Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Resolved

 – for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil.' D.M.N. (talk)

• Several users sanctioned/blocked, voluntarily or involuntarily for a necessary period of time. No more troubles on the article for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

User:Ottava Rima commented on the talk of WikiProject Freemasonry asking us to assess Christopher Smart within the scope of the project here. We explained to him that not only do we not assess bio articles, there are no sources confirming Smart's membership, which there most certainly would be, even in the 1700s.

It then comes about that later scholars believe Smart wrote a rebuttal to Laurence Dermott's Ahiman Rezon, which is a book well-known to Masonic historians as part of a schism in early Freemasonry. Ottava's contention is that that rebuttal prevented changes in Freemasonry. The rebuttal was published in 1765, and the schism was healed in 1813. none of us in the project know of this rebuttal or have ever heard it mentioned. Ottava then pulled a mention in a footnote in another history no one in the project has heard of, which ascribes the book to a Dr. Cassigny. Needless to say, this does not seem to be strong evidence.

We figured that would be that, but as can be seen from the thread, it has escalated into personal attacks, and reversals of statements, most notably going from "there are no records" to "here are some records." Ottava has produced no sources, and from checking his additions to the article on Smart's A Song to David against the article by Rose in Philological Quarterly, what Ottava says that Rose says is not what Rose says. Ottava is picking and choosing his sources and taking material out of context in order to make the point he wants to make (see diff). This is turning from a content problem into a violation of policy issue, as well as trying to force a project to do what he wants, and I think some admin intervention is needed here. There seems to be an agenda involved, as there's quite a bit of misuse of sources, and some real need to get an admission of Smart's membership and his supposed importance within Freemasonry, and a steadfast refusal to acknowledge any position but his own, which seems, from sources, to be flawed. MSJapan (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, given what Ottava thinks is appropriate research to support a claim as shown on Talk:A Song to David#What Rose Says, and how easy it was to show that the position taken by the scholar was not the one Ottava claimed the scholar took, I further request that he be topic-banned until his edits can be scrutinized for accuracy. MSJapan (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the project page that MSJapan is completely misconstruing everything I have stated. For example, when he claims I reversed myself, he is unwilling to actually quote, because nothing I say verifies anything that he claims. Also, his claims about what John Rose states was blatantly false and proven such on the talk page. He is moving between page after page in directly conflict with WP:V. He has no respect for that policy, nor respect for the encyclopedia. I can provide all quotes from each source if needed, but it is enough to say that even John Carter pointed out where MSJapan is wrong on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that I indicated that there could be good reason to think that, with no extant original sources regarding this subject being a Mason, as seems to be the case, when such records are generally easily available, that the lack of that evidence could be seen as a reason for saying the subject was not a Mason. It should also be noted that the subject of the complaint has made a few declarations that policy and guidelines demand banners be placed on certain articles when in fact no such statements are made. On that basis, I believe that there is reasonable cause to suspect the subject of the complaint may be, intentionally or not, misrepresenting other matters as well. John Carter (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that there would be easy to find original evidence is a red herring and completely false. There are a lot of famous Masons whose original documentation will never be found. Most of Smart's letters were destroyed or vanished, and the Masons were in their infancy at the time which was also filled with turmoil. Documents get destroyed. Fires happen. However, even the Masonic Lodge that specializes in 18th century British Masonry published a historical account of Smart as a Mason and his role with Masonry via his A Defence of Freemasonry. The only one who is in serious denial about Smart being a mason is MSJapan, and WP:V would not side with his original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An example of MSJapan's constant use of incorrect information.

Here. You can see the two different versions. My statement is completely correct even when you add in the secondary section:

(My original quote) "There is no public record explicitly connecting Christopher Smart with Freemasonry. There does exist a poem attributed to "Brother C. Smart, A.M," published in a volume called A Defence of Freemasonry, in the mid-1760s, but it is of course possible that another C. Smart was the author of that work. The most suggestive evidence is therefore a line from the definitively attributed Jubilate Agno, which was written contemporaneously with the Song: "For I am the Lord's builder and free and accepted MASON in CHRIST JESUS" (B109). At a mnimum, this line establishes that Smart had Freemasonry on his mind. A close analysis of the Song to David reveals that he was familiar with symbols from all three of the craft degrees, and undoubtedly the best source for such detailed knowledge would have been personal experience."

(His addition) "But there were certainly other potential sources, for example the extremely popular expose Masonry Dissected by Samuel Prichard, published in 1730. This pamphlet ran through three editions in eleven days and remained readily available in London for over a century. It was also reputed to be one of the means by which the still young practice of speculative Freemasonry became standardized in Britain and abroad. In other words, Smart would have read it whether he were a Freemason or not."

What he leaves out: "The most important thing to be said is this: much of the symbolism of Freemasonry derives from the story of the building of Solomon's temple, of which David was the divinely inspired architect. Upon this basis alone one is justified in pursuing the question of Masonic symbolism in the Song to David."

Now, if you read my original summation of Rose, I was completely accurate: "Although it is not know for sure if Christopher was a Freemason or not, there is evidence suggesting that he was either part of the organization or had a strong knowledge of its belief system which "undoubtably the best source for such detailed knowledge would have been personal experience.""

I left a little bit of doubt, and I included Rose's mocking of the doubt of Christopher Smart's Masonic membership.

If you notice, his version: "Rose claims in 2005 that it is not known for sure if Smart was a Freemason or not; there is no public record explicitly connecting Smart with Freemasonry there is conjecture that he was either a Freemason or had a strong knowledge of its symbols from an expose of the time."

Leaves out the top portion of the paragraph that recounts the constant scholarly association of Smart as a Mason. Instead, he claims "Had you bothered to read any farther than the one sentence you found to support your position," which you can see is patently absurd when I quoted the whole section of the paragraph that comes before, which proves the half of the assertion he was denying (that Rose gives evidence supporting Smart as a Mason). If anything, MSJapan is being complete incivil, is denying WP:V, and is pushing a POV that is not backed up by scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to restrain Ottava Rima from wasting so much of people's time?

Ottava Rima again..? I thought they were supposed to have reformed. Compare previous ANI threads on OR here and here (initiated by Awadewit). I have a feeling there may be further threads, which better sleuths than me may be able to find. See also Ottawa Rima's block log here. It's time to stop this uncollegial editor from wasting quite so much of other people's time, IMO. Some page bans, mentorship, or a longer block? May we have some input on alternatives from uninvolved users, please? Bishonen | talk 08:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC).
P. S. I just fortuitously came across another OR thread, from late April: "Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima", containing depressing examples of OR's behaviour on WP:FAC, plus some strikingly unresponsive lawyering by OR: "This topic is misplaced. The appropriate place for "civility" issues is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Furthermore, the use of "extreme" in the title heading is unproven POV on an issue." By this principle, all of AN and ANI are no doubt "POV", a concept which (of course) applies to articles only, not to discussion boards. Incidentally, I should perhaps have made it clear that I myself am entirely uninvolved, and have no grudge or beef whatsoever against OR; I've only had one brief and perfectly pleasant exchange with them, on my talkpage. (That's one of the reasons I hoped and believed there had been reform.) The issue for me is 100% OR's inappropriate wasting of the time and energy of others (as evidenced above). Those others could have been cheerfully writing content instead of (cheerlessly) trying to contain this kind of behaviour. Time to help them? Bishonen | talk 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

Bishonen, your history of the events is quite ridiculous to anyone who bothered to read them. Your account does not reflect consensus nor the outcome of those events, and it is rather shameful that you portrayed them in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who is willing to look at things rationally, you will see that the overwhelming consensus was against Awadewit even taking the matter to AN/I, and that the consensus was against the community doing anything about editors responding to FA reviews. As was determined, I was not causing any major problems over the issues, and I took a leave of absence from FA Review as a show of good faith. As the proceeding thread demonstrates, users bring topics to AN/I that do not belong there in order to push their POV. Bishonen has continued just that. The only serious matter here is MSJapan going against WP:V and WP:STALKing me across many pages in order to revert verifiable content. I have proven that the content is perfectly verifiable, and if he had any problems with that, he would have taken it to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

When Bishonen talks about "reform", he is completely making up facts that clearly do not exist. The only statement that I was not to make is to ask people to go to another Wikipedia project if they would not accept the rules of Wikipedia. That is it. Have I done such? Clearly not. I will ask Bishonen to prove that his interest here is over civility and for him to strike his obvious inaccuracies. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and, as a neutral admin, go through this. It might take a bit of time so have a little patience all. One quick note - Bishonen is a "she", I believe. Neıl 龱 11:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Its hard to settle pronouns when the pseudonym is gendered the opposite way. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, if you were wondering about Bishonen's characterization of me, why not look here and here, where I effectively brought together two sides that were adamantly opposed to one another and removed a large source of the controversy. There is far more than just that, but it only takes one example to point out a character smear. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. As best I can tell, Ottava Rima is editing in good faith. This is a content dispute only. It has not spilled over into incivility, edit-warring, or any real disruption. The only issue is Ottava's belief that he is always right, a common belief shared by many, many Wikipedia editors. This has led to a somewhat uncollegiate attitude, as Bishonen correctly states. Docboat (talk · contribs) has kindly made an offer to Ottava Rima at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Freemasonry#Assessment, and I suggest he takes him up on it. Ottava, whilst you clearly intend well, it is important to understand others have differing views. A review of Wikipedia:The Truth (be warned - it is written humorously, but has a somewhat worthy message) might be worthwhile, as might the excellent Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers (particularly the last two paragraphs, which everyone should read and take to heart). To sum up, I think this was being handled well enough on the Wikiproject's talk page, and I don't think a block or a topic ban is warranted. Some sort of mentorship in the ins and outs of collaborative editing, perhaps, which could nip this in the bud before it does spill over into bad behaviour (emphasising I haven't seen any of this to date). Neıl 龱 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, the issue is not good faith. "Good faith" is the test for vandals, and no one is accusing Ottava Rima of being a vandal. Instead, people are testifying to their experiences of dealing with this editor. She may write with good faith, when he or she does an article, but it's profoundly obvious that this editor is exceptionally rude, obsessed, and hostile. My own version of "civility" asks whether a person's actions are for or against community function: Ottava Rima's hostility and ignorance are anti-social and therefore uncivil, disruptive (look at the links Bishonen has provided: just look at all the time people are having to lose saying the same things over and over again). I'm glad that you want to be neutral, but you are, essentially, wanting to reset the clock to day one. This isn't the first. This is a trail of frustration all centered on one figure. Geogre (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must point out here that Geogre's definition of "civility" includes belittling editors constantly, especially his recent outbursts against John Carter over his assessing pages as "start" even though they clearly fit the criteria as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you Neil. And collaborative editing? As you can see from the Rosalind Picard page, as with others, I have done a lot of collaborative editing and have been recognized for it. However, it takes two to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You remove every comment that asks you to stop, leave every bit of praise, and therefore mislead people into thinking that you are not vexatious. In fact, you are a time sink, from my experience, and incapable of recognizing your errors, much less of learning from them. Geogre (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make claims, don't make ones that are easily checked. As anyone can see from my talk page, I have left things that are pertinent, and I have removed that which is not. I have removed neutral and positive comments along with negative comments. However, its my talk page, so I can do whatever I want in removing or leaving comments. There is a history if anyone cares. Now, if you want to talk about "errors", I will merely mention your recent actions in regards to John Carter over assessments, your inability to allow people to put proper inline citations into articles to bring them to GA, A, or FA quality, and your improper deletion being overturned by community consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To make up for any "wasted" time, here is a poem for the audience's enjoyment:

A Defence

Childish games and childish fights, have spread 'round,

And bring forth those who merely want to play.

Of course, our hero would be called unsound,

By such who speak half truths, false claims, they say

That they are unique, and problems they found,

That are just mere phantoms; but he must pay.

And so it begins, more who do not care,

Poor Wikipedia they will not spare.

To many, the poor Lass is just a tool

For venting their rage or spreading their hate;

But must it be this way? Don't let it fool

You into thinking that it is our fate.

We can move on now, just follow the rule

And realize that they will never be sate.

People as these trouble to bring they must

But are their actions and claims really just?

No, is the answer, and no it must be,

Since there is nothing to claim for a ground,

Once you open your eyes and choose to see,

Everything here that's waiting to be found.

One who makes claims that all accounts are free

Of mention; And he only circles 'round

The same point, athough the proof contrary

Is given; his own mind merry.

And of the others, I will now proceed

To give account of their action and tell

How from that sacred truth they have receed.

The one he mocks, the one he tries to sell

A story of Verify not. This deed

He spread, edit made, and so pages fell

At his hand and inaccuracies spread

Until this place, this post, which it has led.

Now what can I say? Now what can be done?

Since Melodrama has reared its large head;

That awful beast is here to ruin fun

As it demands in earnest to be fed.

Please don't feed it! Kill it now! Or else none

Will be spared. I think that is enough said.

So shall I end; is it really too soon?

Nah, I say, but I shall conclude my tune.

Editor I am, a Writer you see,

Who spends all of his time with research much

And gives my findings to sacred Wiki.

Why all of this fuss? Why all of this such?

It is really more than what has to be,

And all this needs just a delicate touch.

So when there are those who rush to accuse,

It is poor Wiki who will surely lose.

- Ottava Rima, The Italian Rhyme, Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let wiki’s boffins chew the plaintiff’s cud,

What worries me’s not this – God only knows -

But rather how you haul rhyme through the mud

Play loose with rules and end up writing prose.

‘Sate’ ‘receed’ are poorly placed there, bud,

The iambics limp, and almost anything goes.

The measured art that Wyatt and Byron used

Though honoured in the breech, is quite confused.
Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have to fault Bishonen: what made her think that Ottava Rima (which is not "the Italian rhyme," but an eight lined form used by Dante) had reformed? Ottava Rima has consistently acted like a contributing troll. That person's contributions tend to be ham fisted, poorly written, and quite frequently in ignorance of other articles. Wikipedia seems to exist for him or her to write upon, and anyone who asks for form, asks for content, or, worst of all, edits the entries is going to get, per above, two or three screens of "and another thing" attacks. I have said it before, and I see no reason to change my opinion: this editor is not suitable for a cooperative editing environment. I imagine that this comment will be lost in another two screens of attack and lawyering, but I agree with Bishonen: it's time to lose the marginal gains from this user, if we can prevent the monumental losses of time caused by Ottava Rima's poor behavior and labile performance. Geogre (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know if Geogre is correct or not, merely look at the editors that have complimented my work, have complimented my writing, have complimented me over my handling of Rosalind Picard et al, and the fact that Geogre is known to WP:OWN 18th century pages, causing problems for those like John Carter and constantly belittling and abusing users, abusing his powers, such as deleting pages which was quickly overturned by community consensus, and other such things that show that his testimony here is quite a mockery to everything Wikipedia is. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• What "history" and what "account" of mine is that you're talking about, Ottava Rima? All I can see myself doing above, is 1) link to ANI threads and encourage people to read them and form an opinion of your editing, 2) suggest ways for you of improving your interaction with others. (Tentatively: page bans, a block, or mentorship. Other people may have other and better suggestions.) It's not expected you'll agree any improvement is needed; people rarely do. But I'd like to hear from others. Are you sure you actually read my post, beyond the header? I ask because you're continuing to use "POV" in the same absurd way ("users bring topics to AN/I that do not belong there in order to push their POV. Bishonen has continued just that"). even though I had just pointed out that POV is applicable to articles only. How could it possibly be applicable to discussion boards? The notion makes my head hurt, quite apart from the insulting notion that I have a POV about you, just after I stated I have no personal negative opinion about you whatever, and only pleasant interchanges. I'm used to brushing off insults, and happy to do it, but if you say I lie, kindly be prepared to back it up. Anyway. I'm sorry to see that "When Bishonen talks about "reform", he is completely making up facts that clearly do not exist." I apologize for thinking you reformed. WP:AGF has a lot to answer for. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

Your history of my actions and your account of my actions are patently absurd and ignore the resulting community consensus, both of which did not pan out to match your claims. POV is not WP:NPOV. Perhaps, instead of making personal attacks about me not reading, you open your horizons beyond Wikipedia terminology and realize that I am talking about your limited prespective and presentation. You cannot put out random threads, make claims, ignore the results, and ignore the other 95% of my character. That is called a smear. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gee. I both can and will "put out random threads". Why shouldn't I? Those are interesting links. Is your block log also "random"? But, one more time, and then I'm done here, sorry for the repetitiousness (and for, ahem, taking up so much ANI space): I have not offered any history. I have not made any claims, absurd or not. And far be it from me to comment on any percentage whatever of your character. Still kind of hoping some other people (whether involved or not) besides Neil will have input, though. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

And Bishonen, you keep throwing out "reform" as if it is pertinent to this case. My AN/Is deal with two things - FA reviewing for saying people should leave if they don't like the procedures, and FA reviewer who was told by the community that her views did not actually hold up, and I stepped away to demonstrate that my intentions are not personal, unlike Awadewits were. I did not have to step down from FA reviewing for a while. I chose to. There is no "reform" necessary, nor reform needed. I was asked to stop saying one set of words during the process, and that was it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the history here, but if Ottava Rima has been editing disruptively, we don't need to care whether it's being done in good faith or not. Good faith is a necessary but not sufficient condition for editing here. Competence is required as well. (I don't have much opinion yet on the disruptiveness of this editor; I just wanted to say that "good faith" is mostly a straw man in this context.) Friday (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima blocked

Ok, fine. I've blocked Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) indefinitely - that Freemason nonsense was just absurd, both the edit-warring on List of Freemasons and the trolling on the WikiProject talk page - but will promptly unblock if and when he acknowledges he's actually doing something wrong and agrees to stop editing disruptively and abide by a stringent civility supervision. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to say that I've look mostly at two pieces of evidence, the block log, and the habit of removing critical messages from his talk page, and it seems clear that this is not the kind of editor who should be welcome here. I was about to endorse liberal use of cluebat as needed, and it looks like it's already done. Only thing I have to add is that he be kept on a short lease if unblocked. I don't object to "one last chance" I guess, as long as it's really "one last chance" not Wikipedia patented "One last chance except an infinite number of additional last chances". Friday (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Further, Ottava, you remind me very strongly of Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs): please don't go down that route, for your sake and ours. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

His block log is really made up of only a few issues. A few cases of edit warring and a single legal threat issue (where it was greatly disputed if there was even an actual threat having been made). If you're saying your other piece of evidence of disruption is that he removes message on his talk page, then maybe I'm missing something. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good block, and I endorse that it can only be lifted upon Ottava Rima's acknowledgment that s/he is at fault and will take steps to curtail their problematic attitude. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• I ran across this after a spurious filing at WQA. I agree this block is richly earned and concur with LHvU's suggested criteria for it to be rescinded. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that apparently Ottava Rima actually has this whole bunch of books in front of him anytime he writes about something. So I'm pretty sure that whatever statements he makes are actually correct. And I can understand the tendency to revert someone when "it says so right here right in front of me!". <scratches head> The frustrating thing is that yeah, he's very much a prescriptivist (aka wikilawyer), and not good at the whole consensus building thing. I think it's mutually exclusive. I think we're going to get more and more people like him on wikipedia though, wikilawyering is very much creeping in (think of stuff like "this policy is non-negotiable" that's showing up in places). I'll go talk with him some. He has been useful occaisionally. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I hate to disagree with you on this, but I have had the most unpleasant and unproductive discussions with Ottava Rima. For example, when I removed "John Newbery" from the list of the eighteenth-century children's authors because the evidence that he is an author is very limited and scholars do not agree on it at all (he is famous as a publisher of children's books), Ottava Rima and I had mini-2RR which he mischaracterized as "edit warring". I left a message on his talk page, citing the biographies I have read for my dissertation on eighteenth-century children's literature. Ottava Rima then responded in an extremely hostile manner on my talk page, citing an encyclopedia entry for his research, while I was citing the definitive bibliography of books Newbery published that details all of the authorship problems. I would have been happy to discuss this issue with Ottava Rima, but he refused to and accused me to having done no research, even though I cited it. I have had other problems like this with him and, like Geogre, have found him a problem editor that claims to know a great deal, but when it comes down to it, often makes bizarre statements, such as that the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is reliable. These are but two of a long list of strange encounters I have encountered with Ottava Rima that have not convinced me that he knows the scholarship he claims to know. Awadewit (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, call me crazy but isn't this not how blocks are supposed to be used? "Blocked till he admits he was wrong"? WTF? -- Ned Scott 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK;

Important note – Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

(my underlining)- in which acknowledgment of there being a problem is a prerequisite to resolving the issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Ottava Rima has been labeled as a wikilawyer, but I don't think that's case here. A wikilawyer is someone who is trying to intentionally game the system, rather than honestly feeling that one should have a strict adhesion to rules. From my own experience with him, Ottava Rima seems to be the latter. Ottava Rima has really only been active for about six months, and I can understand that he still holds a very strict view about rules and Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if he's actually wrong on most of this stuff, either. Rather, it's the confrontational way he says things and his uncompromising approach that puts people off. I think that's something must of us will agree on.

Other editors are annoyed at Ottava. They're greatly annoyed at Ottava. They feel like a lot of time has been wasted trying to explain things. Wikipedia, in general, is very quick to dismiss people if we don't feel they're helping out, regardless of what they're actually doing. I understand that we can't hold everybody's hand, but a block like this doesn't seem appropriate. File an RfC, do a temp topical ban if you must, but don't twist his arm and go "say you were wrong". -- Ned Scott 07:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Some admins seem to have this approach though. It is fortunate that people who think that such admins are wrong in their approach do not adopt the same method of blocking them until they admit they are wrong. I'm not greatly enamoured with Ottava Rima's approach either, but then I don't agree with Moreschi's approach either. However, I don't think either should be blocked 'until they mend their ways'. However, blocking as a warning does help, sometimes. The recent block of User:Alansohn is a good example of this. People reacting badly to a block is also to be expected though. Don't judge people purely by their reaction to a block. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole "prescriptivist" approach ("These are the rules, and thou shalt obey them") is confrontational and uncompromising. And it pisses people off. So a good approach is to wean people off of prescriptivism as quickly as possible, which is what I'm doing with Ottava Rima now.

Unfortunately, as it stands at the moment, there are a number of people pushing for a prescriptivist approach on wikipedia in general (and I've failed to stop them), so despite my efforts to help Ottava Rima improve somewhat, in future, you should expect more people to start behaving like Ottava Rima is doing now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) And those people will start nominating admins, and the admins will then ban you for trolling. Cue the soviet wikipedia jokes  ;-)

Arbcom is leading the way on moving from descriptive policies to prescriptive policies. Maybe our sheer size makes this necessary. Perhaps its time to formally announce the death of "Being an admin is no big deal" and "Ignore all rules". Organizations need to change as they grow. Even in backwater articles where you can edit without anyone bothering you, bots come by and impose uniformity according to some guideline somewhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the sheer depth of animosity the prescriptivist approach has caused here, I don't think it's a good thing. Organizations do occasionally need change as they grow and the environment around them changes, but this does not imply that such changes should therefore be pathological! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Rather the opposite, the larger the organization, the more damage is caused by pathological changes. You say that organizations need to be able to change; so it should be easy to see that approaches which tend to which preclude future change (a property of prescriptivism) are pathological by your own admission even! :-P

Proposal for refactoring Ottava Rima's block

I propose to undo Moreschi's conditional block and to reblock for one week, unconditionally (and including time served, if I can ever work that out). A week seems about right, in view of Ottava Rima's block log and persistence in disruptive editing, attacks on users, and steadfast refusal to consider the effects of their own behaviour and demeanour. I do see an indefblock in Ottava Rima's wikifuture, unfortunately, if they stay on the track they're on, but I hope they'll be able to pull up. And if not, it's still proper for us to lead up gradually to a really serious block or ban, rather than going straight to indeff from 24 hours. If one week doesn't have the hoped-for educational effect, one month might suitably be next.

About Moreschi's block: I'm against using indeffblocking to squeeze apologies or acknowledgements out of people. Admins aren't here to humiliate users, however poorly they behave. While it's OK for a block to come with conditions for unblocking, those conditions should not go beyond purely practical undertakings for the future. For instance: a block of Ottava Rima might have the condition "You will be unblocked as soon as you undertake to not edit disruptively". (Note that such a condition would not require OR to admit that s/he ever has been editing disruptively, even though disruption would be the block reason. The user is not to be forced to admit something they don't believe, or in fact forced to admit anything.) Or, "as soon as you promise not to write bad poetry on ANI". Or ,"as soon as you find yourself a promising and willing mentor, to be vetted by the blocking admin". In the case of broken promises, even broken in good faith (see Friday's nice essay on competence), the user would be promptly re-blocked. Something like that would IMO be the second best way of refactoring Moreschi's block; but I prefer one week unconditionally, per above. What do you say? " Do you accept it, Moreschi? Bishonen | talk 14:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

• Blocks are preventative. Once there is an undertaking to contribute in an appropriate manner (which would include, if not necessary acknowledge, the problematic area) then there is no reason for a block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. But while you're about it, Less, could you also respond to my actual suggestion and question, (="I propose to undo Moreschi's conditional block and to reblock for one week, unconditionally...Do I have community approval for my proposed action?"), please? After all, most blocks are unconditional. It's the normal thing around here. My discussion of Moreschi's block and of the kinds of conditions that are unacceptable versus acceptable was more of a digression. Oh noes, have I entangled myself again? :-( Bishonen | talk 14:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC).
    • Um, that would be no to an unconditional block of a week. I do not see how, other than preventing OR from contributing for seven days, how such a sanction achieves the desired result. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• My only qualm with this is that Ottava Rima has shown no understanding of why he was blocked. At the risk of stating the obvious, Wikipedia is a community project. Ergo, we have to work with each other, ergo, there has to be compromise and give and take. Which usually means letting some things drop, not making things personal, and being open to compromise and the possibility of fallibility. If you can't go along with that, unless you're God, you're a tendentious editor. Hence the block - trying to make Ottava Rima realise that his current approach to his fellow editors is unacceptable. A crude way of doing so, yes, but I couldn't think of any other.
• But, yes, the block reduction is fine, though I would like it to come with a civility supervision and a "open promise" that further tendentious editing will be followed by a month-long-block, followed by indef. Accceptable? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • Are you saying you'd like to supervise their civility...? :P But, yes, sure, suits me. Stating the progression that I actually had in mind (one week—>one month—>indef) up front in the log at this time would be informative for the user and others, so why not. Fine. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC).
  • For the record, I still don't see anything wrong with a conditional block that says "No unblock unless you promise to change your ways for the better towards your fellow editors". Again, many 3RR blocks are kind of conditional: you can usually get yourself unblocked if you promise to stay away from the article you edit-warred over. But if we don't like that, I would like to see OR put on civility supervision, at the least. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the 3RR users aren't forced to say they've been bad. That's the sticking point for me. Ottava Rima must be allowed to insist that their way towards their fellow editors is perfectly fine, however far-fetched it may seem to some of those fellow editors. Leave people some dignity. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

agreed here . the assumption in blocking policy is that after a short block, people learn, and if not and they continue, we do sucessively longer block, at a reasonable degree of escalation, until they either do or they get to indef--and it takes multiple stages to get there--not 2 days--1 month--indef, but more like 24 h, 48 h, 1 week, 2 w, 1m , 2m, 6m, .... . The assumption being that they will learn at some stage--anything faster than this is punitive, Immediate use of indef must be kept for really outrageous disruption, not just over-persistent harping on a point. And we do not have a policy of blocking for 3RR or the like indefinitely until someone promises to be good--that has to be kept for people returning from a well-earning long block when the alternative is not to readmit them into the community because of the amount of distrust engendered. This is nowhere near that. OR is an editor I've run into conflict with myself, but the way to have dealt with the problems he caused at the wikiProject would have been to simply ignore his requests that they get involved where they didnt want to get involved, not start arguing the history of the Freemasons with him. It was a bad indef block for a vague offense, the conditions are unreasonable, and I am prepared to unblock without further ado or any conditions, with the usual understanding that resumption will cause a reblock for a slightly longer time than the present one, as usual. I think Moresci is not showing his usually excellent sense of proportion here. DGG (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• You're right- the longest block before was only 48 hours? We can do better than jumping from that to indefinite. He does need to change his approach or be shown the door, but we can give him a few more shots at this. I'm not sure explicitly spelled out future block lengths are needed; I think we can play this by ear. (But I've no major objection to them, either.) I don't care much for declarations of intent to improve- I want to see a demonstration of improvement. Maybe it sounded weird above for me to suggest that his blanking criticism from his talk page was a factor. But I think it's appropriate- most of the disruptive behavior we see here comes down to one basic problem: a lack of willingness of an editor to put observation of community norms ahead of their own whims or agenda. Any indication of an "I don't care what you say, I'll do what I want" attitude is a serious problem. Friday (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked, and Ottava Rima says he'll certainly do his best. I don't expect immediate perfection from him, but a willingness to learn goes a long long way with me. I was going to support Bishonen's position, but with that discussed, I'm willing to support DGG. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I think Ottava Rima has been classically disruptive just here on ANI—shrug. But then perhaps his worst actions in the thread above only stand out in their full ugliness for people who're aware of the background to them. Those are his flame-thrower attempts, here and here, to re-ignite the just reluctantly subsiding all-out forest fire between John Carter and Geogre. (Place any refs to WP:AGF on my talkpage, please.) Congratulations to John Carter for not rising to OR's siren invitations to join in a fresh round of Geogre-bashing. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

That was not very politic, indeed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it was. It didn't succeed, but it might easily have. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

Oof. ^^;; He shouldn't do that though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that Ottava has finally listed the material in some (but not all) of the sources at issue (most notably absent are the Masonic sources like Phoenix Lodge No. 9 and Masonic Records 1716-1886) in a section on his talk page. I have replied with my reasoning, and I invite the discussion participants here to view the documentation for themselves here. MSJapan (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I figure he's posting stuff you're asking for as quickly it comes in from the libraries. Told you so! I think he's pretty much acting in good faith here, not to mention working pretty darn hard, eh? :-) Frankly, there's no way I can keep up with him when it comes to sourcing.

Now if he could just be a bit better at cooperating with people. But he's willing to learn that too. Can you help him out on that count?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. He is making baseless statements on reliability of sources he's never seen, and is misconstruing statements in order to spin the argument off in a different direction to avoid admission of incorrect assumption (see the later comments on King Solomon's temple in that thread - I am very clear as to what I mean, and Ottava is interpreting it wrongly in order to show that i suposedly dson't know what I'm talking about). Until he is willing to admit that Freemasonry is not an area in which he is a qualified scholar and conducts himself as a willing student who will accept the opinions of others more experienced than he I can't help him. MSJapan (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that does sound familiar, in several different ways. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

+ One question, could you point out where in his recent edits he has made those baseless statements on reliability of sources? I'm no expert in the field myself, so that would be very useful information for me. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

+ I just asked on his talk page, he is getting the Phoenix Lodge 30 document (30, not 9, apparently) shipped to him from France. That might take a while. <scratches head>. He's definitely going out of his way to look up the sources you're asking for in more detail. Do you think that the sources won't tell him the whole story? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, read the thread; it's pretty obvious. Whenever I disprove something, he spins the argument in a new direction so that what ever I said about one thing is "wrong" in whatever new context Ottava makes up. Fundamentally, though, the baseless statement is Smart's status as a Freemason, and as a corollaey, his authorsdhip of A Defence of Freemasonry. Out of the seven sources Ottava provides (three of which are from the one scholar who blatantly asserts Smart's Masonic ties in the late 1960s despite admitting he gets all his Masonic info from a secondary and fanciful source (Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry) and the subsequent research by Rose in 2005), not one has any proof of Smart's membership. Without proof, a statement that smart is a Mason is baseless. Not one source asserts him as the author of Defence of Freemasonry, or asserts that the book was noteworthy (which was in fact the starting point of the whole debacle). The only Google hit out of the top 50 for "Christopher Smart" and "famous Freemason" that is relevant is the WP article, despite the hundreds of "famous freemason" pages out there. Conversely, Googling Robert Burns and "Freemason" has plenty of relevant GHits (WP article is 4) and his membership info is available (1781 in Tarbolton). So Ottava's claim of "loss of records" because of the time is baseless. He also claims Phoenix Lodge is the authority on British Freemasonry. Kim Bruning says the material is coming from France. Wouldn't Quatuor Coronati Lodge in the UGLE building, who has been publishing peer-reviewed transactions for 120 years, be a much better source for British Freemasonry? I posit Phoenix is an authority because it supports Ottava's viewpoint, not because he knows any better. That's the problem, really; he doesn't know any better, and acts as if he does.

This is why Ottava repeatedly asks for evidence (see his talk page for further developments as per the thread noted above), I give it to him, and all of a sudden, that wasn't what we were talking about. AGF is gone, and I do not support an unblock, because his attitude indicates that he is going to go right back to putting what he thinks things say in the articles. I'd note that John Carter replied to Talk:A Song to David#What Rose States supporting my assertion that Ottava is interpreting sources rather than stating their content. I'm wasting a lot of time dealing with tactics I've dealt with before from people unwilling to admit their lack of knowledge. Ottava shows no willingness to see anything but that which he believes, despite having no training or experience in the field of scholarly Masonic research. MSJapan (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Quatuor Coronati Lodge the source where he should be getting Masonic Records 1716-1886? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about overall quality of research. The only Phoenix Lodge I know of that does research is not the one Ottava is talking about, which is why I'm skeptical as to where the material is actually from. A lot of people write things about Masonry; they aren't always accurate. QC, however, requires a minimum of a Master's degree in a field to submit papers (so one demonstrates knowledge of how to research); a lodge, even a Lodge of Research, generally will take whatever is sent in, unless a read-through shows blatant errors. Another problem is where Ottava's sources are getting their Masonic info, which is apparently out of thin air. In order to avoid addressing this, Ottava keeps changing the subject parameters. MSJapan (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean Phoenix #30 does not do research? <scratches head>... <checks website>. [1] "La Loge Phoenix est dédiée à la recherche..." . Am I totally confused somehow? I don't know much about the other sources though, like I said, that's not my area of expertise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion shows what i think is wrong with this block. There's a content dispute, and the place to resolve it is not here, and the way to resolve it is not by banning of the the people in the dispute for the same kind of receptive intricate and specialized argument that the other sides seems also to be using. I can see why people are frustrated at it, but the usual way to deal with this is to find a relatively neutral wording that leaves the question open--we arent trying to establish the historical truth here. To get involved in this sort of a situation over the exact status of someone two centuries ago who seems to have said he was a Mason but where there are no records to prove it is a little ridiculous here. This is a place for the specialized academic journals, where this sort of dispute can be carried on for years in the customary fashion there--and where almost certainly neither party will convince the other in the end, either. Time to end this here, and let someone help them find a suitable wording; out job is to tell them both to cool it.

If no one has anything else relevant to say, I'll unblock tomorrow. DGG (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else, DGG. But I'm wondering if you might have overlooked this brief post in the reams of writing above. Or if it's irrelevant in your book. Geogre and John Carter have recently been in violent conflict, from which they have just emerged, battle-scarred and gingerly patted-down by many concerned users. Ottava Rima is himself in conflict with John Carter (what? really?)[2], and in the diffs I've cited above, Ottava attempts to get on John's good side by a string of nasty insults against Geogre. All happening in this very thread. I don't care so much about the insults—non-touchy Geogre clearly shrugged them off—but as for Ottava's cynical attempt to deflect John Carter's annoyance and get his support via a re-ignition of the John-Geogre flame-out... heck, if that's not disruption, I must not understand the word. That was one of the main reasons I offered to shorten Moreschi's block, rather than to unblock outright. Bishonen | talk 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

I have no issues with that, by the look of things. Did you manage to talk with Moreschi? If so, don't forget to link or summarize here! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what has happened is that the thing has gotten so far afield that nobody knows what the hell it is anymore. It started out as a request for assessment - the project said no, Ottava refused to drop it. On further investigation, the sources Ottava claimed asserted not only Smart's membership as a Mason but his authorship of a supposedly notable book didn't support the statements made with anywhere near the degree of certainty claimed. Ottava refused to accept this, and proceeded to editwar over this until he was blocked. Now we've gone from questions of Smart's Masonic membership to somehow talking about the historical veracity of the Freemasons having built King Solomon's Temple because David was connected to the Freemasons (which has on truth to it whatsoever, and no reputable researcher believes this, though it is stated in the article on A song to David and was also in the main Christopher Smart article until I removed it to Talk as redundant). This is not just a content dispute - this is an editor refusing to admit interpretation of sources, an editor ignoring sources that don't fit their viewpoint, taking material in sources out of context, claiming sources are things they are not, and spinning arguments in circles to get that angle where he's right and everyone else is wrong. This has nothing to do with content; it is in fact a pattern of remorseless tendentious editing. Once Ottava is unblocked, we're going to go through the same thing all over again because he's not going to leave it alone. MSJapan (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave my above comment, but I've got a better idea. Kim Bruning suggested on his talk page that he try to mediate the issue. I'll accept that, but I'm also certain that if Ottava is free to edit, he will simply revert everything back to the way he wants it to be, and try to do everything I've been pointing out to him should not be done for various reasons. There is at least one clear instance of source interpretation already, so I have concerns over the accuracy of those reversions. Therefore, if Ottava is to be unblocked, I would suggest he be topic banned from Christopher Smart and all related articles until the issue is resolved. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a point on either side of this debate (and often, I'd agree with Moreschi's line of thought on this). However, in this particular case, I think more benefits would be gained if Bishonen's approach is enforced, in combination with continued counselling where necessary (rather than with an editing restriction). If there is doubt that 1 week is not sufficient, then I don't see the harm in both sides coming to a common point of 2 weeks - no conditions. If he gets it, then the matter ends there. If he doesn't, and continues, then a month. How's that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced such a topic ban would be a net positive for wikipedia at the moment. I'll go talk with MSJapan a little bit. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really know how these discussions work, but I would like to point out that after the previous ANI thread that I brought against Ottava Rima, he returned just as invicil and unproductive after his self-imposed wikibreak (see my above post to Kim Bruning regarding a recent post to my talk page). What makes this time different? Why has he learned to work with others now? Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A few comments: although I have no opinion on the various proposals regarding Ottava Rima, Awadewit is a very modest individual who seldom visits noticeboards. Awadewit spends most of her time creating encyclopedic content and is one of the site's best editors: 22 featured articles, 25 items of featured content overall--making her one of Wikipedia's 10 most prolific contributors of featured articles. Now first I'll repost a couple of Ottava Rima's recent comments toward her, then I'll provide a little more background.

Next time you pretend to know something that you don't actually know, don't make it so obvious. Here is one easy to find source among hundred: source. "In 1744 John Newbery wrote A Little Pretty Pocket Book for children." You are wrong because you edit without researching first. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[3]

You edited warred. You didn't research. You are wrong and still wrong. Macmillian's encyclopedia gives him full credit. You haven't clue. You can stop the harassment now, or I can file a civility complaint against you. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a place to push your unfounded unresearched POV. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[4]

I have Awadewit's bona fides and she is in fact a doctoral candidate in English literature. Her specialty is eighteenth century children's literature and she is well into her dissertation. She is very familiar not only with the source Ottava Rima cites, but with the scholarly controversy surrounding it. Such matters may be content disputes, but Ottava's aggressive and belligerent conduct is not. He halted editorial discussion with hasty accusations before she could begin to discuss the sources in actual depth.

Although there is some merit to the view that unblock offers should not be extended for the purpose of humiliating an editor, it is usually necessary to request that they alter their conduct in specific ways. It does no one any favors to pretend otherwise: in the absence of a firm message that certain conduct is inappropriate, the editor is likely to repeat it--placing further strains upon the patience of other Wikipedians, necessating more administrative involvement, and humiliating himself or herself far more thoroughly than a simple mea culpa would have done. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the careful comments. This is the first time since I've ever been here that I've disagreed with Durova after she's explained something. We do not normally work by giving indef blocks and asking for signs of repentance. We work by giving short blocks, increasing, and hoping for improvement. the reason blocks are short is because it is less likely to arouse resentment. I've been looking at the comments of all the editors involved, and they all of t hem are prone to excessive insistence on their own way or looking at even the smallest details in an article. WP can't work that way, because we have no way to arbitrate such discussions--our methods for resolving content disputes rely on compromise. By this point any reasonable editors would have reached one We do not have to find the truth of whether CS was a Mason--we just have to report the various possibilities and the evidence for them. The various academic qualifications are irrelevant--this is resembling the style of a dispute at Citizendium. This is like trial by combat--the result is going to be with the side that misbehaves the least. At the moment on this OR is probably the most egregious offender--but that does not mean he's wrong. As we are not equipped to judge it, we compromise. If we're going to effectively ban people for this sort of behavior, there are other people I'd have in mind here as well. Perhaps after all there might be some point to the sourcing adjucation board proposed by arbcom. Any definitive quasi-judicial process is better than this sort of nonsense.

This has gone on too long and I am moving to closure. I never proposed to remove the block, just to shorten it. I'm reducing it to 38 hours from now, making 96 hours total, twice the previous block, and Im protecting the CS article for 48 hours additional , to permit a peaceful discussion on the talk page about a compromise, with everyone recognizing it as a compromise, not an attempt to find the truth. I suppose it's fair to tell people that i get quite annoyed when an attempt of mine to make a compromise peace is unsuccessful. DGG (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And if compromise is reached earlier, I'll unprotect the article then. DGG (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Savvy10

Problem section: American Idol (season 7)#Elimination chart. User:Savvy10 is repeatedly making edits to the Elimination Chart despite general consensus to not include the information s/he is adding, and multiple reverts/undos from several users. In the weeks of 4/30 and 5/7, Syesha Mercado and the eliminated contestants for those weeks were the last two left on stage before the other contestant was eliminated. Because the show never expressly stated that that Mercado and the others were the "Bottom 2" for those weeks, and reality television in general attempts to create drama, regular editors of the Idol articles have decided that it would be wrong to include a "Btm 2" field for those weeks. Including bottom 2/3 information only when Ryan Seacrest explicitly notes it had been discussed at length or mentioned here, here, here, here, and here. The last link was the latest incarnation of this seemingly never ending debate, when editors new to the article had shown up and attempted to include "Btm 2" fields on the chart. It seemed that by the end of it, most people advocated to just leaving the chart as it originally was and moving on—after all, the show ended over a month ago. Yet, User:Savvy continually insists on including information on who was in the "Bottom 2"/"Saved Last" for those two weeks and the semifinals (in which no one but Kady Malloy was noted to be in the bottom): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. No fewer than 4 users have undone hir edits, yet s/he still persists. I would like to request that s/he be blocked from editing that section of the article. MissMJ (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have the wrong board. The correct place to report edit warring and/or abuse of WP:3RR is here. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this particular incident fits the kind of report I would have to make at the 3RR noticeboard, since there hasn't been three reverts in a 24 hour period. This has been going on over the span of at least a week, and while there doesn't seem to have been an explicit violation of 3RR, I still consider it an edit war as User:Savvy10 insists on changing the chart despite consensus from other editors. MissMJ (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take 3 reverts to violate WP:3RR. If they keep reverting the same thing over and over, it is still breaking the spirit of WP:3RR. That's why the template at the top suggests edit warring be reported to the 3RR noticeboard. Anyway, as no administrator has yet to respond, you might want to give it a shot. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to give people the correct information. Am I wrong? Savvy10 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Wikipedia's purpose is not the WP:TRUTH, but only to report what is verifiable from reliable sources. (Without checking the details of anyone's edits on this article. Having never watched any of the American Idol shows (except for clips on "news" programs or late-night talk shows), I have no comment on the WP:TRUTH.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Notika

This user has vandalised many articles.

Just some of his recent edits:

1. 00:36, 20 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Yitzhak Shamir‎ (he was member of a known terrorist group)
2. 00:33, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Yitzhak Shamir‎ (NPOV - he was branded a terrorist)
3. 00:33, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Menachem Begin‎ (NPOV - read the article, he was branded a terrorist)
4. 00:32, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Avraham Stern‎ (NPOV - he was branded a terrorist)
5. 00:32, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ze'ev Jabotinsky‎ (NPOV - he was branded a terrorist)

Obviously, his edits are influenced by his hate rather than real contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radical-Dreamer (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sock of User:Nasrulana?? above. He's promised to stop those edits. Deor (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More Moldovan/Romanian edit warring

Resolved

 – I indef'd Moldopodo. Enough is enough. See Wikipedia:AE#User:Biruitorul...next day, one month to comply with Digwuren.

— Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on Moldopodo and noticed his edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldovenism. It looks like this is part of yet another bout of fisticuffs between the Moldovans and the Romanians - the AfD nomination is completely spurious and comments by both the nominator Xasha and Moldopodo are totally misleading - e.g. stating that there are no credible sources when the sources include the UN and independent (i.e. non Moldovan or Romanian) academics. andy (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no AFD that so many people vote delete on can reasonably be considered vandalistic, in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to construe andy's message as a personal attack?Xasha (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Stifle, I would say that the other delete votes were based on policy, while the two users in question displayed bad faith and willful dismissal of the sources provided, so their comments were of a different calibre. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this ANI notice that would be considered a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of Xasha's remarks come close, or at least indicate bad faith/incivility: "Thanks for sharing with us the real reason why you support this fringe use of a legitimate Romanian term ... You made your real reasons clear to anybody. You can prattle all you want now". Biruitorul ^Talk 17:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I ignore the utterly false title (anybody can see there's no edit warring going on at the linked page : not even 1 revert; also, of the 10 participants as of today, only 4 are openly Romanian or Moldovan; moreover 2/3 of the editors who didn't openly declare one of the two ethnicities think the article's got to go), I could say that calling a process based on Wikipedia (core) policies as "spurious" and my very pertinent comments as "totally misleading" qualifies as a personal attack. If I wouldn't ignore the current title, I could speak of fantastic hipocrisy.Xasha (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nationalism, what would we do without you? -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On point, though, what course of admin action are you suggesting? I'm not sure I see, through your description of the course of events, where "edit warring" is occurring, and I think the only thing that could be done here is make sure the closing admin takes the circumstances into account rather than simply vote-counting (not that admins... er... do that now). -- tariqabjotu 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, with regard to Moldopodo, I suggest you have a look at this and then this. Perhaps I wouldn't include the AfD comment, but these other edits indicate a pattern of disruptiveness is continuing unabated. Also, there's this: Moldopodo has an unfortunate habit of crying incivility where there is none, and mentioning Digwuren in the same breath - a bit ironic, considering he has an editing restriction and two blocks under that very case. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul, being completely aware of the Digwuren general restriction accuses me of bad faith [12] with no justification, for the mere usage of my right as any user of comment and vote. I have perfectly justified my position: the sources are not credible and highly biaised, the article does not fulfil basic requirements of Wikipedia for notability. Besides a gross lie is being put through by those who insist on using UNHCR as an argument, as it has explicitely declined responsibility for the referred to source and the document itself is not even the result of the UNCHR's work, but of one of the unknown organisations.

Also please take note of this comment of User:Biruitorul, which not only is irrelevant on the discussion where it was placed, but also is located far beyond decency and civility.[13]--Moldopodo^talk 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, you are posting diffs to comments that were only made a few minutes ago in the previous section, comments, I might add, that are no in the least bit incivil or indecent. It looks silly. Now, please cut it out; threads merged again. -- tariqabjotu 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, not that I have anything in particular to justify, but it was this remark that smacked of bad faith: "The main goal of this invention is to deny the existence of everything that relates to Moldavian state, ethnicity, nation, culture, history and language". No, Moldopodo, the main goal of that article is to inform readers about a concept, using the reliable sources where it appears, and this reading of anti-Moldovan conspiracies in articles that you happen not to like is rather tiresome, and indeed manifests a failure to assume good faith. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, have a look what User:Biruitorul calls bad faith voting, when I say that UNCHR cannot be taken in consideration as it expressly refuses any liability: Caveat: Writenet papers are prepared mainly on the basis of publicly available information, analysis and comment. The papers are not, and do not purport to be, either exhaustive with regard to conditions in the country surveyed, or conclusive as to the merits of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. The views expressed in the paper are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Writenet or UNHCR. Such kind of sources "papers" cannot be either verified, nor does anybody take any responsibility for them--Moldopodo^talk 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. Whether or not that paper is reliable (and the UNHCR doesn't generally pick unreliable individuals to do their research), you imputed sinister motives to that article where none exist. You accused, did you not, the editors who have been working on it for 2⅓ years of having as their goal "to deny the existence of everything that relates to Moldavian state, ethnicity, nation, culture, history and language"? That is bad faith right there, although questioning the validity of the Gribincea paper certainly seems tendentious as well. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the point, please do not deviate from the subject. The source is not reliable, nor verifiable as it is a mere personal invention of Gribincea, based on references that themselves do not mention the notion of "moldovenism". The UNCHR has explicitedly stated it has no responsibility whatsoever for this writing. The following statements by User:Biruitorul: "and the UNHCR doesn't generally pick unreliable individuals to do their research", "although questioning the validity of the Gribincea paper certainly seems tendentious as well" - are his personal interpretation. User:Biruitorul, please refrain from personal subjective interpretation. Using bad faith argument against a user (me) who is merely stating that the source you provided is unreliable, (and subsequently proved it on this occasion as well as on the occasion of controversial King's writings with 30 sources saying the contrary) seems to me to be bad faith of User:Biruitorul himself.--Moldopodo^talk 07:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreover the same user engaged into edit-warring in the article Cinema of the Moldavian SSR (the same contents in the article Cinema of Moldavia, Cinema of Moldova, also please check the talk pages of the respective articles), while he was perfectly aware that I was writing in the very moment the same article. Upon numerous requests to cease disruptive moving around of the article, the user has never explained whatsoever on the talk page. The user did not contribute to the article, and only moved it around as I was editing it. However, after I pointed this blatant fact to the user, User:Biruitorul added one meaningless reference, basicly saying there is nothing to say about modern cinema of the Republic of Moldova. The same user has also changed all adjectives "Moldavian" to "Moldovan" (term alternatively associated with the Republic of Moldova, but is not used nor was used for the Moldavian SSR in English (as well as in other languages)) in the paras which all refer to the cinema in the Moldavian SSR. No explanation, inspite of my requests was provided. User:Neil intervened and wrote "the country name is "Moldova", but I am afraid the latter did not read the contents of the article and to which time period it referred, which was very clear from the very beginning: the first phrase: "Moldavian cinema - considered as the youngest of the Soviet cinemas". It might be difficult to find the diffs as the article was deleted and moved numerous times yesterday.--Moldopodo^talk 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to start a new thread to reply to a comment that in the thread directly above here. I have merged the sections. -- tariqabjotu 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

it's not a reply, it's a filing of request for enforcement of Gigwuren arbitration general restriction.--Moldopodo^talk 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm risking to turn into "a complain about Moldopodo page", but I think he's really unhelpful and disrupting on the way he ignores reliable sources when he disagrees with them. For instance, at Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, he disagrees with an author on Moldovan history (Charles King), whom he calls "a tendentious and unprofessional source", so instead of adding other reliable sources (which might or might not contradict King; from what I have read, King is quite authoritive), he's just adding citation needed] everywhere. Perhaps it's hard to find his POV in western scholarship and that's why he has no sources?

So he's constantly revert-warring to impose his view (he has hundreds of reverts in the last few weeks), without bringing any actual reliable sources. Instead of this, he insists adding his own interpretations to 17th/18th century documents, such as those of Dimitrie Cantemir.

Also, it's getting really tedious the way he changes "Moldovan" to "Moldavian" in dozens of articles. If the New York Times, BBC and virtually every notable English newspaper uses the term "Moldovan", why should we use "Moldavian"? I know he considers it more historically appropriate, but we're not here "to do justice", we're here to describe the world. bogdan (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't be shy and provide a diff to the talk pages, where all the sources are cited, how many exactly are excatly the contrary of what King says? 10-20-30? Did you count? --Moldopodo^talk 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Now, I consider lying as uncivil - I have always provided sources for my edits. Please bring in the diff, to prove what you are saying.--Moldopodo^talk 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Does not look like you are going to provide anything except blind unsupported accusations. Please, have a look at the difference (namely sources presented after line 70) supported bu User:Gutza, and User:Biruitorul, as well as User:Bogdangiusca - there are about 30 sources provides for what I writeDiscussion on the talk page of article Moldova on the usage of the term "cession" in the Bucharest Treaty 1812, therefore it's a lie to say I provide unsourced edits, or to say I push through POV of any kind. Another talk page - another almost 15 sources provided by me - History of Moldavian language, further - more: Moldavian language - attempts by some users to interpret a scholarly scientifical writing of Dimitrie Cantemir, trying to say what was never said in his work. Here is the edit, which User:Bogdangiusca described as "tedious adding of tags everywhere"; please, admins, and be convinced, that here again, the said does not correspond to the reality, therefore it is another lie, consequently uncivil[14]. On the article Moldovans, please check the sources I have provided[15], just as on the article Moldavia, where I requested move to the Principality of Moldavia, as these articles are separated on other Wikipedias, and it is the question of a mere logic reasoning: are we writing articles on Wikipedia on a specific subject or do we write one article to cover three different topics? As for redirect Moldavia - it should be directed to Moldova (as it is also the case on other Wikipedias) - which is the only political formation which always kept this name, being both subject of international law or a territorial unit inside of a bigger body. In fact the present article Moldavia was merged from Principality of Moldavia with an article apparently called "Moldavia as Romanian region" (please, bear in mind whether this is or is not an original research, as Romanian legislation does not provide, AFAIK, for any specific status, nor does it set any legal framework of any kind for any region with a name Moldavia, nor are Moldavians living in Romania recognised as Moldavians, for example during banal censuses) and some other article (honestly I don't remember, but I am sure experienced admins may check). I have also initiated discussion on the move of Moldovans to Moldavians as the article Moldovans describes Moldavian ethnicity and not Moldovan citizenship, so it's a complete confusion of terms. As for disruptive editing of User:Biruitorul - on the article Cinema of Moldavia - you may se it here (I apologoze, I think I said it was User:Oneil earlier by mistake). The article is clearly about the cinema in Moldavia - Moldavian SSR. Please see another move of [[User:Biruitorul] - again with no proper justification, nor any comment left on the talk page. (also, please check the talk pages' histories [16] and [17] of both articles, some of the diffs I am unable to find anymore, as I guess they disappeared with repetitve deleting and moving articles by User:Biruitorul - without any constructive contribution to the contents of the article. I hope this gives you a clearer picture (message to admins).--Moldopodo^talk 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, also take in consideration, that this is the reaction of User:Biruitorul on his talk page for my announcement of filing the request on enforcement of the general restriction as per Digwuren arbitration. --Moldopodo^talk 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Today's country is called Moldova, the former principality Moldavia, and your constant attempts to confuse the issue have proved disruptive. 2. Just as Cinema of Ukraine or for that matter Cinema of Germany can do with a single article, so too can Cinema of Moldova, and it is your constant moves, splits and other measures that are disruptive; I'm just trying to maintain some order and consistency. 3. I saw your "report", I thanked you for it, and I erased it from my talk page. If that's all you have on me -- well, this thread is, after all, about you, and here's a perfect illustration of why. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your accusations.: your constant attempts to confuse the issue have proved disruptive. . Please, also provide a diff how you are: just trying to maintain some order and consistency? Is it by moving pages, independently from my numerous requests to stop your disruption as I was writing the article on the Cinema of Moldavian SSR (I have provided diffs above), or may be by changing all adjectives "Moldavian" to "Moldovan" (diffs provided as well above), whereas the period described is Moldavian SSR and the term "Moldovan" was never even applied to this period of Moldavian history, or by pushing through amateur propagandistic writings of an unknown "personality", whose statements are contradicted by more than 30 sources (at least the ones I 've found), or may be by adding this [18] to the article on the actual state of cinema in Moldavia? Do you consider all of this a constructive non-disruptive contribution to Wikipedia?--Moldopodo^talk 07:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And by calling the writings of Charles King "amateur propagandistic writings of an unknown 'personality'", you do nothing to further your own case. And please, kindly refrain from accusing me of disruption: as I just said, "Just as Cinema of Ukraine or for that matter Cinema of Germany can do with a single article, so too can Cinema of Moldova, and it is your constant moves, splits and other measures that are disruptive". Biruitorul ^Talk 07:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul, I have provided above detailed diffs, where your conduct is disruptive and have explained the reasons. Please, provide a diff (or rather diffS, as it seems there are plenty of them according to you) for your following statement: "and it is your constant moves, splits and other measures that are disruptive". May be you could also provide a diff where you explained all of this on a talk page? As a matter of fact, you didn't explain anything as you were moving the articles around, leaving all the relevant talk pages on Moldavian cinema - blank, be it Cinema of the Moldavian SSR or Cinema of Moldova, the articles to which you have never contributed constructively, except moving them around. As a matter of fact, User:Biruuitorul has never added any contents to these articles, except after I warned him of this fact, he added a phrase that there is basically no cinema in Moldova today and sourced it to.... Lonely Planet.--Moldopodo^talk 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please use your own user talk pages or the talk pages of relevant articles to carry on this dispute. If either of you think arbitration enforcement is required here, there is a separate noticeboard for that. However, neither of theses noticeboards is for debating the content of articles and carrying on your dispute. -- tariqabjotu 07:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that this is not the place to carry out mere content disputes. However, the problem is rather graver than that. Moldopodo, for no good reason (other than, I suppose, to deflect attention from himself), has hauled me before AE on totally spurious charges. And despite a final warning to cease the type of disruptive editing he has been engaged in for a long time, he goes right on, in this case continuing to try and cloud the distinction between Moldavia (to 1862) and Moldova (1991-). That should be addressed, right? Biruitorul ^Talk 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - my aim in raising this was to get an admin to look at the AfD which seems spurious to me as a detached observer. I'm concerned that a closing admin may not be aware of the bad blood and may take some of the participants' comments about the reliability of the sources, verifiability, OR and so on at face value. There's also clearly a much wider issue that's got to be addressed (a lot of the recent edits to Romanian and Moldovan articles are poisonous) but this certainly isn't the forum. andy (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I read "detached observer"... Did I? I think I need glasses, cause definitely nobody could be so hypocrite.Xasha (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed block to one month to comply with Digwuren. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with IP user over Leo McGarry article

We're facing a problem on the Leo McGarry page and I wanted to get administrator input on how to handle this. An IP user added a section about the "appearance and taste" of the character [19] which consists of 1 paragraph describing his appearance as "unusually conservative." It is trivial and is an opinion ("unusually conservative" according to who?) and so I removed it [20]. The user then re-added it [21] and I removed it again, this time moving the discussion to the talk page [22] [23]. The discussion that has generated since then on the talk page (Talk:Leo McGarry)has opposed including that section (although only myself and one other user have contributed to that discussion). This user has refused to participate in that discussion and has repeatedly re-added the information, often with rather hostile edit summaries [24] [25]. I didn't want to start an edit war and so I addressed the user on his talk page. After that, the user responded with hostility on my talk page [26]. I have tried repeatedly to reason with the user and to get him to either respect the consensus or to contribute to the discussion [27] [28]. The user has openly refused to cooperate [29] and continues to re-add the information despite the consensus opposing the inclusion of this material. It is clear that this user has no intention of working together to form a consensus. I am not sure what to do in this situation. I don't want to inadvertently instigate or take part in an edit war, but I think I've been as reasonable as possible and am still faced with hostility. I've tried to assume good faith, tried to build consensus, and have even tolerated abuse from one other IP user [30][31], but to no avail. What is your advice? --Hnsampat (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

File a checkuser on the IPs. They're all obviously the same person. Jtrainor (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure how helpful a checkuser will be here. These various IP addresses are not attempting to evade blocks/bans nor does this user pretend to be somebody else. Usually, a situation like this would call for semi-protection of the page, but the pattern is infrequent enough (occurring every 1 to 2 weeks) that placing an arbitrary time limit on semi-protection won't do anything to stop this user's actions. Indefinite semi-protection also does not seem called for since it's not like the Leo McGarry article is inherently vulnerable to vandalism the way high-profile articles like George W. Bush or Barack Obama are. (Also, as disruptive as the IP user is being, he is not engaging in vandalism but rather is involved in a content dispute, in which I feel the IP user resorts to hostility, incivility, and premature assumptions of bad faith.) Other suggestions? --Hnsampat (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon seems to have followed Hnsampat to Josiah Bartlet now, too.  This flag once was red  05:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Notofied IP at IP available through barlet link above. ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Issued 3RR-warning, editor is up to 4 reverts now.  This flag once was red  06:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This slow brewing edit war seems unlikely to end in any fashion short of a block. Admins please review? ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued disruption of BLP and personal attacks

Following on from a previous AN/I report, Agnistus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to reinsert contentious poorly sourced material on Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a BLP), which consists of content cited to a primary source wherein claims are made about a third party.[32][33] He seems to be under the impression that consensus is needed for the disputed new addition to be removed, and refuses to let it stay out of the article while discussion continues.[34]

Furthermore, he has continued to make personal attacks and uncivil remarks against myself and other editors, despite having recently come off a block for such.[35][36] [37][38] The attacks have escalated and he has now started swearing at me in Hindi while keeping it hidden using the comment-out feature ("voh gandu chutiye hayawan kalb", "are gandu chutiye hayawan kalb sala maduri chod") This is not the first time he's made extreme personal attacks in Hindi, as he has said of Zakir Naik (the subject of the article, no less): "voh salah kuttah behn chod". His continued disruption of a BLP and the torrent of verbal abuse are extremely disruptive and of unacceptable nature. ITAQALLAH 00:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

provided source appears inadequate for given claim WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a Hindi speaker to translate those comments? Your user page says you don't speak Hindi. My guess is they are insults, but verification would be good. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked my parents for a translation. They didn't give me the exact English translation, but as far as they know, it's all a bunch of Hindi curse words and derogatory language. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Derogatory language" doesn't quite cut it, one of those phrases translates to "fall back, you faggot asshole/king of the bastards who licks your mother's pussy." If this editor speaks anything less than sunshine and rainbows in a foreign language again, I'll block them myself. east.718 at 06:47, June 21, 2008

Glad to see someone caught that. Great job East. — _Maggot^Syn 06:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, Nishkid64 : Native hindi speaker here. And I am not surprised you parents did not exactly translate it. It basically is just a long string on expletives. Now I'm not sure if its a good idea to post the translation, but it has stuff to do with Moms, SOBs, jerks, assholes, sisters and the combination of these. Though not exactly what east guy said, but close. you get the gist.

Hi, I am the editor who made the insults. Firstly, a thousand apologies to Itaqallah. I just wanted to say that East's translation is rather incorrect, Itaqallah has the correct translation here. Also, the language is not Hindi, its a mix of Urdu and Arabic (langauges which both I and Itaqallah understand). Lastly, Please see my letter below. - Agnistus (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE-if this user misbaves in any way, let me know. I'm posting a stern warning on his talk page. Feel free to let me know personally and I'll block him. I may even make a ban proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, maybe that's why they were reluctant to give me the word-for-word translation...or maybe they just didn't know it. Actually, the latter seems to make more sense for my parents. :P Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Letter from the criminal

Dear admins,

I noticed that you were deeply concerned by my (mis)behavior, so I thought it would be best if I dealt with matter fully here. First and foremost I would like to sincerely apologize for the highly-abusive/insulting and derogatory remarks I made to my fellow co-editor ITAQALLAH. I acknowledge that my comments were a blatant violation of WP:NPA and regret making the attack.

I was recently blocked for making such similar (but much milder) personal attacks in Talk: Zakir Naik. After the block, I tried my best to control my temper. It was after much stressful dialogues with Itaqallah, that the "voh gandu chutiye hayawan kalb" abuse slipped in. Regretting my comment, I reverted it in less than an hour (please see [39] and [40]). It seems to me now that Itaqallah has pulled this insult out from the Revision History page, to add weight to my criminal status. I request you to ignore this first one. It was later, as the discussion in Talk: Zakir Naik got more distressing that my temper took over me, and I left the second abuse (and never reverted it).

Let me assure you that Talk: Zakir Naik is the only place where I have indulged in personal attacks (you can verify by checking my contribs). I have been a Wikipedia user for about 2 years now (you can verify it here), and have never used such highly abusive language elsewhere whatsoever. The causative factor that lead me to act so inappropriately was the highly troublesome and stressful discussions at Talk: Zakir Naik. Please go through Talk: Zakir Naik (and archives of this talk page) and judge for yourself the gravity of the situation.

Despite my deepest condolences to ITAQALLAH (for my PAs), I must admit his method of editing has been a cause of distress to many editors, not just me. ISKapoor, Matt57, Enforcing Neutrality to name a few. In most of the cases, Itaqallah has removed significant content from articles using the reason that sources are unreliable. For instance take a look at User_talk:Enforcing_Neutrality, User_talk:Itaqallah#Fatimah and Talk: Fatimah; where content was removed from the article Fatimah because the source; al-islam.org is according to him a "religious polemical website", thus unreliable. While the primary sources I provided (for Zakir Naik) might indeed be unreliable, I doubt this is the case with sources like al-islam.org. I have personally checked the website and nothing in it indicates unreliability. Please look into the matter (of Zakir Naik esp. and others) thoroughly and please don't jump to conclusions based on fragments of information.

If I am wrong (regarding Zakir Naik and reliability of sources), do inform me; I am ready to accept defeat. If not and there seems no amicable solution to the problem, we should probably delete the article (Zakir Naik) or take it to the Arbitration Committee. As of now my capacity to handle Wikistress has reached its limit. I will be taking a rather long Wikibreak and not contributing for the next few months. BTW, apart from this Itaqallah is a rather nice guy (as indicated by this), so I gave him a barnstar. I hope all goes well. Regards. - Agnistus (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What in thre world?

I put smething here. Can't fing it 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It was probably reverted as vandalism or lost in the chaos that is AN/I. What precisely did you put? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel-good thread of the day :) Jtrainor (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/72.0.36.36. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The threads here get archived automatically after 24 hour of nobody making a comment on them. Maybe it got archived. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ANDREA AQUINO CONCEPCION

I tried to move this to a more appropriately capitalized spot and it told me it was blocked from creation? Andrea Aquino Concepcion was where I was trying to move...can someone with a mop figure it out please? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as recreated material (G4) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That'll work too :) Thanks! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake on the CSD cat, has been deleted twice before by 2 different admins as a CSD G7 and by 1 admin as an A7, now twice an A7 and salted. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

deleted twice? Try 11 times. Lucky 13 if you include the two at the proper spelling of this title and 20 with the caps. I don't think there's even the slightest doubt that User:Wikiprompt is User:Andreaonline and have filed it accordingly - that will stick even if the username block doesn't since 'Wiki" is often allowed in usernames. Hopefully someone will see the SSP if s/he requests an unblock. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments of User:J Milburn

Resolved

Please, explain how this user contributes constructively to Wikipedia with edits as the following [41] on my talk pagfe, without any diff provided.--Moldopodo^talk 06:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with diffs. I really don't see anything for an admin to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's customary to tell other editors when you are discussing them on the noticeboards. For someone who takes offense at the slightest provocation, you are very bad mannered. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, could you explain please? What is customary, what you wrote on my talk page? Isn't it a personal attack "you are very bad mannered"?--Moldopodo^talk 13:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down before expressing any more responses. This thread needn't be a 'you did this' and 'you did that' conversation. We are here to discuss both the subject and the motives for opening such a accusatory thread. Rudget (logs) 13:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that diffs need not to be provided, if such evidence can be located in the recent contributions of the user in question. Rudget (logs) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, as someone on his final warning, don't you think you should keep a lower profile, and perhaps refrain from cluttering the ANI like this? Biruitorul ^Talk 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo is now blocked indefinitely - I imagine we can consider this complaint settled, right? Biruitorul ^Talk 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Soytenly. Don't his signature look nice, though? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Update; indef block now rescinded and replaced by 29 day block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparent delete / undelete bug

• I have been working on the page Roman Catholic Diocese of Antwerp. I want to delete these edits:
  • 19:39, 30 April 2008 Benkenobi18 (49 bytes) (moved Roman Catholic Diocese of Antwerp to Roman Catholic Diocese of Antwerpen)
  • 07:17, 19 December 2007 Benkenobi18 (47 bytes) (moved Diocese of Antwerp to Roman Catholic Diocese of Antwerp over redirect)

by deleting the page, and then undeleting all edits except 5 edits (these 2, and 3 already deleted) which are redirects belonging to another page's history. But despite several times deleting, then at the undelete checking all edits except these 5 redirect edits, the above two unwanted redirect edits keep coming back along with the wanted edits. What is happening? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Help:Null edit, could this be the problem? Daniel (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I hate to ask but what are you attempting to do? That deletion log is a real mess! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Like I said above, I tried several times to get rid of those two abovementioned redirect edits by deleting everything and then undeleting everything else, but every time those 2 redirect edits came back in the undelete even though I carefully unchecked them in the undelete check list. Finally I realized that it was a bug and not a result of me mistyping or mismousing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I just tried it again, and the 2 redirect edits came back in the undelete although I unchecked them so that they would not come back in the undelete. But the 3 other redirect edits which were deleted before, do not come back in the undelete when I do not check them for undeletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Move logs are not edits; you cannot delete them from the edit history, as they are part of the page log. They are only displayed in the edit history for convenience. Your attempt to clean up the edit history only made it worse by polluting the page log. — Edokter • Talk • 15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist

...is attempting to change every "List of basic X topics" to "Topical outline of X" (e.g. Topical outline of Italy). The latter is bad English and suggests "X in current affairs". He's met opposition to this at List of basic opera topics from me and some other users. Rather than discussing the arguments on the talk page, he's resorted to very pointy tagging of the page with a load of "citation needed" requests. He claims to have won consensus for his moves at WP:VP but I can only see three votes (including his) in favour at the discussion there. I don't think such "consensus" can violate good English usage. To be honest, I'm not sure we even need to discuss these lists on a Wiki-wide basis. --Folantin (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with The Transhumanist that "Topical outline" reads better, but I do concur that his 'consensus' for it seems to be rather small and underpublicised for a change that affects so many articles. ~ mazca ^talk 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Topical outline" is ambiguous jargon. --Folantin (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that "Topical outline" is suboptimum phrasing. "Outline of foo-related topics" or something similar would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my original proposal, but a compromise was made at the Village Pump. I would prefer it be changed to "outline of". The Transhumanist    15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Though the meaning of the term "topical outline" is well established. Google it, and you'll see what I mean. The Transhumanist    15:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns over the application of the term "basic" in the article are legitimate. I've been on the other end of the debate for almost two years, and so I understand Folantin's frustration. "Basic" is not defensible by Wikipedia policy, because who is to say what is basic and what is not? Sourcing all the items on those lists is impractical. Also, the pages were designed as a set, and having this particular page named differently disrupts the set. The consensus in the Village Pump discussion referred to above was that "List of basic" should be changed. "Topical outline" was the best we've come up with so far in a good faith effort to improve that set of pages. If a better title can be found, I'm all for it. One alternative is to source the items in the articles as to their "basicness" to bring them in line with WP:VER and WP:OR in relation to the term "basic". The Transhumanist    15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There were no problems on that specific page until you came along and decided that everybody had to dance to your tune. If you object to "basic" (and I still see that as a violation of WP:POINT then we change the name to "List of opera topics". --Folantin (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"List of opera topics" is comprehensive in scope, and would be subject to adding every topic related to opera on Wikipedia. Once the article was expanded beyond the scope of those in the other set, a new one would be created for the other set. The Transhumanist    15:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't that many "topic" articles about opera on Wikipedia, so I don't see much of a problem there. --Folantin (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just realized we're arguing over nothing. We both agree "Outline of" would be an acceptable title. Right? I wouldn't object to it being named to that. Would renaming the article "Outline of opera" be acceptable to you? The Transhumanist    15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. As Conti says below, there's no difference in "neutrality" between "List of basic X topics" and "Outline of X". How do you define your "outline"? --Folantin (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In the same way you define "article" or "list". An outline is just a form of article, in the same way that a list is a form of article. The Transhumanist    22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, why do we need sources to list "basic" topics, while we don't need any sources to list "topical outlines"? That doesn't really make any sense to me. --Conti|✉ 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Outline" is just a format designation, in the same way that "article" is a format designation. All articles have formats (i.e., orders of presentation), and these do not require sources. That is, how an article is arranged isn't sourced. If it is, that's a content policy I missed. The Transhumanist    22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "outline" means "verbal description of essential parts only". You still have to define what's "essential" there. The selection problem remains. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Transhumanist, please don't make wide-scale changes without consensus first. Discuss first to avoid the follow-on drama. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the years, the only one defending "basic" in the title was me. The opposition to it accumulated to the point I could no longer defend the titles. It was argued that I was defying consensus. So I proposed the change at the Village Pump, and it is pretty clear from that discussion that "List of basic" was inadequate. The rename has gone over pretty well, with opposition limited to a single page. That's not bad. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but in this instance, we came pretty close. The Transhumanist    15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Um, would it be possible to not have references in the header sections for List of basic opera topics? There must be a better way of doing it than that. As for the title, I suggest List of opera topics. It does not need to be comprehensive - that is what WP:SUMMARY is for. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, they look awful, but someone in the opera project decided to add them because today Transhumanist has repeatedly placed over 70 {{Citation needed}} tags on the List of basic opera topics. Like Conti, I question why, when none have appeared on any of the "topical outlines". One could argue that references are needed for the inclusion of particular topics on those too, after all they're still potentially subjective choices. The mass tagging gives the impression of some kind of 'punishment' for not accepting the name change, even if it might not have been intended as such. Also, I can see reasons for removing "basic". But the "topical" adjective is bizarre, ambiguous and misleading. For one thing, why did no one consider the standard English device of a modifying noun, e.g. Topic outline of X. But that's beside the point. How on earth can a decision which affects many, many projects and existing lists and has resulted in the wholesale renaming and redirecting of scores upon scores of pages be based on the votes of 4 people, when none of the relevant projects were even notified of the discussion? Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just "outline of x topics" or simply "outline of x" if you have to change it at all? 'Topical outline of' is not how the word 'topical' is usually used, which as people have said above is a word to describe current affairs and so on. Better grammar/a more commonly used phrase, which is what we use for page names on wikipedia, would be 'outline of x topics' or something. Although I don't have an objection to 'basic' being used in article's titles as long as judgement of what is placed there is common sense- it could even be sourced, for instance depending on whether an aspect of a topic is included in a basic textbook. Sticky Parkin 18:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Topical outline of" is merely what discussion has produced so far. I'm fine with improvements, and prefer "Outline of x", which was the original proposal before the compromise of "topical outline" was arrived at. The Transhumanist    22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed over here at the Village Pump. I'm fine with the change, although we need to agree with a standard. I'm fine with Topical outline at this point too, seeing as its an accepted term among professionals. In the future, The Transhumanist should probably do a RFCstyle when embarking on a large change like this. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion is somewhat off topic here. The question at hand is the editing practices of The Transhumanist not about the rightness or wrongness about the actual name change in itself. I have put a three revert rule warning on The Transhumanist's talk page. As for a rename of the articles, I would suggest that all of the names be changed back to "List of basic .... terms" and a well broadcasted centralized discussion involving the entire wikipedia community organized on the issue. I personally think the word outline does not apply well to many of these articles (in their current form anyway). An outline infers that the there is a discussion or summary covering the main points of a subject. Therefore the terms in an outline would include a basic short definition or summary of each term given. These articles, however, provide no such definitions/summaries but simply list important terms, albight organized into subcatagories of the main subject.Nrswanson (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Transhumanist has single-handedly changed the name of this article to "Outline of opera" in spite of there being no consensus to do so in this discussion. He has not addressed the issues above where several editors have clearly stated that "outline" is no more "neutral" than "basic topics". I moved the page to the more "neutral" "List of opera topics" but he reverted. Either he is interested in enforcing a strict (ridiculously strict, in my opinion) definition of our neutrality policy (as would be suggested by the 70 citation tags he placed on the page) or he isn't. If the latter is the case the page should never have been changed from the self-explanatory "List of basic opera topics" in the first place. --Folantin (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"List of X topics" would seem to be the most obvious way to do this. Some think "basic" and "outline" imply POV-pushing (which seems like a stretch, but whatever) and the term "topical" means "current events", which doesn't seem to fit these lists. "List of X topics" is purely descriptive with no judgment implied that I can see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Once the technical difficulties have been solved, the page will be moved to the very neutral "List of opera topics" and this issue will be over. --Folantin (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well its not quite that simple. What about all the other articles he has changed the names of. He has changed the name on dozens of articles to "Topical outline of...". I think all of those articles should be changed as well.Nrswanson (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically about the first example given, about Italy. The editor should not have been making these changes without the kind of discussion that's occurring here. They will have to be moved again, to an appropriate title. If there's already an article there, admin assistance will be required. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There was this kind of discussion on the Village Pump. The Transhumanist    00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've done the move to List of opera topics. Afterwards, I think there were some triple redirects to fix, but that's sorted too :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the set of pages back to "List of basic x topics", pending a new proposal. I don't have have the move subpage feature, so would somebody move Portal:Contents/Topical outlines and its subpages back to Portal:Contents/Lists of basic contents, please?

Until the fate of the set is decided by the community, it would probably be best if editors not be allowed to break the set up by renaming them or moving them to another set. Moreschi has moved the list of basic opera topics page to List of opera topics removing it from this set of pages and adding to the Lists of topics set. I request that it be moved back to List of basic opera topics until the community (via the Village Pump, etc.) decides what should be done with the set of "basic topics" pages.

Nrswanson, another participant in this dispute, moved a couple other pages out of the set. I've moved them back (to List of basic aerospace topics and List of basic automation topics, respectively) pending the outcome of this dispute.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Article talk page

I just wondered if there is any way an admin could have a quick look at the talk page of Margaret Dryburgh please?[42] I created the page just a few days ago, but the inclusion of the phrase "The plight of Dryburgh and her friends in a Japanese prisoner of war camp inspired the TV series Tenko" has caused problems with a fellow editor. The situation is such that the article's talk page has several, I believe, very personal attacks on me now. Is there any way these comments can be removed? I always thought an article's talk page should be about the article, not anything personal.--seahamlass 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see anything that's a personal attack. There's criticism of your editing, but that's not quite the same thing. Telling someone they're wrong is permitted, although it's best to show why. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any personal attacks and don't see much for an admin to do here, other than remind that sticking to verifiable sources will tend to help, a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, well thanks for looking. I'm sorry you don't feel able to support me, as I still feel that I have been thoroughly chewed up and spat out by this editor. Guess that's it.--seahamlass 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, both of you retreat to your respective corners, no, not really, but the whole spat seems to be, well... unseemly. Valid points were made by both sides but there was an issue more of hurt feelings that seemed to come across and a "so, here" haughtiness that can be disquieting. BTW, both parties could more profitably expend all the energy demonstrated on the talk page into writing a better article. Just an opinion, here, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

User:Yoshihiko

Resolved

 – User blocked 31 hrs by Nancy --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at User talk:Yoshihiko? He appears to have made some good edits and then all of the sudden uploaded a bunch of pictures with no info and a bunch of recipes. There may be a language problem as the user appears to be Japanese, but there's tons of warnings on his page and he's responded by reuploading the identical images? Help? Not sure what to do with this one? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked. If he/she continues when the block is over, maybe we can find somebody who speaks Japanese? heh.. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Significant Contributions

I've spent the past two hours trying to discover this users : Joshii's contributions...

I've found none...

This account I believe is a sock account of a troll or sock puppet... THIS ACCOUNT SIMPLY DELETES.........

THIS USER GIVES VAGUE DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS/HER ACTIONS AND IF QUESTIONED ON HIS/HER ACTIONS REPLIES ? "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Joshii. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. " WHILE GIVING NO EXPLAINATION OR ACCOUNT OF HIS/HER ACTIONS.

This user has made no contributions to wiki, this user just deletes and gives the standard reply above.

I suggest this account should be deleted.--92.234.248.31 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? ——Ryan | t • c 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Or this? And Joshii did explain his actions. Even if users' accounts were deleted, it would not be because someone disagrees with some of their edits, especially when Joshii has written featured articles and is being considered for adminship. This is not the definition of a sockpuppet, troll or vandal. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshii can be a lovely contributor, and still sometimes do things that are not ideal, as every person does. The user disliked his use of the word cr*p- and referring to other's edits, such language is undoubtedly bound to not be condusive to mutual respect and collaboration. I consider cr*p to be impolite and it is not appropriate to use on wiki about a real person's edits, no matter what you think of the edits it goes beyond bad manners. Sticky Parkin 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is a breach of WP:CIVIL the part which goes on about creating an uncivil environment "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")." No matter whether someone said my account to be deleted or anything I would never respond with such language. Sticky Parkin 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with WP:CIVIL, might you please star out the highly offensive C-word in the above post? Thank you in advance --Badger Drink (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jak68

This user:Jak68 is going around reverting my edits and is trying to develop an Edit War. This user reverted all my edits and seems to be having problems with me on this English Wikipedia. So far i've reverted the edits and user:Jak68 had reverted them again by 2, including people who contributed after. Could some admin inform this User to easy on the engaging of war. I have no intrest in this users edits or in user at all, seems to be having problems with mine. --Padan (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Padan is attempting to insert a fringe theory that links the Prophet Mohammad with the Bhavishya Purana (a Hindu text) in accordance with the views of a Muslim Ahmadiyya missionary named Abdul Haq Vidyarthi. User:Padan has inserted this fringe idea into 24 wikipedia articles in recent days (see his contrib page). He has also clashed in edit wars over this same issue with a variety of other users, see here, here, and here. He also has a history of sockpuppetry and has been banned in the past over this exact same issue, see discussion on the user names Rajivlal here and DWhiskaZ here, both banned over the issue of repeated insertion of this fringe theory linking Mohammad with the Bhavishya Purana from a source at Univ of Toronto. Please see here for extended discussion of the fringe theory in question.

And please, can we get a more permanent solution to this problem than the perpetual cleaning up after a committed activist? Jak68 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It clearly shows that RajivLal is concentrated on other articles that differ from mine and user:Padan is not even convicted please refer this matter to Wikipedia:Sock.

User Jak68 is clearly involved in WP:EW and WP:PA and needs an warning or block. --Padan (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser on both Padan and RajivLal would seem in order here has been submitted. dab (𒁳) 09:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. It isn't Jak68 that is the problem. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Trilemma / What Happened

Resolved

 – Comments removed and language changed per compromise brokered by Jaysweet. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• User:Trilemma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Blaxthos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (reporting party)
• What Happened (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:What Happened (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm reporting that I have removed the talk page comments made by Trilemma (talk · contribs). I'm going to try and avoid bringing the content dispute here, but I wanted to make ANI aware that I have removed comments made to a currently active RFC in which inaccurate statements about me were made in an ad hominem attempt to influence its outcome. The editor is apparently willing to go to war to include them; I will not remove a second time. I would also note that Trilemma has openly stated philosophy of POV warriorism, and that other editors have already noted the "aggressive" agenda-based nature of his edits, and Trilemma's using misleading edit summaries and accusations of "vandalism". I believe it was proper for me to remove the comments, but I also feel obligated to report my actions here. I also believe the comments should be removed at this time. Thanks in advance for the help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

An editing history will show that the comments were not incorrect. Blaxthos and I came to a mutual agreement on the article, the way it sits now, more than two weeks ago. Suddenly, when Scott McClellan began hist testimony before Congress, he began to remove entire sections from the page. I welcomed a response to my paragraph, but I felt it necessary to give the history of the editing of the page. If a third party feels this is inappropriate, I will not contest its removal. Furthermore, Blaxthos has repeated the slanderous assertion that I am a "POV warrior." This is the third spot he has made this claim. It is false. The most substantial of my edits (rewrite of Rwandan Genocide Template, namely) have occured outside the area of politics, but I would like to point out reverts of objective vandalism[43] [44] on pages that Blaxthos would doubtlessly assume I have a POV problem with.Trilemma (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The diff where Trilemma supposedly declares his/her "philosophy of POV warriorism" ([45]) is no such thing. Trilemma merely notes that there have been a lot of pro-Obama POV pushers on Wikipedia lately (which is undeniably true). Granted, I think someone who was truly unbiased would also note there are a lot of anti-Obama POV pushers on Wikipedia lately, heh, but Trilemma certainly did not state a POV-pushing agenda.

I don't have a big problem with the comment that was removed, assuming it was true. It doesn't seem any worse than the things you have said about Trilemma. It is probably a little out of place in an RfC, but unilaterally removing it is a little over-aggressive. I would probably not remove the comment again, but rather address it straightforwardly and honestly.

The one issue I do have with Trilemma's edits, and that is the same problem as the one addressed in the diff from Wikidemo you pointed out ([46]), is that Trilemma needs to be much more careful about throwing around the V-word, especially on politically charged articles. If somebody makes a POV edit, and due to their strong personal bias they don't realize it is POV, the last thing you want to do is label the edit as vandalism -- that will just piss them off and escalate things. I used to be much more liberal with my use of the V-word, but I have since learned how destructive that can be, and I'm more careful to reserve it for really obvious cases (if somebody blanks a whole article and replaces it with "i poop my pants", you can probably safely label that as vandalism :D ).

If either user wants to pursue the issue further, I might recommend Wikiquette Alerts as a better venue. I don't really see anything here that is admin actionable. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree -- the comments I removed are inappropriate for several reasons:

1. I absolutely dispute the factual accuracy of his statements -- I did NOT "misread SPS", nor did I "blank pages" or commit any act of vandalism.
2. The comments contain subjective accusations of motivation as fact, violating WP:NPA: "[Blaxthos] just recently he began surreptitiously editing out things to his dislike again."
3. The comments serve no constructive purpose, and can have no other purpose than an attempt to discredit the merits of the RFC by way of an ad hominem attack on me (using mischaracterizations noted in #1 above).
4. If I'm forced to point out all of this at the RFC, it ends up looking like a spat and completely detracts from the actual policy arguments I brought up in the first place.

It should be enough that other editors have noted the edgy nature of Trilemma's edits, coupled with his own admission of being on a mission to remove a particular point of view. I once again implore a review of this situation, and immediate removal of comments that are factually disputed and have no purpose valid to the RFC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to provide more of a distraction from more pressing issues, but since Blaxthos has persisted, I feel that I need to make additional comments. Before I do so: Jaysweet, your advice is well taken. I'd noticed that my somewhat liberal use of the V-word to describe edits was counter-productive to a harmonious editing environment. So, I am making that adjustment. Being that each of the edits constituted an editor, several of which had declared political bias on their user page, blanking entire sections of articles, I don't feel that any of my edits were inapropriate, but I will not be so assertive with the V-word. Also, there has certainly been some editing done by partisan anti-Obama editors. Thankfully (or unthankfully, depending on your mindset), much (though not all) of this has been limited to petty vandalism and blatant nonsense, the type of which is obvious and easy to catch.

I was willing to let this drop, despite Blaxthos having smeared my editing style and philosophy, but here is the record which constituted my documentation of the editing history of the page:

After the initial inclusion of Dole's widely reported letter, Blaxthos removed the edit, asserting that it violated SPS. [47]. Note that this was an incorrect reading of SPS, as I later pointed out in the discussion. When I found a source that in no way violated SPS, Blaxthos removed the entire section (which, to me, constitutes blanking).

Now, you'll notice here[48] that Blaxthos was accepting the inclusion of Dole's letter and the selected other notable responses, saying that as long as McClellan's subsequent response was included, it would constitute a neutral point of view. I objected to this logic, but with no other people offering comments, I let the issue die, as did Blaxthos. We had reached an agreement...

UNTIL Mr. McClellan began his testimony before Congress. Then, without notice, Blaxthos proceeded to unilaterally edit out the section HE had agreed to [49], along with the language that we had likewise reached an agreement on, terming it "sneaky POV."[50][51].

Blaxthos subsequently took to calling me a "POV warrior" in his talk page, in the discussion page of the article, and now on here. This is rather reckless on his part and I am glad to see that this has been recognized as a false claim.

I do not know why Blaxthos is persisting in this campaign against me, and I will not speculate to why he suddenly, surreptitiously subverted our earlier agreed upon text. I am disappointed by his continued spurious claims and hostile attitude. Trilemma (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not bring a content dispute here; this is not the place. You're attempting to put words into my mouth, and attribute my agreement where it was never given. Stop trying to speak for me, put words into my mouth, and attribute positions to me that I to which I do not (nor ever did) support. The only issue here is whether your comments are appropriate to the RFC -- I stand behind my assertion that they are an ad hominem attempt to detract from the actual policy points I made in the RFC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that the comment was out of place in the RfC discussion, but I thought all things considered it was fairly mild, and I thought you'd be better off solved by addressing it succinctly and straightforwardly and honestly than you would by unilaterally removing the comment. But let's dig a little deeper, shall we?

Before I make my next statement, let me reiterate that I agree that the comment in question by Trilemma is indeed somewhat of an ad hominem attack. I believe he was attempting to show a conflict of interest, but it still wasn't the most productive thing he might have said.

With that reiterated, I would like to also point out that Trilemma was not the first one to bring ad hominem attacks into the RfC. there have been ad hominem implications on both sides. Here, Blaxthos says in regards to Trilemma, "I'm not going to address your stated philosophy of POV warriorism here, as it's not germane to the content discussion here." Heh, well, I am sorry to tell you this Blaxthos, but bringing that point up and saying you are not going to address it is the same as addressing it, i.e. even though you said you would not bring an ad hominem attack into the discussion, by mentioning the specifics of the ad hominem attack (and providing a diff no less!) you have essentially already made the attack. So we are looking at ad hominem attacks by both editors in this RfC, not just by Trilemma.

I don't think either of those comments were productive, but they aren't so egregious that I think typically we'd make a big deal out of them. It just sounds like you guys hate each other, heh, and other editors coming to the RfC will pick up on that and account for it. So that's why in my initial response I encouraged you to just address it and move on.

An alternative compromise proposal would be to strike both comments, thereby purging the RfC of any ad hominem attacks. If both of you agree to that, we could potentially move forward...? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

In fact, Blaxthos, this is a dirty trick and I am disappointed to see this kind of logical manipulation in a talk page. To paraphrase the exchange between you and Trilemma at that point:

• Blaxthos: I'm not going to bring up the fact that Trilemma is a self-proclaimed POV-pusher, because it's not relevant.
• Trilemma: Excuse me, but I am not a POV-pusher.
• Blaxthos: Don't defend yourself! It's irrelevant!

Come on. You've got to know that's inappropriate. You are basically incriminating Trilemma, and then saying he can't defend himself because the incrimination is supposedly irrelevant?

Perhaps this issue could be resolved, then, if instead of Trilemma saying "Blaxthos misread SPS and edits out content he doesn't like," he could say, "I'm not going to bring up the fact that Blaxthos misread SPS and edits out content he doesn't like, because it's not relevant." Right? heh... No, I don't think so.

I don't want do make it sound like I am defending Trilemma's comment -- I am disappointed he brought that up in an RfC as well. But like I say, if we want to keep ad hominem attacks out of this RfC, let's actually keep them out of it, okay? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there, Jaysweet... you've gotten the cart before the horse. If you dig a little deeper, you'll notice that I filed the RFC without reference to anything other than the merits of the content dispute, citing specific policies. Once Trilemma attempted to introduce an ad hominem claim did I respond to it. My response was limited to acknowledging his claim, providing context via a link, and again stating that we must stick to the issues raised in the RFC. I again requested him to limit responses to the merits of the RFC, and at THAT point Trilemma started aggressively posting material that is necessarily only an attempt to influence the RFC via ad hominem logical fallacies. I don't see how anyone could think that such statements have any other constructive purpose (or should be allowed to remain).

Now, as I've stated all along, my intent at ANI is to have the spurious accusations, attacks, and ad hominem statements removed. I don't really care what agreement underlies the removal, although I take exception to your claim that I'm essentially engaging in the same behavior. I've tried to do nothing but keep the discussion centered on the policy merits of the RFC, and have asked Trilemma to do the same. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos had already taken to calling me a POV warrior, an utterly false and manipulative assertion. Additionally, he had removed, completely, a section that we had discussed and agreed to let stand. I do not see how that was not blanking. That was not an attack on him, or on his editing philosophy, but rather on a specific action that he did. I am perfectly willing to compromise in this matter, to give a more unbiased presentation to users observing this RfC. It unfortunately appears that Blaxthos is declining to compromise. Again, he and I had earlier been civil with each other and reached an understanding that in until additional comments were given, we'd leave the article alone (and that was in regards to the subsequent McClellan response section, not even the prior one!). I am disappointed at what I can only judge as a change in behavior on Blaxthos' part, and that's why I posted the wikiquette alert. Trilemma (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I wasn't the first editor to note that you exhibit an editing pattern that appears to be biased towards a particular agenda.
2. After you openly proclaimed your intent to remove content from "declared and undeclared Obama viewpoints" did I call you a POV warrior. Someone who makes that open proclaimation is a POV warrior, and I do not back down from that statment.
3. I made that comment on my talk page only, and DID NOT reference in when posting my request for comment. One can effectively deal with a POV warrior without pointing out that they're a POV warrior -- it's irrelevant to the merits of the argument presented in RFC.
4. "Blanking" is a form of vandalism. I removed content with a clear link to and explaination of how the removal is justified by core policies, something quite different than "blanking".
5. I asked for the irrelevant comments to be removed from the outset, to which you flat out refused, which is why we're now here. Others have now recognized that your comments are nothing more than an ad hominem attempt to influence the RFC's outcome without having any relevance to the merits of the content of the RFC.
6. Anything beyond my request that those comments be removed immediately are beyond the scope of this posting. I'm not going to get in snark match or bogged down in ancillary discussions.

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You may keep attacking me with ad hominems, which have already been observed to be utterly false and manipulative, but it's not going to get anywhere toward improving the presentation of the RfC page. I'm disappointed by this general lack of civility. That's why I filed a wikiquette complaint. Trilemma (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Article RFC is designed to deal with content issues - stick to them. It's not uncommon for parties to accuse each other of being POV pushers of some kind; this issue should be discussed at WQA instead. However, it is highly disruptive to remove other people's comments on a talk page - please refrain from doing so (against talk page guidelines) or you will be blocked. Instead, both of you should resolve your differences by calming down and comment on the content rather than the contributors.
• If you are frustrated with an editor or are making more serious accusations against an editor concerning their conduct, it should be raised at RFC on user conduct with supporting evidence (diffs). A third party will eventually check through it and comment on the merits.
• Above all, remember that another user's misconduct does not legitimize your own. Can you both agree to stop, and focus on the issues at hand? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I was the one who came to ANI to self-report my removal of another editor's comments. The emboldened threat of block is probably not necessary.  ;-) I knew it was questionable, but I believe my actions were justified -- I came here to be pro-active about my questionable edits.
2. If people agree (and they have) that the comments I removed are nothing more than an ad hominem attempt to influence the RFC, and that they're factually inaccurate (or disputed, at the least), and have nothing to do with the merits of the points brought up IN the RFC, and are inappropriate AT an RFC, I must continue to insist that they be removed.
3. I've been asking for nothing more than keeping this entirely focused on the merits of the RFC since the beginning. I have no problem (nor ever had a problem) with doing so.

Thanks for the outside response. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I have no intention of continuing a distraction from the RfC process. I have brought my concerns about Blaxthos' editing up on wikiquette, and am content to wait for comment, both on that matter and on the What Happened page. In regards to the comments that Jaysweet has specifically noted, if you feel it's appropriate, we could strikethrough them or follow whichever other method that would be appropriate. Trilemma (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to agree to striking the ad hominem language from both of our statements in the main RFC, specifically your initial reference to discussion on my talk page and my response (bullet point #1), given that we also completely remove the subsection and everything below my numbered list that contains the stricken point #1. Everything after that exchange is the result of a poisoned well, and will only serve to detract from the merits of the RFC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like both editors are willing to compromise by purging the entire discussion of anything that could be considered an ad hominem attack. I think this is a productive and fruitful way to move forward. Please see my suggestion here for how I think the Talk page would read if all of the ad hominem attacks were removed from the RfC section. Comments? Can we agree to this version and move on? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think those are reasonable enough. I would however like for Blaxthos to rephrase his wording on the RfC page, as it is not neutral and shows bias. Trilemma (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and instated the compromise version that we all agree is reasonable. The issue at ANI centered around ad hominem irrelevancies that derailed the RFC. You're welcome and ecouraged to voice your opinion of the merit of the points in the RFC at the RFC (that's the very point of the RFC ;-), but doing so here is far beyond the scope of this discussion. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I have addressed it there as well. Trilemma (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Language changed per this request. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

I know it is very likely a joke, but given the legalities that go with these things, does this merit just a regular (WP:TPG, not forum) warning? Thanks Brusegadi (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Semi compitent" is right. If he has to ask, he doesn't know much. I would warn and watch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be continuing. Nobody warned him, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

He has since been warned by another user, and so far he has done nothing new. He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with anon's potty mouth please

Resolved

Hi I refactored 69.247.176.147 (talk · contribs)'s edits twice at User talk:Neil and they have reverted me here. This was all related to Admin Neil deleting an image (and citing WP:BLP) on twink (gay slang) and blocking two users for a month each. Neither user seemed to have been warned although arguably they should have known better? I didn't as I added the image in the first place. Also the BLP policy doesn't seem to address directly this issue, at all, so that may have added to the confusion. In any case the somewhat offensive language is on Neil's page and I didn't want to revert again and frankly the whole issue may need some clearing up to ensure the policy at BLP is more helpful. It may also be good to stress that warning users before a ban or block may be beneficial to all. Self disclosure: I was topic-banned without warning and still feel it's the most stressful experience I've had here. Banjeboi 06:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward attack/disruption/vandalism. Blocked for 31 hours. Tan | 39 06:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon attacking me for reverting

Resolved

I hope I'm in the right place here. I have reverted two edits from the same person tonight; [52] and [53]. Each time the user has attacked me on my talk page: [54] and [55]. The first one I silently reverted but then it happened again so I would like to know if any thing can be done about this user? I would warn them but I have a feeling that would only antagonise them further ... Thanks. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for harassment. No need for that kind of behaviour round here. Pop back if it starts up again. Bencherlite^Talk 11:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 11:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP making legal threats

Resolved

Particularly bad instance of anon Turkish IP violating WP:LEGAL here [56]. I think someone needs to do something about this. Example: "My threat is no threat my friend, I am going to court and I will subpeona you as a witness to this overt discrimination of religious groups. I am going to show you Wikis what vandals really are - admins on a power trip." --Folantin (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by Antandrus. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note on how to proceed. Hopefully he'll retract the threat and use the regular dispute resolution process. Antandrus (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It didn't go over well. He's remaining blocked until he retracts all his threats. Antandrus (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note this is User:85.103.80.160 evading a block. Hut 8.5 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for verifying that. I had just asked Folantin that very question. Antandrus (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Diligent Terrier is abusing his editor power, corrupting mKR (programming language)

Despite my repeated attempts to reason with him, Diligent Terrier is making edits which result in nonsense being displayed for the article mKR (programming language). He has reverted twice, in the process destroying other edits of mine which he never even looked at. His last reversion was this morning, even though he is supposed to be "retired" and have no official function at Wikipedia. Rhmccullough (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Diligent Terrier's latest edit seems perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Can you explain what's wrong with it? (It would be a content dispute, except that DT doesn't seem to be talking.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. DT's reasons for his edits are always very vague. He never discusses them with me, or explains anything. 2. DT keeps changing "Major features" section -- a. It refers to examples - they don't exist. b. The title "Major features" (made up by DT) does not make sense. 3. When he reverts "Major features", he is deleting the real "Major features" section which I defined. Why? no reason. Does he even know it exists? I don't know. He has never commented on it at all. 4. FYI - DT's first interaction with me was to delete several sections, which I had added on the recommendation of a previous editor. Again - no explanation, no discussion. His "philosophy" -- whatever it is, contradicts that of the previous editor. But he won't discuss it. Rhmccullough (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You've cited no evidence of Diligent Terrier breaking any of Wikipedia's rules, and there's no evidence that this is anything other than a content dispute. It's not administrators' place to solve such disputes - please use the dispute resolution process. While "not talking" is perhaps unfortunate, there's no rule that compels anyone to do so, so this isn't an admin matter. -- 87.114.35.233 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more explicit about one thing. You asked me what's wrong with his last edit. In the literal sense, I don't know. I don't understand it. I don't know why he did it. In the philosophical sense, what's wrong is that he is hacking up the mKR (programming language) article -- I have my doubts as to whether I will be proud of it when he's through with it. Rhmccullough (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

One last question. You did not comment on the fact that DT is "retired". Is that not an issue at all? Rhmccullough (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Users can pretend to be retired all they want; it doesn't mean a thing. This might not be much of a case for admin attention, but I do see at least some edits by Diligent Terrier which are questionable. I don't see where he's commented on the talk page at all, but he's made substantial edits which there is apparently disagreement about. I recommend everyone go slow and explain their positions rather than just reverting. Friday (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops- for some reason my browser "find" function isn't seeing his edits. Friday (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(My edit got lost because of logout)I would love to go slow and explain. But DT continues to make drastic edits with no warning and no explanation. And he will never talk to me about his edits. Rhmccullough (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the talk on "underconstruction"? I put up "underconstruction" flags so I could finish my edit. DT ignored the flags and reverted all my changes into oblivion. Rhmccullough (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That "last edit" of DT's is correct. He removed unsourced information and large swathes of example code, which is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. He didn't give me any chance to respond to whatever might have been unsourced. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be some WP:OWN issues here from Rhmccullough (imo of course).Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, this is a matter for the talk page, not the admin noticeboard. Please continue there. I think Rhmccullough has been reasonable though, and has been making extensive use of the talk page to work out disagreements. Friday (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest anyone? Did anyone else notice who the creator of the language is? Metros (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, he's in a unique position to be a subject matter expert. I don't see that he's been particularly promotional. We should welcome actual qualified academics and cut them a bit of slack while they're learning how things go here. Friday (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I have a vested interest, but I'm not trying to break any rules. And I can be objective and neutral. I don't know what the rules are for example code. DT didn't tell me anything. I would like to know the rules. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think going around calling it "user-friendly" is a bit opinionated without a source or anything to back that up. To Rhmccullough, looking at a few things you put in, I think you should avoid adding the Ayn Rand as an influence and a "see also." For one, there doesn't appear to be a reason why she counts as an influence (sure she's probably been a personal influence to you, but there's no evidence of that except if we talked to you, you see what I'm trying to say?). Additionally, the influence part appears to be geared towards what other languages it was built on. Just an outside opinion. Metros (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Brought up on COIN, to discuss the possible WP:OWN issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please please please do not try to chase off academics for daring to discuss their own work. Wikipedia needs more academics, not less. Friday (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm continuing to get locked out because of edit conflicts. Can I have the floor for a minute? Rhmccullough (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

|This why Rand is an influence. Her position on definitions and context is unique. There are statements in her book which map directly into statement in the mKR language. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

re user-friendly -- in my naive viewpoint, it is obvious because mKR is so much like English. I do not know what anyone expects in the way of references. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I yield the floor. Comments, anyone? Rhmccullough (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since no one is talking, I'll make one further remark. All of Rand's discussion of concept formation can be easily expressed in the mKR language. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

People keep telling me I'm not allowed to say such things. Catch 22. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Is DT even aware of this conversation? When you start a post about someone on ANI, it is usually nice to let them know. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This article recently went through an AfD, the result, with very few votes, being "no-consensus". There don't seem to be any significant verifiable references, let alone references to reliable sources. One reference is an e-mail address. Two are to private e-mails. Eight are to the web site of the article creator. None are clickable links. There's currently a WP:V problem, a WP:OWN problem, a WP:SOFT notability problem, and there may be a WP:FRINGE problem and a WP:VAIN problem. "mKR" was previously inserted into Wictionary, but deleted from there. (16:47, 12 June 2008 Conrad.Irwin (Talk | contribs) deleted "mKR" ‎ (Not dictionary material, please see WT:CFI)) This article could use some attention from editors other than its creator. If the references don't improve soon, it's probably worth sending to AfD again. --John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Block?

Resolved

I don't want to carry out this block myself. Will someone take a look at User talk:Cazique's latest contribs, including my final warning and his response? I would appreciate it. Thanks! Tan | 39 15:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Escalated further to warrant indef block. Tan | 39 16:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Edit?

Resolved

Maybe this is just out of my league, but I came across this edit. I'm not familiar with these tags, but it almost looks as if the IP placed a block notice on its own talk page, and then when you look at the IP's contributions, they are equally as confusing. Explination? Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, but it has been proxy blocked for 5 years. It appears to be a spambot, so I think the tariff is fine, and it may just be a glitch in the software that made it appear as if it posted its own template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IDK, but it doesn't seem to be making any actual edits, other than the one to its talk so let's call this one resolved Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A long story

This whole story started when User:Jack forbes filed a sockpuppetry report against User:Fone4My. Until then Jack had been a productive and active Wikipedian who hadn't ever (to my knowledge) been involved in a (major) dispute. As soon as he filed the report User:Fone4My admitted using an IP but only due to becoming logged out (albeit logging in and out serveral times in a matter of minutes). Jack forbes disputed this citing a number of diffs where Fone4my had referred to the IP in the third person. Jack also cited diffs where Fone's IP asked someone to make an edit, and with his actual account he made this edit. User:Alison kindly confirmed that the IP was indeed Fone4my. A non admin closed the report saying "it appears that Fonez4mii did nothing wrong and that Jack Forbes was a little too eager in suspecting him of ulterior motives". In his closing words the user claimed not to have read all the evidence and only to have read part of the sock puppetry discussion. Jack forbes, enraged at the decision decided to retire from Wikipedia but not before leaving a somewhat controversial message containing the following quote "next time you want to win an argument or besmirch someones name, use a sockpuppet, then when you are brought to account for it confess, pretend you did not mean it, despite all the evidence which won't be read anyway!". Thus the case was closed. A few editors expressed their unhappiness with the closing comments of the sockpuppetry report. Jack forbes later returned once more to threaten Fone4my physically and verbally. He was later issued a last warning by an administrator. Since then Fone4my has filed a sockpuppetry report against Jack forbes (checkuser pending). In my opinion it would be a good idea for an administrator to re-close the Fone4my sockpuppetry report after having read all the evidence and having checked all the diffs, that's all I ask. Hopefully we can then put this whole dispute to rest. Thank you so much! --Cameron (T|C) 17:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we need closure. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. May I also add that the reason I logged in and out was to get to my IP talkpage so that I could continue the conversation that started there with GoodDay. I made no attempt to use my IP to avoid a block/ban, avoid 3RR, or inflate a vote or poll. --fone4me 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Heatsketch and death threats

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

---

Indef blocked; talk page unprotected to allow user to ask for review, as long as privilege not abused. -- Avi (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

---

This user is currently blocked after I reported him to AIV, but I've noticed that he's made at least two death threats in his edit history that warrant an indef block. The most recent was in May when he stated in an article talk page of a convict, "Someone find out what prison this asshole is staying at and when he is due for release so the second he steps outside I can put a bullet in his evil head."[57]. The earlier one that I've found was a threat against Jimbo Wales when Heatsketch stated on his own talk page, "BAH YOU FUCK I have anthrax tell jimbo to check his mail soon."[58]. I don't know if there are more. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They are a little stale, but I am sure the blocking admin took them and their like into consideration when executing the latest block. I am also certain that the next edit in a similar manner from the account will result in an indef block. I see no need to vary the sanction now in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Stale or not, he needs to be indef blocked. Bstone (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really see what them being stale has to do with. Death threats are death threats. One is only from a couple few weeks ago. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. A death threat, stale or not, constitutes an immediate indef block. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when has the death threat rules had an expiration date? This isn't some years old find, this is a few days ago. Indef and ban. ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, 2 weeks is way too lenient. A user like that is not going to be worth anything as an editor, now or 2 weeks from now. He should be blocked indefinitely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Killerofcruft

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

---

Either file an RFCU or stop casting aspersions because of a philosophical disagreement. KOC has been advised that his edit summaries are inappropriate (through this discussion); nothing further can be accomplished here. Horologium (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}}

Killerofcruft (talk · contribs) User's name and activities concern me, and I'm 99% sure it's a banned user, probably Eyrian. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They claim they made use of the right to vanish [59]. This account should at least be renamed. I don't necessarily disagree with its aims, but the name at least is inflammatory, as are some of the edit summaries, refering to fanboys etc- slightly inflammatory but the person might have some good work to do here if they can be tamed.:) Sticky Parkin 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it's Eyrian? Was Eyrian also a cruftkiller? Also, the username may be a bit inflammatory, but I'd compare it to Cruftbane (talk · contribs), which also indicates a disgust with cruft. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the edit summaries is certainly reminiscent of the editor who has Cruftbane as one of his accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like Jack Merridew or TTN. Eyrian is only other banned user who edits in those areas with a similar viewpoint. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That username seems intentionally inflammatory to me. Jtrainor (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The "right to vanish" is not a right to a fresh start. This user came back.[60] --John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not and have never been any user called Eyrian - or cruftbane. If anyone can point to something, you know wrong with my edits, I'd like to hear it? I have a thing about original research - big deal, lots of people do - oh and so does core policy. If people want to watch my edits - fine but the idea I must be a banned user because I like to remove original research is frankly pathetic. Oh and thanks for the starter of this topic for letting me know about this AN/I. Oh wait, they didn't. --Killerofcruft (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the style, like the 'I kill cruft' userpage, which I've seen somewhere else, and the 'masturbatory nonsense' comment is also one I've seen before, but I can't place the name to the style, not among users who've left and are coming back, nor offhand among current users. Not sure that there's much wrong with stripping out the excessive cruft buildups that occur in many of our fiction niches. ThuranX (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

While perhaps discounting User:XcruftX who on 15th inst set up his monobook.js immediately, and went on a one-day spree of deleting cruft and hasn't been seen since, this style is strangely familiar. I'm not going to say here who I think it may be, because I can't be sure. email me if you want my theory. However, not all so-called "cruft" is worthless, and some of it is in fact notable. When it comes to removing it, I prefer surgery to butchery, but have neither the time nor the patience to go through it all. --Rodhullandemu 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you are, you know, discussing me - I'd prefer you made your theory known here rather than conduct discussions about me off site? don't you think it's rather rude to basically say "this guy is a liar but I'd rather do discuss it behind his back"? because I do. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm right, just that the style seems familiar, and if I'm wrong, I'll accept that. However, views are coloured by previous knowledge and I want to avoid that. I'm not calling you a liar at all. I'm more interested in the encyclopedia not losing relevant information and to be honest I disapprove of blanket deletions. Are you prepared to state that this is the only account you have ever operated on Wikipedia? You'll be aware that checkuser is out of the question since there is no reason to request one, so effectively you can say anything you like. It's a zero-outcome game, if you like. But it seems that some editors are concerned that you are a returning user and I would prefer that if this is so, there should be no reason to hide that. That's all. --Rodhullandemu 23:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a returning user, I have made this clear and explicit, so no this is not the only account I have ever use had. I left my unbanned, unblocked, never warned account a couple of years - I did this because it made use of my real name. I then did some IP editing, I have now decided to get an account again. I have done a) nothing wrong in that action and b) am editing in accordance with policy. so once again, I ask - what is the desired outcome here? that I take an oath of allegiance? That I reveal the name of my previous account. If it's the second, I'd like to ask under what basis - considering I've acted entirely in line with policy. I would perfer to be blocked than be forced to reveal my real name. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I welcome people reviewing my edits and am open to action by admin if I have added incorrect - but at the moment, all I see is an attack on me based on the sort of evidence a banana republic would kick out. Please feel free to watch me all you like, but what admin action is needed for someone editing in accordance with policy? --Killerofcruft (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Krufty- I agree with your aims 100% but some of your edit summaries such as 'masturbatory nonsense' are breaches of WP:CIVIL. Working in the areas in which you are working you must realise some of the 'fanboys' may (not saying this is what's happening in this thread) try to get you in trouble with admins etc, so you must be impeccable.:) Sticky Parkin 23:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to discuss a user-with-an-attitude behind his back. If they're right, they don't need to give the game away while investigating. And if they're wrong, they will owe you an apology, for that specific point at least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KoC's last statement. Until someone has concrete evidence of this being a sock of a banned user, or until KoC violates some policy, this discussion is inappropriate. Tan | 39 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

His vulgar editorial comments in the edit summaries are not exactly in line with policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not think the evidence strong enough to file an SSP report, but there is another possibility: Fredrick day, who likewise was a strong anti-cruft activist, and the incivility is familiar. I notice that there was, today, after exchanges with Killerofcruft, vandalism of my user page from IP that would indicate it could be Fredrick day, circumstantial evidence possibly connecting Kc and Fd. I also notice that Kc has refused to email Nwwaew,[61], who offered to assist in establishing the claim to be a legitimate returning user. It should not be ruled out, as well, the possibility that Killerofcruft is a sock for GreenJoe, who seems to have been very attached to deletion of Donna Upson, and Killerofcruft registered in the midst of that AfD. None of these are necessarily likely, which is why I haven't made accusations. This much I can say: the user name and activies so far, with the announced intention to be active with AfD, do not bode well. AfD can be deadly for users who are unable to tolerate disagreement. --Abd (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(written before I saw the following responses) As to violating policy, Koc has announced intentions that could be considered disruptive, and seems to be treating ordinary editorial decisions as the ultimate battle between good and evil. He's essentially jumped into the space vacated by GreenJoe who abruptly announced his retirement when his effort to get Donna Upson deleted was interrupted by details like additional reliable source, a user (me) who when he didn't like an AfD outcome, actually discussed the matter civilly with the closing administrator, who agreed to a better solution that did not prejudice the ultimate outcome, and then, when GreenJoe made a 3rd AfD nomination, precipitous and premature, speedy closed as such, and a started a Deletion Review that, last I saw it, was snowing Endorse, bailed and announced his retirement. This wasn't cruft, it was a BLP with plenty of source already, enough to make the subject at least marginally notable: first AfD, years ago, pretty strongly Keep, second AfD (GreenJoe 1), 50-50 Keep/Delete, and third AfD (GreenJoe 2) snowing keep when speedy closed as premature. The whole affair is puzzling, not sensible based on what's visible. I'm not asking for action against Koc at this time, that's why I didn't bring this here. But I agree that there is cause for concern.--Abd (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I'm starting to get downright fucking upset and angry now - I'd ask that nobody responds to this post for five minutes so I can make a detailed reply. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why all of this should have been handled offline, at least initially. True but premature accusations can give the game away, and false accusations violate the rights of the accused and are themselves policy violations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a request - if anyone else wants to accuse me of being some other user, do they want to make it now? within the space of this single section, I'm accused of being 5 or 6 different users, abd here accuses me of being two different people - and the rest of the "detectives" claiming that my posts are familiar to them and remind them of poster X - so what is it? am I all of those people? maybe I'm the boogie man as well? Isn't this the very definition of a fishing trip?

Secondly, dealing with a specific point of Abd's - that I refused to email Nwwaew - here's my answer - why should I? I've done nothing wrong, I've broke no policy, I've committed no vandalism, I've done NOTHING outside of policy. So why should I be forced to reveal the name (which is also MY name) of my previous unbanned unblocked previous account to some guy I don't know from adam, simply because he demands of me. Don't you see the corner I'm backed into here - I REFUSE to compromise my real world identity - which is the whole fucking point of user NOT having to use their real names. I REFUSE.

Once again - I ask - what admin action is requested here and 2) under what basis is this action to occur? are people just going to be allow to accuse me of being all and sundry depending on whoever dislike? maybe we should just get a virtual ducking stool out and be done with it. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's just remind ourselves what the guidance is here. Trivia sections should not be categorically removed and anyone who does that is at least going against consensus, if not policy. Why should it not raise questions if editors suddenly appear and edit against that consensus? It's arguably an insult to those who have added the information to those articles suddenly to have it swept away. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

and that has what to do with this discussion? it's now an insult to remove original research? I'm not even sure what you are suggesting since I've never (unless I'm having memory lost) - just removed a whole triva section - I've clean a few up but that's not wholesale removal. Is the next accusation going to be that I forget to do a couple of edit summaries? how far is this Star Chamber going to be allowed to do? If people have a problem with my edits, have they considered - communicating this to me via my talkpage? I'm still waiting for an answer for a) what admin action is required and b) on what basis that action should be undertaken? nobody seems to want to answer that question. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So the user is already violating two policies - unilateral deletion without discussion, and incivility. Other since-banned users have roared in here with similar behavior and attitudes, and that's why it raises such a red flag. But discretion would be better in cases like this. Other users should speak to the policy violations, rather than making accusations, which is how this started, i.e. on the wrong foot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

unilateral deletion without discussion - what on earth are you on about? it is CORE policy that original research can be removed on sight, it is also core policy that editors can remove unsourced material on sight. Again I ask, if my edits are so awful and against policy - why haven't I have a SINGLE communication about this on my talkpage - why hasn't their being a SINGLE question directed to me on my talkpage about my edits. why hasn't a single question being asked about my edits on any of the article talkpages. This is now beyond silly. Am I now suppose to responsible for the fact that nobody asked about any of my edits but instead rushed straight to AN/I? how long is this farce going to be allowed to carry on? I have NOT breached any editing policies with any of my edits. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My biggest concern is over deep and uncivil argument; there is plenty of example of it right here, such that if I simply report a set of facts, not deniable, without drawing conclusions from them, another draws the conclusions, describing my comments as "accusations," when, in fact, my writing assumed that there could be reasonable explanations for all of it, and specifically stated that there was not yet sufficient evidence to make accusations, as far as I could tell. If the user is a long-time Wikipedian, with a clean record, as he claims, then surely he would understand that people will comment on appearances, and would respond civilly to such concerns. I'd be concerned, myself, if he were blocked based on what has appeared outside of this AN/I report, though it's certainly possible he should be warned, and this report contains warnings, in fact. It would be a repetition of and continuation of the behavior that could result in blocking. However, what's appearing here more deeply confirms the image I've been acquiring of a user who will turn simple disagreements into "causes," who will cry "abuse" when someone disagrees with him, who will defend himself, vigorously, before he's attacked. I *still* don't think he's crossed the line where a block would be justified, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that come fairly quickly.--Abd (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

His attitude reminds me very much of other banned users, including his defensiveness, using guidelines as a shield, therefore claiming there's no need to discuss first, and hence denial of any policy violation. I can't say just who he reminds me of, because it's not just one specific banned user, it's more like a "type" of banned user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this some Kafka nightmare? we are now moving on to discussing me being blocked? for what? what on earth is going on here? for not being a banned user? for the henious crime of removing some original research? what is my crime here? I give up - I quit - how can I win here? --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are like deja vu over and over again, and that's why you've got everyone suspicious of you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, both GreenJoe and KillerofCruft have edited (and voted the same) in recent Donna Upson AfDs. Jtrainor (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of evidence that they are the same user, that is, instead, the spark that set off this incident, and is, of course, the reason why I raised suspicion that they could be the same user, but this is *still* short of any level justifying action.--Abd (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've read through everything here, but I see no reason to take any action against KoC. There is not actual evidence of sockpuppetry, no evidence of blockable abuse. There appear to be concerns over edits removing material, but the nature of these is such that they should be discussed with KoC on their or the article's talkpages. I would also suggest that KoC takes on board the comments about the civility of their edit summaries. But there doesn't seem to be anything else substantial here beyond conjecture and supposition - if there are editing disputes, take them to talk. If there are civility issues, issue warnings. Finally, let's all just step back, and relax - there's nothing here to get heated about Fritzpoll (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ding ding

not wanting to spoil anyone's fun really - but I think it's probably wise at this stage to point out that User:Killerofcruft is probably trying to get User:JzG in trouble, and in my view is being mischievously disruptive. Block, blank, and move on I'd say. come to my talk for more info if you'd like... Privatemusings (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to spoil your fun, but if you have some evidence of mischievously disruptive behaviour, you'd better list it here. Otherwise noone can act. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course - an editor I've had no contact with and as far as I can see have never edited a single shared article - yes that makes perfect sense. Using this logic, I could be accused of trying to disrupt *any* editor on here. No need to block me, I've retired. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

you've got the tone pretty good.. but you're a bit 'hammy' in places.... you've raised a smile here, but I think if you'd slowed down a bit, it would have worked better for longer! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How am I suppose to respond to posts like that? Isn't anyone going to step in here and ask that some form of solid accusation is made? --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I essentially did above, but let me clarify: Privatemusings - either make an accusation with supporting diffs, or retract this accusation. That should really go for everyone else who is making explicit accusations against this user. So far, everyone is just making claims with no evidence. This is not how we should be treating editors. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I hereby request a solid accusation. If you think he's a banned user that has resurfaced, then keep an eye on his edits and come back to this page when he starts doing disruptive things. If he's a banned user that is now making productive edits, then a miracle has occurred, and rather than blocking him we should welcome him to the community. — Dan | talk 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He's already doing disruptive things, which remind us of other banned users. He should be given a short-term block right now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no grounds for a block - no warnings have been issued, and outside of this discussion, noone has tried to discuss the edits with the user. And appearing to be like a banned user is not the same as actually being one Fritzpoll (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He qualifies, not necessarily for being someone else, but for general incivility and refusal to discuss his deletions before or while doing them. Vulgarities in the edit summaries do not qualify as "discussion". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How can I refuse to discuss that which was never raised to me? not a SINGLE question was posed to me about my removal of original research on either my talkpage or any of the article pages. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Your points would be fine, Bugs, if he had received any warnings or any commentary about actions. How can we expect an editor of 48 hours to know about these things if we leap to AN/I without discussion? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I hope I don't sound harsh when I ask that you please not make comments like that. I asked for a solid accusation -- as in diffs, explanations, evidence, and so on -- and you replied by giving none of those things, and offhandedly calling for a block. Things do not work that way on Wikipedia (except when we screw up, but we try not to repeat those occasions). Again, if you want to call for a block, you must point to particular edits and explain why he should be blocked for them. Ignore the fact that he kinda reminds you of somebody whose edits you've seen before, and keep an eye out for actual disruptive edits. Come back here when you've found some. If you can't find any, drop it. — Dan | talk 00:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Second editor involved with the Donna Upson AfD/AfD/DRV events to "retire" over the fallout. The only reason that there was serious talk of blocking Koc would be his response to some obvious concerns raised here. One thing is clear. This was not an editor cut out for serious work with AfDs, it is sometimes like trench warfare, incivility is common, unfortunately. It shouldn't be too surprising: someone writes an article or edits it to improve it, because they think it's notable, and, after all, it was sufficiently important that they'd take the time to do it. And then along comes along someone else, who, sometimes with cryptic and vague and sometimes insulting language ("Cruft" is borderline uncivil in itself), proposes that it be deleted. It's a set-up for incivility, and those who can't handle disagreement, and even rudeness from those who might disagree with them, shouldn't get involved in it. Write and edit articles, and, within policy, delete improper material, but AfDs involve more drastic results, less easily undone. I've been calling AfD the "editor killer." A lot of editors seem to immolate themselves there. --Abd (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

short explanation

In my view, Killerofcruft is impersonating User:Cruftbane, an acknowledged sockpuppet of JzG. View their userpages as a starting point, and go from there... also take a look at User:MOASPN for a similar situation. Privatemusings (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

what userpage? there isn't one! how long are accusations going to be allowed to carry on? am I suppose to come here and response to every baseless change made. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that it is an impersonation. For that matter how do we know that it isn't JzG himself? really need some supporting evidence fror accusations like that. Viridae^Talk 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Afraid that isn't evidence, Private. Just supposition. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I too see no evidence. I don't know how to "go from there": I can't think like you. This looks to me like a very irresponsible form of pseudo-accusation. — Dan | talk 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this thread needs to end now. I see no evidence presented in favor of blocking this user, and clearly there is no consensus of users in favor of a block. This sort of supposition has gotten us into trouble before. I ask everyone to drop the matter altogether, and start a new thread if you can present diffs to support blocking the user. — Dan | talk 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I would even support archiving this thread of discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like one of you defenders of that user to explain why vulgar edit summaries are acceptable. You want diff's? Well, just scan through the contrib's list, that's easier. [62] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They aren't. So warn the user before requesting blocks at AN/I in the first instance - multiple infractions indivate a need for a preventative block. Blocks are not punative. This isn't about "defending" a user against everything - it is about applying policy appropriately, and treating editors fairly Fritzpoll (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

and the laddering of warnings to tell me not to use such edit summaries occured when? you came to my page to ask me to stop and I didn't? Other people came to my page and asked me to stop and I didn't? Has it missed your attention that since the matter was raised in this AN/I I have cleaned up the tone of my edit summaries. Blockings are preventative not puntative. What preventative action would result from a block at this moment? --Killerofcruft (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ah.. well I'm happy enough to have made the short posts above explaining my perspective - just based on wordings, templates, topics and all that stuff (not so much the current versions, actually....) - perhaps I need to figure out a way of appending a disclaimer to my sig (and I've added the 'in my view' bit above to try and clarify) - swing by my talk page if you'd like to discuss anything further... Privatemusings (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[Comment likely only to lead to further escalation removed. — Dan | talk 01:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)]

Alright, everybody's said his final piece, and this thread has come to an end. Please join us for a short reception, with free tea and cake. — Dan | talk 01:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

CarolSpears RfC

At the suggestion of Carcharoth, I prepared an RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolSpears. This is probably a more appropriate venue to discuss the problem further. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the problems keep getting found. See Talk:Clementine. We're going to need to get a taskforce together to fix this. =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor Vandalism? Not Sure

92.8.139.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I wasn't sure whether this warrants a vandalism report per se but the template is handy for the tools it brings. I originally posted this on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for advice and having contacted an admin who responded have posted it here. There is an IP editor, using a variety of IP addresses has edited articles related to British personalities and removed the term British and relabelled them all as English (Larry Lamb (actor), Joanna Page, James Thornton (actor), Bruce Mackinnon). The latter struck me as strange being a Scottish surname (and we Scots do object to being labelled as English).

This IP editor first came to my attention when I noticed an edit to a date page on my watch list, I then check his other contributions. I've not reverted all his changes, just those that weren't supported by citations. As soon as I've reverted, he immediately undoes those changes and has used a variety of IP addresses (dynamic IP address?). I'm not going to edit war over something so trivial, particularly as I'm not 100% sure his contributions are definitely vandalism. Having tried to explain my reasons for reverting, and issuing 4 content edit warnings it would appear the guy isn't listening.

I originally simply asked for advice but since then the same IP editor has followed me onto a friend's talk page and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Not sure why, though I have an inkling who this is, but they seem to be wikistalking. I would welcome second opinion and advice, I would also re-iterate I'm not edit warring I quit as soon as it was getting silly. Justin talk 23:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. You should try dispute resolution to resolve this. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Death threat in username?

Probably nothing to be concerned about - but I'm reporting Wetter Roberson Dies At Midnight (talk · contribs) (whom I've just blocked as a username violation) here just in case. Thoughts? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Apparently he created the account in order to announce that a cartoonist had died on June 6, which seems to have been a hoax -- I guess his username has something to do with that. He was challenged for it on his talk page. The block is appropriate but I doubt we need to worry about death threats. — Dan | talk 01:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gratuitously long block by User:Neil

Neil (talk · contribs) has, without warning, blocked Alextrevelian 006 (talk · contribs) for one month after he restored what Neil believes to be a BLP violation.[63] Could another administrator please review this? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neil has clearly explained why the editor was blocked. The editor may make an unblock request, but other than that, I don't see any need to change this remedy. I think a week-long block, maybe 2 would've been sufficient, but it really doesn't matter - BLP violations are taken seriously. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume Neil thought there was a connection between Alextrevelian 006 and 71.195.135.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - an IP that was also adding the same image - but it doesn't seem so clear-cut. The two seem to have very different editing patterns until this image thing. I'd vote to unblock entirely, esp. since there was zero discussion or warning. In his block message, Neil makes reference to discussion at Talk:Twink (gay slang) but that discussion shows Neil in the minority, esp. in regards to his immediate blocks. (BTW, I have notified Neil of this thread - let's not forget that important step folks!) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought they must've been the same if they're edit-warring over it - I dunno.

Ordinarily, warnings should come before a block and I'd have supported an unblock on those grounds, however, BLP violations are an exception to this rule - emergency measures may be used and counselling can be given immediately after. In this sense, I don't support an unblock at all. Neil seems to have acted as an administrator on this - not as an editor, and it's not a matter of majority or minority, (although, I'd have preferred if Neil took the action under the new ArbCom BLP-wide remedy). Plus, the page was protected beforehand, and upon unprotection, the blocked editor made the edit. That's not on. At most, I could support a reduction in the duration of the block, but beyond that.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What on earth? This user has been editing in apparently good standing since 2005, and is suddenly blocked without any warnings for a full month because they just happened to make one edit Neil didn't approve of? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I am going to unblock the user immediately, this is an egregious AGF violation. After discussion with the user, this is clearly not a situation where a block was warranted. Prodego ^talk 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've started a thread Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP needs clear images statements to get the ball rolling on adding some language to WP:BLP. The policy was cited but doesn't explain why it would apply to people in images although that may be obvious to experienced users. Banjeboi 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I´m unblocked finally, and thinking how to expose my arguments about a issue so small. Even when I think I´m still right and the image can be used, I´ll try to expose my arguments there. For the moment, thanks for your comments, Luna for those kind words and, of course, Prodego for unblocking me. --ometzit<col> (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of Twinkle

Are these kinds of edit summaries and reverts a misuse of Twinkle and/or generally uncivil?

• 01:13, 23 June 2008
• 01:48, 23 June 2008

Generally, I wouldn't characterize my two posts as "vandalism". This seems a bit hostile, no? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

:The only thing I see as hostile is your offensive edit summary in the previous edit [64]. Glass houses, and all that. Horologium (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Strike my last, and I apologize for my failure to assume good faith. I am aware of the long-running dispute between the two users, and I jumped to conclusions. Horologium (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What edit summary? Please explain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Just noting to Horologium - that's the title of the section he was posting his new message under, not his edit summary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And Levine2112 takes any opportunity to mess with SA that he can. I think it's time to move on.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While Levine2112's comments on ScienceApologist's talk page shouldn't be characterized as vandalism, they certainly serve no purpose other than to annoy ScienceApologist. Given the bad blood between SA and Levine (including bad conduct on both their parts) Levine would have to be naive indeed to expect his remarks to be welcomed on SA's talk page. Given that SA has already been blocked, I think Levine ought to keep his 'bird in the hand' and quit while he's ahead. I think most admins here are sick and tired of seeing them go at it – here or in any other forum – and I am inclined to block Levine2112 for disruptive editing if he shows up on SA's talk page again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, the word "troll" is thrown around these parts just as gratutiously as Alanis misused the I-word, but this really is a textbook example of trolling, and I'm surprised Mr. Levine2112 is allowed to get away with this particular brand of incredible immaturity. Mr. Levine2112, in the one-in-a-billion off-chance that you weren't just trying to provoke Mr. ScienceApologist, you would be well-advised to familiarize yourself with the age-old adage: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire" - or, to tone it down in advance of a sanctimonious link to WP:NPA: If you can't stand the sound of breaking glass, stop throwing stones at glass houses. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice on blocking?

User:Jm0371 (talk) has repeatedly uploaded lots of copyvio images, claiming them to be his/her own work, many of which have been discovered and deleted just in the last week. This isn't the first time that this has happened with this user; if you look at Jm's talk page history, it's full of image copyvio warnings, which Jm then proceeded to delete. Although Jm hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, this appears to be his/her usual pattern: edit several times on one day, do nothing for several days, edit some more on another day, etc., so there's no reason to believe that this lack of recent editing means that Jm isn't planning to continue editing. User:Ruhrfisch (talk) and I, both admins, have been considering at least a longterm block for the copyvios. Neither of us is extremely active in administrator-type actions, and we'd like advice: is this a good idea? Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend's description of our thoughts on this. Would a six month or even longer block be in order here? This is one of those users whose work damages the encyclopedia much more than it helps it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Before considering a block, what about telling the user the consequences of continuing. I have left a clear warning on the users talk page. Perhaps we should see what effect that has? Kevin (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it is always better to warn first, but I also note that 1) this user has deleted all previous warnings and questions about image sources with no replies (not even in the edit summaries) and 2) the images are often cleaned up in such a way that makes it less apparent that they are copyvios. For example, in the Lake County, Ohio courthouse photo, branches were removed except on a statue and the dome. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations are a perfectly fair reason for long-term or even indefinite blocking. Putting the project at legal risk is just as disruptive and potentially damaging as regular vandalism. --jonny-mt 04:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How to respond to threat of blocking, how to get more time to receive info about an article?

I really want to get this question answered because after this is over, I want to write about petroleu, Shell Oil, and other topics.

I have asked for assistance in writing an article. An administrator threatens to block me if I create an article. Here's the history of the matter as objectively as I can report it.

EPISODE 1
I created an article on American author Sam Swope. According to sources, it looks like he won two awards. The article was deleted.

I researched the criteria and found that if an author wins an award, that could mean he is notable. So I recreated the article and mentioned the award. I think it was speedily deleted. I don't agree with the deletion, but I'm willing to drop it.

After it's settled that opponents don't care if an award establishes an author's notability, I let it go.

EPISODE 2
Joey Didier was probably the most notarious kidnapping/murder/male rape in Northern Illinois (people from Northern Illinois consider the north part of the state outside of Chicago to be that area, Chicagoland is the Chicago area). In 1975, the brutal kidnapping, rape, and murder terrorized the community for about 3 weeks. People still remember it today. Even though the city has 150,000 people, over 54,000 people (!) wrote protests or signed petitions in 1999 opposing parole. The killer has had parole denied 17 times. Each time, 10,000 or 50,000 people oppose it. It's probably the most notable murder in the city between 20,000 B.C. and 2008 A.D.

EPISODE 2, ACT 2
I mistakenly wrote an article about Joey Didier. Then someone told me that I should not write on the person but on the murder. The Joey Didier article was deleted. I am an easy to get along person. I can listen and I can live with it. To comply, I created a new article Murder of Joseph Didier. Little did I know that the person who wanted Sam Swope deleted has followed me and is very opposed to the Joey Didier article. I believe he thinks I am defying him and that he is mad that I created the "murder of .." article.

EPISODE 3
I clumsily wrote the Murder of Joseph Didier article. There was a copyright violation alleged even though I quoted the source. So it was deleted. I am not stupid, I learn. I learned not to use so much text even if I note the source.

EPISODE 4
I have totally re-written the murder article. Those people are still mad at me so instead of fighting, I try to find ways to improve the article and explain the notability. I have written for some help and I can further establish notability in about a week or so. This article is now re-nominated for AFD.

I know that the opponents seem to have a hot temper so I ask for temporary suspension of the AFD (even offering to blank the article but keeping it in the history) for a week or so while I wait to receive some information in the mail.

In return, I am threatened by Realkyhick that he will block me or get someone to do it. "re-create the article, you will be blatantly violating Wikipedia policy and will be blocked. " Realkyhick also warns me not to do housekeeping on my own user talk page and say's I'm a vandal for doing some housekeeping of my own user talk page.

For those who know the area in 1975, Didier is truly a notable topic. By trying to help Wikipedia, I get met with threats. Any suggestions on suspending the AFD for a week or so. This is a suggestion instead of possibly re-creating the article in a week or two (which will make a few people really angry). Note that the original AFD of the murder article did have some support about it's notability. About 4 or so people have noted it.

Summary: How to respond to threats? How to have some time to work on an article that I know further information is coming without having to possibly recreate an article and really cause anger?

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joseph_Didier_%282nd_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joseph_Didier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Didier

Presumptive (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should try to take all this a lot less personally. The articles have been deleted or nominated for deletion because they do not meet the notability criteria, not because someone doesn't like you. As for the block warning, blocking is a possible consequence of recreating deleted material. Surely you would not prefer to be blocked without knowing that what you did could lead to that? Kevin (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits like this and much else from the history of your talk pages shows a slightly more tendentious conversation than you represent above. I suggest you provide some of the requested references next time around. Learn from the situation and move forward. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you support Realkyhick. An administrator like him should not resort to threats and hostility. If additional time to recreat articles isn't granted (even with the offer of blanking the article page for a week or two), then Wikipedia suffers. Presumptive (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Orgone

I'd like, as a newish editor, to request a close oversight of the Orgone page, including talk, history and conversation at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in order to proceed with good faith, particularly after the removal of a comment of mine from a talkpage. I would like administrators to determine whether any editors' participation has been disruptive, including my own, for I have no such intention. Redheylin (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal in question. –Gunslinger47 04:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also find that the above user has stalked me through this incident to the above page and to this one, as well as to the user pages of other editors, adding to my comments with widely varying intent:

If I may offer some well-meaning advice: You were in the right, yet you were still blocked. Gunslinger47 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following his edits. Since I've met him, he has assumed bad faith in his every dispute –Gunslinger47 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redheylin (talk • contribs)

…I'm an arbitrator. I was trying to help you. Have fun then, later. –Gunslinger47 04:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)