Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

I am asking admin assistance in dealing with User:Breadh2o's edits since late December on Archaeoastronomy, its talk page and related pages, which have constituted a clear case of Disruptive Editing. Let me begin with a little background. The article was highly undocumented until April 2006, when User:Alunsalt performed a major rewrite. As a personal aside, that fine revision was one of the things that drew me to move from being an anonymous editor to editing under my own name. Among my other edits I continued to contribute to Archaeoastronomy, which developed to provide a solidly documented account of the growth, development and content of that complex interdisciplinary field.

Near the end of December, Breadh2o first appeared on Wikipedia (he occasionally edited under the IP 24.9.222.91).[1]. He opened his discussion on the Archaeoastronomy talk page with criticisms of the article's content, criticisms of the alleged suppression of archaeoastronomy by archaeologists, and ad hominem attacks on Alunsalt. Those of us who had been actively involved in the article first thought we would "give him time and space" to improve the article, but it soon became apparent that this was not leading to productive edits, so on 21 March Alunsalt posted an informal request for comments on the five Wikiprojects associated with the article to establish a consensus on POV. Shortly thereafter, on 24-25 March, Breadh2o posted a formal RfC for Science-related articles, questioning abuse by "two academics". As the discussion became increasingly personal, on 30 March Alunsalt tried to address the subject matter of the article by posting a notice on the No Original Research/Noticeboard. In order to get a wide range of comments, friendly notices of these actions were posted on the Talk pages of the five Wikiprojects associated with the article. Despite these friendly notices, only a few editors: User:Alunsalt, User:SteveMcCluskey, User:Breadh2o, and User:Dougweller have participated actively in the discussion. In addition, a few other people have commented, [2] [3] and with the exception of Breadh2o all have endorsed the position of Alunsalt and SteveMcCluskey on the editing of the article. Despite this apparent consensus, Breadh2o repeats the same arguments for his unorthodox thesis.

On 13 April admin User:Kathryn NicDhàna posted a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents pointing out, among other things, Breadh2o's OR, POV pushing, and insistence on unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources. On Breadh2o's talk page, another admin, User:Blueboy96, cautioned him against personal attacks and attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox; about a week later Kathryn NicDhàna added a warning to the talk page about WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. A few days afterwards, Breadh20 had dismissed Kathryn NicDhàna's warnings as a case of her choosing "to side with Alun Salt's and Steve McCluskey's [alleged] carte blanche to revert any edit I might attempt."

In the course of the discussion, Breadh2o identified himself as as Scott Monahan, who has "edited for over a decade" an off-wiki site to which he provided a link in the article (see footnote 3), who operates another website, OldNews, concerned with demonstrating that "Plains Indians had visitors from the far side of the Atlantic a thousand years before Columbus," and that he makes his living in internet, broadcast and cable video media, in which he advances these ideas.

Our substantive concern was that Breadh2o's edits were intent upon pushing his own point of view, by using the archaeoastronomy article as a vehicle to propagate the marginally related fringe hypothesis that Celtic people left inscriptions in the Colorado/Oklahoma region and which involves a hostile opposition to the archaeological establishment. Examples of this process included:

• In his earliest posts on the talk page he made clear his open hostility to archaeology "which looks downward" and his perception that "the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists" was being used "to summarily veto legitimate inquiry."
• He presented an original research account of the origins of archaeoastronomy, which sought to place pyramidologists at the origins of the discipline and would conveniently remove archaeologists from any significant role in its establishment.
• He repeatedly insisted [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]that critiques of the archaeological establishment for its refusal to accept diffusionist and other unorthodox ideas was an essential part of the article, placing it successively in two different places.[9] [10]
• He responded to a discussion under fringe archaeoastronomy of a site in West Virginia which was claimed to associate Ogham inscriptions with claimed archaeoastronomical indications, by adding a defense of diffusionism and an attack on the archaeological establishment for stifling dissent.
• He associated archaeoastronomy with the unorthodox hypothesis that Celtic inscriptions describing astronomical phenomena provide evidence of early trans-Atlantic contact.
• He engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against editors who challenged his point of view, Alunsalt, SteveMcCluskey, User:Dougweller at the No Original Research/Noticeboard, against the archaeological community as a group,[11] [12] and against the academic system in general.
• He provided a link to his off-wiki site on which we find an extensive bibliography and long history of disputes going back to 1977 between advocates of Celtic influence in the Southwest and members of the archaeological establishment.
• He refused to accept an attempt at consensus and in the course of his refusal did not assume good faith, accusing User:Bwwm, a new, but active, editor in articles on the History of Science, of being sockpuppet.

I had not realized he had accused me of being a sockpuppet, as I am not engaged in the discussion in an active way. I was trying to help by offering my opinion on a dispute. In any case, an admin can easily verify this by looking at my IP to verify that I'm not anyone's sock. --Bwwm (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o's edits have concentrated almost exclusively on archaeoastronomy; as of 7 April, 277 of his 301 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page, the other 24 have been on user pages and the No Original Research noticeboard. In contrast, only 104 of Alunsalt's 393 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page and only 120 of SteveMcCluskey's 4480 edits have been on the archaeoastronomy pages. His pattern of edits suggest that Breadh2o wishes to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue his long-running conflict with the academic establishment. This conflict is one of the identifying characteristics of Pseudoarchaeology and the hostile method he employs is characteristic of Disruptive editing. Given the decade-long history of this conflict, the lack of resolution at either the RfC or the No Original Research/Noticeboard, Breadh2o's continued insistence that his unorthodox POV, that "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" and claimed "Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma" has something to do with archaeoastronomy, and his repeated expressions of hostility, I doubt that it can be resolved by any of Wikipedia's conflict resolution procedures.

Either Breadh2o should agree to voluntarily refrain from editing on archaeoastronomy and its talk page, or he should be permanently banned from the article and its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be expedient to remove me, as I have raised troubling issues about WP:OWN, WP:IDHT and WP:NPOV with Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey. Everything I have added to the article has been purged. I have not engaged in any article edits since the admin warnings of more than a week ago, and have only modestly engaged in Talk dialogues, moving the bulk off article Talk, onto my own user page, so as not to seem in any way disruptive. My belief is the dual authors are intent on controlling not only article content, but banishing me because I represent a contrarian, minority opinion. I do not have the time or patience to assemble an offset to the extraordinarily detailed and footnoted position statement by Steve McCluskey, above. I trust the edit history, the status of the present article with nothing of mine remaining and my good faith efforts to justify in discussion uncomfortable content that is notable, meets qualifications beyond tiny minority opinion, is sourced by reliable and verifiable mainstream news media organizations, and my appeals to common sense will suffice. If not, then so be it. Perhaps I haven't given it my best shot, perhaps I have been rude and uncivil at times, perhaps what I have to contribute as a journalist myself matters not one iota. I'll respectfully step back and await a determination on Steve's efforts to silence me permanently. I guess I assumed Jimbo Wales' libertarian idealism might have shown more tolerance than is to be expected in an organism that has matured over time to tilt more favorably toward what academics have to contribute versus what dedicated devotees think. I was BOLD and at times broke some rules to make the article better. But it's reverted now to only what Steve and Alun believe is suitable for readers to consider. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the above shows the challenge of editing with Breadh2o. He is unwilling to cite reliable sources to back up his assertions, but believes the depth of his feeling is strong enough to justify the acceptance of his opinions.

Normally it would be possible to accommodate him by reading his bluster and attempting to discern if there's a valid point buried within it. However editing on the article is moving towards a state where peer-review would be useful to prepare for an FA application. This isn't really practical if sections of the article are going to be replaced with wild speculations about Celtic America and the cabal of archaeologists which aims to hide the truth (I suspect there are many so-called archaeoastronomers running around who are deep down inside hard-core archaeologists pushing an agenda of absolute control over archaeoastronomy.).

While Breadh2o hasn't edited the article since being warned by admins for his tone and personal attacks, his first edits after the warning were to launch another tirade against other editors on the Archaeoastronomy talk page. This signalled his intent to persist in re-writing a history which had been shown to be an original synthesis based on unreliable or irrelevant sources. In addition he added a George Orwell quote at the top of a draft of this on his userpage. When he chooses to be uncivil he's willing to devote hours to the project, re-drafting to find the exact phrase. It's flattering, but does suggest that his abuse is thoughtfully constructed rather than a temporary outburst of passion.

Despite this I'm reluctant to say there should be a permanent ban. It is a pity that he seems to have leapt into conflict rather than learning how Wikipedia works. A possible solution could be a ban from the Archaeoastronomy page and its talk page, which can be appealed against when he can show from edits on other topics that he can work with other editors in a civil manner. This would avoid punitive measures or 'silencing' him, while providing the stability to make a review of the article practical in the near future. If he continues to use his user page as a soapbox rather than productively edit then he will be choosing to make the ban permanent himself. Alun Salt (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty bad. I'm tentatively endorsive of a topic ban for some time, simply to let people find other ways to work on Wikipedia and to dilute the personal conflict here. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having tried to reason with Breadh2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and seeing admin warnings result in more attacks and POV-pushing, as well as a refusal to learn and follow basic WP community standards, I would endorse a topic ban on User:Breadh2o. Having watched the relevant pages and contribs for a little while now, I have not seen any of the other editors be disruptive. The others appear to me to be constructive contributors to WP. However I do believe a lot of their time has been wasted by having to deal with Breadh2o's POV pushing and personal attacks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the support! ;-) Defendant's exhibit A: April 10 lead paragraph in History deleted six hours later by Alun Salt. Defendant's exhibit B: March 30 append to Fringe archaeoastronomy purged April 10. Defendent's exhibit C: read it and weep, if you value the scientific method. Defendent's exhibit Z: my bad-boy essay removed for cause, I'll agree in retrospect. However, for curious admins who may care, it summarizes in my most coherent rant why tilting at windmills matters. WP:BURO Good luck with achieving GA, FA, and the eternal gratitude of the archaeological establishment. -- Breadh2o (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this means you'll be leaving this subject area to work on something where you have a less strong POV; it will make a topic ban unnecessary and this situation much more pleasant for all involved. --Haemo (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that User:Haemo is correct, although I think Breadh2p's last comment about 'good luck' was sarcastic. I think that if he does not remove himself from this topic a topic ban is inevitable.Doug Weller (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about interpreting Breadh2o's latest as a promise to leave; about a month ago he said on the talk page "I'm out of here and you are on notice." He's still around. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Since we've gone almost a day without comment, could someone other than me, Alun, or Breadh2o please interpret the consensus before the BOT moves the discussion to the archives. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban sounds reasonable. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest it premature to call for consensus after a mere 48 hours, particularly considering my request for mediation was submitted on April 9 and there has yet to be any response. On April 8 I had contacted user AGK seeking editor assistance, but moved toward mediation when Alun presumed consensus (which could well be interpreted differently, as the results were underwhelming after 3 weeks and 2 of 3 respondents did not engage in a consensus building dialogue) on the RfC and telegraphed an intent to resume edits. Indeed, on April 10, as I feared, he unilaterally purged both contributions of mine which I continue to believe met WP guidelines and policies for reliable and verifiable sourcing, is minority opinion (but exceeded "tiny" minority status) and which qualified both as notable and relevant. If and when mediation is forthcoming, I can make my case, unless I am silenced beforehand in a pre-emptive strike filed after my filing. It's confusing, I know. In any event, I believe a rush-to-judgment 48 hours after the post on AN/I would be premature, especially considering I have honored a voluntary suspension of any edits whatsoever since then, other than this response, and my two other replies above. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a great rush, I was just concerned that we not get archived by the BOT which, according to the recent history, has been archiving discussions after 24 hours of inactivity.

As far as I know, User:AGK has neither contacted anyone about your request nor has he scheduled this problem for mediation. I have posted a notice on his talk page so he is aware of this discussion on AN/I. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it might be somewhat early to close the AN/I, it is significant that in the month since this matter was first raised in an informal Request for Comments, the only person I recall who has come out in favor of Breadh2o's position was the anonymous editor who echoed his criticism on the edit summary to an article edit[13], and whom Breadh2o has called the Sunday vandal.[14] The remaining responses were critical or neutral. On the AN/I, at this point six commenters (including AlunSalt and myself) favored imposition of some form of a ban and one (Breadh2o) opposed a ban and called for delay. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A statistical analysis that contrasts 7 science articles on Wikipedia (anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry and physics) to archaeoastronomy, shows how anomolous this article and its editors are, and illustrates the foundation of our conflict, my exasperation and, sadly, incivility at times. My two opponents, I believe, are driven by an agenda which hinges on a crusade to muzzle me. They make no secret they are interested in achieving GA or FA status, a reason Alun Salt notes above, making my continuing presence undesirable. See my 3 charts The article's footnote count more than doubles the most footnotes of any comparable science article. The number of editors on archaeoastronomy (eliminating the 9 who have only performed minor spelling or formatting corrections) are essentially the 3 of us, and my stuff has been purged for the past fortnight, leaving the two of them responsible for 100% of content. Comparatively, in each of the other articles, literally dozens of editors share in editing and consensus. McCluskey and Salt have asserted a special brand of possessiveness unseen in any of the other articles, as determined by their analysis of consensus. I am a challenge to them in that I represent a minority opinion. Few academics, outside of David H. Kelley, Vine Deloria II, Martin Brennan and some other renegades, would approve of my contrarian opinion, however it is backed up by multiple media accounts which I have cited and it is not a "tiny" minority that believes as I do. I am in no popularity contest or out to win accolades. I want the best article possible, fair and balanced, and I protest the apparent violations of WP:OWN which I hope to raise in mediation ASAP. Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the dates for the past 100 edits track back accordingly: anthropology (Feb. 13), archaeology (Feb. 18), archaeoastronomy (Mar. 22), astronomy (Mar. 11), biology (Mar. 30), botany (Jan. 20), Chemistry (Oct. 11) and physics (Mar. 20). Breadh2o (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A few Points: First, these data reflect the fact that archaeoastronomy is a small and highly specialized field; the number of active investigators is probably around 250 (a ballpark estimate of the number of members of ISAAC, SEAC, and SIAC). It is not surprising that there aren't as many editors on Archaeoastronomy as on the major science articles.

Second, the sample of 100 archaeoastronomy edits for the period from March 22 to the present reflects an anomalous period when the edit war was in full tilt and edits by the involved disputants would be expected to play a larger than normal role. I am surprised that as many as 12 different editors were involved during that contentious period.

Finally, given the small number of editors that Breadh2o has demonstrated to be actively involved, it doesn't seem reasonable to delay closure until we achieve some unspecified large number of comments. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First, should only 250 people worldwide be permitted to opine on the WP archaeoastronomy article? Second, have there been contentious edit wars over on the biology and physics articles during the same period? Third, yesterday he was "not in a great rush" for closure. What has changed in 24 hours? Fourth, the chemistry article has no difficulty admitting alchemy was foundational to its history in the very first paragraph. But the authors of the archaeoastronomy article absolutely will not permit any acknowledgment of the tremendous interest in the Great Pyramid by British astronomers from the mid 1600s to 1894 (and especially in the last 35 years of that era) to be allowed as part of the article's history, though I tried including this documented genesis several times; none survived reverts. Instead, the origins of archaeoastronomy must be sanitized for peer review. -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure comparing edit numbers is helpful. For example on this thread there have been 8 edits by SteveMcCluskey, 13 by Breadh2o and this is my second. I don't think this says anything meaningful about the debate. It may be indicative of me writing first on a word processor for spell-checking, using the preview function, and taking a relaxed attitude to mistakes which elude me, so long as the message is comprehensible.

Much more interesting is Breadh2o's footnote comparison. He is absolutely right, from the sample he's selected Archaeoastronomy is anomalous. Unfortunately he's chosen the wrong sample. As he notes I'm interested in contributing to an FA class article. Comparison with this month's FA class articles shows that the average number of footnotes is around 82. It's probably fractionally higher, because of re-use of footnotes on articles like Ocean sunfish. The spread is wide. Just 19 on the Oliver Typewriter Company and 176 on Emma Goldman. The difference is probably due to the use of notes where necessary. This would be material that is likely to be challenged, and recent comments have asked for more citiations. Compared to the entries Anabolic steroids 138 and Rotavirus 124, given the contentious nature of Archaeoastronomy the count is consistent with an article editing with an aim for FA status. From his comments above and elsewhere it would seem that Breadh2o isn't convinced this is a good idea. I'm not sure what a Good Article attaboy is, but in context it doesn't seem positive.

There's another revision to make which I was going to try and write tonight, but I'm dropping my internet connection a lot for some reason and used my time writing this instead. Once it is done it'll need to sit a while to be copy-edited and revised as people think necessary. After that it will hopefully be ready for peer-review and then FAC. If Breadh2o insists on using the article as a coat-rack for archaeological conspiracy theories then this will not be possible.

While consensus isn't a vote count, it would be helpful to know what Breadh2o would consider evidence of a consensus to disregard his original research. Alun Salt (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"...Breadh2o insists on using the article as a coat-rack for archaeological conspiracy theories..." WP:IDHT my argument is specific to what TIME magazine, the Atlantic and Smithsonian chief archaeologist Dennis Stanford (via the BBC transcript) have to say about the institution's attitude toward diffusionism. An intolerance for pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact has a bearing on certain archaeoastronomical claims, such as the WV claim cited in the article (and the companion CO/OK claims to balance the case, which have been purged) that might be indicative of such. WP:NPA -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Breadh2o's references to Stanford etc are new here, but it is a example of his repetitive line of reasoning. Breadh2o has raised the connection between Ogham, a 1st Mil AD writing system from the British Isles to Kennewick Man (9th Mil BC) and pre-Clovis settlement (~15th mil BC) (the TIME reference) and the Solutrean hypothesis (~25th Mil BC) (the Dennis Stanford reference) before [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] (I stopped counting around April 8) The highlight is an apology for connecting Ogham to pre-Clovis material which turns into an accusation of dishonesty by the start of the next paragraph. [23]

The connection between Kennewick Man and Ogham has been described as preposterous by Breadh2o, but we seem to see it again. Another common theme is that an essay on metrology by Eric Michael Reisenauer places pyramidology at the start of archaeoastronomy, even though archaeoastronomy is not mentioned and there's references showing that pyramidology wasn't really at the start of anything much. The CO/OK claims are a reference to claimed Ogham inscriptions at Crack Cave. There are, as far as I'm aware, no peer-reviewed articles on the site. This, it is claimed, is because One would not normally expect a peer-reviewed journal or conclave to be critical of widely held tenets of the institution it serves. The Atlantic article includes the following observation: "Kelley disagrees with Fell's theory that the Grave Creek symbols represent some sort of astronomical text." This would not appear to be supportive of Breadh2o's archaeoastronomical claims. The rest of the article is not about ancient astronomy, but Ogham-in-America.

So once again we seem to have irrelevant or contradictory references and no indication as to what Breadh2o will accept as evidence that he may be mistaken. Instead of anything to do with archaeoastronomy we have another argument against archaeologists. His response to the (frequent) request to justify his sources and their inclusion in the article is usually met with WP:IDHT, but WP:NPA is new. I think with claims of stealth archaeologists (see quote cited above on my 1st entry in this thread), peer-review acting as a barrier (examples of articles by Dennis Stanford and Vine Deloria in major journals have been given), the idea that editors are working for 'the archaeological establishment' (see his 2nd entry on this thread) and a proposed collusion between myself and Doug Weller (who he's identified as an archaeologist and thus by definition not impartial), there's prima facie evidence that Breadh2o is suffering from an unacknowledged POV and that commenting on his conspiracy theorising is not a personal attack.

It's disappointing, but not unexpected that he hasn't responded to any of the other issues raised in my previous posting questioning his analysis.

If his argument genuinely were '...specific to what TIME magazine, the Atlantic and Smithsonian chief archaeologist Dennis Stanford (via the BBC transcript) have to say...' then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Especially if we were talking about archaeoastronomy. Sadly I think this would indicate he has no intention of accepting a consensus, no intention of working with, as opposed to against, other editors and no intention of moving his speculations on hyper-diffusionism to a more appropriate article. Alun Salt (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh20's editing appears to be an example of 'Civil POV-pushing', as explained at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. One of Raul's proposals is:

Accounts which use Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing may be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Care should be taken to distinguish new accounts from those with an established pattern of single-purpose advocacy. (Suggested by MastCell).

Though this is only a proposal, not a policy, I suggest that there is plenty of justification for just going ahead with an article ban in this case, based on our existing customs and traditions. All that we need is an admin who is willing to enact such a ban based on the evidence in this thread and the apparent consensus of those who have responded. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) On the one hand, WP policy expects of us to assume Good Faith. At the opposite extreme, I'm facing a stubborn opponent who persists in a pattern of mischaracterization and false linkage of Ogham and Kennewick Man long after I have discredited it, pointing to what Stanford says about institutional intimidation toward colleagues digging below the Clovis layer as instructive of a generally held attitude toward anything diffusionist. This is classic WP:IDHT as is the narrow characterization of content of the Reisenauer article and the TIME article. The reason there's been so much repetitiveness is that Alun never concedes a damned thing I say, despite saying it a hundred different ways. I won't relitigate it all here,but perhaps some admins will now understand, especially if they take the time to read Reisenauer's piece on changing British identity 1859-1890 and other refs, how I can lose my patience with reverts based on disingenuous reasoning. Now I'm in the Gulag, facing a tonguectomy for the silliest of all things, losing my temper. Pray tell, who's disrupting who? -- Breadh2o (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this stupid thing is getting ridiculous. You're now alleging that this is a discipline wide unfair bias that you're using Wikipedia to fight against, but that that doesn't count as a civil fringe POV push? Sorry, that's like saying there's an unfair bias in science to believe in a spherical earth, and that the scientists are all wrong, it's flat, but there's such a huge conspiracy of ego that we just can't see how wrong everyone but you is. No, EdJohnston's got this nail on the head. You're engaged in a classic model of the 'Civil POV Push', and you really, at this point, need to drop it, leave the article, and move on to something else. Further, you seem to think Alunsalt is OBLIGATED to 'concede a damned thing' once in a while. That's not the case, sorry. the cooperative model here isn't so absolute that we have to allow lies and bullshit in, just to be civil or help find consensus. Consensus doesn't have to mean compromise, and so much more so when compromise means letting fringe bullshit in. Rigorous adherence to high standards of research and scholarship improve this place, even if it means fighting at a line in the sand. Finally, that little pity party at the end is enjoyable false martyrdom, but it doesn't mean much. Topic ban well justified. ThuranX (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(uninvolved Admin, who spent too much time reviewing this dispute) If you want us to assume good faith in your actions, then demonstrate it by not editting this article or its Talk page for a long time. Your stubbornness over adding material to an article that is, at best, tengential, is the kind of attitude that drives away valuable contributors. This article is not about possible trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific pre-Columbian contact; it is about what archeology can tell us about ancient opinions of the heavens. The only commonality these two topics have is that many of the same monuments are discussed by both. If you cannot see the difference between those two statements, you will continue to find your experience with Wikipedia to be frustrating. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking this over, I'd say the only person not supporting an article/topic ban is Breadh2o (talk · contribs). While we have low participation in this article and this discussion, this is because it's not a mainstream or popular topic; despite low numbers, I think there is a clear consensus. I'd say a topic/article ban is in order, though I'd like to hear suggestions for how long it should be, or whether it should be indef (perhaps with the option for Breadh2o to petition to lift the ban after some period of time. Or not.). I think that if Breadh2o is not willing to observe an article/topic ban, and/or unwilling to cease attacking other editors on talkpages and in userspace, then a block is also in order. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be something close to a consensus here, but no one has volunteered to summarize the discussion and advise Breadh2o of the consensus. One reason for this reluctance may be the complexity of the discussion so far. Since I called this AN/I it would not be appropriate for me to draft the consensus, but as a step to clarify matters I am tabulating the opinions expressed so far regarding the requested ban. When editors made multiple proposals, I tabulated the most recent one.

Would someone volunteer to draft a summary of the consensus. It goes without saying that this does not close discussion and there is always time to add further comments.

User's Opinion Date	Ban	Duration	Comments
SteveMcCluskey 16:12, 21 April 2008	archastr & talk	permanent	alternate: voluntary suspension
Breadh2o 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)	none	n/a
Alun Salt 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)	archastr & talk	indefinite	until shows productive edits
Haemo 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)	topic ban	some time	time to dilute personal conflict
EdJohnston 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)	article		apparent consensus
ThuranX 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)	topic ban
llywrch 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)	article and talk page	voluntary for some time
Kathryn NicDhàna 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)	topic/article	uncertain	perhaps indef petition good behavior; bad behavior block

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK? I ONLY joined in on THIS discussion. TOPIC BAN? What in the world makes you think I need a topic ban? ThuranX (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, sorted out further on talk pages)

I think the table is collecting all the opinions expressed in this thread as to whether Breadh2o should be banned from editing Archaeoastronomy, its Talk page, or both. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. All i saw was the edit summary where he'd duplicated my name, and the diff material. That's a shitty presentation of 'consensus', when it looks like a list of bannings. ThuranX (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks fairly clear what the outcome is going to be, so I just have a few closing thoughts to share before I am closed out as a contributor to archaeoastronomy. Ed Johnston's citation of Raul654's Civil POV pushing was very helpful and I wish I could have learned how to distinguish myself and my arguments from this generalized characterization earlier in my time here. I believe there are distinctions I could make, but they'd probably come off as defensive and desperate in the 11th hour ahead of my contributory execution, so I'll forego this. Except, it should be instructive to note how author Steve McCluskey is cited in fully one-third of the footnotes in the article's intro. Does the discussion of Hopi skywatching (Steve's pet research) really deserve such prominence while the popular archaeoastronomy poster children of Stonehenge, Bru na Boinne (Newgrange) and Chichen Itza get downplayed down article? And how does my citing Reisenauer's insights into the formative nationalistic debate that gripped England and matured astronomy ahead of the spin off of archaeoastronomy, how does this amount to POV pushing on my part? Whereas excision of the influence apparently does not? I don't believe I have been given a fair shake and if this alone brands me as a pseudoscientist, then that must be the last resort of an academic defense against whatever may threaten its prestige and self-esteem. I call 'em as I see 'em. And when the authors open up the issue of Ogham archaeoastronomy in America as Fringe, and I confine my balancing context to this very same sub-topic the authors elected to launch, then see the context limited to only the attacks they want heard by readers without the balance, then there is something fundamentally wrong. Wikipedia represents itself as a dynamic organism or database of knowledge in flux that prides itself in accommodating diverse opinions, some which might be minority. But there's no point in fighting City Hall when academics are given a free pass and have free reign to rewrite history and restrict context to whatever degree they choose with the blessings bestowed by the organism of consensus. Few minority opinions, even when they have their advocates, are likely to survive the gauntlet of academic peer review and popularity contests. BTW, Kathryn, I have ceased attacking editors on talkpages and userspaces, But as with Alun's contributions above from 2 days ago, some apparently have carte blanche to persist in WP:IDHT and WP:NPA whenever it suits their fancy. And nothing is done about that or the duet's self-serving POV pushing of its own, in the article in question. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment on the introduction "Does the discussion of Hopi skywatching (Steve's pet research) really deserve such prominence..." is reasonable, and the answer is not now, no. I was planning to use Hopi skywatching as the ethnoastronomy example. After reading a poor (archaeological) paper I've used zenith tubes and Chaco canyon, so I think a re-drafted introduction would mention those instead. The reason I initially planned to write about Hopi skywatching was that the use of directionality and colour symbolism had implications for the study of many other astronomical practices in the American south-west and further afield. It is a major work in Ethnoastronomy (which is something the article also discusses because it's very difficult to draw a line between ethno- and archaeo- astronomy and many people don't bother to). Even so, I had contacted someone else I know who is familiar with aboriginal ethnoastronomy to write that section to avoid overloading the topic with Steve's work. I also dropped plans for a section on hybrid methodologies which would have mentioned Kate Spence's work in Egypt and Steve McCluskey's project on church orientations because I thought the way I would be presenting it would be an original synthesis. Seeing as Steve McCluskey a major figure in archaeoastronomy, he was recently president of the international organisation ISAAC, it's not surprising there's a similar number of citations to other major authors like Aveni, Krupp, Iwaniszewski and Ruggles. One of the reasons for the extensive bibliography is that I am trying to use other authors where possible rather than rely on just those five people.

As for the "contributory execution," I think it may be worth clarifying that this isn't a ban from Wikipedia, just one topic. If Breadh2o wishes to continue contributing on other topics he would be welcome. This gives him ample opportunity to present any evidence based on reliable sources about Celts in America, in the relevant articles. Alun Salt (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't these comments by Alun telltale of the "special brand of possessiveness" (WP:OWN) regarding the article I have alleged above? He is making arrangements for an approved contributor to add to the approved extensive bibliography, while banishing me and my verifiable, reliable sources on notable content from the same lengthy list of refs. When Salt and McCluskey work together to mock a claim of Ogham archaeoastronomy at a single site in West Virginia as an utter failure (implicit any other such claim elsewhere in the USA must be dismissed sight unseen as equally ridiculous), then choke off the discussion arbitrarily, and advise me to peddle third party evidence of Celts in America (based on 6 different working sites featuring Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma) elsewhere because it is not welcome in the article they have exclusively penned, that is no consolation. If they can justify an attack, they can tolerate a defense, as well. Or they should, without resorting to winning consensus to silence the messenger! -- Breadh2o (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this. This is the same time-wasting behaviour and exact arguments that appear to me to have been going on endlessly, despite multiple warnings. I think we have consensus for a topic ban on Breadh2o. Indef is fine with me. If he respects the ban, manages to keep from getting blocked on NPA/CIVIL violations, and becomes a productive Wikipedian, I would consider lifting the ban at a (much) later date. However, Breadh2o, if you keep yelling at people you're getting blocked. Consider this your last warning. And don't think you can go and try these same tactics on other articles. This warning applies across the board. To clarify if it's not clear to you: a topic ban means you are being asked to stop editing articles related to Archaeoastronomy. It is also preferred that you stay off the talk pages. If you violate this ban, you'll have your ability to edit the encyclopedia at all taken away by physical means (that's what a block is, you won't be able to edit anything on WP). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As kathryn says, this is another instance of the 'civil POV pushing' Raul654 (i think) essayed about, and well due for a resolved tag and implementation. ThuranX (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kathryn's already notified Breadh2o of consensus. Am I right that all we lack is the resolved tag? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, Kathryn, I have had enough, too. Steve is impatient to drop the hammer on me. And, I have had enough of a double standard where the antagonist, the contrarian, the non-credentialed contributor must STFU while the protagonist, the establishment, the credential authorities are forgiven for each and every indiscretion and disruptive tactic they employ because they're more valued by the system and must be welcomed and pampered. Above, I have raised many questions about WP policy or guideline violations which have been permitted to stand against me and my efforts. But these are inevitably ignored and my grievances, unaddressed. I didn't come to WIkipedia seeking prestige, accolades, or furtherance of any academic esteem. I'm the passionate, grassroots archaeoastronomer who doesn't belong to clubs or organizations, yet is productive and has special insights to contribute because I have the passion. If I behave myself by politely shutting up, kowtow to the will of the majority and obey the presumed infallibility and impartiality of the esteemed, neutral POV of two authoritative authors, then I guess that's being a good Wikipedian and might entitle me to be allowed to contribute to the article in the distant future, perhaps, but only if I accept surrender to authority and consensus. Consensus can be a good thing and it can be abused to silence valid and notable minority opinion. If I am unwelcome and WP:BURO is a frilly and meaningless guideline, then issue the resolved tag Steve is so impatient to see, to confirm his righteousness and my terrorism threat to his article. Otherwise, I am here to challenge what is imbalanced in the archaeoastronomy article, and I am simply not prepared to roll over and agree that what is going on with these two authors and their strict POV and restrictive abuses of content is hunky dory. It is NOT. As the advisory that heads this page says, "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." This may well apply as I have been ignored in defending myself and I have been issued a "final warning" ahead of a pending resolution to this thread, without resolution of what I've sought, such as mediation and questions regarding the other side's WP:OWN. and WP:IDHT disruptiveness. These are neither irrelevant, trivial nor unassociated to the attempts to silence me. I believe a double standard is alive and its application is unfair to me. -- Breadh2o (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment/stalking by User:Michael Hardy

User and I originally had a dispute over two years ago. This can be seen here: User talk:Hetar/archive1#22/7. I asked that the user keep the debate to the pertinent pages as I did not want to argue over it, and so that other people could also participate in the debate. This user refused to leave me alone, and continued to post on my talk page. Eventually I took the issue to WP:3PO [24]

Other diffs from my talk page showing repeated attempts to get this user to leave me alone: [25] [26]

After I had posted the issue to WP:3PO he finally left me alone. That is until, recently, two years later, when he shows up, out of the blue, still posting about the same issue. [27] After deleting this and again asking him to stay away, he posted yet again: [28], this time referring to me as a "hateful boor."

Please help me. I am not seeking any kind of contact with this user. I have not edited or gone near any articles he is currently working on (or has worked on for that matter in the last 2 years). I have no desire to be involved with him in any way - and yet he continues to stalk me. Any help will be greatly appreciated --Hetar 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling you a "hateful boor" is an violation of WP:NPA. I think that you deserve an apology for that. Darkspots (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did someone mention an apology? Try Wikipedia:Apology - needs more editing! Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The occasion for my revisiting this issue is explained in this edit. I really don't understand what the motive is behind "Hetar"'s abuse---why my short respectful query asking for an opinion on a matter of Wikipedia editing would be answered by a tirade full of hatred. I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered. As for personal attacks: I am the target of that attack. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a non-negotiable policy. You called Hetar a "hateful boor," a clear personal attack, on his talkpage. The policy says no personal attacks, not to anyone. Yes, Hetar termed your repeated posts to his talk page after he had made it clear that he did not want to discuss a matter with you as "harassment" and "stalking". This seems to be the "attack" to which you refer. But, even if this were unacceptable behavior on Hetar's part, Hetar doing this does not entitle you to call him a boor. Again, I call on you to apologize--sorry, no wikilink, Carcharoth--for your personal attack on Hetar. This is the second time in two months that I have felt you have violated WP:NPA: [29] is the first time I brought a personal attack to your attention, much more mildly. Nor am I the only user to have ever admonished you for your lack of civility: User:Newyorkbrad commenting on your user talk page: [30] as an example. Darkspots (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So if you accuse me of "lack of civility" on my talk page, that's somehow not a "personal attack" in violation of the policy, but if I call Hetar a "boor" on his talk page, that's a "personal attack" in violation of the policy? Should I have said instead that Hetar was "uncivil" rather than that Hetar is a "boor"? Is there some crucial difference between the two words that matters here? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither User:Hetar nor I have ever posted on your user talk page about anything. User:Newyorkbrad has, so I will inform him of this discussion. I do not intend to argue policy on ANI with you, an administrator; I have stated that I think certain of your edits are unacceptable under policy, but I am interested to see what other editors that watch this page have to say about your edits to User Talk:Hetar. I am often wrong. Darkspots (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Uncivil" versus "boor". If you call another user "uncivil" you're upholding Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. But if you call another user a "boor", then you're violating Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks.
• If you post a short polite request for another user's opinion on Wikipedia editing when, unbeknownst to you, he erroneously thinks he has asked you not to post on his user talk page, then you're guilty of some offense, whose precise nature I don't know how to define.
• If the other user points to another page where he claims to have said to you: "Don't ever post on my talk page", and you respond that it doesn't actually say that, your response constitutes "harassment". But his erroneous accusations against you do not constitute "harassment" or any other offense.
• If a user writes on his talk page, "This is MY talk page and no one can post here without permission", how does that fit into Wikipedia policies? The talk pages exist for communication among Wikipedians, who are not supposed to live on isolated islands. How extensive is a right to forbid others to post on one's user talk page? Are they completely private property? Can I say: no matter what complaints you may have against my behavior, I forbid you to talk to me about them? Even on one's user talk page, which is not private property and which exists for a reason? Hetar claims a fully unlimited right to decide who can post on his user talk page. Only Hetar and the user who said no one can ever post on his user talk page have claimed such a right, as far as I know.
• Which is worse: to lose one's patience with a user when one SPECIFIES objections to their editing of an article, or to say "I have no objections to any of your contributions to Wikipedia, but I hate you for no particular reason so go away and don't do anything that might remind me that you exist"? Must one be meekly obedient to another user who addresses one in that way?

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

jeez louis, Michael Hardy done did it again, :-). one might guess here what happened. someone of relatively little mathematical experience made a, probably not very defensible or knowledable, comment/vote on a math related AfD. this is not uncommon and can be a bit irksome to professionals like Michael Hardy. when pressed further by Michael on their talk page, that person responded by being deliberately non-engaging/frigid/wikilawyer-ish. one might say both sides acted in a understandable, although not necessarily reasonable, way. let's everyone just drop it. Mct mht (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The point is that everyone did drop it, then Michael Hardy came back two years later and started calling the user unpleasant names. This is a violation of WP:NPA, and it leaves this user thinking that as long as he contributes to Wikipedia, he is going to have to deal with User:Michael Hardy popping up and leaving messages about something that happened years and years ago. So maybe he stops contributing, because it's not worth the hassle (pardon me, Hetar, I'm getting hypothetical here, bear with me please) and we lose a user because of personal attacks. This, to me, is not "understandable" or acceptable, and therefore I'm not going to drop it.

So, Hetar has made his story clear. He has been through some dispute resolution, and yet Michael Hardy, years later, is posting on his talk page and calling him names. It seems to me that one of two things is true. One, he is being unreasonable to ask that Michael Hardy leave him alone on his talk page. Two, he is being reasonable to ask Michael Hardy to leave him alone. If #1 is true, then someone should politely explain to him why his request is not reasonable. If #2 is the case, then an administrator needs to get involved and make sure that someone explains to Michael Hardy that this isn't acceptable and that he has to stop, and back it up with action when and if Michael posts on Hetar's page again. The reality is that Michael Hardy has sysop rights on this website. It may very well be that the reasons of every administrator who has looked at this thread and not gotten involved have had nothing to do with the fact that Michael is an administrator. That still does not change the conclusion that the community can draw from this situation is that admistrators are above policies like WP:NPA. I might not feel that way (clearly), and you (the person reading this, not Mhc mht) might not feel that way, but that conclusion is still possible to draw from this set of circumstances. Darkspots (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Has been through some dispute resolution"? What does that mean, specifically, in this case? I think he posted on the "third opinion" page, and IIRC nobody answered. My reason for raising this again after, as you say, everybody did "stop it", is mentioned above: some issues were never dealt with. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The constant thread through your defense of your edits, Michael Hardy, is to compare your edis to the edits of other users. What you do not seem to do is compare your edits to the standards set by policy. You in effect are asking, if Newyorkbrad can characterize my edits as "uncivil", why can I not tell Hetar that he is a "hateful boor"? Why should my insults not be compared to the offense of Hetar's actions? What I believe you are failing to take into account is that WP:NPA is not a policy with an exemption for dealing with difficult users. I also wonder if you've noticed any of the short threads that have come and gone during this discussion with incivility reported, blocks and/or warnings issued, no fanfare. Darkspots (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not insulting him; I was accusing him. You're saying there have been threads where incivility is reported. But you tell me that when I am the one who reports incivility, then that is incivility on my part. Does policy say that I am the only one who is forbidden to report inciviility? It seems to be conventional practice to complain to the uncivil person that he is uncivil, before reporting it here on this page. That is what I did: I complained to Hetar of his incivility on his talk page. I used the word "boor" rather than "uncivil", and somehow that's being considered a different thing. I also said "hateful" and that appears to be factually correct: he hates me, for no reason at all that he's willing to identify. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." The first paragraph of WP:NPA. Other users have commented on your edits; instead of commenting strictly on Hetar's behavior, you have summed him up as a person, made a judgement, and delivered in an attacking way; an insult. An attack. A violation of our policies. People feel differently when someone attacks them, personally, rather than decrying one or more of their edits. You could be driving contributors away with these sorts of edits. This hurts the project. I will not compare your edits to the potential lost edits of these contributors, and say one outweighs the other. I do think it is possible for you to convey your dismay with something without calling other editors mentally challenged or boors or liars. Quite effectively, in fact, and in a way that is much less likely to "deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". Darkspots (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I ever called anyone mentally challenged or a liar? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• • boor [31], referring to User:Hetar.
  • mentally challenged [32], referring to User:SatyrTN.
  • liar [33], referring to User:Kurykh. Darkspots (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Well I can certainly claim that I was defending the victim against the bully when I wrote that second word, and I confidently stand by the word "liar". There really are such things as honesty and dishonesty. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I admire your great sense of honesty. Shall I now follow your exemplary example and call you an arrogant bastard? It's quite a miracle that you are still an administrator, with that condescending attitude of yours. —Kurykh 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Darkspots (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

...in the case of "Satyr", I should have said that he was irresponsible and should have paid attention when he did that particular edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I confess to feeling discouraged. I'm trying to get you to see that you employ personal attacks and that they are against policy. Reading over this discussion, I realize that at no point have you shown any indication that you've read the policy, much less that you respect it. Every personal attack that I've shown you to have made, you defend as justifiable. NPA is not a natural state of affairs, right? It's an artificial construct. The users of this site agree to certain standards of conduct to create a good working environment for collaboration.

But you haven't agreed to NPA, right? The ironic thing is that you're an administrator, who is supposed to understand policy, respect it, and enforce it when necessary to ensure a good environment for the encyclopedia to be improved. You haven't even agreed to not employ further personal attacks against Hetar on his talk page. I'm not sure how to continue.

I guess I want to leave you with the thought that I was actively participating in the discussion that you started on WT:RFA about speedy deletion. I thought some of your ideas were interesting and thought-provoking. [34]. Then, suddenly, you brought in the example deletion made by SatyrTN, and your personal attacks against that user really soured my interest in the entire topic. I made the edit that I linked to several paragraphs above, and I stopped participating. So did everyone else. The discussion stopped, pretty much dead in the water. I can't read the minds of everyone else in the discussion, but I know your personal attack stopped me from participating further, and that was the point that everyone else stopped, too. I guess your latest edit indicated some regret about your edits in that discussion. That's a good thing, I suppose.

It's not too late for you to apologize to these three users and resolve to contribute without personal attacks, going forward. I'm never going to cut out anger and things I say and do in anger from my real life. With WP, I can always come back to something later, when the time is right to put my thoughts down correctly. Except on ANI, with this 24-hour archive cycle. Grrr. I think your ideas about speedy deletion, like I said, are interesting and could really move the way we handle new articles in a better direction. Those ideas aren't going to get the hearing they deserve if you continue to proceed in the fashion you have in the past. I wouldn't have spent all this time here, on this discussion, if I didn't think there was at least a slight chance it could help the project as a whole. Darkspots (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable?

HooperBandP (talk · contribs)

• Talk:Global warming
• Talk:Theodor Landscheidt‎
• Talk:Global cooling
• Talk:Timothy F. Ball
• Talk:Fred Singer
• Talk:J. Scott Armstrong
• Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Is canvassing article talk pages for arbcom participation acceptable?--Hu12 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We aren't canvassing for either side but we are letting them know (which is required by Arbcomm to inform all parties). It was easier to put it on the talk pages were multiple users had has a problem with him then it was on each individual talk page. Hooper (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles need informing? see WP:CANVASS. --Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, it was just an easier step in what will be a very sensitive case. If it is wrong, I just want to acknowledge why we did it and it was not just to get participation as much as to try to conform to the Arbcomm rules. It may have been best to go to each individual users talk page, was just trying to save time. But I do understand what you're saying. Hooper (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see enough of these yet to call it canvassing, however I do have some worries about the notion of building an arbcom RfAR project in a user sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres no harm in drafting RFCs, complex RFCUs, or RFARs in a user page, is there? I've done the same myself. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No harm indeed... What is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

(EC) The posts on the talk pages were more or less neutral, but an article talk page isn't really an acceptable forum for this sort of post, even if the users involved would see it (see WP:TPG). An article's talk page should only be used for discussing the article. While it might be tedious to individually inform each user on their own talk page, that should be the course of action that is taken :) Cheers! ( arky ) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Understandable and makes perfect sense with the articles. If we come across anymore users that may need to be informed, we'll make sure to do it directly on their talk page. On Gwen Gale's comment, The sandbox is more or less to allow all the users involved the proper time (including the party being requested for Arbcomm, who has been informed of it) to compile the massive and spreadout different reports that they will have, so that Arbcomm's time won't be waisted. With it being an administrator, we're just trying to be as clear as possible. I'd prefer another way if someone had a suggestion. Hooper (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My main worry would be that comments there might be swayed by a lack of input from some (very unintentionally) excluded editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Campainging through the use of the article talk pages seems quite inappropriate, and I would assume these are the articles that you have disputes with this user? This is oughtright WP:CANVASSing for arbcom participants.--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On each of those talk pages, there are users who both support the user in question and users who do not support him. I also recently made sure to inform, on his user talk page, a user who highly supports the user. Trying our best to get as fair a response as possible. Hooper (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. The draft RFAR is plainly frivolous and has no chance of being accepted. Best ignore it and get back to our regularly scheduled whatever-it-is-we-are-doing-here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin can be plainly proven to have went against admin policy and it is "frivolous". That is an interesting opinion indeed. Hooper (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is considered frivolous because Jimbo and William know each other personally. My guess is that Arbcom, who Jimbo has the final say of who stays on or goes, will not want to ruffle the feathers of a friend of Jimbo's. Not even if he has violated the blocking policy twice this month, and the protection policy once. I worry if the laundry list posted to the RfC pans out, that this can end up getting news coverage if Jimbo steps in. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know William M. Connelly personally, actually. I do know dozens and dozens of admins, users, etc., personally, but not Professor Connelly. We have exchanged some email correspondence, none of it of a personal nature, something that I do with hundreds of people. Even if I did know him personally, though, I think we can all be quite confident that the ArbCom can judge matters independently. I think the ArbCom members themselves will testify 100% that they will vote for what they see as the truth, without regard to how I might feel about it. And I think they will also testify that I have never done anything to lead anyone to believe I would overturn a decision of theirs based on a friendship. (Though I must repeat that, in this case, I don't happen to know Professor Connelly, though I do admire his work from a distance as many people do.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Jimbo will stick his head out and defend any blatant admin misconduct simply on the basis of his acquaintance with the offender. To do show would greatly affect and offend the volunteers, and moreover, I believe Jimbo to be a man of integrity. For example, I recall the incident of a personal friend of Jimbo's, having been hired, and served on arbom, etc. who was exposed as lying about his credentials. Jimbo, despite his friendship with the person abusing the communities trust, did not take his side; rather he was asked to step down. Likewise, there is no reason to think that William's abuse of the tools as a violation of the communities trust, will cause Jimbo would intervene in defenses someone if the facts show the person is guilty of the offense. I do not believe WP suffers from such crony corruption, as previous examples prove. Its essential that we all follow the "rule of law" here. The volunteer nature of this project demands these basic standards, along with transparency, and other appropriate due process norms in keeping with Wikipeda ethos.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"...William's abuse of the tools...." This has not been proved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said and I apologize for my statement. I do not think that Jimbo will read it, however I do believe you to be correct and I should have assumed better. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, every time I see a supposed "invincible" but absusive admin who violate WP core policies rebuked by the community, and stripped of those tools, I gain confidence and respect in the project. I'm thinking about Mongo, for an example. It should be a warning to heed for all admins not to let their feelings of being invaunerable and above the law, get to their head. To do so requires a reality check that will confirm the confidence we give the process.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not know this. I placed a note on his (Jimbo's) talk page, though he probably has assistants or something. Even if he supports William, he should be aware if they are acquanted and that acquaintance could tip the debate into POV either way. But this discussion is probably not warranted here. Hooper (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have assistants to read my Wikipedia talk page. The media may like to pretend I am some kind of celebrity, but actually I am just a Wikipedian like you. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the notices from the talk pages. Talk pages aren't for gathering evidence against other users - they're there to help build articles.-Wafulz (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's not any misconduct on the part of WMC, and should this frivolous arbcom case be accepted, I shall provide evidence that this is the case. Jtrainor (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You will not be alone by any means. AN/I has already reviewed and taken this view. But I doubt Arbcom will take it on since it isn't too hard to see through it. --BozMo talk 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire situation is a phenomenon that has been remarked on before here, with the following sequence of events:

1. Admin arrives and tries to clean up bad article 2. People with WP:OWN issues/POV warriors/etc edit war 3. Said people are blocked or otherwise sanctioned 4. Said people complain about an "involved admin" misusing his tools.

As I have stated before, people who attempt to game the system in such a fashion should be severely punished. Jtrainor (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is how you two feel you are more than welcome to sign on and show your side, whether on the current sandbox or when it gets sent to the Committee. All views are welcome. However, this discussion has steered away from the reason we are on this page, and continued discussions here should be discouraged so we aren't taking up time of those who maintain this noticeboard. You are more than welcome to voice any opinions or views on the sandbox talk page. Hooper (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching that sandbox in any way-- I refuse to acknowledge it as anything more than harrassment directed at WMC. Jtrainor (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You might wan to review WP:AGF. Your comments here violate this. Its not an option, its a requirement. Instead of focusing on motivations of editors, we should simply note the facts. The facts speak plaining enough, and those will stand out for evaluation by arbCom.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever that page is it is no official attempt to gather opinions. Opinions have already been given at AN/I, with a broad consensus of Admins (for whose opinion AN/I exists) supported the view that WMC had broken no rule. Until (and if) Arbcom agree to re-open what looks like a closed case I don't see much point in wasting our time. On top of which a correctly formulated RfC would seem to be a prerequisite for Arbcom accepting the case and is missing. Whether an RfC should be openned about the conduct of the accusers is another issue but I don't see much point--BozMo talk 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There was no consensus that supported the view you cite. In fact several pointed out that what William did was a misuse of admin tools, or proper protocol with its use given his involvement in the dispute. I'm not sure how you can say you don't see much point, unless you think selectively only blocking editors with whom you are in an active edit war with, and placing protection and then editing through the protection, and as well as generally not respecting the consensus process--if all this is no big deal for an admin to comport himself, then, and only then, can I understand your point.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Connelley is one of the most incivil admins we have and this arbcom request is long overdue. Asking people in the global warming walled garden to participate was proper. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "walled garden" which contains a featured article, and has been favorably written up in the mainstream press where it was described by an independent academic as "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia"? ([35]) We could do with more such "walled gardens". MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this link. All of it. Spending a lot of my time reverting vandalism and other nonsense is really soul-destroying. It makes me wonder why I should bother. It makes me wonder whether the open model is appropriate. Reviews like this renew my confidence. Whether I am physically able to continue doing this remains to be seen. But it's hopeful, against all the ludicrous and mostly unjustified criticism we attract. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only semi-online so this will be brief. My personal opinion is that asking for input on arbcomm cases on the pages where the conflicts have occurred is quite appropriate. My thanks to the people who have been kind above. But I'm not a professor :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima

First, let me say that I have only very reluctantly brought this to ANI. As I rarely, if ever, end up in situations like this, let me also apologize if I have done something incorrectly.

I had hoped that Ottava Rima was acting in good faith, but after interacting with this user several times over the past few weeks, I can only come to the conclusion that this user is a disruptive editor. While Ottava Rima has contributed some worthwhile content to Wikipedia, s/he has been very unwilling to listen to the suggestions of others. I first encountered this user at the FAC for The Drapier's Letters (a series of pamphlets written by Jonathan Swift). Although not a Swift expert myself, I do study the literature of the eighteenth century, therefore whenever any literature articles on the eighteenth century arrive at FAC, I usually take the time to review them thoroughly. I could tell from the FAC that Jbmurray had had an unpleasant experience trying to copy edit the article, so I thought I would try to help out. Sometimes where one editor fails, a different approach can work. I spent several hours copy editing the article. I listed the questions I had after copy editing the article in great detail on the article's talk page. Almost every suggestion I made was met with an explanation rather than a change. I had to follow up each one with a second explanation of why the sentence needed to be improved. Even worse, Ottava Rima would just assert some items that were false. For example, I asked if a particular quotation was quoted correctly because the typography looked incorrect to me (eighteenth-century typography is rather distinctive). S/he asserted it was. However, I found the exact edition s/he had used on Google Books and linked to it to show him/her that the quote was incorrect (see line 142). At that point, it seemed to me that s/he was just lying. However, it could have been an honest mistake, so I kept trying to help Ottava Rima improve the article.

The trouble really began when I began to dig into the sourcing for the article. It used some unreliable sources and lacked up-to-date scholarship. When I pointed this out, Ottava Rima's first edit summary response was to take my concerns to a noticeboard. Ottava Rima did not even want to discuss the sources concerns. His/her poor understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is illustrated by our discussion about the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. For example, here Ottava Rima asserts that the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is reliable, here I explain why it is not, here Ottava Rima asserts it is reliable for Wikipedia, and finally another person enters the discussion to mention the 1911 WikiProject. This fundamental understanding of WP:V is part of what leads me to believe that Ottava Rima is a disruptive editor.

After the FAC for The Drapier's Letters failed, Ottava Rima started reviewing many more FACs. She reviewed two that both Jbmurray and I were involved in: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario Vargas Llosa and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth. At Mario Vargas Llosa, Ottava Rima demanded that the editors include the original Spanish quotations and translations in the article for each and every Spanish source used. Ottava Rima's interpretation of the policy was unnecessarily strict and attitude about it was unnecessarily rude. I have seen no one invoke this rule before in my year and half at FAC and there was hardly a ringing consensus for the inclusion of the translations. However, Jbmurray offered to do the necessary translation. Although Ottava Rima changed her vote from "oppose" to "conditional support", she identified almost every inline citation that was sourced to a Spanish source as needing translation. This rendered the policy quoted by SandyGeorgia during the FAC moot: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content." Apparently, everything was open to challenge for Ottava Rima. See: Talk:Mario Vargas Llosa/Archive 2#As Per Sandy.

Now, Ottava Rima has written a review for Boydell Shakespeare Gallery FAC, a nomination I entered. Again, Ottava Rima has misunderstood the policy regarding citation. S/he has repeatedly demanded that inline citations be placed after almost every sentence even though I have explained that the article meets and exceeds WP:V numerous times as has one other editor (see top part of diff). S/he has also begun disputing the factional content of the article without understanding the sources or the statements being made. For example, the article states that Shakespeare (as a national icon) was used to represent rising British nationalism in the 18th century. Ottava Rima disputes this, saying Shakespeare was English. He was - in the 15th and 16th centuries. That is not the question under debate. I have provided her with sources to read, Qp10qp provided a quotation to support the article's sources as well. She has continued to dispute the article's contention without understanding it and without stopping to listen to what other editors are saying.

I cannot prove beyond any doubt that Ottava Rima is deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia. However, her intentions have also been questioned by Jbmurray. Regardless of this user's intentions, it is becoming difficult to work with Ottava Rima at FAC and as Jbmurray notes in the diff above, people are going to become reluctant to comment at FACs where s/he is reviewing. This is not a a net benefit to the encyclopedia. I do not know what is usually done in these situations. I am primarily a content editor and I create articles in my little backwater. I am relying on the administrators here to offer some help. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of advice, that post is far longer than what I usually commit to reading. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I'm an English major - I write long. Should I revise? :) Awadewit (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Long of the short, from someone who's also worked (sometimes frustratingly, sometimes not) with Ottava Rima; user seems to act against or misinterpret WP:V, attempts to impose this misinterepretation on others, and has been disruptive in some cases. Incivility is also brought up as a concern. My interactions with the user are limited (IIRC) to WP:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires, which is ongoing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does Vandalism come up anywhere here? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I see V was piped to Verify. And misinterpret? So you are saying that four sentences per paragraph on obscure 18th century don't need a citation? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This AN/I thread, concerning civility, was just closed. I won't comment during an ongoing FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So, instead of making the appropriate fixes, she turns to ANI. Does anyone here believe that, for a Featured Article, having more than 2 sentences linked to one citation at the very end of a paragraph on an obscure 18th century topic is not one that is challengable? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's written 8 FAs (admittedly, not on that topic, but I have reviewed in that area too), no, I utterly disagree with you. For a featured article especially, it is assumed that the reference at the end of the paragraph covers everything (2 sentences, or more) within it. The only exception is for direct quotations or claims that are highly likely to be challenged. I encountered the same thing in my FAC; I found myself duplicating the same reference 3 times in a row to satisfy your request, on relatively minor (ie. unlikely to be challenged) issues. Kindly cease. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And when someone adds a detail later or decides to rearrange a sentence, what do you do then? Your suggestion is impractical nor does it abide with the fact that Wikipedia changes over time. We don't allow "Ibid" for this reason, why would we allow an invisible substitute? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of new details should be accompanied by a source for that detail, if it doesn't come from the same source as the rest of the paragraph. The rearrangement of a sentence should be done in a way that doesn't contradict the source used for that sentence (and paragraph). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't stand up to the test of time and is impractical. The new users might come by and not even know what part of the sentence is sourced. You are assuming far more than what can be assumed, and you do a disservice in your assumption. There is no information provided for future users on the nature of the information put forward, nor is there anything in Wikipedia MoS, Policy, or Essays, that say "if its not cited except at the end, that citation covers everything else". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If a new user comes by and adds information without a source, you can either revert, or find a source yourself. There is nothing in essays that requires a source for every sentence, either. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)

I have never said every sentence, and it is incivil for you to blatantly misstate what I have said. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict:) Comment. I second Awadewit's summary. And likewise, I am contributing here with some reluctance: I am not someone who seeks to have fellow editors punished; rather I try to work constructively with other editors wherever possible. But I'd also note that, in addition to the ANI discussion to which SandyGeorgia points, Ottava Rima has managed to antagonize a whole range of editors across a wide variety of different contexts.
• Above all, perhaps, Ottava Rima has a pronounced tendency to dig his or her heels in regardless of the consensus or evidence that s/he is shown. There have been plenty of discussions along these lines at User talk:Ottava Rima, though that page is not archived, and critical comments tend simply to be deleted.
• At various points I had thought that Ottava Rima was starting to adapt better to the culture of collaborative consensus-seeking that characterizes Wikipedia. But then s/he will return to a stubbornness that does indeed, I believe, constitute a form of obstructionism.
• Awadewit has shown great patience in her dealings with Ottava Rima. She has truly gone beyond the call of duty in attempting to respond to any concerns raised, and in assuming good faith. Unfortunately, Ottava Rima does not respond. This is not good for the encyclopedia, it frustrates the important process of Featured Article candidacy and reassessment, and it is clearly a drain on the resources of Awadewit, one of the project's finest and most prolific contributors of featured content. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If she is showing great patience, why could she not add the simple citations? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because she chooses to abide by WP:V and not a misinterpretation of it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)

Two points:

1. Awadewit has shown great patience in attempting to explain to you why she disagrees with your interpretation of citation requirements. These patient explanations have also, I would say, convinced others who are contributing to the discussion. Patience is not the same thing as agreement, or as doing what you would bid; Awadewit has been extremely patient in her civil disagreement.
2. The point is, I believe, that there is a pattern of obstructionism here, that is not limited to this particular Featured Article candidacy. It would perhaps be better not to concentrate solely on the details of this specific disagreement, but rather to the way in which you often (if not exclusively) conduct yourself at FAC and FAR. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

She can disagree all she wants, but the fact that there are multiple lines that have important details without citations does not mean that she is correct. Furthermore, your second point basically says that you are here for revenge. If that is not the case, please make it clear now. I have not made comments that were unfounded, and I have only put "oppose" to articles that have severe deficiencies or those which the editor refuses to fix. I have worked with many editors to help turn their article into FA status and fix multiple problems. FA is not a pat on the back. Its a serious thing that examines articles in regard to MoS. I have been completely fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to make it clear, if it needs clarifying, that I am not here for "revenge." I am here because I have been invoked (following our interaction primarily on the FAC for Drapier's Letters, which also as you are aware spilled over onto various other talk pages; I can dig out the diffs for those interested), because I sympathize with Awadewit's frustrations, and because I agree that too often (if not always) the way in which you conduct yourself in these discussions is, as I have said, obstructionist and bad for the encyclopedia. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You can use the term "obstructionist" all you want, but it is a pejorative regardless. My concerns were valid here and they were valid there. Your own students recognized that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a criticism (which seems to me a better word than "pejorative"). But that is why you are here: the way in which you interact with other editors is being criticized. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have just proven that your comments are exaggeration. The vast majority of people I have interacted with have no problem, and even the members of your group seem to be perfectly fine. You, the complainant, and the individual Wasted are the only ones to have had any real problem. It is especially strange that such a simplistic, easily fixed thing could lead to such stubborn refusal. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It's worth saying also that numerous people have tried to advise Ottava Rima that the approach that s/he employs is likely counter-productive. Here are just a couple of recent examples, in addition to my own comment cited above: "do you really think you're helping your case by fighting against every single person who tries to talk to you?"[36] "Your arguments may indeed by right, but your methods of making those arguments anger a lot of people"[37] "Your phrasing often comes across as combative, which hopefully is not intentional. A calmer tone will often get better result"[38] Again, it really is notable that in the main (if not exclusively) Ottava Rima has not taken that advice, and has apparently decided rather that defensiveness, or even offensiveness, is the better course. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If simple, abstract, impersonal words anger anyone, then that is not my fault. There are plenty of editors who I have interacted with who were appreciative of my contribution. I find it offensive that you would go against WP:CIVIL by making misleading statements about my character like that. This for example. This editor didn't have a problem. Or even here where Dihydrogen oxide even thanked me for my work. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about pointing out that at various times other editors have tried to offer you advice, and that you have not taken it. And again, it is not that your contributions are never appreciated; rather it is that there are sufficient times that you have been perceived to be disruptive that a pattern has emerged. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Questions for Admin I would like to ask the following questions of potential admin who look at this case based on many of the things that Awadewit has claimed as bad actions on my part. I would like to know the answers to these:

1. "Almost every suggestion I made was met with an explanation rather than a change." Does this mean that discussion of changes are no longer important before making them? Are talk pages there to list demands and expect no discussion? If so, is Awadewit acting inappropriate for arguing about my concerns, as she claims that responses are acting inappropriately?

2. "However, I found the exact edition s/he had used on Google Books and linked to it to show him/her that the quote was incorrect (see line 142). At that point, it seemed to me that s/he was just lying." Are accusations of lying appropriate when the quote was copied and pasted directly from the online version of Project Gutenberg, and that if there was an error, it was with them? Furthermore, the quote was changed, so isn't it just a tad rude to accuse editors of lying about such things?

3 "It used some unreliable sources and lacked up-to-date scholarship. When I pointed this out, Ottava Rima's first edit summary response was to take my concerns to a noticeboard. Ottava Rima did not even want to discuss the sources concerns." Actually, I took it to the noticeboard, because that is where reliable sources are determined. Is that wrong? I must pointed out that community consensus verified my case and said that the book was verifiable and appropriate. Was that wrong of me to do? According to Awadewit, it was. Is she correct? It can be found here.

4 "Although Ottava Rima changed her vote from "oppose" to "conditional support", she identified almost every inline citation that was sourced to a Spanish source as needing translation." As someone without the sources, is it wrong for me to analysis and point out the various uses of the text to make sure that the sources can be verified? Also, my analysis didn't point out that many major problems that needed to be addressed, and did lead to a few important changes. Is that really so wrong?

That should be enough. Thanks for answering. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The recently closed incivility thread referenced above was not just any incivility: Ottava Rima told four (mostly longtime) editors to "leave Wikipedia" because they disagreed with Ottava Rima on an MoS guideline interpretation. More remarkably, in the long ANI discussion that followed, Ottava Rima persisted in being contentious and disagreeable with everyone who commented or made suggestions. Ottava Rima seems incapable of recognizing how his or her actions are perceived, and does not either know how, or want, to change his or her behavior. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasted, you do know that misrepresenting the truth of the matter is against CIVIL, correct? And that you are being incivil and off topic, yes? That matter was closed with a decision. The decision was not the one you wanted, and you have no right to try and seek some new decision on it here. Your claims were unfounded, your place for putting them were unfounded, and there was no need for admin intervention as decided. ANI is not the place to try and settle your grudges. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then good, we're both happy for people to read that full discussion and judge for themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What I have seen of the user's own comments above seem to confirm the statements made by the user who reported this incident. Just went through the user's blocklog. It appears that he has been blocked in the recent past (last month) for making legal threats against users and the Wikimedia Foundation.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jersey, if you read the account, you would see that the block for "legal threats" was made improperly and removed. I never made legal threats, and that was clear on my talk page. Your accusations of such should be struck. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your actions following the March 21 block make it quite apparent that you issued a legal threat via email, given your immediate claims that a threat made off the wiki wouldn't count. For example, you removed a post mentioning the threat on the grounds that it discussed a private email, posted carefully worded posts that repeatedly deny only making a threat "on Wikipedia" but do not deny making such a threat, then move to justify your use of email to issue the threat; in the days following, you were engaged in an argument at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats over the meaning and spirit of the policy (arguing that the email was acceptable), and were eventually blocked for edit warring on that page. You regularly insist that users who criticize your actions are behaving in an uncivil manner and should stop commenting or remove their criticisms, and continue that trend here. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Luna, if that was true, my block would never have been removed, and admin would never have spoken on my behalf. That "on Wikipedia" was in addition to. My email was forwarded to other admin, and they agreed on two parts: a) that she was acting improperly by blocking on her own and b) that there was no actual legal threat. Misstating the facts is incivil and this is a serious matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the long post to my talk page, I had a hunch that would be coming. A single user's comment is certainly relevant, but does not speak for the whole community and is not authoritative in this situation. If you made no legal threat, it's very interesting that you were unblocked after a retraction of one. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For those curious

The above user, Awadewit, has challenged my claim that certain text needs to be cited. Now, if you do not feel like going over to the FAC review to look at the examples, here are some of the key ones:

"Apart from these popular editions, scholarly editions also proliferated. In the first half of the 18th century, these were edited by author-scholars such as Pope (1725) and Johnson (1765), but later in the century this changed. Editors such as George Steevens (1773, 1785) and Edmund Malone (1790) used painstaking care in collating their editions and included extensive explanatory footnotes from previous editors as well as themselves. The early editions appealed to both the middle class and those interested in Shakespeare scholarship, but the later editions appealed almost exclusively to those interested in scholarship. ""

This is three sentences, followed by a third that was cited. It has claims to dates, the term "popular" and "scholarly", "extensive" and other such keywords that make it necessary to cite.

"The print folio, A Collection of Prints, From Pictures Painted for the Purpose of Illustrating the Dramatic Works of Shakspeare, by the Artists of Great-Britain (1805), was originally intended to be a collection of the illustrations from the edition, but a few years into the project, Boydell altered his plan. He guessed that he could sell more folios and editions if the pictures were different. "

This long passage, with another that supposedly has the citation to it at the end (that would be at the end of the third sentence), has, in this section, "intended", "altered", and "guessed", which would demand a citation to verify such claims, especially when it goes to speculation about a state of mind.

These are only a few examples.

If you have any questions, please, ask. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI is not for content disputes. That said, in both cases, I believe Awadewit was correct. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I have repeatedly said on the FAC page, almost every piece of information in the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery article (including the statements cited above) is sourced. Not every sentence has an inline citation after it, but every set of topics does. This goes above and beyond the requirements of WP:V. There is no unsourced information in the article that Ottava Rima can point to. There is no requirement that the footnotes appear at the end of every sentence. The one sentence that was missing a note that she pointed out, I added a note to. Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If Awadewit is correct, then that means that my analysis of the above as needing to be cited is wrong. Are you saying that such paragraphs above do not need direct citation? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would like to see a citation at least for each paragraph, but yes, there is no requirement for that, and I believe your analysis is incorrect. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your right, and that is merely your opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit is correct as even a cursory look through the existing featured articles, conveniently listed at WP:FA, will confirm. I like footnotes as much as anyone, but one for each and every sentence is rather too much of a good thing. I would advise a short break from FAC reviewing while you familiarise yourself with the precedents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the recent Tale of a Tub demotion. Articles without enough sourcing have been demoted left and right. Furthermore, could you not mischaracterize my statements? I have put up chunks, not one sentence here and there, but large chunks that make claims that need citation. As soon as the article is edited to add additional information, no one but the original creator is capable of knowing what the uncited information came from and will be unverifiable. This has happened constantly. Please, before you make such claims as you have above, do review the actual precedence. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did the sourcing on Tale of a Tub and I would agree with its demotion; it was not possible to reconstruct the notes from the bibliography. However, the inline citations on Boydell Shakespeare Gallery are far more numerous than the handful that existed on Tub and any reader checking the inline citation on Boydell would find the information cited in the article. This comparison is spurious. Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They were not numerous enough if you have four sentences running before there is a source. If Sandy does not believe that I have a footing, then she would ignore my oppose. If she believes I have a standing, she will accept it. However, it is not acceptable to turn to ANI in order to bully a review into agreeing with you. It is a simple fix. You refuse to make it. I am not the one being stubborn here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an ANI about a larger pattern. Please read the entire statement I wrote. Awadewit (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think ANI will solve? That my "vote" will be overturned? That it is even a vote? Only Sandy has the right to determine if my concerns are legitimate or not. You cannot stifle discussion in a review by turning to ANI and issuing a complaint. I brought forth a legitimate complaint. If you don't think so, fine, don't change anything. You have shown that you are unwilling to listen to what others may feel are problem. This isn't a game. This isn't a war. Stop acting like this is some kind of battleground. The change recommended was simple. You refused. You took it here for who knows why. Administrators have no authority over a discussion. Only Sandy and Raul have the authority to determine if a concern is legitimate or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, a deliberate misinterpretation of policy (or a refusal to understand policy) is disruptive editing. It is not uncommon for relatively new users to misunderstand policy, but they are expected to learn from their mistakes. Numerous long-time editors who are very familiar with the policy have (politely) attempted to educate when your policy interpretation has been off. Rather than consider that they may be explaining what is consensus, you badger people and insist that your interpretation is the only one that is correct. That is disruptive. I've followed several FACs with which you have been involved and I have tried to continue to WP:AGF, but the pattern continues to repeat. I think you could be a very valuable FAC contributor, but you must have a solid grasp of policy (as consensus understands them to be) before that. I think it would be wise for you to watch FAC for a while longer, read many more newly promoted FACs and gain a better understanding of WP policies before commenting again. Karanacs (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I have never seen anything that says that you can have four sentences in a paragraph with a citation at the end and that they should all be considered as verifiable. If you think that is true, then please, edit the citation guideline to show such. However, you have stated what is not in the policy, and you have done a great disservice to this community by making it seem far more clear cut than it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, A Tale of a Tub could have been easily noted, if the primary author agreed with this mania. He does not. He feels very strongly that there is a difference between an undergraduate term paper and an encyclopedia article, and he writes the latter rather than the former. Ottava Rima had been in conflict with that author, and so it makes sense that she or he is trying to make a veiled threat and an argument about his or her own power. The power in that article's equation was mine. I will not play the game of "let's make it look like we're nervous sophomores." I prefer to have a demotion than have a well written article with true statements in it get reduced to banality and reiteration. Ottava Rima's statements here are a consequence of this mania, in my view. Once people fall for the "facts have to be noted" idiocy, they are immediately susceptible to "where's the footnote saying that the earth is the third planet from the sun? where is the note that Galileo was Italian? where is the note that Darwin's theory has been controversial in the 20th century?" If people wish to continue to grace, condone, and chase this form of writing, they will continue to see themselves torn apart, with only pop culture articles (with all web references) promoted. Geogre (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restriction: Ottava Rima banned from WP:FAC except for own nominations, reviewable after one month

Ottava Rima has an extensive and recent block log and responds aggressively to feedback. Awadewit has written two dozen featured articles and has been scrupulously patient and polite. Don't blame her for this thread, please. I urged her to initiate it. The plain fact here is that Ottava Rima's disruptive actions pose an imminent danger of interrupting the productivity of our most productive Wikipedians (Awadewit and others). I propose a partial ban of Ottava Rima from WP:FAC; Ottava Rima may nominate his or her own material and participate fully at those nominations, but may not comment on any other nominations. This restriction would be reviewable after one month and may be lifted if Ottava Rima's civility and responsiveness to feedback improve. Durova^Charge! 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, how does this work? You "urged" Awadewit to initiate this ANI, you don't comment on it, and then come in with this solution... I mean, whatever the merits of the proposal, this doesn't look very good. It rather looks as though you had decided that it would be a good idea to ban Ottava from FAC, and then asked Awadewit to initiate a complaint so that you could do so, regardless of the discussion. This may not have been what happened, but frankly something looks a little fishy here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did this conversation happen, Durova? Off-Wiki? Did you consult Raul or me during this decision? Does every nominator who is unhappy about a FAC oppose get to suggest a ban at AN/I now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What happened was this: I asked Durova for advice because I rarely get into sticky situations like I got into with Ottava Rima. Durova suggested that I take the issue to the noticeboard. I was reluctant, as I stated in my statement, but I did so anyway. The pattern had become pronounced in my opinion. I read the page about disruptive editors (which I found on my own after reading the instructions at the top of this page) and I spent over an hour working on my statement and finding the diffs. Later on in the evening, I mentioned to Durova how terrible the entire situation has made me feel and she took a look at the thread and proposed this solution. She mentioned that it is always good to propose a solution when posting something to the noticeboard. I apologize for not doing this earlier. If I should have mentioned that I consulted Durova about this issue - that I tried to get advice about a difficult user - I apologize - but that is the whole story. It was one user asking advice from someone more experienced. Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Awadewit. In retrospect, it might have been best had either you or Durova mentioned at an earlier stage that you had been in contact; and indeed had one of you mentioned the proposed solution at an earlier stage. I should say that I haven no problem per se with such off-wiki conversations: it is quite understandable that you should seek advice in such a way. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is quite simple: I barely know Awadewit. Her content work is well known to me through the Triple Crowns, since I've reviewed dozens of her articles for that purpose. She's been conducting an academic survey and I'm one of her interviewees. We've had a few very dry exchanges because of that. Yesterday she joined us for a Not the Wikipedia Weekly Skypecast, and we talked about some other things. Today she confided that this problem bothered her and asked for advice. I gave the thing a look-over and thought a noticeboard thread was appropriate. Was feeling under the weather and lay down for several hours. When I woke up I wrote the suggestion that had been on my mind anyway. No intention to step on Sandy's toes, no grand behind-the-scenes scheming. Just doing what seemed like the right thing, perhaps imperfectly because my health isn't the best today. Although I'm a rare visitor at FAC, I do have four different types of featured content and nearly 50 featured credits overall. I'm familiar with the dynamic of one vociferous opposer causing others to shy away, and that observation played a role in forming my own opinion here. It would hardly have been possible for me to have disclosed anything before this subthread; what would I have said? This was the earliest opportunity when there was any point to it that I was healthy enough to sit at a desk. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well. Please consider that reviewers are essential to nominators getting their FAs promoted, and doing something that may intimidate and chase off reviewers won't leave all those FA writers in a very good spot when they want to get an article promoted. It's teamwork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Now that I think about it I can see your concern about the potential for wikipoliticking, and I suppose I ought to have contacted you in advance. Eighteenth century literary history happens to be a topic where I have some knowledge, so the factual merits had my attention. One of my weak points, perhaps, is that I sometimes approach matters that are apparent to me on that level without fully anticipating the political dimensions other editors may interpolate. WP:AGF seems like it's supposed to take care of that, but it doesn't always. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - we all know that WP is supposed to be 'transparent' but even given that, any hint that Durova might be engaged in some sort of duplicity is a flight into wildest fantasy. Doc Tropics 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

*Endorse As an uninvolved administrator, I have just spent a while reviewing Ottava Rima's contribs and history. Ottava Rima shows no understanding of the featured article criteria or of the verification policy, and shows no respect for widespread consensus. Ottava Rima is unneccessarily aggressive in pusing his particular and peculiar interpretation of policies, and does so to the level of disruption, to the level that it becomes impossible to have a constructive discussion on any FAC that he involves himself in. I give my full support to this restriction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Strike my own endorse per Ottrava's good faith decision to pull back for a while... No need to sanction if he is willing to take the advise of others and slow down a bit... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse seems like a reasonable solution though if disruptive behavior continues beyond this further action may need to be taken.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

*Endorse - also as an uninvolved administrator, I have spent the good part of an hour (with a small break) to read through the history surrounding this thread and agree with what Jayron has said above. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Struck per OR's self-imposed wikibreak. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Endorse it? Hell, I'd do commercials for it. I've tried for several days to get this editor to calm down and simply realize their style of editing and arguing was angering everyone who tried to converse with them, and they've responded with wikilawyering in the extreme. I would endorse any action designed to get this editor to realize their way is not the cooperative way of the wiki. Redrocket (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Slippery slope. I recognize and sympathize, but this is an unprecedented and (so far) unnecessary measure for handling a dispute at FAC (or FAR). Has Raul been consulted on the practice of banning editors from FAC discussions? I am very uncomfortable with such a precedent being set so precipitously. I will drop a note on Raul's talk page. If he concurs with this measure, then I may reconsider. Ottava Rima is certainly not the first, and won't likely be the last, editor who may not fully understand WP:WIAFA, and we don't ban people from the page after a few disagreements (which include one FAC where Ottava raised a valid point no one else had considered). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Follow up: if there is a civility issue or a policy violation, block the editor for that. But banning someone from FAC for objecting sets a very dangerous precedent, particularly before other measures have been tried, and considering that no FAC nominator is obligated to engage any Oppose. Raul and I are perfectly capable of deciding if an Oppose is valid or not, and AN/I intervention isn't needed to settle FACs. Now, civility, other policy violations, yes, those can and should be settled here, but no editor is obligated to engage an Oppose they disagree with, and FAC is not a vote, and the director/delegate will not be swayed by invalid or unactionable opposes. This intervention may be warranted if the pattern continues, but is not now, IMO. Does AN/I really want to be in the business of deciding FAC outcomes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I was just leaving a note at your user talk page, Sandy. Didn't realize you had already posted here. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I can respect that Sandy, and I really would support anyone's right to oppose any FAC... However, the level of disruption caused by Ottava recently isn't just about the director/co-assistant-associate-director-deletegate being able to filter out his disruption; it seems that his disruption is reaching a level where it is difficult for other editors to even contribute meaningfully to the FAC process. The problem is not that he opposes, or even the things he opposes for, its that he monopolizes the conversation with his point of view, to the level where it is driving away other editors who would review FACs, but don't because he scares them away. That level of disruption is a problem and needs to be addressed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango; an opposer can only monopolize if someone is engaging (or not trusting that Raul or I will overlook an unactionable oppose). And, other dispute resolution measures should be tried before we set this dangerous precedent that nominators can come to AN/I when they don't like FAC !votes. Note that the previous thread on Ottava Rima focused on civility, which is appropriate AN/I business. Please reconsider whether FAC reviewers should be intimidated by this kind of action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I used evidence from FACs to make a case about disruptive editing. This ANI is not about any specific FAC vote. It is about a pattern of editing that extends to talk pages as well. The most damage has been done at FAC, which is why Durova suggested the remedy she did, but in no way is this a usurpation of forthcoming FAC decisions. Durova nor I have asked the admins here to decide any FACs. Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sandy, it's not really accurate to say that what's proposed is "banning someone from FAC for objecting." That would indeed constitute a "dangerous precedent." Rather, what is at issue is the way in which this user (often, but not always) engages with others, at FAC and beyond. I think the justification for an FAC-only ban is that the problem often arises at FAC, though it is then perpetuated elsewhere, in an often ever-widening circle. But anyhow: the issue is not that Ottava Rima has objected. Nobody has any problem with that. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• No one has to engage any review or reviewer if they disagree. We block for civility; we have *never* banned someone from FAC or FAR to my knowledge, and there are scores of editors who disrupt both of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Sandy, if you & Raul could make that information -- that nominators are allowed to avoid engaging (or ignore) oppose votes -- more visible on that page, I would be willing to oppose this proposal. I think many likely nominators believe, like myself, that all objections must be dealt with or the nomination would fail: this is one reason I have avoided nominating any of my work for FAC. Although Durova's proposal is uncomfortably similar to a kangaroo court IMHO, Ottava Rima has shown a constant pattern of wikilawyering that is tantamount to disruptive behavior. This would justify Durova invoking WP:IAR for her proposal. I believe that if a more regular procedure were used to address OR's behavior, this topic ban would most likely be replaced with a general behavior parole. -- llywrch (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I try to encourage that changes to the FAC instructions should be carefully deliberated to reach consensus: I can see that we may need to add something, but I hope you'll understand I don't want to rush over there and do it tonight or tomorrow so this can be resolved. (I'm pretty sure that most experienced nominators understand quite clearly that Raul and I can overlook invalid opposes and our "job" is to gauge consensus, but it probably could be made more clear for new FAC nominators.) I am not saying there have been no problems with Ottava Rima; I am saying this is not the way we resolve them, and this is a dangerous, slippery slope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose As an uninvolved observer, I think this might be something to take to an RfC, but I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this measure. I do think Ottava is causing problems--heck, looking at Ottava's comments where Ottava accuses everybody of incivility is an indicator that problems exist.Balloonman (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, RFC or WQA are the appropriate places to handle this. We have a hard enough time getting enough reviewers at FAC and FAR that we don't need to head down the slope of banning editors who have had a few disagreements and made some valid observations; this will act as a deterrent to vigorous discussion and strong reviews, and could lead to a decrease in FA standards. FAC has a mechanism for dealing with this: the director/delegate can overlook invalid or unactionable opposes, nominators do not have to engage editors or opposes they disagree with, and FAC is not a vote. This is not AN/I business; the previous thread on civility was AN/I business. If the pattern continues after appropriate dispute resolution has been pursued, then maybe, but if AN/I wants to start banning problematic or difficult editors from FAC and FAR over a couple of opposes (one retracted after discussion), I can pass a very long list to AN/I of the real problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. His incivility and constant rules-layering and stonewalling are impediments to getting anything done. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then block him for civility. Don't start a trend of banning editors from FAC over opposes, unless we want to scare off reviewers and see standards decline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wrong place (wrong forum). Perhaps a user-conduct RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct should be initiated. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• As I said at the beginning of my statement, I rarely get involved in these disputes so I am unfamiliar with their processes. What I do understand is that Ottava Rima is disruptive and draining time away from improving the encyclopedia. Why should we engage in this same discussion all over again somewhere else? I don't really understand that. Awadewit (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is the wrong forum, then it is the wrong forum. We don't debate XfD's here, there is a proper channel to discuss XfD's. We don't promote admins here, there is a channel to promote admins. Likewise, there is a forum to discuss issues such as this. If you have the discussion in the wrong forum, then it needs to be handled in the correct one.Balloonman (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Although this might be the wrong place for this, it is obvious from the responses that this editor has been disruptive. Even the editors who defend his FAC rights preface it by saying OR doesn't seem to understand the concept of civility. If this is the wrong place for this argument, so be it, but something has to be done. OR's actions are occupying far too much attention on the wiki, and not just in terms of FAC. Redrocket (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you haven't heard an opinion from Raul or me about Ottava Rima's reviews, you don't have a full view. And I'm not giving an opinion with ongoing FACs as that would disrupt the FACs; that's another reason this dispute doesn't belong here, is inappropriate, and the normal channels of dispute resolution should be followed. Something has to be done? Nominators can ignore reviewers they disagree with. Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• My vote above to endorse this measure was not specifically about FACs. As I said, "I would endorse any action designed to get this editor to realize their way is not the cooperative way of the wiki." The FAC issue is only a portion of the problem. This editor is not simply making FAC problems, it's a pattern of bahavior that's seriously detrimental to the wiki. I endorsed this action as a stopgap way to try and get them to understand their actions are ticking off quite a few productive editors (at FAC and other places), since they are not responding to any attempts to discuss the matter civilly. If it needs to go somewhere else and a block for civility discussed, so be it, but this seemed to be a good way to specifically show them that their aggressive way of responding to requests isn't helping matters. Redrocket (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Jayron's comments above. Ottava Rima's arguments in The Drapier's Letters FAC show a strong lack of understanding of the FA criteria. Coupled with the incivility and stonewalling attitude, I endorse Durova's proposal. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have voluntarily struck my comments from the FAC in question here. I shall withdraw myself and go on a Wikibreak for a few months. I will (explicitly) not make further comments or edits on articles that involve Awadewit, Jbmurray, or Wasted Time R during this time. I will also make no further comments or edits on articles that involve others stipulated by the community. I hope that such will satisfy all parties involved, and remove any need for admin to take intervention that may set a precedence that will only harm the future of the FAC process. I am one editor, and as such, I am as replaceable as all other editors are. However, the process is not replaceable, and takes time to recover. I shall spend my time editing my own user space, or the handful of articles that I have created/majorly worked on as of late, unless the community shall wish to ban me, then I will be limited to my user page, unless the community then decides to remove that from my ability.

I hope this satisfies all, and this shall be the end of my communication upon this in order to begin the above. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit more extensive than I'd ask for. I wish you well and hope things go better upon your return. No hard feelings, I hope? If you'd ever like to collaborate on a featued picture restoration, please look me up. Sorry we had to encounter each other on these terms. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've found Ottava Rima to be quite inappropriate. She or he seems to be constitutionally unhappy with the idea of a cooperative editing environment. In that regard, the user is not a good fit at Wikipedia in any area. Without a change in manner and a reduction of the flames he or she brings to every edit, the user is going to continue to be "problematic." People change, of course, and this user may be fine eventually, but my dealings (I corrected a comma splice and was told that I don't understand grammar... which is a little funny, in general) have been dreadful. That said, it is not a "topic ban from FAC" that would be useful. The move to AN/I for a community sanction seems difficult, because most administrators won't feel it, won't see it, won't know it. Instead, this is a case for mediation and/or mentoring, because it is not an FAC issue, but an editor-angry-at-all-edits issue. Trying to make this FAC looks far too personal, too much a case of "we want peace." Other mediation, preferrably by a mediator Ottava Rima would agree to, would be best, if Ottava Rima can agree that her or his actions have resulted in far too much conflict. If not, it's a case for another venue -- RFC. Geogre (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Slippery slope per Sandy. A more appropriate "sanction" may work better; this is not the solution. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ditto Let anyone challenge at FAC. If the challenges are besides the point or though irrelevant, they can be briefly answered. this seems too much like preventing people from making arguments t hat the majority does not agree with. DGG (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Geogre and Sandy. It does appear that this user is problematic: mediation seems wise and some sanction may be necessary. But sanction specific to the FA process? Wrong, wrong, wrong approach. We have never locked the door on any of the review processes. At FAR, I've blocked people for the occasional "fuck you" and whatnot. But no one has ever been barred from the page, no matter how out to lunch their analysis of articles or querulous their attitude. Put one way, I would prefer blocking an editor in general ahead of blocking them from the FA process. Marskell (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• By now, this is flogging a dead horse, but I also oppose the ban. Inactionable objections can always be ignored, and reviewers with a history of making inactionable/disruptive comments are weighted differently as well. There is no need for a ban. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Metros

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, Metros (and others) can do whatever they want with their talk pages in terms of reversion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Metros (talk · contribs), a respectable admin, has been exhibiting bad judgement recently. Duering a civil conversation regarding the misuse of User:RyRy5's rollbacking tools, RyRy5 asked a question to Metros:

OK, but I still have one question for metros. Why do you sometimes revert edits on your talkpage that is not vandalism and it is just a simple comment?--RyRy5 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To which Metros responded:

You've got better things to worry about than what I do. Metros (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that comment just made my face go :| I know that admins are usually fairly condescending but that was just ridiculous. -- Naerii 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Metros (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This simply cannot be tolerated from some of the high ranking users of the project. As I have said, admins are given too much leeway compared to regular users and rollbackers such as RyRy5 and myself. I think that some type of measure should be taken for this, and I have suggested removal of adminship, however this may be too harsh and I would like some feedback from other admins. Editorofthewiki 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said on RyRy's page, Metros is (at worst) guilty of bad manners and (at best) of bad verbiage. To suggest sanctions for an uncivil comment is simply absurd. - Philippe 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems rather petty and unimportant to me. Admins are not expected to be perfect, they are human. I suggest dropping it and getting on with something more productive. --neonwhite user page talk 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm...users are allowed to revert whatever they like on their talk page. Even non vandalism. Where, exactly, is there a problem (and where is admin intervention needed)? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have thought things through, and I think that Metros is just doing his job as an admin, even if it doesn't seem like it. I do not believe that anything is wrong here anymore. Shall this be resolved now?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do see many proper uses of rollback I do also see the use of rollback to remove several user's good faith comments. If I saw this from a non-admin I would most likely remove the rollback permission from the person. While you are welcome to remove content you find objectionable from your user page, the use of special tools to do so is not appropriate. I do not think any action needs to be taken other than urging this admin to use his/her tools with more discretion. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See, this is the issue that I have with your argument: Rollback and Undo are, essentially, the same action. Rollback just tends to be much easier to use when undoing multiple edits. I don't have a dog in this fight, but there's something to consider. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing Metro's talk page as it stands I can see that he tends to be rather curt in a number of situations. I don't know him and have not had any interactions, but I can see why this might rullfle feathers in some cases, at least those of random bystanders that may not know what is going on. The only revert I see at the moment was reverting a comment from Uga Man rather than answering it. This leads me to guess that there are some minor bad vibes between these two editors for unknown reasons, but I presume they can work it out themselves. Given an editor can delete content from his talk page using Undo, and not leave an edit summary, I fail to see why using revert would be a problem. For a single post undo it is a precisely equivalent action. I think this business of reverting is a storm in a teacup. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know a user talk should be treated no differently to any other talk page. It's isn't owned by the user and rules about inappropriate editing still applies. --neonwhite user page talk 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Long standing rule that users can remove whatever they wish from their own talk page and it can be taken as read - see WP:BLANKING. Orderinchaos 08:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is over. I overreacted, as usual. Editorofthewiki 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism or uncontroversially "unproductive edits." I've seen a consensus that an established, experienced editor can use it for uncontroversial reverts on their own talk page. I'm ok with the latter if there is a consensus for it but would suggest that using rollback on the good faith edits of any user can inadvertantly escalate misunderstandings. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do people really think "What?! He rollbacked that edit I made instead of undoing it?! I could have handled an 'undo' but a rollback?? That's just a slap in the face!"? Is that what people really think? Or do people realize that a revert is a revert? Metros (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think editors realize a revert is a revert. I'm not sure that administrators as a class do. They seem to have imbued Rollback with some mystical significance that is beyond me. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think rollback's style of marking itself as a minor edit and not allowing for a descriptive edit summary makes it seem a bit cold and detatched to some admins. Redrocket (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a script where one can change what the rollback summary is. I didn't know about it myself until a month ago - you just have to add the line "importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js');" (with the semicolon, without the quotation marks) to your monobook.js file. Orderinchaos 08:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Lloyd

Because such actions have a history of being contentious, I am noting here that I summarily closed this with a deletion per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, after learning about the issue at WP:BLPN. CIreland (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have actualy done your job per the rules, but actually failed because a simple google search shows that, far from the single piece of gossip shown in the google cache of his previous wp bio, there are at least 4 other notable reasons for his documentation, not least invlolvement in one of the biggest police cases in the UK in the 2000's MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mick, the close doesn't stop a rewrite that is NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who initiated the AfD, and added a report at WP:BLPN on the same subject out of fear that the article was going to be kept though it was a blatant BLP violation, I strongly support these actions. I have no problem with a good, neutral article be written. Corvus cornix_talk 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology-focused sock-puppeteer?

If I remember correctly, isn't there a banned user with an anti-Scientology agenda who uses sock puppets? If I'm right, would someone familiar with this person take a look at the contribs of User:Childnicotine, who appears to be an aggressive SPA with an Scientology-focused editing program. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I'm not "uninvolved" with this editor, who filed two consecutive 3RR complaints about me, one of which was turned down while the other is pending. This isn't "payback", I've just gotten around to taking a look at the editor's contrib list, which look odd for a username that was just created two days ago. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No takers on this? This user was created on the 24th and immediately started by creating a Scientology-related article from scratch, complete with a quote from Scientology texts. He or she has a deep knowledge of Wikpedia rules and is clearly not a new user, presumably a sock -- but of whom? I presume the user could be blocked on the basis of WP:DUCK? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you really have enough evidence to get the user banned for sockpuppetry, especially as this could be a legitimate use of a SPA as per the "segregation and security" section of WP:SOCK. (Scientology isn't exactly nice to their critics in general. More specifically, they have an extremely well-documented history of pressuring friends and family members of ex-Scientologists to "disconnect" from them if they do anything critical of Scientology). That is an interesting edit history, though, and it's certainly worth watching. - makomk (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiiris, K. Kagami

During the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiiris, K. Kagami, user User:Linlikai removed my recorded "Delete" vote without my permission, here is the diff[39]. I have restored my vote and placed a comment about what happened at the AfD page. Subsequently, User: Melissagoethe placed the SPA tag on all my comments, here is the diff[40]. His placing of the SPA tag on my comments was reverted by User:KleenupKrew, here is the diff[41]. After that User: Melissagoethe restored the SPA tags on my comments and accused me of having removed them earlier (aven though they were removed by KleenupKrew) and accused me of having "practised hypocrisy", here is the diff[42]. An easy check of my contributions will show that I have been editing Wikipedia since Aug 2007 and have well over 500 edits on multiple topics, far from being an SPA. On the other hand both User: Melissagoethe and User:Linlikai are obvious SPAs who made few or no edits outside the topic of this AfD.

I request that a previously uninvolved admin take a look at this case and talk to both User: Melissagoethe and User:Linlikai, and also remove the SPA tags placed on my comments in this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Look like socks to me.--Phoenix-wiki 13:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I did remove the SPA tags about User:Nsk92 as obvious vandalism, as a quick look confirmed that Nsk92 has a long and varied editing history. The three users arguing for "keep" on this article, User:Melissagoethe, User:Linlikai, and User:LoneWolfSHYBOY have made no edits outside the topic, and the latter two accounts were created today (probable sockpuppets). The article itself looks like a complete hoax and can probably be speedied unless somebody can provide credible sources this person actually exists. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a suspected sockpuppet case concerning these users. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Melissagoethe. TheMile (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the remaining SPA tags on User:Nsk92. Black Kite 13:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dear administrators, I refer to the article with great disappointment in the moral standards that I have been exposed to in my short while attempting to contribute to this community.

Firstly, I object to User:KleenupKrew for editing the article to skew it in his favor, repeatedly, especially in the practice of various tags, without mention. And further more, deleting parts of my edits without due mention. While he prides himself for "cleaning up", I beseech the administrators to look into cleaning up his choice of morals. User:Nsk92 has kindly looked up for his misdeed for me as proof. [43] He should be prevented from further malpractice of such. I cannot accept that he has harbored an agenda against me and refused to justify it with me - something which I'll be happy to be answerable to. I am in no knowledge of why he has chosen to align me with various other members whom I have no knowledge of via the SPA tag: please do a whois to validate that I am speaking the truth. In fact, why would I choose to leave my message in which I have answered to User:Nsk92's post yet remove his post by proxy? Please see the third reply.

Secondly, with regards to User:Nsk92. I do apologize for the matter that I have mistakenly placed him responsible for User:KleenupKrew's misdeed (see above). However, this does not free him from fault. He said, "...you have got some nerve accusing me of being an SPA. Anyone can look-up my contributions here[20]. I have been a registered user since August 2007 and have over 500 edits on multiple topics. What about you??" I see not why he is implying that he has a certain superiority for being registered for less than a year longer than I have. Quantity does not imply quality. He used his 'contributions' as a premise, but upon a quick look, what time he had spent earlier here has not shown his standards to be any better. For example, see his repeated undoing of revisions at [44]. Here, it serves a point to question: he is quick to cite WP policies for his backing, but he has failed to mention one of particular poignancy for his case [45]. I see not why he is practising double standards on this matter. And for his information, the person in mention in my article does have a Friendster account which outstrips his term of presence as a registered user here: but I had fairly omitted that as a source for it cannot produce a proof with neutrality. She also has a set of notes as a TA at MIT on the OCW - dated back to Fall 2004, but I had chosen to omit that as it does not provide anything useful for my article. Does August 2007 mean anything? No. Absolutely nothing when it comes to merit.

Thirdly, I address User:TheMile. As seen [46], he had adopted a very lax set of standards in proving his point and inquiring on the matter. He has made passing remarks and fleeting attempts that would obviously not have generated a find of any relevance to my article: be it on his supposed status as a doctoral candidate (for which his candidacy and the truth of this claim I doubt) He also claimed that I had made logical fallacies in my good-willed responses where I clearly have not. I had also provided means of finding articles, kindly, for which he refused to, giving a generalization that everything should be in English as he wishes.

Fourthly, it disturbs me insofar that I have been accused of all matter of ethics pertaining to my integrity in this place, and where I have been falsely accused of creating multiple accounts, creating single-purpose accounts, creating this, creating that, everything on the grounds of surface value. In all, this place proved to be a disgrace: one where term of registration is equivocated as merit, one where hypocrisy is intertolerated between members of equal standing, and where double standards are practised in the misquotation of policies as tools to prove their points. These standards far deviate from that I have expected on an encyclopedia, one which I wished to contribute to. Thank you for showing me that this is a place where my ethics will degrade: for I will desist to condescend to these users' standards and comment further. I also hope that other new users get to see this: what they're getting themselves into. For these users, I recommend you to lay low for a 8 to 9 months, then you can start to act like User:Nsk92, claiming credit and merit where it is not deserved - just because you chose to register 8 to 9 months earlier.

I also accept the administrators' decision to request me to stop commenting on the AfD, which I see the rationale for. Melissagoethe (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not "claiming credit or merit" for anything, I am just claiming that your accusation of me being an WP:SPA is blatantly false, and my long and varied contribution history of editing on multiple topics is proof of that. Regarding "laying low" for 8-9 months, I did not do that either. I did not do much editing in October-November but I have been actively editing since January 2008, as a look through my contribution list proves. Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You, describing your motive under a different light, do not hide what is unequivocally obvious in what was typed: "Anyone can look-up my contributions here[20]. I have been a registered user since August 2007 and have over 500 edits on multiple topics. What about you??" Anyone with the slightest comprehension of the language can catch the nuances when you made it clear, "What about you??" Benefit of doubt COULD have been given if this wasn't there, and I would have sincerely apologized for that matter - BUT, it wasn't such. Furthermore, I did not mention laying low as something you have done, but I explicitly advise people who wish to add weight to their cause to follow your example of attributing merit to your time as a registered user if attitude of your kind is to be condoned. I did, however, state that a look through your contribution list shows up works that do not show the consistency deserving of someone with merit. Compare: I have been glad to revise my sources where discussed to meet the community's needs within my short list of contributions, yet you, on a quantitatively comparable extent (I refer to your contributions in August 2007) have perpetually undone revisions on a repeated basis. Technically speaking, you have indeed a single purpose account: and that seems to be grounded in perpetuating your ego (continually undoing revisions to an article in your favor, referring a matter as this to administrators as a major disruption on my case although I have been fully cooperative to listen and answer to constructive and unconstructive criticisms alike etc.) I also question the correctness of "single purpose account" for my case: I have just started my account - of course my first article contribution would appear as a single purpose: because I can't possibly have that many 'purposes' when I'm busily working on one single article. This brings me to question why user:KleenupKrew's false allegations, one which TO THIS POINT HE HAS NOT ADMITTED, were condoned while I, mistakingly, and acceptingly of my mistake, have to be lambasted. I demand a whois, and if proven that I have no connection to those you have been falsely drawing relations between me with, a public apology otherwise an equal treatment to him as I had received, in all fairness. Melissagoethe (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissagoethe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Edit x2: Correction of grammatical errors as well as signing off.

I read the lengthy arguments by Melissagoethe, and they amount to WP:LAWYER wikilawyering, convoluted accussations of bad faith against User:TheMile, User:KleenupKrew and User:Nsk92, and refusal to admit any wrongdoing from her part.

Notice that Melissa is requesting a checkuser (a "whois") to be conducted on User:Melissagoethe and her alleged socks User:Linlikai and User:LoneWolfSHYBOY --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

69.244.181.184

69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs) has left a message on ASE's page admitting he's a sock. It's RYNORT. APK ^{yada yada} 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RYNORT has been indefinitely blocked. User:Blaxthos has previously determined that the IP is a sockpuppet of RYNORT. I don't know if a checkuser was performed. Aleta ^Sing 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't he actually denying being Rynort? Aleta ^Sing 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have reworded my original statement. He admits to being a suspected sockpuppet and he has been blocked in the past for being a sock of RYNORT. APK ^{yada yada} 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this could also be related to Jsn9333 (talk · contribs), who also has an odd obsession with Blaxthos, and has only edited two articles: Fox News Channel and Jeremiah Wright‎ (note 69.244.181.184's most recent edits are to the Talk:Jeremiah Wright page). - auburnpilot talk 17:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He's quoting me from a warning template I gave him back in December, which apparently makes me part of some 'LOL'! cabal. Hell, I didn't even remember what for until I went back and found why. Then I found his reply to that warning. Now 4 months later he returns to my talk page. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think AuburnPilot has hit paydirt. Rynort has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, harassment, and incivility. I had previously not connected the two incidents as from the same source, but the probability of two SPA accounts freakishly obsessed with harassing me and editing the same articles with the same points of view approaches zero. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am being accused here, I will defend myself. Last time I defended myself against Blaxthos User:R. Baley blocked me, so I would appreciate it if any independent administrator would keep an eye on this. Blaxthos says I am "freakishly obsessed" with him, and hence am a puppet of the aforementioned user. If anyone is obsessed, it is Blaxthos. He did an very extensive investigation of my interactions with other users in this complaint on the ANI, listed a few quotes of other editors getting heated with me, campaigned on some of his friends talk pages asking them to join in, and had me banned from the Fox News entry. Regarding the substance of his new accusations here in this thread, the only evidence he has presented is that I have gotten heated with him in the past. In reality, the probability of editors with the same POV getting into heated confrontations with Blaxthos is quite high. Here are some examples, and they all involve entries where Blaxthos' abrasive style lends itself to POV confrontations (Fox News and Ted Kennedy entry):

• ... you are attempting to end the discussion... and you continue to do so by insulting me by accusing me of some sort of plot. Bytebear (directed to Blaxthos) diff
• Your attack against is both personal and completely unwarranted. User:RonCram (directed to Blaxthos at this page)
• Perhaps it would be best when calling an RfC to allow editors to express their opinions without badgering them. User:Crockspot (directed to Blaxthos at this page)
• Hey Blaxthos. I normally try to stay civil, but may I direct your attention to WP:DICK? Once your done reading that, try to realize that if there's one thing that can be clearly established at this point, it's that there is no consensus on this matter. There may have been once, there is none now. TheNobleSith (directed to Blaxthos after Blaxthos was very uncivil to me because I edited the Fox News article he has assumed ownership of) diff
• Blaxthos, you should be ashamed of yourself... this was a simple of issue of if it should be mentioned, yet you turned it into a huge bash against me. Arzel (directed to Blaxthos) diff
• Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people. Arnabdas (directed to Blaxthos on his talk page)
• ...instead of responding civily to my comments, Blaxthos show just what kind of person he is by making a huge rant against me. Just what the heck is your problem? Arzel (directed to Blaxthos)diff

Blaxthos claims I am "freakishly obsessed" with him, but the opposite is actually true. He and I had a minor edit war and had some confrontations similar to those he has frequently had with other editors. If anyone will take the time to actually scan through Blaxthos and my confrontations in this Fox News entry archive you will see that he immediately assumed bad faith when I showed up and commenced insulting me and referring to me as a troll. He especially does this to newcomers to the entry, as well as using the "FAQ" to wikilawyer them, as noted by this editor at the Fox News talk page.

So please understand the background that occurred before my alleged "obsession" began. My "obsession", which eventually got me banned from the Fox News entry, was posting this quote of Blaxthos' several times, "ByteBear, you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing!" I quoted that after I was accused of "POV pushing" by Blaxthos. For doing that he had me banned from the Fox News entry, per the ANI complaint I described above. Now he is complaining here again, attempting to get me permanently banned (it seems). That, my friends, is obsession. Do a grammar comparison, IP address comparison... whatever you need to do. The fact is, I am not whoever Blaxthos is claiming I am. I have been blocked before for meatpuppetry, and that makes me look bad. But most of the admins in my WP:SOCK case said they believed it was meatpuppetry, and it was a mistake due to ignorance, not evil. But I have apologized, I have contributed to content quite a bit for a newcomer.

If you will look at the latest Fox News archive you will see I instituted an RfC that got some wording changed over Blaxthos' vehement objections. Please do not continue to allow him to take out his frustration on me, as he has already done very much of that. And will someone please warn him about how he treats newcomers? Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone needed proof of freakish obsession, and his desire to advance the conflict, that post is it. Continued violations of the restrictions placed on him by consensus at ANI earlier, continued dangerous stalking and harassment, posting "sound bytes" from conversations that happened over a year ago... I don't have time to respond fully right now, but this is becoming insane. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See his first complaint on the ANI against me for an example of true 'freakish obsession', as he calls it. Blaxthos had just as many "sound bites" that he had collected from past conversations of mine. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And the consensus at the previous ANI was for *all* involved editors to not discuss the other involved editors any longer. That includes Blaxthos. However, given that he is leveling brand new accusations against me in this thread I must defend myself.

Blaxthos, please just lay off me and you won't hear anything from me. I did not start this thread nor this accusation... you did! Just leave me alone, lay off with the baseless accusations, and this will all go away. Deal? I am trying like hell to avoid discussion about you per the previous ANI, but you continue to obsess about me and bring me up in every accusation you can think of. Just lay off me, please. Please! Jsn9333 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"you won't hear anything from me. . ." seems inaccurate -see next post.

"I did not start this thread nor this accusation... you did. . ." demonstrably false, see beginning of this thread. Blaxthos didn't start this thread, nor did s/he first mention you. More to come. . .R. Baley (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (see my post below. R. Baley (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

What I mean is that Blaxthos has made accusations against me in this thread. If he had not, then I would have no reason to be here. It would be patently unfair to say I cannot respond to these fresh allegations simply because it is Blaxthos that is making them. As it is, he submitted evidence that I am a socket puppet. His evidence was, essentially, that I had heated past with him over similar POV issues as another editor. Therefore I have a right to respond and show that many editors have had such heated encounters with Blaxthos. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos' continued definance of ANI restrictions

In a previous ANI thread stemming from a heated debate between Blaxthos and I it was concluded that, "All editors are cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations... any on-wiki taunting, gloating, or basic "poking" (to be interpreted broadly) will be met with a block." This was said to be applied to "all involved editors" in the consensus.

Blaxthos has continued to discuss me on various talk pages, and has just recently started a new accusation against me here. Would someone please enforce the previous ANI and give Blaxthos a warning block. The ANI administrator, R. Baley, seems to be perfectly willing to block me for asking him about Blaxthos' behavior on my talk page (per the ANI rule), as he has done once, but he winks an eye as Blaxthos continues to obsessively accuse and talk about me everywhere he can. Now Blaxthos is asking R. Baley to block me again, because I responded to his latest accusation in this thread and defended myself. Please do not allow R. Baley block me again while shutting his eyes to Blaxthos' behavior.

Can another administrator get involved here and actually enforce the restrictions that have been placed on Blaxthos? I think a temporary block might set him straight... and might actually be required. I am just trying to move on, yet Blaxthos continues to bring me up and level every possible accusation he can at me. Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn, your behavior is beginning to border on harassment. - auburnpilot talk 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that you have been personally involved in the Fox News debate out of which this conflict stems, I don't think you are the administrator to make that call. No offense. I would like an independent administrator to look into this situation. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Jsn9333's topic ban

Jsn9333 is currently serving a 4 week topic ban on any article related to Fox News Channel, as outlined on WP:AN/I#Proposed short term remedy. All involved editors have already been cautioned to "not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor."I would like to propose an amendment to Jsn9333's topic ban, in that he may not at any time discuss Blaxthos (talk · contribs) specifically. Almost every edit Jsn9333 has made to a talk page over the last week or so has been about Blaxthos, and this is merely a continuation of the problem at Talk:FNC that led to the initial topic ban. - auburnpilot talk 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are proposing is that I can respond in my defense here when someone accuses me, unless that person is Blaxthos. That is patently unfair. If you don't want me to respond to accusations made by Blaxthos, it would be more effective for you to tell him to stop accusing me. I have discussed Blaxthos' behavior over the last week with administrators on my own talk page. That is not a blockable offense. I have not "poked or prodded" Blaxthos in any way shape or form. I have also been looking for new pages to get involved in and contributed to content having nothing to do with Blaxthos or FNC in the last week. Please just be patient and give me some time.

I am attempting to move on from the previous dispute covered in the ANI, but as mentioned above, Blaxthos continues to level baseless accusations at me here even today. I will respond whenever he does so. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn, get over it and move on. Why continue to perpetuate a situation that earned you a 4 week ban from anything FNC related? You say you've made other contributions, but your edit to Old Providence Church is hardly evidence. The point of R. Baley's remedy is that you would have a chance to prove you are here to contribute constructively, and thus far you've chosen not to do that. Don't watch Blaxthos's edits, talk page, or anything else related to Blaxthos and there would be no problem. - auburnpilot talk 13:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have every right to watch this administrators notice board. And when someone makes an accusation against me, I have every right to respond. What you are proposing is that I can respond in my defense here when someone accuses me, unless that person is Blaxthos. That is patently unfair. The point is I have been trying to move on. How about you tell Blaxthos to stop continuing to bring me up if you don't want me to continue to defend myself? Please tell me what is wrong with that suggestion. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with you, because obviously nobody is going to support a topic ban on themselves. However, please stop rewording your posts after somebody has responded. It changes the meaning of your comments, and subsequent responses make less sense. - auburnpilot talk 14:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If I've made any changes after someone responded it has been punctuation, spelling, etc... not changing core meanings of my statements. I apologize for not using the sandbox better. Please have patience. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! it's Sunday, and I'm back for a bit. First point, the condition of the remedy proposed at the 1st ANI report was that everybody walk away and quit talking about each other. I blocked Jsn because he could not walk away. This led to a review of my block initiated by Jayron32 at a 2nd ANI report. At the 2nd ANI, Jayron32, Auburnpilot and myself (3 admins) decided it was fair to unblock Jsn if s/he was "willing to completely, and without reservation, abide by the remedy as per the previous ANI." Though Jsn was following the thread, there has never been an indication on his part that s/he intended to move on. I take that as an indication that they were willing to sit out the block (and have it extended, "In fact, make it a lot longer." -Jsn) as long as they we're able to reserve the "right" to argue and accuse, and generally continue the disruption in the future.

The review of my block at the 2nd ANI, did cause more comments. That's the nature of a review, it means that the issue is not resolved. Thus, once again, there was no "moving on" just a continuation of the previous dispute. Now here we are again at a 3rd ANI (4th, if you count the thread initiated by Jsn, which I combined into this one). And there is speculation that Jsn might be Rynort. I have seen at least 5 (2 topical and 3 behavioral --Auburn mentions post modification above, this is one of them) indications now that this might be the case, but no definitive proof. Personally, I find that Jsn9333's (contribution to disruption) ratio over the last month, to be too low to be allowed to continue to edit, even without making a connection to a previously disruptive account. I would prefer that another admin look at this at this point, but I'm not going to sit by much longer while attacks against users by Jsn continue (his/her repeated invocations of WP:Bite, notwithstanding). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:George512

Just a quick note that I blocked him for edit warring, even though I was one of the editors who reversed his inclusion of information about him in May 12. If there's any objection, please let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. Bencherlite^Talk 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You bad boy, removing non-notable information from articlespace. Terrible. Have a cookie. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

block log NonvocalScream (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tachyonbursts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made the following legal threat: All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.[47] Please block him. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That diff's a week old, and doesn't strike me as a clear legal threat. Why is this suddenly an issue, so far after the fact? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Luna here, this isn't a clear threat at all. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's suddenly an issue because he made more last night in a sudden burst of incivility, example [48]. It's also in issue because of the Arbcom case these pages are under. See [49] for more links and discussion. RxS (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That just strikes me as a rant rather than a legal threat, to be honest. Probably best just to post civility warnings at the moment, though his last edit suggests he's left for a while anyway. It wouldn't appear to be a great loss if he was blocked, though. Black Kite 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the former link should be placed with the other evidence shown at the latter link? If it is being discussed at AE I'm not sure that it needs to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was placed there last night. See the full (such as it is) discussion with links. [50] See the Arbcom case here [51] I'm stupefied that we have to put up with this crap. RxS (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the link shows the contribution being made a week ago. As RxS writes, the message was placed at User talk:Haemo last night. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I'm an idiot, apparently. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I previously marked this as resolved, as we are in agreement that this is not a legal threat. Can we re-resolve it now? :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's we? It's very clearly a legal threat. All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.? That's pretty clear. In any case he's been blocked now...RxS (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We = everyone but you so far (with the exception of Ice Cold Beer). The statement made is not a clear threat, just a general observation (whether its a correct one or not remains to be seen as I'm unsure of edit histories being admissible in court). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could definitely be taken both ways. I read it more like "someone's going to get you eventually" than "I am filing papers in Florida" but whatever, the discussion is over. --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinated Distruption?

Random IPs are running through and deprodding, detagging (especially merge tags), reversing consensus based merges, and performing straight out vandalism on various anime and manga related articles. Each article is being hit multiple times by random IPs. So far, I personally have had to have at least seven articles protected to stop it, but they just keep moving on to more. During one of the first hits, one of the IPs implied in a message on Four War Gods that someone had spammed 4Chan with requests to come mess with the articles[52]. Articles I know of that have been hit so far Four War Gods (7 before RPP), Utsugi (5 before RPP), GetBackers story arcs (at this point, after 4 I sent to RPP), Brain Trust (GetBackers), TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 1, TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 2, and TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 3. Tasuku Meguro may be the next on (3 so far). I've posted in the project to see if any others have been hit.

It is possible that it may be specific against me as all of those are ones I performed the merges on, and another one hit was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess: The Talisman of Fate. However, I'd prefer not to be totally paranoid about it :P.

Either way, there are so many IPs doing this, that I'm not sure what else can be done by keep sending the pages to RPP, but figure I should post here to see if there are any other options. Collectonian (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other methods of dealing with 4chan idiocy too. Unfortunately, sometimes it just takes a lot of it before they go on to something else. Since there do seem to be some specific targets here, RPP is likely not a bad idea as specific targets make themselves known either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I really hope they get bored soon. Tasuku page is now also at RPP. It sucks that its so many IPs...can't even do any temporary range blocks :( Collectonian (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way of determining the likely targets of 4chan guided vandals? Short periods of semi-protection should increase the ennui factor considerably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone might be spamming news of article mergers in WP:ANIME on 4chan in a way to disrupt the process because one person disagrees with it. However, I don't know of many who would take the time to copy/paste a Wikipedia link, and vandalize it, if they saw one or more posted on 4chan, unless the one spamming the links is not coming off as calling for disruption. In that case, the spammer is merely spamming the links, and disrupting the 4chan boards, therefore, the 4channers get angry at the spammer, and take out their frustration on the links the spammer provided, namely the Wikipedia articles listed above. It might not even be anything more than the spammer merely providing the links and nothing more, letting the 4channers do the rest as the spammer expects them to. It's actually quite logical when you think about it, because the spammer by him or herself can't do anything, as if they tried they'd just get blocked; it would make much more sense to gather a group of vandals and let them do the work. In that case, either we wait it out and let the spammer get tired, or we wait until the 4channers don't want to deal with it anymore and they even ignore it; or we just ignore it and revert.--十八 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish there was a way to determine. I can't navigate 4chan's site worth a darn, so haven't seen any specific posts, just the one vandal who left the message about it. Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat, User:Nukeh

Resolved

Would like a second pair of eyes here [53] please. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Is that a legal threat? It sounds more like a threat of a legal threat. I wouldn't worry about it, though — he'll either do nothing, or make a real threat, in which case we will block him. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've extended to indef, that's clear enough to me, and even seems to refer to specific cases. If the user is willing to clarify their intents, I'm happy to listen, but no use taking chances in the meantime. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the block logs and contribs, I support the indef block. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's definitely a threat now: [54] - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and protected by Nakon. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross-post: Official Election Announcement

Please forgive cross-post: posting in several places for maximum visibility.

The 2008 Board election committee announces the 2008 election process. Wikimedians will have the opportunity to elect one candidate from the Wikimedia community to serve as a representative on the Board of Trustees. The successful candidate will serve a one-year term, ending in July 2009.

Candidates may nominate themselves for election between May 8 and May 22, and the voting will occur between 1 June and 21 June. For more information on the voting and candidate requirements, see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008>.

The voting system to be used in this election has not yet been confirmed, however voting will be by secret ballot, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained.

Votes will again be cast and counted on a server owned by an independent, neutral third party, Software in the Public Interest (SPI). SPI will hold cryptographic keys and be responsible for tallying the votes and providing final vote counts to the Election Committee. SPI provided excellent help during the 2007 elections.

Further information can be found at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en>. Questions may be directed to the Election Committee at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en>. If you are interested in translating official election pages into your own language, please see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Translation>.

For the election committee,
Philippe Beaudette

Anyone taking up the offer to translate? Into English? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We (the community) get one new board member. We can nominate candidates in May, and vote in June. No one knows how we'll vote yet, but it'll be secret ballot and a third party will do the counting on their server. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, more of that article

Resolved

insofar that the discussion is more extensive over at WP:AN. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes more of that article everyone is already annoyed with: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. This time we have an admin, JzG, removing content through the protection. He did so stating there was never consensus to add it in the first place, even though its been in the article in numerous forms for months. To show JzG is obviously involved we have the following:

• Previously removing it: [55]
• Arguing it should not be included: [56], specific difs: [57] [58] [59]
• Editing through protection: [60]

Can someone please revert the edit, or remove protection (less preferred) so everyone can edit equally. Also if you see the discussion only JzG and John Smith believe it should not be included at all, everyone else felt it should be to some extent, even if in a small version. This edit further was clearly not by consensus as the talk page shows, and clearly not a BLP or Copyright issue --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This was possibly an accident, so I have asked JzG as well as someone else had, to revert it. However barring that some3rd party admin intervention may be required. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a more extended discussion over at WP:AN. I suggest we close this and concentrate there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Wwwwwwhatsup

Would people care to take a look at the contributions of this new editor shown here. In particular, one at least of the images uploaded is not of the subject. I am pretty sure that the image of Clare Martin is not of Clare Martin. You can see photos of Clare here and here. I have queried it on the user's talk page, but the other images may be suspect also. --Bduke (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Maxine Carr.jpg this pretty much clinches it, a vandal. Polly (Parrot) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just deleted this, considering it purported to have been taken at a time when Maxine Carr was still in prison. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 24 hours so we now need to clean up. --Bduke (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Between us I think it is done. --Bduke (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All deleted; checking, none of them were of the claimed subjects, and the metadata was inconsistent with a claim of self-making. Now, having seen no other productive edits from this user, do we hope for the best or indef as a vandalism-only account? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest seeing what he does after 24 hours. If he vandalizes again, block indefinitely. --Bduke (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:216.49.77.67

User:216.49.77.67 is disrupting an ongoing AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Ann McBride) with personal attacks. This editor has also vandalized AFDs on a similar subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes. I'm all for everyone commenting in AFDs but they need to stick the subject of the AFD and keep the personal attacks out of it and would appreciate some admin assistance.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IP hasn't edited in over 24 hours. Suggest ignore and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility / NPA - 69.244.181.184

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

I normally avoid making any suggestions as to appropriate remedies when discussing things on ANI, however after reviewing the contributions of this recently-unblocked IP I am requesting re-instituting the block, possibly indefinitely, due to constant trolling and disruption. Some high points since the block expired, for your consumption:

• Wikipedia is CONTROLLED by liberals that PRETEND anyone can edit it.
• save me the lecture about how your VILE, INSULTING, CONDESCENDING & POISONOUS attitude in no way affects your ability to edit this article fairly! hahaha!
• And before some well-meaning liberal Wik Admin sends me a note reminding me that this is not what the talk pages are for, explain to me why this JAGOFF's comments have been left here unmolested for over THREE weeks.
• I've been to black churches more often in the last year than EVERY white liberal editor of Wikipedia combined. And that's a WHOLE lot of folks. lol

Plenty more where that came from, should more review be needed. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Block log said it all.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the earlier discussion can be marked as resolved. APK ^{yada yada} 03:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...Can any of you brainiacs ACTUALLY prove that this guy is the sockpuppet that Blaxthos says he is?

Thought not.

Then, for the good of Wikipedia, you need to resign. Now.

Thanks. Now if you have proof, then I'll quit editing. Otherwise you leave permanently.

Deal? 68.40.200.77 (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This nice person left me a lovely message. APK ^{yada yada} 04:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Looks like this is another IP of same user, probably needs to be blocked in tandem. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Elspeth Monro socks

• note: Restoring prematurely archived thread. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs), who is indefblocked with an enormous amount of socks and IPs, is back vandalizing with yet more IPs and new sockpuppets. His M.O. is changing his old sock's pages with to "sockproven, or removing the notice altogether with poorly spelled summaries and "sk" in the summary, and generally adding comments to his own socks talk pages. All of these edits are Monro [61] as well as these [62]. And if you look at the contributions, you'll see he's created new socks as well. Simply following the path of the IPs contributing to the userpages and talks of other accounts and so on will generally bring you down a path to find HUGE numbers of disruptive Monro socks. To stop this sock talk page vandalism I suggest protecting all Monro sock user and usertalk pages (like we do with a certain other determined troll). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the two IPs in question. My solution would be to just delete all their pages, but some people may dislike that.-Wafulz (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If the only thing he (she?) is editing is their own sock talk pages, who the heck cares? If it is incivil RBI, if not, ignore it? Loren.wilton (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in cases of sockpuppetry, it's important for admins and others who help stop socks to be able to see the accounts and contribs of the offender - this helps in recognizing patterns, and helps keep the offender from being able to continue on the same articles or with the same m.o.. If and when they try to return, this evidence makes it easier to catch them. I would have no problem with protecting the pages if the indef-blocked user is removing the sock tags. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:R00m c and User:ScoutCruft

Resolved

R00m c (talk · contribs) and ScoutCruft (talk · contribs) got blocked based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c, but now we have Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/R00m c that says they're unrelated. Despite this both users are still blocked, Room for one week and ScoutCruft is indef. Considering the major factor behind this block is the sockpuppet accusation, which has no evidence to support it, I'm a little bothered that these blocks are still in place. There are concerns about both users going a little nutty with some article cleanup tags, but such activity should never warrant such harsh blocks, especially for "first time offenders". It's been a few days for both of them, and that's far more than enough.

Room in particular has stated a willingness to improve their understanding of the tags and a strong desire to avoid this misunderstanding in the future. I am saddened to see that both users are still blocked. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the blocking admin, User:Dreadstar, has stated that he will not contest an unblocking. [63] -- Ned Scott 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just declined ScoutCruft's unblock request because he's clearly not a newbie, R00m c has just been unblocked by Dreadstar. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is marked as "resolved", I thought I'd note that ScoutCruft does have checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets. It seems he was the puppet master all along. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Biff714 editing of Sandra Lee (cook)

• Biff714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who WP:EDITWARs to include WP:BLP violations in both the article and talk page of:
• Sandra Lee (cook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biff714 has been repeatedly warned yet continues. Attempts to get help through BLPN has yet to result in any help. Can someone just block this guy already? --Ronz (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User adding copyright content and then removing CSD I9 tags

PadmaDharma101 (talk · contribs) recently added copyright content to Brahma and the uploaded two copyrighted images Image:Brahmana.jpg and Image:Brahma hc67.jpg. Original sources for the edit/images are [64], [65] [66]. Since then the user has been removing the CSD tags, and apparently vandalizing my talk-page. Can some admin take a look ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Image Image:Brahmana.jpg is my image. if any user has any suspicion you can investagate yourself. --PadmaDharma101 (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the exact same-seized image that was uploaded; and this is a link to a larger copy on the same wesbite, where the original Batik painting is on sale. Also notice the copyright notices on the website. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the images. PadmaDharma, first you upload copyrighted images and add copyrighted test to arcticles, then you vandalise other users' comments. If you continue that way, you may be blocked without further warnings. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP utilizing Semi-Protection Templates.

I've been checking the edit history of an anonymous IP user, and I just noticed this edit in his history. I didn't realize that Anonymous IP's can dole out Semi-Protection templates.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple enough. I removed the template. Obviously should not have been added. Enigma ^message 07:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

SimpsonsFan08 sock block sanity check

Hi, folks. I'd just like input to make sure I'm doing the right thing here. SimpsonsFan08 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a few days for sockpuppetry, and the sockpuppets SimpsonsFan2008 (talk · contribs), HomerSimpson1996 (talk · contribs), and MrWP (talk · contribs) have all been indefinitely blocked. I dug a little bit into some contributions, found Connorjack (talk · contribs), and blocked it indefinitely. SimpsonsFan08 says that Connorjack should be allowed citing the clean-start-under-a-new-name section. 1) I'm not sure that all of this is exactly a clean start. 2) I'm not sure that any contributions of Connorjack required a clean start. 3) I'm not sure that a user who abuses multiple accounts and lies about the abuse should be allowed this extra account. Opinions? WODUP 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I'd been bolder and indef blocked to begin with. Users who sock abusively, as he did at his RFA (CU confirmed), waive the right to have alternate accounts and personally, with this guy's lying and squirming around, I'd ban. MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Sounds like blatant block-evasion, from your description. Seems like an indef block candidate, considering the prior warnings and the promise not to do this again. Enigma ^message 07:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He just requested an unblock. Enigma ^message 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him a very straightforward question. Now let's see what will be his reply. Only a very positive reply can stop me from extending his block indef. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As I noted on his talk page, he lies, gets caught, confesses, and then lies immediately thereafter. Also, it's pretty obvious to me that even Connorjack isn't his first account. WODUP 08:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the indefinite block. I had no idea that it went this far when I reported SimpsonsFan08 for using MrWP as a sockpuppet for nominating him for adminship. This is just ridiculous. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User has been indefinitely blocked by MBsianz. Rudget 18:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying I agree with it completely. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman and the Homeopathy probation

Ullman has gone beyond simple tendentious editing into full trolling at Talk:Potassium dichromate. I'll deal with the most obvious stuff first: He's trying to insist that Scientizzle supports him, over Scientizzle's objections.

We now get to the really bizarre behaviour on Dana's part. He says there was consensus for its inclusion, and that Scientizzle supports him.

“ Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it. ”

Scientizzle responds:

“ Wow. Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it. Here are all the diffs from my particpation on this talk page since the discussion renewed in April: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. Please do indicate in which of these edits I recommended referencing Frass et al. If you're saying that my statement,

"Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.^ref"

is a recommendation to reference it, you have wrongly interpretated my non-glowing evaluation of this source's utility. — Scientizzle 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ”

Ullman continues to say that Scientizzle supports him, despite his objections.

“ I thought that editors would reconsider this study now that several socks were muted, and I was right! Scientizzle voiced support for including reference to this,[73]. And yet, despite several protests against archiving an ACTIVE discussion, Baegis disregarded these concerns. ”

Scientizzle sees this, and asks:

“ Dana, did you miss my comment above? — Scientizzle 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ”

Ullman responds... by arguing with Scientizzle that he, in fact, supports him.

“ Scientizzle, no, not at all. Did you see your words: "I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms. " [74] It is interesting how you chose to not give the entire quote from your posting at that same time. You clearly say that you're NOT against inclusion...this strongly suggests that the conversation is open. I hope that you will stop stonewalling. You did recommend providing reference to this study in at least a minimalistic way. Therefore, I continue to assert that the archiving of the active conversation is part of a bullying behavior conducted without consensus, in a WP:TE manner with the audacity to inaccurately blame me for TE. DanaUllman^Talk 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC) ”

Note: Ullman's link to Scientizzle's comment is wrong, it should be [75]

We've gone beyond parody into full scale trolling here. Ullman:

• Argues with Scientizzle that Scientizzle actually supports him.
• Claims that Scientizzle did not provide a complete quote, while he... uses elipsis to change the meaning of Scientizzle's quote:

Ullman says Scientizzle says:

“ I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms. ”

However, What Scientizzle actually says, in full, is:

“ I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.^[ref]" statement). — Scientizzle 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) ”

The words Ullman deleted, while criticising Scientizzle for not quoting his full statement, COMPLETELY CHANGE the meaning of Scientizzle's remark away from being about inclusion of this study at Potassium dichromate.

Background

We start at 15 January of this year,[76] in which Ullman is complaining that he was reverted. He claims the resons are unknown, but his edit [77] not only adds the study, but changes wording to add a strong homeopathic bias to the descriptions more favourable to homeopathy, and removes all critical content, claiming it is not specific enough to the particular homeopathic remedy.(See edit summary here).

He edit wars over its inclusion for a while: [78] [79] [80] [81] Arion 3x3 joins in the edit-warring fun: [82] Then the page is protected: [83]

Between the 15th and 26th or so of January, large sections of the talk page are spent discussing this. On 30 January, Ullman repeats his points, and insists it be included. [84] and is again shot down.

No further discussion on the talk page occurs between February 3 and 19 April. At which point... Ullman brings up the study YET AGAIN, claiming that a few socks that were active at the time meant all previous discussion should be ignored. [85]

He is short down again, by several people.e.g

21st April, he makes the same points again: [86]

He claims previous discussion is "inadequate" and that:

“ Based on my summary of the RS and notability of this study (and its substantial results), I think that you are stonewalling...and you are giving the Arb Committee good evidence that you will not accept any positive evidence on homeopathy. I would think that you would want to show good faith now. Let's work towards consensus on what should be said about this important study. ”

Consensus again goes against him, so he claims that the five or six other editors are "stonewalling"

Baegis eventually archives the discussion, using Template:hat to avoid further disruption.

Ullman objects to this, and tries to pull other editors in to continue to beat the dead horse.[87]

In short, Ullman has gone beyond tendentious editing into full-scale trolling. Homeopathy is under an article probation (Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation). Ullman should be promptly banned from all homeopathy-related pages.

There is, of course, a current Arbcom case, but Ullman is doing this trolling in the middle of it. Arbcom is not a protection from sanctions, particularly from ones like a topic ban that do not prevent the editor from editing the case pages. In short, if this article probation is to be meaningful, Ullman should be topic banned, and probably should have been some time previously.

This evidence has also been submitted to the Arbcom, of course, but it's probably going to be at least a month before they make any ruling, and the disruption is ongoing right now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses

Ho, hum. That definitely seems like the kind of problematic behavior (civil pov-pushing) that we are so bad at dealing with. Altering the wording of a quote in order to change the meaning is quite deceptive. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated on an area already under probation. Notwithstanding the current ArbCom case, an injunction that would prevent User:DanaUllman to continue this sort of behavior until the arbitration case is concluded would have my support. henrik•talk 10:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) has been placed under a three month ban from all homeopathy-related topics (broadly construed).[88] Baegis (talk · contribs) has been warned for incivility.[89] This has been noted at the current ArbCom case.[90] Vassyana (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. ArbCom can always chose to modify it, if they see fit. henrik•talk 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Baegis should have been warned, though - after five pages of Dana being disruptive, it's a bit much to give a warning because an editor got mildly upset at the person causing major disruption. It's things like that thatt allow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to be used as a weapon against core policies, particularly against WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. (Vassyana is, of course, right that it wasn't very civil, and it was only a warning, so, you know, I don't want this to be seen as an attack on Vassyana's judgement, but I do think we could all use a big chat about Civility, if only because we're basing blocks on a policy that considers racist attacks less of a problem than using "vandalism" to describe a really awful good faith edit. Yes, really. WP:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility. [Ed: Thank god someone removed that stupid "More serious examples" bit]) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the warning was appropriate. I don't think that a block or topic ban would be appropriate, in part because the frustration is understandable. However, lashing out with insults is not a solution, and will only worsen already bad situations. For some edit warriors, no comment on this particular case, a hostile response is the worst response. Very often, for those making cries of oppression/censorship/discrimination/etc, being attacked both validates their viewpoint and gives them ammunition. CIVIL is not the problem. On the contrary, it's essential to a cooperative working environment. There are a lot of solutions for the problem, but flinging insults (regardless of the reason) is not the answer. On the contrary, it's utterly counterproductive. Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action, Vassyana. This line of argumentation was well past surreal, a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and I'm glad we can move on. — Scientizzle 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:98.210.14.5 at Stefan Banach

This user continues to make increasingly nationalistic unsourced edits to this article, against consensus, in spite of numerous attempts to discuss on the article's talk page, and in spite of repeated warnings on their own talk page. I suggest either a block or semi-protection of the article (as already proposed at Requests for protection).--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Acupuncturist

A self confessed acupuncturist User:Jim Butler is edit warring on numerous acupuncture articles, most recently here[91] removing scientific research showing that acupuncture has no proven effect. He has ignored a request on his talkpage [92]. Any help in persuading him to the course of reason would be useful for the project. Mccready (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This absurd situation is explained below. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee has summarized the situation well below. I will add more there. I welcome scrutiny of my edits, because I think I do a good job here, and most editors (across the idealogical spectrum, from hardcore skeptics to devoted alt-med proponents) seem to agree. Have a look at my talk page and block log, Jim Butler (talk · contribs · logs · block log). For contrast, see Mccready (talk · contribs · logs · block log).

With regard to the edit warring, I left a message at Talk:Acupuncture on April 10th explaining the various reasons why a long list in the lead section was inappropriate. Mccready did not respond. Instead, he just kept reverting, despite the fact that five different editors disagreed with his edits [93][94][95][96][97], and no one else agreed with him. That's his general approach: long on edit warring, short on discussion.

I also think it's a little disingenuous for Mccready to post a comment on my talk page at 05:33, 27 April 2008, then post here just a half hour later at 06:06, 27 April 2008 complaining that I "ignored" it. As it happens, I indeed replied two hours later, at 07:26, 27 April 2008. Talk about insulting the intelligence of one's readers...

Oh, and with regard to the implied conflict of interest: according to WP:COI, Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Most editors say that my edits are well-informed and NPOV. Mccready, however, edits tendentiously, and has not disclosed an affiliation that may impact his edits: "I'm Kevin McCready, a member of the Australian Skeptics ... The skeptics are famous for our standing offer of $50,000 for anyone who can demonstrate for example that acupuncture is anything more than a placebo..."[98]

So who's the problem editor, and who has a potential COI? --Jim Butler (t) 08:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

Mccready (talk · contribs) is exhibiting (he's done this before in other cases) very disruptive behavior that is a violation of the principle involved in 3rr violations, among other things. He keeps reinserting a large edit in the lead that has been reverted by several other editors, yet he insists on repeating the same behavior. It's definitely uncollaborative editing. The problem with the edit itself is that it is not in a format suitable for the lead, not that it's untrue. Many editors have explained this to him, yet he persists. Is there a penalty for stubborn hardheadedness? Here are the diffs (so far). Other editors' reactions can be found in the edit history of that article and the talk page:

• 18:20, April 3, 2008
• 23:23, April 7, 2008
• 18:00, April 8, 2008
• 08:02, April 11, 2008
• 03:13, April 18, 2008
• 04:27, April 19, 2008
• 01:12, April 20, 2008
• 07:16, April 21, 2008
• 09:17, April 21, 2008
• 04:33, April 23, 2008
• 06:31, April 23, 2008
• 01:38, April 25, 2008
• 02:40, April 25, 2008
• 07:21, April 26, 2008
• 08:48, April 26, 2008

Right above he is abusing this board to complain about his inability to succeed in an identical edit war on another article! Someone please stop this nonsense. A topic ban and 3rr block would be appropriate. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be appropriate is that you reformat the information if you don't like it the way it is. Not waste everyone's time defending the deletion of good sources. Mccready (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the one seeking inclusion, therefore it's your job to format it properly and seek inclusion in the body of the article. Then we can include mention of those otherwise good sources in the lead. That's the way we do it here. You have been told this numerous times, yet you insist on including that poorly formatted whole long list of sources in the lead, which is quite improper. Yes, I agree that acupuncture's effectiveness has been debunked numerous times and that needs to be mentioned in the lead, but only after it's documented in the body of the article. This is mostly a formatting issue, not a POV issue. That's why many editors who otherwise agree with your POV are opposing this edit warring of yours. -- Fyslee / talk 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate that Mccready uncivilly calls me a POV warrior. . . He accuses me of edit warring. . . yet they are his poor edits. . . with no consensus. . . he keeps forcing on us which I have reverted. If it were up to me. . . he should be topic banned at least. . . blocked temporarily at most.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot that I could say about Mccready's pattern of disruptive editing. Probably the main point is that the pattern is long-standing. See the one-month community ban proposed by FloNight in September 2006, here and here. Note in particular the number of pro-science, skeptical editors in that thread who say that he's exhausted the community's patience. After that ban, he disappeared for about a year, but when he returned, he quickly settled into the same disruptive pattern. That resulted in my asking an admin (User:Mastcell) to intervene. Mastcell replied:

"There is clearly a problem here. I'm thinking about the best way to address it. My instinct would be to place Mccready on 1RR on these articles to address the constant edit-warring. I've left a note for User:Davidruben to get his thoughts. I agree with you that ArbCom would probably deal with him pretty harshly given the history, and it may come to that since he appears to reject any outside attempts to address his behavior by impugning the integrity, experience, etc of the admin in question."[99]

The upshot of that intervention is that Mccready, in order to avoid a sanction, agreed to limit himself to 1RR. Since then, he's edit warred and gone beyond 1RR several times (will add diffs later). He also chronically ignores WP:LEAD, adding contentious, poorly-formatted and poorly-weighted material to lead sections even if the material he adds isn't covered in the article at all.

A a minimum, a re-do of the topic ban done by FloNight, for all alternative medicine and construably "pseudoscience" articles, seems in order. And I think the ban should be indefinite, since he been at this for years, seems immune to constructive criticism, and voluntary self-restraint doesn't work. Sure, Mccready has made some good edits along the way, but lots of editors are able to do that without chronic, tendentious disruption. He's dragging the project down, and the good stuff he adds doesn't warrant keeping him around, IMO. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This is a very very simple dispute engineered by the usual POV warriors who want to defend acupuncture at all costs. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Simple and sweet. The true believers acknowledge my position but try to wiggle out by claiming my edits are not formatted properly or do not belong in the LEAD. If they spent as much time on addressing this perceived flaw as they do attacking me we might all be able to be proud of a better encyclopedia. Mccready (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All of that stuff shouldn't be in the lead. Would you stop if the lead was pruned to just the first para:

• • Acupuncture [...] practiced and taught throughout the world.

and the effectiveness stuff went into the article? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

@Mccready: :"Usual POV warriors"? Not at all; Mccready's edits have been criticized by editors across the board. The following editors are all scientific, skeptical editors, just like Mccready says he is, and they have all been highly critical of his tendentious editing: FloNight, Fyslee, and MastCell (evidence above), as well as Davidruben [100], Eldereft [101], Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk (archived talk), Orangemarlin [102][103], Friday [104], Jefffire [105], and Arthur Rubin [106]. And I'd count myself, since I was a chemist (M.A. Harvard '89) before training as an acupuncturist, and I understand the scientific method pretty well too. I think this evidence demolishes the "Mccready the scientist vs the POV warriors" straw man. What it does show is broad community support for a sanction that is long overdue.

Did I mention the flagrant WP:NPA violations?[107] This guy is damaging the project and needs to be reined in. --Jim Butler (t) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OOooohhh dear, poor little Jim. now it's digging up all the dirt he can, not all from "scientific" editors either. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to address the simple fact that poor little jim hates to address. He knows acupuncture has not been proven effective for anything. He knows he edits to remove this fact whenever possible. He knows the straw man attempt won't wash. Get real. And since when did a hard hitting expression of disgust at POV count as NPA. And by the way it's silly to argue we should believe you since you studied a bit of chem. Linus Pauling did too but no one of substance takes his vitamin c claims seriously. Jim, your position is flawed at every level. Why don't you simply address the issue, not the man? Mccready (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell, place Mccready on 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's try to keep focus here. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Can we please address the issue? Mccready (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue being discussed here is actually your behavior, and more specifically whether it is productive for the encyclopedia or not. The content dispute is discussed elsewhere. henrik•talk 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, Mccready has done half the work necessary for building a quality encyclopedia - finding and describing sources. Their attitude seems to be that this shifts the burden to "the community" to include this information in an encyclopedic fashion. It is very frustrating to feel compelled to revert the otherwise good edits of an editor who refuses to take the time to present in an encyclopedic fashion this accurate and well-sourced information.

This user is not immune to reason, and has recently shown a willingness to keep good edits unrelated to this list instead of blindly reverting to a previous version. I would argue that a full pseudoscience (broadly construed) topic ban is unwarranted, but a 1RR or temporary article ban (would a month or three allow this article to move forward?) would be nice. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a 1RR restriction might be a good thing to try. henrik•talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still this issue of incivility. . . even in this posts he calls us "POV warriors". . . This behavior has to improve.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the quick solution to this situation. Just merge the material and add it to the appropriate section. It would be helpful if editors tried to improve on the edit instead of reverting. Please address the content dispute instead of ignoring it. Makes sense? QuackGuru 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility could be improved across the board, including from yourself ([108], [109]). henrik•talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

password email

Resolved

I just received this

From - Sun Apr 27 10:47:00 2008
X-Account-Key: account9
X-UIDL: 2295-1207339184
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org ([208.80.152.133])
by vms172063.mailsrvcs.net
(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr  3 2006))
with ESMTP id <0JZZ00A6INEBZQ72@vms172063.mailsrvcs.net> for kww@xxx.xxx; Sun,
27 Apr 2008 09:39:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from srv170.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.170]:52682)
by mchenry.wikimedia.org with smtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <wiki@wikimedia.org>)	id 1Jq82d-0005Q7-K8	for kww@gte.net; Sun,
27 Apr 2008 14:39:48 +0000
Received: by srv170.pmtpa.wmnet (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun,
27 Apr 2008 14:39:47 +0000
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:39:47 +0000
From: wiki@wikimedia.org
Subject: New temporary password for Wikipedia
X-Originating-IP: [208.80.152.133]
To: Kww <kww@xxx.xxx>
Message-id: <E1Jq82d-0005Q7-K8@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Someone from the IP address 4.154.2.232 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Kww" is "xxxxxx". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If it was you who requested this new password, then you should log in to Wikipedia and change it to your desired password by clicking "My Preferences" at the top right of any page, or by visiting the following URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

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

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org

I immediately went and reset my password, but someone is apparently trying to hack me. Kww (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably worth noting that 4.154.5.186, very near this one, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Soccermeko, and many other addresses in that range have been used as socks by him. It's a dynamic pool, so no one is inclined to block big ranges of it.Kww (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This happens all the time, it's nothing to worry about. That kind of "hacking" (a big word for it) is easy to try, and impossible to do. Well, unless you happen to be drunk or something when you receive the e-mail, and actually do log in with your "new password". As long as you do nothing, you don't have a problem. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

There are two possibilities: 1)(less likely) someone has gained access to your e-mail account and is using that feature to change your Wikipedia password. 2)(far more likely) Someone who is otherwise completely ineffective is trying to make you nervous. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I figured the mailback defense would be enough. I just wanted to make sure that if something did happen, people were aware of the attempt. Probably just Soccermeko trying to get some petty revenge, and failing.Kww (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Review indef block of User:כתר

כתר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

My apologies for bringing up a rather stale issue, but it's been nagging away at me. This user was blocked indefinitely on 2008-04-20 by Moreschi (talk · contribs) for reason "Adieu". The only warning given was for 3RR. This user has requested unblocking. In the ensuing discussion, the block was explained as because "He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know)". Is it now our practice to block users indefinitely for sockpuppetry with evidence of this type? Isn't that what WP:SSP and WP:RFCU are for?

I asked the blocking admin to escalate this issue, but the conversation petered out, which is why I'm bringing it here. I'm not very experienced at tracking down sockpuppets, but it seems to me that we'll be biting newcomers left, right and centre if we continue on this path. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that this user's contributions (mostly asking why he's being accused of being a sockpuppet) are high quality, nor that Moreschi is acting in bad faith.

On another note, I see that this user also requested unblock on the unblock-en-l list (password protected), but received no reply, which is unusual.

So, am I worrying about nothing? Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It does look strange. See here. I don't think Future Perfect, Moreschi or Max Sem (see here) have explained themselves well or provided sufficient evidence. If people are pushing inappropriate content, but you can't pin down who it is, then concentrate on improving the content rather than lashing out at shadows. Future Perfect also seems to have lost his cool in response to another editor in a similar matter. See here ("are you still here? Go rant somewhere else") and here ("This is my user talk page, please. When people tell you to keep off their talkpages, you better keep off.") in response to another editor that Moreschi blocked for 100 hours for "disruptive editing". I'm also unclear here as to why Moreschi blocked for 100 hours in one case, and indefinite in the other case. I think the reason is sockpuppetry, but that seems unproven here. I suggest Moreschi and others proceced with caution. If their actions are causing collateral damage, that won't be good for the future viability of the Macedonian discretionary sanctions. Especially, blocking indefinitely users who have not edited any articles but instead have only been contributing on talk pages, is not a good road to go down. The block log reason of "Adieu" is grossly inappropriate, as is "He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know)". Did Moreschi and others learn nothing from the MatthewHoffman arbitration case? Moreschi in that case said: "To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet.." [110]. I said in my statement in that case: "some people lurk before getting involved, and some people take to Wikipedia like a duck to water. Accusing such people of being sockpuppets without evidence of who they are a sockpuppet of, and/or with checkuser requests, is severe biting of a possibly new editor." The conclusion of the arbitrators can be seen here. Note also that a previous indef by Moreschi was later overturned for mentoring. See here. It may turn out that DanaUllman doesn't have a future here (see the ongoing arbitration case), but can Moreschi honestly say that his actions in extending the 24 block to indefinite really helped? Moreschi has a history of blocking on the basis of what he thinks is "obvious" and of extending blocks placed by others. Neither of these actions are helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking not as an admin here but as the editor affected in this case, you guys can do what you like, unblock that account if you want to take the responsibility for watching him afterwards. But I remain convinced this account was just one in a series of throwaway sockpuppets that have been showing up on a regular basis lately, with no other purpose than to harass me, usually trying to prompt some other Greek users to start edit-warring against some edits of mine. It's always the same pattern, always evidently the same person or a small coordinated group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The admin who did the blocking is responsible for any damage the blocking causes. When someone unblocks, the editor is usually warned about their future conduct (or they are given an apology for the block), and what then happens is that we have a collective responsibility to review any future problematic acts by that editor. There is no reason at all for an admin to "watch" those he unblocks (that is called "probation", and should not be handed out unilaterally by admins). I trust my fellow editors and admins to take appropriate action in the future, and I don't think immediate blocking and indefinite blocking is helpful in cases like this, especially not with spurious claims of sockpuppetry floating around. In other words, an unblock and apology, followed later by a block if there are later problems, doesn't mean anyone was "right" or "wrong" in the first case. You can't retrospectively justify actions like that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued vandalism of Tracy McGrady and possible sockpuppetry

All of the following users vandalized (diffs: [111][112][113][114][115][116][117]) Tracy McGrady between 05:36 and 06:21 UTC, continously:

• 71.29.225.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 140.247.133.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 98.199.170.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.90.232.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 98.201.34.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Thedarklord666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (I suspect the sockpuppeteer)

What should be made of all this? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Page semi-protected for now. IPs in wildly different ranges, so deferring comment on that to someone with more experience with that topic and so forth. Rudget 16:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • They seem to all be in Dallas or Houston, Texas. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Makes sense, given what team McGrady plays for. :) Enigma ^message 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • What about Dallas? And why would Houstonians want to attack McGrady? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Dallas is a big rival. Some Houston residents are attacking him because he chokes every year in the playoffs, and I suspect some fans are sick of their star player being somewhat less of a star in the playoffs. Enigma ^message 16:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with User:R. fiend merging license plate articles

User:R. fiend has been unilaterally merging license plate articles and seems to have taken a very flippant attitude towards being asked to stop. People are working on both the individual state/province articles and the individual history of the state/province articles. I think further action is needed here. --Plate King (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Plate King, I suggest you take advice from your adopter, OhanaUnited, about this. However, my opinion, for what's it worth, is you could organize a request for comment about this issue to establish consensus, to prevent an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Badger Drink

Is it appropriate to reply like this. The template was indeed justified as he was reverting good faith edits here and here using TW and leaving no edit summary. Matamoros (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)