources in the UK have covered the fact that he is unhappy with the article (see here and here),and some of his staff have been in touch with us to try and work something out and deal with his concerns. I have therefore removed the comment (but left the !vote!) on the basis that a) it's a basis breach of BLP and b) it's very counter-productive when we have the media watching the article and related activity. Am I wrong in my actions in this matter (I'm asking for admin input because removal of comments at afd can get quite heated) --Fredrick day (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Very rarely are comments allowed to be refactored. Either they may be struck out or in this case, a note should be inserted that a BLP violation was removed and the original vote can be viewed in the history. Also it may be a good idea to leave a short note on the user's talk page as well that AFD comments are to be made free of personal attacks/BLP violations before reporting it on places like ANI. As far as your last concern, no you were not wrong however, I would strongly recommend leaving a note on that user's vote due to refactoring the user's comment. Hope that answers your questions.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did leave the !vote in but will follow your suggestion, I left a comment about the removal on the user's page. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. You were correct, Fredrick day; and it's not uncommon for inappropriate comments to be deleted (even in AfDs). It would be tactful to note your removal by adding <attack removed> and a relevant diff. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    editor has returned and has reverted back in his personal attack which is in breach of our BLP policies - please see here. While I'd rather not get into an edit war, I also rather that the press coverage of this matter does not extend to how we let people take such pot-shots at living figures. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass/drive-by de-proddings by User:Pixelface

    Today I noticed that an obscure article I had prodded due to a lack of reliable sources, Omega (1987 computer game), was de-prodded by a user indicating that "discussion on the talk page has indicated there might be some controversy over its deletion." Excited at the prospect that there might have been some discussion on the topic, I rushed over to the talk page only to find that, no, the only discussion was by me and by someone else who explicitly said they weren't challenging the prod.

    I then looked at his contributions, and saw that he removed the prod template from about 20 other articles, most of which he has had no involvement in. I undid the edit and asked Pixelface to clarify what he meant. He then re-de-prodded, and said "Sorry, I misread, I'm contesting the prod" (with no indication of why).

    Look. I know that the prod template says that anyone can "challenge" a prod, but it seems a bit WP:POINTY to do mass, drive-by de-proddings of articles that not only aren't you willing to contribute to, but you probably don't even know what they're about when you remove the template. That doesn't seem like good faith behavior to me. Am I off base here? Can I get some third-party input? Nandesuka (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The PROD system does rather leave itself open to this kind of abuse. For the moment I'd make an AFD for the article you wanted deleted (a discussion can't hurt, anyway) and hopefully an admin will come along to warn him against this kind of behaviour. Naerii (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely POINT. I'd re-add the prods. Will (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring over the prods isn't a good idea. Let's wait until there's more discussion. Naerii (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nandesuka, when I looked at Talk:Omega (1987 computer game), I glanced at "contesting at this time" and that's why I initally removed the {{prod}} tag. I can remove a {{prod}} tag for any reason. If there is really consensus to delete the article, that will be evident during the AFD process. Discussion never hurt anything. --Pixelface (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight: you are contesting a prod because you misread the words "not contesting the PROD at this time" as "contesting the PROD at this time"? You're serious? This isn't a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pixel, what is your reasoning for removing all those other prods? Naerii (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I noted it in my edit summaries. --Pixelface (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this require any admin intervention? Take the article to AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you are abusing the PROD process does. Naerii (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not abusing the PROD process. If I think a deletion may be controversial, I'm allowed to remove the template. If the person who placed the prod tag wants the article deleted, they can list it for AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can removed prod tags from as many articles as they want for any reason and they are not required to provide that reason. If you still want it deleted, afd it. ViridaeTalk 13:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, no, that's not quite accurate. Bad-faith wholesale removal of PRODs has been successfully challenged at AN/I with reversal and warnings. I was involved in one such, as a matter of fact, when someone started going alphabetically through the PRODs and dePRODding them, hitting one I had placed. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe pixelface was well within their rights to remove the prod from this article. There are reference on the article and discussion on the talk page. There is significant room to allow that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I reviewed the article and it's references and beleive the correct action is to take it to afd. Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My remark was meant to address the comment that PROD tags can be removed for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Taken too literally, the rule invites miscreants to game the system, or inhibits the less-experienced user from seeking relief for a bad-faith removal. In this instance, bad-faith does not apply, so AfD would be, as you say, the proper resolution. -- Michael Devore (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also important to note that on 18:27, 26 February 2008 this article was not a candidate for the Prod by Nandesuka Diff, as Nandesuka had removed a prod from the article in July 2007 Diff which per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion made WP:AFD the only avenue for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Pixelface's recent untaggings, they don't seem to have been unconsidered or random. He usually addresses the reason for detagging in his edit summary: "removed prod template, Wikipedia has articles on many upcoming films and the director's blog indicates it's in production", "removed prod template, the news article and entry at Gamespot are valid sources", "removed prod template, comments on the talk page indicate deletion may be controversial". This is good, thoughtful work, and not in any way bad editing. "Proposed deletion" is only for deletions that aren't at all controversial. Pixelface's removal of a prod template doesn't imply that the article mustn't be deleted, but that it is more appropriate to discuss before deleting. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here isn't that specific article -- I think we can all agree that reasonable people can disagree on one article. I specifically have a problem with the drive-by nature of it. Some of Pixelface's objections indeed seem appropriate, and others do not. When I spot checked several of the "comments on the talk page indicate..." claims, I noticed that there were, in several cases, no such comments at all. In other cases, he indicated that deletion "may be controversial", and again there is no indication on the article talk pages or that edit summary that it is controversial. Any edit may be controversial. That's not an adequate rational to unprod in bulk, in my opinion. That's what concerns me here: unprodding for the sake of unprodding, rather than because of any good faith rationale. Nandesuka (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The way Prod was set up, it's enough that the person removing the tag thinks deletion may be controversial. Pixelface and I have occasionally (more often than that, truth to tell) had disagreements, but I don't think his honesty is in doubt. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While myself and Pixelface don't agree on much, most of these de-proddings look reasonable to me; I have re-added one though, because the article is a duplicate of another. Black Kite 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    EnglishClassKazan (talk · contribs)

    Resolved
     – See below. Rudget. 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Short query: see the user page for the above user: is this an acceptable use of a Wikipedia user account? -- Roleplayer (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpage deleted and another page this user has created have been deleted as a role account userpage and under U2 respectively. ECK has been indef-blocked as {{usernameblock}}. Rudget. 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Need a range block done

    Resolved
     – See below. — E talk 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all. I've been reverting this user all day and they just seem to keep changing their IP. Because I'm not familiar with range blocking, can I get someone to block the range of these IPs.

    So its from 64.228.*.*. Thank you in advance, — E talk 13:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that we're dealing with a lot less than 64.228.*.*. I think that 64.228.128.0-64.228.131.255 should be enough. And a range block over 2 IP addresses is a bit excessive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct CIDR range is 64.228.128.0/22. — Werdna talk 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since others might also wonder, here's some info to help. You may wish to block the IP range, or semi-protect the pages. Since I assume you know how to do the latter, here's some quick tips on the former:
    If you visit http://arin.net and enter the first IP, you'll find that's part of an ISP range covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. In fact this covers both IPs in question. [if the ISP wasn't in that part of the world, it would mention RIPE or APNIC or such - links are on the bottom, again you paste the IP into their website to see what they say]. You can then check quickly what CIDR range this would be, at this calculator for example. Enter the lower IP and choose a number of bits in the drop-down box. See what range that covers. By trial and error, you'll find that 22 bits covers it, and the CIDR box on the right will then show 64.228.128.0/22 as covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. This would be the range you block. You'd remember not to block IPs too long, since every user on that range would be affected.
    Hope that helps! FT2 (Talk | email) 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This works better for me: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=64.228.128.71 — pick the most specific range, and look under 'CIDR'. — Werdna talk 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes, you may wish to minimize the collateral damage, and then you may need to chain together a few blocks. For example, the suggestion at WP:ANI#Notice of range block. In that case, however, the original blocking admin had good reason to block the entire 65,536 range. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. I've blocked the range for 8 days. — E talk 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You all should make some notes at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks for future reference. Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All you lazy slow-pokes like me can use rangeblock-calculator. It even tells you what ranges are safe to block without major collateral damage. Maxim(talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. The rangeblock calculator is magic. Natalie (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shweet. Then again, it will put those of us who used the old-fashioned method out of business and make us look really dumb :) -- Avi (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack only account?

    Resolved
     – Indef blocked by Maxim —Travistalk 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TenOfSpades has made three edits since his account was created on 22nd Feb purely to insult other users on a user's talk page. Could someone please sort him out? I don't know whether this would be classed as an attack-only account, another user hiding behind a sockpuppet, etc but he clearly has an attitude problem. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the last edit, I've issued a final (only) warning; no reason to put up with someone who has done nothing but insult other users. He suggests at a history on Wikipedia, so pissed off sockpuppet is a good probability. I certainly wouldn't object if someone blocked him. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to issue warnings for obvious sockpuppet trolls. Blocked as one accordingly. Maxim(talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. John Smith's (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Old talk page comments and notices

    So I came across Talk:Jr. Food Mart and Talk:Jitney Jungle - both of which are Mississippi-founded companies.

    1. Jr. Food Mart had 2 Fair Use Image notices for 2 different images, both images of which have been deleted. So in the process of placing the WikiProject Mississippi tag on the page, I removed those Fair Use Image notices. User:Tkynerd has reverted me each time, including removing the WikiProject Mississippi tag.
    2. Jitney Jungle has 2 comments from July 2006, both by the same user, Tkynerd and 2 comments from 2007, one by Tkynerd in July and one by an IP in September. So in the process of placing the WikiProject Mississippi tag on the page, I removed those old comments. Tkynerd reverted me twice, including removing the WikiProject Mississippi tag. To satisfy him by not deleting the old comments again, I created an archive and moved them there. He has taken them back out of the archive and put them back on the talk page.

    Would someone handle this matter and let me know what the policy is on old comments and deleted image notices for images that have been deleted. I called myself doing the right thing but since Tkynerd wants to edit war over it, I'd like to get some admin takes on this. If I'm wrong, say so. If he's wrong, please tell him to leave it alone. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why remove comments? It's bound to antagonize users. Apologise, restore them and the tag with it. Write a brief line of apology on their user pages, and they may accept your tag. The thing is, the discussion about the images or other issues may seem resolved at the moment, but having the discussion on the talk page may stop a user new to the page from restoring them. See what I mean? Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just comments, notices too, as you see a difference. There's no need to remove talk page comments, unless they're abusive. You could archive I suppose, but you may as well keep them there to stop other users recreating and/or using the pics. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclosing personal information as punishment, sockpuppeting, POV pushing, edit warring, single purpose harassment accounts

    Resolved
     – Dealing with this at WP:SSP. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This was recently archived without resolution or comment. If there is some problem with it, please let me know. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting a block on Willdakunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and suspected sockpuppets for habitual edit warring and per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection "disclosing personal information" (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta).

    This user was previously blocked 1 in the Nhguardian incarnation for edit warring with Jrclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and for related 3RR process disruption; in fact, this user's entire purpose here on Wikipedia seems aimed at disrupting the edits of that user. See edit histories of socks for details. Commonality of edit history and talk page rhetoric is blatantly apparent. This has been ongoing for many months now with small periods of inactivity between.

    User engages in exposing of personal information of other users as punishment for disagreeing with him, here most recently on my talk page as Willdakunta 2, here as Isp 71.168.80.203 3 here as Nhguardian, 4, and here as Isp 71.181.68.181 5.

    Suspected sockpuppets

    NHguardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    71.181.68.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    71.168.80.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    71.181.62.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    71.181.51.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    47.234.0.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    71.181.48.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    (Note: User has been simultaneously reported on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets) for sockpuppetry.

    Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits to support eBay fraud

    Resolved
     – blocked

    Account Thomiswil and two -puppets (see RfCU/Thomiswil) have been engaged in edits designed to remove unfortunate facts and supporting references from “E. M. Washington”, and to replace these with fulsome praise and other dubious assertions:

    edits by 209.244.62.98: [52], [53], [54]
    edits by 209.244.62.101: [55], [56]
    edits by Thomiswil: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]

    eBay account thomiswil is selling work by Washington:

    1. [65]
    2. [66] ←
    3. [67]

    And at least one of these auctions (1950 M. C. Escher by E. M. Washington 'Gargoyls' (Rare)) resumes the Washington fraud, dating a wood-block or print to “1950-1969”. (Washington was born in 1962, and didn't make any wood-blocks until the '90s.) —SlamDiego←T 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the editors last edit was more then 48 hours ago, as there are vandalism warnings on the talk page addressing the behavior and it has stopped, we can probably assume no further action is required at this time. Jeepday (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a single-purpose account with a transparent motivation to return to vandalizing, whose prior improper edits continued well after warnings were given. —SlamDiego←T 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser case was filed regarding this matter. Now  Confirmed - Alison ❤ 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blatant sockpuppet needs blocking

    KayShawn24 (talk · contribs) is a blatant sockpuppet of Shawnkay1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalizing the Tammy Lynn Sytch article. Sock is editing in the same manner as the indefblocked editor and the username is just a variation of the original account. WP:DUCK -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked him to stop, and discuss what he was doing.

    Resolved
     – Routine content dispute, no need for admin action

    I asked another wikipedian who had made several dozen large excisions I considered controversial, and poorly explained to stop, and discuss the issues with me.

    They did leave a couple of comments. But, within 25 minutes, they continued with the same kind of edits. As of right now they made six further similar excisions.

    Is this OK? Isn't this a breach of WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground?

    Now maybe his or her point is completely correct? Maybe if we had a real discussion, at the end I would say openly acknowledge I was convinced that their position was correct, and I had been wrong. But a reasonable request to pause for discussion shouldn't just be blown off, should it? Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be specific. Exactly who did exactly what on exactly which article? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple articles about Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees contain boilerplate relating to the legal background of Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards. These two administrative procedures of Guantanamo also have their own articles. In many cases the boilerplate appears to be padding introduced to bulk out the article. The boilerplate doesn't relate specifically to the article subject in such cases, as the subject is the detainee name per the article title, not the detention procedures. I am replacing the boilerplated text with links to the articles that discuss the procedures. I see this as a cleanup issue. I have attempted to explain my viewpoint to User: Geo Swan, and await any justification he might offer for keeping such misplaced boilerplate in several tens if not hundreds of articles. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:DMcMPO11AAUK writes that he or she "...await[s] any justification he might offer...". That is the point of my query. User:DMcMPO11AAUK is not waiting. He or she plunged right back into these excisions, without providing the time for a reply. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for adminstrator action here. Please discuss on the relevant talk pages, or pursue dispute resolution. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A new user claims ownership of a nickname on the Eli Manning pass to David Tyree page, his claim is here [68]. Redrocket (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignore him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Borders on WP:LEGAL. If it continues issue a warning and point him/her/them in the direction of the link. Legal concerns should be further resolved before such comments are made. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done but he is definately trolling see his deleted edits. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, that sort of phrase wouldn't be automatically trademarkable, nothing is showing on the US trademark office as being a trademark anything along those lines, and there's no such lawyer cropping up on Google searches. All in all, probably a load of old tosh. GBT/C 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm now I don't mind a little sillyness but revert warring isn't on. I've indefblocked the sock, reverted all edits and protected Eli Manning pass to David Tyree for a bit to put a stop to it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if a generic phrase like that could be trademarked, which is doubtful, there is no reason wikipedia couldn't freely refer to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And in case you didn't guess, Google reveals no connection whatsoever between that phrase and anyone named "Leone". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trademark just prevents companies from selling a product under the trademarked name - it certainly doesn't prevent people from writing about and referring to something by its trademarked name. Otherwise, we couldn't have an article called Coca-Cola. Natalie (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, my searching returns nothing - seems like prime evidence that this is an elaborate hoax, and certainly sanctionable. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That attorney's name sounds awfully familiar... maybe another threat in the past has used that "lawyer" as a front? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The attorney does not show up in Martindale-Hubbel, but there are 60 trademark applications filed in her name, the last in 2005 I think. Some other info re. attorneys at the address given in the message but out of BLP concerns I won't go into detail, because there's no sense dragging them into this if they aren't involved. Wikidemo (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request sanity check

    Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Edit warrior. Am I going insane? Has wikipedia changed in some way, and have I managed to miss the memo?

    --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a lot of attempts to add stuff - sanger's quote, extra formatting - and a consistent theme to keep it simple and direct, with other versions at most on a sub-page (which are the edits and reverts by multiple users you're seeing).

    Any use? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are many attempts to insert the "nervous and depressed" wording, or other newly-coined wordings, on the page, but consensus seems to favour the twelvewordversion, at this time. So, tends to be a lot of reverting. Situation normal, pretty much, nothing to be seen here. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that there might not be consensus, and that the perception is bent by edit warriors. Hence the sanity check. --Kim Bruning (talk)
    Content dispute - no need for admin. action, then. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't a content dispute with edit warring result in full protection until said dispute is resolved? FunPika 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which means the edit-warrior wins. We covered that ground sometime last month ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does seem to be a catch-22. Either the version stays as is (purported consensus) or is locked down as is (forced status quo consensus version). Either way, no changes can be made. I actually liked the version with the the longer explanation below, because some editors really don't get 'IAR' means IAR only when it actually helps the project, and vandalism doesn't fall under IAR. I think such a version would be great. The notebook handwritten version is clever,because using a photo of a policy is ignorign the rules, so... it's spiralling in cleverly, but that doesn't avoid the very confusion i remarked on above, so it's not the kind of change we need. That said, there is an admin there with Draconian OWN problems. However, per the new admin standard, admins operate under continual IAR, so that's acceptable now. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that i agree that there is any problem of OWNership, at Ignore all rules. Most edits, even if they seem interesting, do not take, and there are lots more than one editor who reverts back to the 12word version.
    I like to look at these interesting proposals, but, if possibly dozens of editors are ready to revert to a stable version, that is in no way edit-warring, in my opinion. I see the page has been protected, yet again, but there is scant evidence of "recent" edit-warring. That is OK, I guess, but progress on the page was being achieved, and the discussion reasonably fruitful. There is also Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Workshop, where more radical experiments can be, and are being made.
    I reckon the page protection could be lifted, safely. I do not know who requested it. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I would lay most of the blame for the page being protected on a certain User who appears to want to WP:OWN the page, and that user's unsuitable edits being reverted, and then whined about on the discussion page, I think. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned user back again with sock puppet

    Resolved
     – Blocked

    Cody Finke is Back! Codyfinke10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Other aliases:

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 March 2008

    Continuous incivility by User:Imbris

    Constant & repeated incivility and semi-personal attacks from this user, despite warned repeatedly on his talk page.

    • Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro's Crnojevic Family. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda. Please take this matter under consideration because this is a blatant hoax."
    • Here: "Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda."
    • [69] Where are your sources, in some medieval festivals perhaps. An for that matter unsupstaniated material is unencyclopaedical."
    • Here: "Easy, isn't the flag yellow with red eagle or you are changing your mind very quickly. Today you say that it is red flag with a white eagle and tomorow you will realize that either hadn't even existed)"
    • Here: "but cannot stand your clear fabricizations."
    • here: "Stop your deliberate disinformation crusade,"
    • Here: "to bad yours is so negative and greaterxxxxxxx".
    • here: "Stop your POV pushing and greaterxxxx politics".

    It has been very difficult to communicate with this user. After I cited sources for several facts he held questionable, he aggressively responded and accused me without basis that I am a falsifier of history. He demanded scanned pages of sources. After I indulged his demands and scanned them, uploading them to his talk page, he started to accuse the sources themselves for falsifying history, as he did here: "Is it some picture-book for 3rd graders. It is most clear that you and Nikola have different souces, his low-res part of that map looks very much different. Also the page you scanned looks not-clear and funny like it was manipulated. I am not accusing you but the author who clearly manipulated with the image." He also accused the even-uploaded books as irrelevant for being "3rd-grade alike" and complained that my scans were poor and barely viewable.

    I don't want to seem wrong out of this - but I need a 3rd hand opinion. Am I doing anything wrong? How to stop this continuous impoliteness, incivility and lack of any constructiveness? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire ordeal came to be when Pax uploaded a file without sources on February 28 this year.

    I found this to be somewhat strange because on commons user must fill the chart (a small table with sources and other data).

    Then I decided to seak deletion and claimed OR and UE which were misinterpreted by Pax.

    It is not sourcing when someone shows you a one detail that is unrecognizable. The source Pax provided is a very strange picture-book that offers no factography in a form of citations and quotes from documents and older publications.

    Because we are dealing with a middle age topic and because one might say that even Flag of Denmark as the oldest if from a 1600s (legends from 1200s) but sources from 1600s. I have everyright to be suspicious.

    What should I said to myself when Pax constantly changes every word that I contribute to his POV. Everyone has a POV. I offered him my collaboration and sources about the Constitional matter of passing the Law with simple majority.

    Will write some more fact soon.

    Imbris (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you think it's a picture-book, and more why very strange? :) I am writing here about your personal insults and the opinion of others. Are you trying to justify incivility? Let me also remind you that here you have claimed: "Your tactics is to ask eveyone about the nationality and claim that have something against you personally." Could you please back up these claims? Thanks, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First I must say that in this discussion I am not neutral. Because of different thinking (and editing) PaxEquilibrium and I are having agreement that he will not edit Croatia related articles and I will not edit Serbia related articles so we are having only few points of dispute. One of this points is article Podgorica Assembly where Pax are deleting, reverting any version of article which is not saying that Montenegro is and has always been Serbian land.

    Because Pax has used example to show Imbris in bad light I will show similar example from talk page of Podgorica Assembly:

    My comment:"Book writen in reference (by Pax) is speaking about Serbian agents which are working on Montenegro territory for union between state from 1866. This is not allowed to be writen in article"

    Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"The link is not necessary a reference, I myself put the external links to every single source"

    My comment:"Similar to that books from reference in article are speaking how serbian military has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military and royal family before election has ended. This is not allowed to be writen in article"

    Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"It may be written, however carefully because the statement itself is biased" (it is not writen)

    My comment:"Writing in article that parliament has voted under serbian military "protection" is not allowed"

    Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"What does that precisely mean?"

    My comment:"About slaughter (of Montenegrins by Serbian forces) read you can read Tribune of 1 september 1919"

    Answer from PaxEquilibrium:"That is a journalist article, normally far-fetched - but killings did occur, and they were indeed horrible. According to some (possible overestimates, but still), almost 3,000 Montenegrins died in the tiny civil war. But the Serbian Army itself, had little or none at all part in that conflict." (it is not in article)

    Point of this example is to see that Pax is not neutral editor which is showing data from neutral books. It is not possible to trust his books when even he is not accepting data from his obscure books if they are having bad data for his line of thinking.--Rjecina (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please elaborate what you're trying to point out and what is the relevance of this post? If discussion regarding those precise posts is needed, I will be more than willing to start it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a content dispute. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not agree because edits in this section are another example of PaxEquilibrium editorial style. He has moved my comments from section Continuous incivility by User:Imbris to another section so that 2 cases are seen separately but they are connected or better to say I have writen comments about Pax editorial style so that administrator can better understand situation between Pax and Imbris. Only possible mistake of user:Imbris is that he has lost nerve during "discussion" and provocations of User:PaxEquilibrium because of his insistance that only he know true history of Montenegro and only his "sources" are right sources.--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ..because I have no idea what this has to do with Imbris... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in other words it's a content dispute over which sources you guys can agree are acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we are discussing that - the problem is in Imbris' pick of choice and personal attacks. I have no problem in continuing the discussion with him at all and it will be useful to the Wikipedia, but only if he stops attacking other users. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    During last hour or something more I add Pax has been talking on talk page. In that difference between 2 of us has become clear. In looking historical events I look only legal arguments (I really try to do only that). He is looking all picture. My and Pax discusson in article Podgorica Assembly will end with RFC. I will win in similar way in which I have been "winner" in RFC if Jasenovac has been Holocaust extermination camp. With that discussion about article will be closed.
    We are not having content dispute about sources because he is refusing even his sources if they are not showing right picture. Let say for example I am using like source this Chicago Tribune from 1919. Pax is saying this source is bad, but I am having books which are showing this event. After reading his books I start to add information from pages 50-52 in article. Answer on that from Pax is:"This part of book is not good source". This situation for me is frustrating because he is refusing even his sources. For me this is POV editing.--Rjecina (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-Americanism

    This article is not yet at an official "incident" stage, but it's headed that direction, and also raises some interesting questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism There is a small, potential edit-war starting over the warning tags on the page. I put a bunch of warning tags on the page, and someone keeps deleting half of them. His reasons for deleting them are variously that he doesn't agree with them, and (just recently) that they are redundant. What I find interesting about this is his idea that warning tags should undergo the same editing/consensus process as article content. It seems to me one of the purposes of warnings is to express a minority view. For example, several (but not a majority) of editors wanted the article deleted. So I put up a warning that says "An editor has expressed concern that this article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted." He keeps deleting the warning, on the grounds that people voted not to delete the article. It seems to me warning tags don't belong to the same consensus process as article content: the warning doesn't say "This article is unencyclopedic" it says that concern has been expressed. Am I supposed to work toward consensus on whether I (and others) actually have that concern? The Talk needs some clarification, before an edit war breaks out. Bsharvy (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are always expected to work towards consensus. Adding tags does not usually require consensus, but they should not stay on against consensus, and they require reasonable explanation on talk. The tag about deletion should go after a failed AfD. No, tags are not there to express minority views. Relevant minority views should be integrated into the article. Fringe views deserve no representation at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite true that fringe views deserve no representation at all. A few fringe views are notable enough to be discussed, although that is rather unusual. Natalie (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A second editor has just deleted all the warning tags. I am not sure what to do. The standard mantra on Wikipedia is "There is no excuse for edit warring." but in my experience this is generally unaccompanied by any helpful alternative. The alternatives that do exist often are ignored, e.g RfC (when I request, nobody answers....). But even that doesn't really apply to warning tags. Warning tags are not encyclopedia content. The other editors working on the article seem to think that the placement of warning tags should follow the same procedure as editing content: if there is no consensus that the article has weasel words (for example), then the warning for weasel words should be deleted.... Bsharvy (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious Conflict of Interest - User:Igorberger

    During this MFD it has become clear that User:Igorberger has advertised in his private businesses that he is supported and authenticated by the Wikipedia.org. As I am involved in the MfD and have at times asked Igorbeger to stop spamming in other areas I bring this issue to ANI for further discussion. I note that he has listed those businesses as being his on his user page so there is no "outing" of new information in this ANI.

    See here for examples:
    1. His business IVB solutions IT states it is a consulting company providing solutions for the diverse IT market - including Wikepedia.org [70], and
    2. His business PHSDL - Project Honeypot Spam Domains List [71] - (which was his first creation on Wikipedia and is mentioned in the current MfD) states is has been authenticated per Wikipedia.org [72].
    I realise of course that it is difficult for us to stop a non-wikipedia editor from making these type of "puffery" comments but I seek the community's view on what request we can gain or impose on user:Igorberger in relation these claims and the edits that he is making in these areas of interest? I close by noting that Igorberger has indicated (in the MfD) that if at ANI it is determined that my reference from PHSDL to Wikipedia is inapropreate[sic] I have no problems removing that reference (and I assume others of a similar nature).--VS talk 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Hollows

    Please semi-protect Fred Hollows --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The correct place to make these request is requests for page protection; I'm not going to protect it because there's minimal edit warring or vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "See you in court soon enough gentlemen as this now has become personal attacks, slander, harassment." - sounds like a legal threat to me!

    Resolved
     – Comrade blocked indef; IP blocked 1 week -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [73] purportedly from Comraderedoctober --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    definitely a violation of WP:LEGAL. i think that thea admins will be by here to take this guy down. usually we get a lot of these things but the people who mkake them never actually bother to do anything because they dont know that they know that they ahve no legal defenses imaginabile for what they do here. Smith Jones (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC2)) Blocking -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, do not block. The threat was made by an IP a few weeks ago, and there is no explicit connection between the IP and the account. At least, I haven't seen one yet. —Kurykh 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's talk page (User talk:76.122.45.99) has a tag that states that it is indeed Comraderedoctober. -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the IP static or dynamic? In any case, we can't block IPs indef. —Kurykh 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Oh wait, you were blocking the account. Never mind. —Kurykh 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not yet touched the IP. -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the IP for a week. -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Smith-Jones, with "legal threats" it's never a matter of "[they] never actually bother to [sue us]", but rather "they were blatantly trolling from the get-go". — CharlotteWebb 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Banning a persistent vandal/harasser

    Could I ask an admin to add Mr. 72.76 to Wikipedia:List of banned users, so that I won't feel quite so controversial when I revert his contributions on sight? He's still up to his antics, and, according to this ANI thread, the vote to ban him by the community seems unanimous. A range block, apparently, is far more tricky, but at least let's ban the user, if not the IP range.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with the above. This situation needs more admin attention. R. Baley (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, apparently he's used a lot of different IPs. Useight (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for the record a list (comprehensive? I doubt it) can be found at this link. R. Baley (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nigahiga

    Resolved
     – page salted, Tiptoety talk 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Couldn't see a section on WP:RPP suitable for this particular request - it's a request that the space be salted once the article is deleted. It seems to be quite a popular page for reloading. -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mostly because they have a very popular Youtube thing going on. I believe we had a similar thing going on with Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TiconderogaCCB

    Keeps deleting opinions that are contrary to his opinion in an attempt to build a consensus. It can be seen here [74] where this opinion was deleted "J.Delany agreed to this verions [75] - I agree to this verion as well [76] 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)" his reason was vandalism and he says discussion was deleted when it was simply moved from the top to the bottom to go in chronological order(after he moved it). Also he asked for an opinion on which version is better [77] to which i was notified [78] and so was he [79] . When the third opinion came in [80] he simply ignored what the third opinion was and simply reverted the page [81]. I thought we had a compromise and would listen to the 3rd opinion, but now i'm really starting to wonder if there can be any compromise with him. Uconnstud (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I could mention the fact that he has been going to articles thru my history and stalking me commenting after me when he was never ever ever in the previous listed article at all. [82] Uconnstud (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the fourth time this issue has been posted here in the last few days (see 1, 2, 3, in the archives). Is there any administrative action required here, or is this something that can be handled by further dispute resolution? --jonny-mt 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible pointy moves by newer editor

    Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs) seems to be a newer editor and has moved several articles effectively wiping out histories. I recall there being a splice help page for such concerns but would appreciate an outside editor's take on this and bringing up the issue as I have had previous dialog and I doubt much I present would be received well. Also any suggestions for restoring the lost histories would be nice. Benjiboi 03:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen; methinks there should really be a shorter title for these things. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion log

    I speedily deleted Eric crespo using twinkle, but there's nothing in the deletion log. Is this some kind of software glitch? Spellcast (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed deleted edits on Klenow today but that also lacks/ed a deletion log. ViridaeTalk 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However I am assuming that is something to do with the deleted edits being from 2004. ViridaeTalk 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I wonder if there's any successful blocks lacking a block log. Maybe WP:VPT is more appropriate for this. Spellcast (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor keeps adding to AfD

    There's an AfD for Ase Card, which is here. User:Blazetrackz keeps adding more and more comments onto the page. There's no specific warning for this, and I guess he or she is allowed to keep adding, but isn't there some point where it's just redundant? Should anything be done? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=195493998"