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

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff [1] IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [2] IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff [3] by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [4] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [5] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:166.70.238.43

I don't know what one word of this means but it looks like trouble so I thought an admin should check it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive474#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey alleged real-life stalking/harassment Brilliantine (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that WP:OUTING going to be allowed to stay there? Corvus cornix_talk 19:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has responded, so I blanked the page. Corvus cornix_talk 05:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be brought to the attention of WP:OFFICE, and then subsequently be oversighted. Not entirely sure how to undertake the former step though. Orderinchaos 07:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Have emailed it. Orderinchaos 08:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

Request that user be asked to stop tagging articles and that an admin try and enforce this. He/she says that this is an ownership issues that I may be blocked for ([6]), but I believe his tags are quite impartial and done not so much as to aid wikipedia as to pester me, because of our ongoing dispute resolution ([7]) and other encounters such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• tags
• reason for tags
• third party editor reinstating tag
• personal attack calling me a "troll"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, as your second link shows you've started mediation as a dispute resolution, and despite requests have failed to provide diffs clarifying what your dispute is.[8] The fact that others have problems with your woolly writing is something to resolve by improving your writing, not by flying off into disputes whenever that's pointed out. Disclaimer: I'm named in Firefly's mediation case, but lacking diffs I'm not sure why. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, basically, with Dave s. I don't see the "issue" here. Yeah, Hrafn and Firefly disagree on some stuff. That ain't newsworthy. Nobody is trolling anybody here, based on the links provided. This is a non-issue thread, and should be closed. If Firefly has a specific issue with an editor, F-fly should bring it to that editor's attention prior to bringing it to the drama-board. Keeper ǀ 76 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, essentially. The majority of this dispute seems to arise from a misunderstanding of Verifiability policy, particularly WP:BURDEN. I don't think that uncited material should be restored pending verification, and I certainly don't think an editor should be reprimanded for removing uncited material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Catherineyronwode

The following is taken from the current version of my own AN/I proposal against hrafn, located on my own user pages.

(removed to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn by Orderinchaos 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Take it to dispute resolution. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

o.O I think you've mistaken ANI for requests for comment, at the least, or arbitration. Kudos for the substantial amount of evidence gathering here, but ANI's not the place for such lengthy presentations. I suggest an RFC if there's a specific issue with hrafn that needs discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this? Verbal chat 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree; it's a nightmare of comprehension and deserves dedicated attention. No way is it an "incident". Suggest at best a subpage, otherwise moving to a Request for Comment. This page is for issues that can be dealt with expeditiously. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Okay, must i make a Request for Comments first or can this go directly to Arbitration? Please post a yes or no reply. If i must make a Request for Comments first, please tell me how to do it. If i can take this directly to Arbitration, please tell me the relevant URL. Wikipedia is not my social outlet; i use it as a volunteeer area to write and edit. I am not interested in bureaucracy (e.g. how this MUD is run), and although i have edited here regularly since 2006 (and since 205 as an IP), i do not know how to make headway in this twisty turny maze of similar-sounding-but-entirely-different "We Can't Help You With That Problem" pages. I request the URL of the page where there will be people whose job it is to read this complaint and see that this problem be dealt with. Thanks. cat yronwode

I believe that that is common practice except in extraordinary cases, yes. Of course, nobody has the job of dealing with user complaints, but a number of friendly volunteers may be motivated to treat with you and discuss intereditor issues at a request for comment. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users has the instructions for posting an RfC/U. The request itself should be posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Please keep in mind that all normal user conduct policies and norms apply to requests for comment, including no personal attacks and no harassment. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've copied it across to RFC - it can't go straight to ArbCom until efforts have been made to resolve the matter through some form of dispute resolution. If the RFC is sufficiently decisive and no change of behaviour is noticeable, then it could go to ArbCom if need be. Catherine's welcome to edit it to get it into the right form before it is listed and goes live (also needs a second observer of the situation to certify it in order for it to be a valid RfC). I have no opinion either way on the matter, but AN/I is definitely the wrong place for it - AN/I is a high traffic area where stuff moves through in the blink of an eye, this would have simply ended up in some forgotten archive within 2 days. Orderinchaos 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin censoring news of possible Wikiquote deletion

• Meta is discussing the deletion of Wikiquote, so I left a note with a link to this debate at the Pump.
• The post was censored a few hours later by self-proclaimed "rouge admin" User:Mr.Z-man. The deletion was made under a false pretense since a single post on the Pump is hardly "canvassing", and the post could have been amended if needed instead of suppressing the information entirely.

How an admin is allowed to act like that (and augment the apparence that something's fishy) I'll never understand. 62.147.37.92 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(You mean "rogue", not "rouge". "Rouge" is a color and a cosmetic. Saw the same error twice on Slashdot this morning.) --John Nagle (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is supposed to be rouge (it's an old joke). -- Donald Albury 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the English language Wikipedia? Corvus cornix_talk 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to all wikimedia users, particularly users of english projects - english wikipedia just happens to be one of the largest projects. --Random832 (contribs) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote is pretty much worthless. It doesn't have the kind of rigor demanded in wikipedia, so it's all OR; and it's generally run in a sloppy way - you might see the same quote several times within a given subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't believe the problem is that it's worthless, but that it is a liability. There are entire farms of egregious copyright violations in there, and no requirement for any sort of actual, you know, quotability of the material. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The thread was basically telling people to go and oppose the thread on meta. I have no problem with linking to the discussion, but please write such messages neutrally (as I said in the edit summary, if you had bothered to read it before reverting me and coming here). "There is a discussion on meta about disbanding Wikiquote" (with a link) would suffice. And then using words like "censored" while at the same time inviting me to amend it to make it neutral? And thanks for informing me of this discussion. Mr.Z-man 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And yes, leaving a biased message is considered canvassing (campaigning, to be precise). Mr.Z-man 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the heat we took the last time we sent a notice about a Meta discussion, I'm not sure canvassing in the WP projects about this is a great idea (and that the people at Meta will thank you for it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• My personal scorefile gives -5 for censorship and -7 for suppression, less than -10 and you're in the "Nutters: Ignorable" category. Just for info, you understand. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Heh. Good analysis as always Guy. That said, I like Wikiquote. That's where I started (pre-en-wiki), and where I frequently refer. I don't edit there though. If there's a way to salvage it, I'm game. Keeper ǀ 76 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The concept of wikiquote is not bad. It's just that there's no oversight. It should be like the wikipedia article about city nicknames. Someone's oversighting that one, and anything with no citation gets zapped. If there were some discipline in wikiquote, it could be worth saving. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about broken diff in original post which has since been repaired

This is kinda off-topic, but am I the only one getting a really, really weird diff when clicking on the link above? One side of the diff shows an edit from Talk:List of German proverbs, the other the actual revert, and the title says "Talk:List of German proverbs, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)" o.O --Conti|✉ 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Same here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC) It looks like two characters were truncated from the original diff given ("79" should follow at the end). Here's what it should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=237518501&oldid=237507479 -- interesting -- I didn't know you could even "diff" between two separate pages. Antandrus (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Ah, that explains it. So you can basically diff any page with any page? That's weird. --Conti|✉ 23:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I never knew that... perhaps it's new? --Tango (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing blocked for edit-warring personal attacks.

Those of you with long memories will remember this user, who has twice been banned by the Arbitration Committee for a year at a time. This user has just come off his second year long ban, and has gotten back into one of his old, bad, habits, which is edit-warring a section on his user page accusing another user of being a stalker. He refused to stop edit-warring that section in, despite a consensus on ANI at the time (see User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_13#Your_.22stalker.22_paragraph_on_your_userpage and sections below that for his intransigence on the issue). He's now returned from his second ArbCom ban, and is edit-warring again. I have blocked him 24 hours for it. I am bringing up this fairly uncontroversial issue because another administrator, User:Neil, who probably wasn't aware of the previous discussion (I'm trying to find the diff of the ANI discussion for it), and wasn't sure that it was controversial. SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing Is the previous discussion on this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so soon? That's too bad. You made the right call here. Shereth 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in my view a deplorable block and a deplorable block report, a completely wretched administrative action.

Sir Fozzle has provoked an edit war with a user with whom per Archive263#User:Pigsonthewing he has been in dispute with in the past; he hasn't just stumbled upon it, he has been the knowing precipitator of it.

Sir Fozzle knew at the time of his intervention that Neal had already started to talk to Andy in a respectful rather than an imperative tone about the notice but appears to think his own warn, war & ban approach superior.

The notice itself is entirely composed of Leonig's words. It is entirely possible to read it as a statement of facts and not as an attack. If we assume good faith, we must accept that it is not a categorical conclusion that it is an attack, and we should therefore tread with a care entirely lacking in the implementation of this block. We may nevertheless deplore the notice. But we have not been stalked by Leonig and we are in a different headspace entirely.

The block is entirely partisan, precipitate, arrogant, ill-considered and petty. It is absolutely the single least likely means of effecting change in the situation. It is the single most likely means of ensuring this whole notice thing will continue to rumble on with the same pattern of escalation. A completely counterproductive move which once more is most likely to lose us once more the services of an very good & productive editor.

I'm sorry. My view is that this block is both dim witted and abusive, and the block report entirely disingenuous. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can lay off the personal slander for starters, Tagishsimon. It doesn't further your case or cause. After reviewing the block and the prior actions of Pigsonthewing, I am endorsing the block. seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, Tagishsimon, there was a consensus already that the section was a personal attack. You yourself participated in that discussion (linked above). You may not agree with it, I understand, but consensus backs me in this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To clear one thing up, I have "known" Andy since prior to his first block, and was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the issues he has/had with Leonig Mig. I don't think this block was particularly appropriate, as I had already begun to engage with Andy over his voluntarily removing it. SirFozzie was aware of this, and perhaps talking to me first rather than edit warring over the section and blocking Andy might have been a better route to go down. Andy is a difficult character at times, prone to "I know best" - a trait he shares with many admins! - but responds far better to polite requests as opposed to orders. If this ends up with Andy/Pigsonthewing being indef blocked after he responds badly to this baiting, I will be very disappointed but not suprised. Neıl ☄ 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't it have been better to protect his userpage rather than block him? Most of his editing is fine, and protecting the userpage would have allowed that to continue. Seriously, if a year's block didn't dissuade him from adding the section, what difference is 24 hours more going to make? Neıl ☄ 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was actually tried last time. He started adding it to his user talk page instead. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of a vendetta being carried on beyond all sense, since Mig has not edited more than very occasionally all year. Pigs knows this is a problem, and his edit summary accusing others of vandalism for reverting it is unacceptable. If this ends up with him being blocked, then I won't be especially disappointed; if I can learn to walk away from those who bait me then so can he, especially when they do not seem to be active. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support block (of any length) - the stalking note is a reference to events in July 2005 which have been hashed and rehashed dozens of times. 3 years have passed - let us move on. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In a clear case of Back to the Future, he is now again adding it to his user talk page (because that is the only page he is able to edit while blocked). The next time he adds the section, to ANY page, I will block him indefinitely, until such time as he agrees to not add that section anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy twice gets blocked for a full year, waits for his sentence to expire, and starts in again, and gets blocked again? Is there an anti-barnstar for ultra-patient vandals? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking at admin discretion. I remember all the previous history of this debate, and in my opinion (as admin and bureaucrat of another wiki with over 3 years' experience) this kind of thing is ultimately detrimental to the project. As the history shows, Pigsonthewing has continued to disregard the Wikipedia way of doing things, and has no problem using inflammatory language and personal attacks when it suits him despite his vociferous protestations about others doing the same. Codeine (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, he did it twice more, and in response I have blocked him indefinitely, and protected his user talk page for 48 hours due to disruption. When it expires, if he wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is state that he will cease and desist from adding attacks on another user, and drop the grudges. SirFozzie (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you need to step back and let another admin handle this. You are very clearly involved in this based on the previous discussions, and it seems like you're just looking for an ax to grind with him. I'm by no means Andy's biggest fan (and in the past I've railed against him for his attitude and the actions he takes), but it would be more appropriate to let someone fresh deal with it (such as Neil). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Community ban time?

The block log is deplorable, has waited a year to continue the same grudge, has twice been banned by arbcom for a year in seperate cases. Do we need him here anymore? Viridae^Talk 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, we don't, as I learnt from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. The problem isn't Andy's encyclopedia-editing skills, it's the fact that he cannot cope with people disagreeing with him. When they do, he flames them, which he's been doing both here and, I believe, on Usenet, for a very long time. Two arbcom bans? And still more drama? Forget it, we don't need this guy. Moreschi (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, he's here to war with the community, not to write an encyclopedia. It amazes me that he comes of a ban and continues his ways. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As Moreschi says, his encyclopaedia-writing skills are actually quite good. There are not many editors who have gone through two year-long bans and returned, still committed to writing an encyclopaedia. For that reason I think it is worth trying to talk to him; if talking him round proves impossible, it may still be possible to work something out. Therefore oppose for the time being. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • People have been trying to talk to Andy for years. They've failed. He cannot get along with people who even mildly disagree with him, and we will not change him. He's too stubborn, as the fact that's returned after two AC bans shows. Moreschi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• This sort of attitude is not appropriate, no matter how otherwise excellent the other contributions might be. Not getting the hint after two year-long bans pretty much garantees that the point won't be gotten, ever. — Coren ^(talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Normally I would say this is being too quick to jump the gun, but given the unrepentant interest in continuing to hold a grudge long after the fact, I am forced to come to a different conclusion. The fact that after a year's ban he wastes no time in continuing with the vendetta, edit-warring over it, and going so far as to perpetuate the problem on his talk page after he was issued a block indicates that Andy has no interest in standing down, and that no amount of blocking or admonishing will get him to stop. Unfortunately I have to agree that a community ban may indeed be in order. Shereth 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is probably a case of Wikipedia is not therapy. Everything that can be tried, has been - he and Wikipedia just aren't a good fit. Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I wish Potw well in his endeavors - elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As noted, he's been through two year long bans, if Neil wants to try and work with him, I believe he should be allowed to do so. But not with SirFozzie edit warring and blocking him... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, if he hasn't given in cross two year long bans, he's not going to, period. The consensus here shows that I was right to act as I have. Also, before you posted, I unprotected his page and offered to unblock him if he will agree not to post that section anymore. I have the feeling, he will just seize the chance to insert the section once more. It's worth a shot at extending the olive branch at least once more.. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You should unblock entirely and defer to an uninvolved admin. Looking at the edit history of his userpage makes it clear that this is something you're too close to be objective with. I won't touch the comment about consensus, since there's really only a handful of people involved in this discussion (certainly not a quorum for an indef ban). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. Pigs' got so many admins on the 'prior conflicts' list that your suggestion is not that feasible. Either we get a new, uninvolved admin to review Pigs' history every time, costing any admin sucker enough to try it so much of their volunteer time that Pigs can claim stale report by the time adjudication arrives, or we rely on the numerous editors and admins who've been through all this and know the situation to deal with it. And Pigs will use up all the uninvolved admins fast if you insist on that approach, leaving us with no one to adjudicate, because everyone will be 'contaiminated'. I hate that idiotic meme that everyone here deserves a totally neutral viewpoint which can only be found in those who don't know the situation, it's naive in the extreme. Ban Pigs now. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Fantastic, could you please make your comments without resorting to personal attacks ("Pigs") next time? It'll make it easier to take you seriously. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That's part of the name he chose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
            • And anyone looking at anything he's written in talk space sees he signs his name as "Andy", not "Pigs". —Locke Cole • t • c 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • If he has an issue with his user ID being shortened to "Pigs", then he can bring it to someone's attention. Calling someone by a short version of their chosen user ID is not a personal attack, nor does he need someone playing "nanny" for him. If he has an issue with it, he can post it on his talk page, and I don't see anything there about that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Locke it is part of his username, and therefore not a personal attack. If he wishes to be called something else, I'm sure he can let it be known. Ignore that - he does object to the use of that shortening (though why I'm not sure) See the first arb case. Viridae^Talk 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, he logged an objection. But by choosing such a name, he sets himself up for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• If Andy is to stay around, something's got to change, and given that two ArbCom bans don't seem to have changed anything, I've no idea what would cause the needed change. I don't like getting rid of productive editors, mind you, so if we can think of another solution, we should, but I have no good ideas. Mentorship is the closest I can come up with, but I struggle to believe Andy would accept the idea in the first place and, even if he did, heed his mentor's warnings. So basically you've got me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentorship seems reasonable, but indef blocking and edit warring with him (by someone who was previously involved prior to his last ban) is hardly the way to start. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• My first thought was that maybe he was some high school kid. But he claims to be a professional writer. How about blocking him for another year and see if he improves a year from now. If not, block him again for another year. Even the most stubborn mule (or pig) has a chance of getting the hint eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I should start here by declaring that I have "known" Andy for rather more years than most people here. It must be about 10 years ago that we were both usenet regulars. As such, I suppose that I have had longer than most to understand how Andy ticks! I've also had the experience of meeting him once in person (in a pub in Birmingham). I've had just about no contact with him since we both drifted away from usenet, and by the time I started editing Wikipedia in earnest, Andy was already in the throes of Arbcom troubles. So, whilst we are by no means hand-in-glove, I believe that I can understand better than most where the issues are, and I'm happy to volunteer to mentor Andy (if he'll have me). I would oppose a community ban at the present time. Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What is your honest opinion on the likelyhood of him serious changing his ways? Viridae^Talk 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My honest opinion is that it is very easy to not see the wood for the trees, and to get into a bunker mentality (I've done so on usenet in the past), and to get into a self-destructive loop over it. It is bloody hard to break that loop, but it invariably involves somebody that isn't part of "the opposition" saying something. I can't guarantee to work miracles, but if I'm prepared to put the effort in, I hope the community will support me by backing my efforts to get Andy back where he should be, adding content. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well my suggestion is that you start talking to him before he digs the hole any deeper. Getting to honestly admit he has done the wrong thing and to give an assurance that he will drop the grudge would be a start. Viridae^Talk 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I fired off an e-mail to hikm at the same time as I made my original offer. Let us see what transpires Mayalld (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would oppose a community ban on the basis that he is a good faith user, and the broad majority of his editing improves the encyclopaedia. This was not the case at the time of his last ArbCom one-year ban, but is now. The latest matter relates to a three-year-old dispute with a single user, and very little seems to be being done in furtherance of it outside the user's own userspace. I think someone like Mayalld may be able to help here. Orderinchaos 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban at this time. It seems to me that anyone in his position would look at this discussion and be nervous enough to cease the problematic editing. Granted, he might be exceptionally stubborn, but I'd rather treat this as a warning. He's a productive, good faith editor, and coming back to us after two year-long bans demonstrates remarkable dedication. I don't think what we've seen so far is severe enough to outweigh all that. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What it demonstrates is stubbornness to an obsessive degree. But if it's just one particular user he has a problem with, maybe a compromise could be worked out to somehow keep them away from each other - to not edit the same articles, for example. That's called a "topic ban", and he could edit other topics freely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am trying to engage with Andy (see his User talk:Pigsonthewing on the matter) - he has shown a willingness to listen to me in the past (nb - just changed my username from Neil!). I would like to try and see if I can bring about a change in his unfortunate proclivity for picking at old, old feuds through discussion, as he is an excellent contributor for the most part (including being the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats). I would prefer not to see any community block enacted until I have had a chance to try and bring about an amicable solution. Thanks. fish&karate 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Also, please do not refer to him as "Pigs". He - understandably - doesn't like it, and some of you may not be aware this was actually a point of contention in his original Arbcom case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Use of the epithet "Pigs".) fish&karate 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, slightly off-topic, but... why does he keep using the name "Pigsonthewing" if he always just signs as "Andy Mabbett" and hates the fact that people abbreviate his username to "Pigs"? Surely a name change would fix that problem and alleviate the frequent confusion about his name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would, and I will suggest that to Andy, but we cannot force a user to change their name if it meets our current guidelines. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If he continues to use that name, he has little room for complaint if someone abbreviates it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  No, but now you at least, Baseball Bugs, are clearly aware it's upsetting; if you use it again, I'll consider it deliberate baiting. fish&karate 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you look closely, you'll see that I haven't called him anything yet. If I were to call him anything, it would probably be "Mabbett", since I don't know him well enough to call him by his first name. And here's a guy who's had a lengthy history of being belligerent, with incredibly long blocks, and you're worried about upsetting him? Why? Are you afraid he's going to get madder? Why are you still messing with this character? Ban him and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Besides, its only polite... SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban – there is User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing_2 on his talk page which encapsulates his views, and repeats the references to Mig from 2005; and there are his continuing reactions today on his talk page remorselessly repeating the same refrain. The guy is incorrigible. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Neil Fish and karate (err...interesting name choice :) should be allowed to try and bring about a change. Making Fish and karate his mentor for a few months might also work. Should either measure fail, then I think the community ban should be enacted (but not without trying either of those measures first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Fish and chops"? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Or "Fish and punch"? :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Progress

See User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Another_opinion - I believe progress is being made, and Andy is about to agree not to restore the material again. Again, I don't want to see the editor who made things like this possible being indef-blocked over a silly grudge. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish&Karate (re:Neil) is working on a solution, that if Andy refrains from adding the information again, unless Leonig returns and harasses HIM first, he will be unblocked. I have given Neil my full support on this. Basically, as was stated above.. if he adds it or anything similar to it again, he will be re-blocked. (bah! He beat me to it ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

HaHA! :) fish&karate 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I see no reason to keep the community ban proposal open - seems to be a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, don't do it yet. POTW's response is less promising then I would like. [[9]] SirFozzie (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on doing it, for this one anyway. :) But I do think that given he's blocked, and Neil is trying to discuss it with him, it's a bit of a moot point - expecting the desired outcome to result from those discussions within a few hours is like a complete miracle for a user who was banned for 2 years. It probably needs a few days. If there is no change in 2 weeks (maximum), then I think reopening the community ban discussion would be more productive. My thoughts anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As he's already indefinitely blocked, unless an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is de facto community blocked. At the moment the only administrator even considerig unblocking him seems to be me, and his response (as Fozzie mentions) wasn't promising. Andy's forthcoming answer to the short question I just posted on his talk page may decide whether I feel up to continuing to engage with him. fish&karate 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this for reasons similar to those expressed by Locke Cole above... better to let people who haven't been as contentiously involved in the past take the lead here. Fish and karate is doing a very good job in that regard.

Andy's like alot of old Usenet regulars I've known... for him this is a matter of principles. Ordering and/or blocking him will never ever get him to do things your way. It'd be 'wrong' to sacrifice principle and 'bow to authority' that way. You need to convince him of the benefits of your position. If you don't have the patience for that... let someone else do it. Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works. So we can have patience with the occasional non-conformist... or stomp them into paste. In my experience stomping is the usual solution, but patience generally yields the better results. --CBD 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works." Good quote to use about people refusing to obey his order not to shorten his chosen user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is someone that has been "problematic" for a long time - see, for example, User_talk:CBDunkerson/Archive4#Andy_Mabbet - and I am still trying. Being an old Usenet regular does not mean my patience is infinite, nor is the community's (obviously). What he wants (to be allowed to continue to rake up a three-year old feud) is not going to happen, and if he won't back down on that, he will remain unable to edit outside his talk page. fish&karate 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

A poll (that multiple editors have already stated does not have options available that encapsulate their actual views to begin with) has started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date format resolution attempt. This poll (initially launched in terms of "voting"; I have adjusted the language) was already further undermined by (since-reverted) inclusion of a "the vote so far" summary embedded in the middle of the poll (a strong biasing tactic). Now, one participant invested in this debate has launched a second, "run-off" poll to "vote" (that editor's words, not mine) on which of two options from the original poll to choose between, before the first poll has concluded (it's only been running for a few hours), and despite both criticism of the original poll and criticism of the use of outright voting as a substitute for consensus-building. I have tried to get the point across both at that page and the talk page of the user in question, Greg L, who reverted removal of the pre-emptive second poll). I believe the second poll to be genuinely disruptive and a massive PoV-pushing exercise. Disclaimer: I have added a !vote to the poll, but I do not have a particularly vested interest in the outcome of it, which is actually so far going pretty much the way I would like, and is a tempest in a teapot anyway. This ANI report is about an editing behavior issue, not a topical viewpoint. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Greg L added a second, redundant heading to the talk page in an attempt to direct more editors to his railroading second poll. I think this constitutes evidence of WP:DE (and WP:CANVAS, in that there is no consensus for a second poll at all, and registered opposition to the idea already). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: WP:NPA violation [10] (accused me of vandalism). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to the interpersonal bits, that kinda-RFC seems needlessly complicated. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been raised as well, but isn't why I'm here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: [11] More canvassing for disputed second poll, including declaration of what the two "run-off" winners are, despite no consensus that poll is closed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to bring the hammer down, Rubber Duck. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• To the admins. Tony asked me to post a poll (which I did) and then he put this notice regarding that poll on the Village pump so many editors could participate. The position of SMcCandlish is clear with his 4-0-0-0 vote. He participated in a poll, and then he declared that he thinks all polls to be evil. Clearly, a lot of editors want to participate in this because very many have participated in it and also engaged in well behaved debate and discussion. SMcCandlish is out of step with the rest of us. We’re trying to see if we can develop a consensus here and his obstructionist moves are getting in the way of that objective. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well. Just because someone participates in a poll doesn't require them to like it. I vote, I am not therefore required to like the US system of elections. My suggestion is that you guys carve out a new talk page section and discuss changes to this like they did over at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. There we had a few editors adding and removing proposals and we spent some time to hash it out before moving on. Nothing is really going to permanently damage this discussion, so I would cool down on the crisis mode. Protonk (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Why the crisis? I am astonished SMcCandlish’s effort to ratchet up the tenor here; everything had been going very smoothly on WT:MOSNUM and all the editors (with one notable exception) have been very civil and constructive. Note the total lack of rancor here at the vote comments. May I suggest we let Tony, who sort of serves as a moderator of sorts on MOSNUM, weigh in over there after he wakes up? Australian time you see. I don’t perceive an imperative to move the polls off of Talk:MOSNUM since discussing dates is just about the only thing that is done over there as of late; that’s what the venue is for after all. Greg L (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed (in response to Protonk). Wanting to participate in a poll is not sign at all on other editors' part that they want someone to control the poll in a highly manipulative way. In response to Greg L: You're the one in WP:PANIC mode, closing polls prematurely, announcing "run-off votes" before the original has closed, declaring poll results after only a matter of a few hours, reflexively reverting well-explained opposition to these moves, and launching into blatant personal attacks (accusations of "vandalism" and "censorship"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Also, I did not declare polls to be evil; please do not mischaracterize what I wrote. I said that they are rarely actually helpful. If you want to call me "obstructionist" with regard to not letting a single party railroad a consensus discussion, then fine. I'm certainly not obstructionist with regard to actually coming to a genuine consensus on the issue, a process this poll is not helping with by polarizing the debate and forcing editors to literally vote (Greg L's wording) on options they don't actually even agree with. That the debate has been civil is not a point in favor of Greg L's view (nor against it); it is simply normal - Wikipedians are supposed to be civil. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: WP:3RR reached (not yet breached): *[12] reverted (in different wording) [13]. (which was a revert on my part)

• [14] reverted [15] (which was a revert on my part)
• [16] reverted [17] and a previous version (addition by someone else).
• Technically there actually was a fourth one, but it was a housekeeping removal of some junk code that was accidentally re-inserted, so I don't count that one, nor stuff in the nature of an alteration rather than reversion. Warning in order? I think all of the above clearly establishes as pattern of WP:OWN over this "vote", as well as all the other problems already raised. The fact that someone "asked him" to start a poll doesn't mean it gets to go his personal way by fiat. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, my comment was an admonishment to both editors. Stop reverting over the format and nature of the poll. Figure out between the two of you what you can agree on at the talk page. Slow down. If the whole thing weren't so durn complicated, I would make a direct suggestion, but as it stands all I can do is make general suggestions. If you both keep up this reverting and escalating business (and greg, it's you too), neither will be happy with the results. Protonk (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I won't revert anything further there. That's why I came here - I find revert wars to be completely pointless. The damage has already been done. What could have been a possibly informative poll has turned into an invalid farce, and I don't think that can be undone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to update WP:LAME. That is by far, the most asinine poll/vote/not vote/thread I've ever seen. Keeper ǀ 76 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, I think that posting here was one of the more creative (albeit possibly inappropriate) ways to drum up interest in a discussion, than I've seen lately : ) - jc37 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, someone needs to read Arrow's impossibility theorem. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. WP:Canvas “is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.” I have done none of that. And the only disruptive editor over on WT:MOSNUM were caused by SMcCandlish. Everything was peaceable and without rancor until SMcCandlish charged into the middle of the event, claimed that all polls are evil, and deleted an entire poll. I ask that SMcCandlish be required to post evidence of my canvasing, and (when he is unable to demonstrate as much), that he be sanctioned for coming here to sling bucket-fulls of muck on the wall in hopes that something would stick. I ask that he be sanctioned for bringing false charges. Greg L (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Two personal attacks don't make a civil comment. You weren't canvassing, per se, but neither is candish railing on about the evils of voting or 'charging in', or doing things with buckets and muck. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Greg L: Again, please stop falsifying my statements. I did not "delete an entire poll", I deleted your attempt to create an empty new poll that undermined the first one's (already questionable) results. The discussion was actually quite lively; your implication that all was quiet on the front is false (as already noted, the fact that no one has been flaming and attacking - other than you - is neither here nor there). As for canvassing, read it more closely. It is not limited to posting individual notes on individual's talk pages. Your two attempts in a row to direct all editorial attention at that page to your pre-emptive second poll when the legitimacy of that poll itself and even its existence on the page are the subject of editorial dispute is very clearly canvassing. I close by noting that I've not asked for any sanctions against you at all, other than being warned to chill out (which Protonk has done, and I don't mind being warned myself in the process), because I've been assuming good faith even if complaining of misguided action. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• The record is clear as to what happened. I don’t need to characterize or mischaracterize anything you did or didn’t do. I’ll let the admins deal with you. And no, everything I did was entirely out in the open right on the talk page of MOSNUM. Your charges are without foundation and everything you wrote above was nothing but salacious false fabrications. Did you see anyone else on WT:MOSNUM complaining about my job of moderating the voting? I count just one editor: YOU. And why would that be the case? Your “4-0-0-0” vote betrays your extreme bias. You should be sanctioned for what you’ve done. Goodbye. I’m too pissed off with this stunt of yours at the moment to further deal with you here. Greg L (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mischaracterization: Protonk noted that you were mischaracterizing me even before I did. Admins: I haven't done anything worthy of admin attention. In the open: Of course it was in the open; everything, including your revertwarring, is in the open on a Wiki. That doesn't make everything that happens on a Wiki a good idea. Fabrications: I've linked to diffs. You can't really fabricate anything on a wiki. Complaints: Yes, there are others. Several respondents to the poll noted that its options were too limited, and below on this page another echoes my concerns about your closing it prematurely and selecting two options from it for a "run-off", while both there and here editors have commented that it is too complicated (and "lame" according to one). Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Flagging inappropriate behavior does not require a vote, and a lack of 100 people flagging it as inappropriate doesn't make it appropriate. Extreme bias: I think this really, really gets to the core of the matter: You are clearly not interested in valid poll results, but in getting your way and mischaracterizing others as extremists if you set up a (skewed) 4-option poll and then actually publicly castigate people for selecting one of the options! And (not that it's important) I clearly explained my rationale. I have no particular bias at all; I see A and B as identical, C as a minor variant of it, and D as irrelevant, and explained clearly that whatever the outcome, WP:MOSNUM and WP:ENGVAR should not conflict with each other. I'd say that's a completely rational and calm position. Sanctioned: For what? I've used WP:ANI for what it is for: flagging revertwarring, personal attacks and other disruptive editing. You on the other hand, with this post above, have just now personally attacked me for the fourth time in fewer hours. Pissed off: WP:TEA, WP:MASTADON. If you have become too emotionally involved in an editing dispute and can't control your temper with regard to it, then it is time to back off. I don't really have anything else to say on these matters and will return to WP:MOSNUM with a proposal for non-voting discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of people would see me as anything but a moderator at MOSNUM; rather, a partisan activist. However, on this matter, the reason I havn't indicated my preferences on the table (better word than vote) is that I can't decide between two of the options. I regard both Greg L and SMcCandlish as allies (not on all issues, but certainly in general); this puts me in a difficult situation. All I really wanted in suggesting the tabular idea was to bring us closer to a decision on this important matter. I haven't ventured onto MOSNUM talk yet, but will later today. Tony (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I have tried to make clear, this is a procedural matter, not one about which option in the poll is "better". We cannot launch polls, characterized as outright votes, and then manipulate them the entire time they a running until until we personally like the results, and then exclude the ones we don't like. And, yes, I am most often in agreement with Greg L, but the over-control of this poll has really been a nasty surprise. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As a keenly interested participant, I'd like to say that I think that good will is running pretty high on this. It's more of a misunderstanding than anything else. To begin with, it's just a poll, and while it will aid in consensus-building over what has been a spirited discussion, it's not going to have any binding result. Tony and Greg have done well to get a poll going in such an excellent format, where results and trends are immediately clear. I've advised all participants in the previous discussion, and one or two other places, such as VPP about the poll, and I think it needs time, maybe a week from first being put up, for everyone to have an input. While a run-off is a good idea, I'd like votes in the original poll to trickle out before starting a new one. I also think that wording of the two options could be tweaked a bit to tersen them up a bit. One of the two run-off options contains a bit more electioneering than is strictly necessary, and the other has grown more verbose than needful. If Greg could perhaps be persuaded to withdraw the run-off for a few days, at least until editors have stopped voting in the original poll? --Pete (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"While a run-off is a good idea, I'd like votes in the original poll to trickle out before starting a new one...until editors have stopped voting in the original poll." Yes, indeed. That's what brought me here, Greg L's pre-emptive closing of the poll after only hours and launching a new poll with his chosen two options, and blanket reverting opposition to this inexplicable move, twice in a row. I've never claimed that there was no good-will toward the original poll, only that several have expressed concerns about its neutrality. If someone else wants to deal with this, that's up to them. I've already stated above that I'm not going to revert these moves again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those pages suffer from WP:TLDR; there's some relationship between verbosity and editors attracted to MoS (Tony seems to be an exception). I don't have time to read all of that, so I won't enter the "vote". Seriously, everyone who participates in MoS discussions needs to work on keeping commentary in digestibly sized chunks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• There. I listened to my “Relax” playlist on iTunes last night and slept on it. And now I know exactly what pissed me off about the knee-jerk reaction of SMcCandlish in coming to ANI to post a complaint. One word: censorship. Anytime someone posts a contentious guideline to WP:MOSNUM that is contrary to the consensus view and/or wasn’t properly discussed, such text can be reverted by another editor. But Talk:MOSNUM is an entirely different venue: it is a special forum where editors discuss, debate, and share thoughts.

  If SMcCandlish thinks the all polls are evil, he can say so—and he did. If he thinks the first poll was called too early, he should state as much… there on Talk:MOSNUM. Notwithstanding the ridiculous picture SMcCandlish would like to paint of the nature of the goings-on over on Talk:MOSNUM, no single editor can hijack Talk:MOSNUM and make it go—for very long anyway—in a direction that the main body of editors doesn’t want it to go. Talk:MOSNUM has plenty of experienced editors with fine-tuned brain filters for inappropriate procedures and B.S. Everything was quite peaceable over there last night. As anyone can see, the current run-off poll (which I restored after SMcCandlish deleted it and he then came here to make a federal case out of it) is receiving plenty of participation and many editors are showing how they feel on the options and are sharing thoughts and engaging in civilized debate.

  And since I “closed” the earlier poll, more editors have voted and have updated and maintained my summary statistics on the voting—none of which has changed the outcome as to which two options were the leading candidates. If anything, the additional voting has further gone against his views. I was too distracted by this ANI to really focus on what really ticked me off about SMcCandlish’s move: in a forum for discussion and debate and the sharing of ideas (not MOSNUM itself where it is appropriate to delete improperly posted text), he so objected to what was being done, he elected not to make a case and rally other editors to his way of thinking. Instead, he simply deleted an entire swath of Talk:MOSNUM, declaring that he didn’t like it so damned much, that he was going to decide for everyone else what was permissible for them to participate in and when they may do so.

  To SMcCandlish: If you have something to say, say it. If you think all polling is evil, say it. If you want to participate in a vote and then say all polling is evil, do so (you did). If you think the poll was improperly called, state as much and rally others to declare it foul and boycott it. If you want to start your own poll, do so. If I write something that you think is wrong, point out the shortcomings of my argument. But get this much clear: in a freewheeling discussion and debate forum where editors are being civil and aren’t engaging in personal attacks, the proper response to bad speech is better speech. Don’t ever again act as a unilateral censor in a debate and discussion forum and presume to decide for others what issues they may participate in and discuss with others. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on the topic

Someone should mention that the two creators of this poll have simultaneously created an RfC to continue their pursuit of Tony1 here. As you can see here the users wish to move on to the next forum when consensus does not support them. These two are becoming very disruptive very quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a sign of the complexity here that these are different editors, who disagree with Tony over a different issue. They are concerned with the linking and autoformatting of dates; SMcCandlish is talking about which format (September 11, 2008 or 11 September 2008) dates are in, without autoformatting, and whether linked or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It deals with linking. There is no difference between linking dates for autoformatting or for wikilinks, and they are united in being delinked. The one appears to be a subset of the other. You can see from this comment "Sapphic. Yes, your vote statement (“Autoformatting makes this entire poll irrelevant”) is true" (Greg L (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)) as evidence of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not irrelevant, no; two arguments on the same page at the same time are unlikely to be absolutely unrelated to each other. But Sapphic is (as Greg says) neutral on this issue, which is about the format of dates in edit space, whether linked or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima: Really, you’ve got all your facts thoroughly screwed up. There is only one creator of the poll (me). And I have nothing whatsoever to do with any RfCs against Tony; he and I see eye-to-eye on many (not all) issues regarding dates. And as PMAnderson has correctly pointed out, the editors who have done the RfC against Tony (I just now discovered it), have a problem with how Tony is championing the deprecation of autoformatting of dates (the special tools that make *pretty* dates for we editors but often mucks things up for 99.9% of our readership). The polling issue has nothing whatsoever to do with autoformatting; it has everything to do with how editors should go about determining which format of date editors should use when writing out fixed-text dates in articles. And the above ANI really doesn’t have anything to do with that; it has everything to do with someone trying to act like someone died and made him God, with the powers to decide for others what debate and thought is permissible to be discussed in a talk forum. Greg L (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Greg, when I put the "this poll" I ment to put a link up there and direct it to the second poll. I just noticed the error and put it in its place. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ahh… I see. That makes sense now. Like Gilda Radner used to say: *never mind*.  Thanks. Greg L (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hope everything makes sense now. I was going to leave it in its own note, but I didn't want the above to be seen as a continuation per se, but a spin off from the topic (i.e. the MoS Date Page). The one user in that RfC that established it mentioned going to AN/I. Since this was here, I wanted to give the slight heads up so that this doesn't degenerate out of control as it possibly could. I want to make it clear to everyone again that I'm not commenting on Greg's posts, or any of the above comment, but only introducing a similar topic from the same area that might need eyes on. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Sciencewatcher

User is adding false information relating to ME/CFS (and other disorders) on numerous pages, reverting every correction and removing dispute templates as he goes. The articles involved are:

• ME/CFS nomenclatures‎
• Psychosomatic medicine‎
• Chronic fatigue syndrome management

and probably more. This is all the same pov that he has been pushing for over a year, that ME/CFS is according to him a psychosomatic disorder rather than the neurological disorder as classified by the WHO. Most users that worked on these articles and daily corrected him in the past have given up and left. I have neither the time nor the desire to keep policing these articles, but his edits are hurtful to patients and something needs to be done. Yours sincerely, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

erm, a lot of doctors think it's a psychosomatic disorder- but then you already know that.:) Sticky Parkin 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source, add it somewhere. But let's adhere to WP:UNDUE, shall we? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

More WP:MYPOV than a WP:UNDUE issue, I'd say - the idea that this is a psychosomatic disorder is not exactly fringe, as far as I can tell - in fact the main resistance to that seems to come from the activist community rather than medics themselves. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

From the main article:

The mechanisms and processes (pathogenesis) of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are gradually being revealed through research, including physiological and epidemiological studies. In a basic overview of CFS for health professionals, the CDC states that "After more than 3,000 research studies, there is now abundant scientific evidence that CFS is a real physiological illness." Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Redux: you want Wikipedia to blaze the trail in informing the medical profession that they are wrong. Sorry, no. Much of the profession considers it psychosomatic, and that is a mainstream view. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, I think you are talking out of your hat at this point. You are not a medical professional, have presented no citations, and are arguing against the current weight of opinion.

The opinion that it's psychosomatic is now a tiny minority. And you appear to be supporting POV Pushing for this minority view. Representing that opposition to this only comes from 'activist groups' is moderately insulting to people with this condition, such as myself, and the medical community who are attempting to find it's root cause, and hopefully a cure.

I refer you to the current CDC Position, "CFS is not caused by depression, although the two illnesses often coexist, and many patients with CFS have no psychiatric disorders." [18]

But all that aside, this is not the place to discuss a content dispute. This is the place to respond to someone being a disruptive editor and going against productive consensus editing. If you can't calmly investigate the issue on that alone, then please don't get involved as an administrator at all. --Barberio (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it laughable that Guy is directing somebody else towards MPOV over this, given his comments here. Brilliantine (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychosomatic disorders are real and if people think that is a derogatory labelling then it is those that take offence that are mistaken - but this is a separate issue. The issue on these pages seems to be a content disagreement, so dispute resolution should be tried. Verbal chat 10:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User has refused that by removing all templates. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates aren't the answer. Try engaging on talk pages, getting external input via an RFC, or going to WP:3O or somesuch; assuming you haven't, apologies if you have. Verbal chat 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher does need to start providing sources for his edits. The burden is on the one who wants to include information. Guido, it couldn't hurt for you to argue with sources, say, for the claim that the WHO classifies CFS as only ME. Mangojuice^talk 13:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please get the facts straight. It is Sciencewatcher who wants to include certain 'information'. I have asked for sources on talk pages many times, and so have many others time and time again, but he provides none (he can't, because there aren't any that support his pov).

On a side note: the ICD10 is already in the references, but you have this wrong even more. The WHO does not classify 'CFS as ME'. It classifies ME as a disorder of the brain. CFS can be found in the alphabetic list of terms (i.e., not in the classification proper), where it has the same code as ME. But this has all been explained and shown to user a dozen times already. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Guido simply cannot work with other editors. He has been blocked in the past for exactly this. If you look at my edits you'll see that I try to discuss things with him, but it never gets anywhere. He is just completely unreasonable. Apparently it's okay for him to add an edit saying the WHO classifies CFS as ME, but when I add the info he left out, i.e. that it also classifies it as Neurasthenia (fatigue syndrome) Guido didn't like this, so he said I put "false information" into the article! And in reply to Mangojuice's comment: I do always provide sources for my edits when asked. In the case of the psychosomatic article, however, the sources are in the articles themselves (e.g. CFS/IBS, etc.) and it doesn't make sense to add a whole load more reference bloat - the user can just read the articles for those illnesses. Guido claims that wikipedia isn't a reliable source, which is true, but it misses the point. Anyway, I'm just going to let others look at the edits and I'll be happy with whatever the consensus is. It's hard having a consensus with Guido because he forces his point of view, is unreasonable, and yet claims he is a member of wikipedia's "harmonious editing club"! --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources. It does make sense to add "more reference bloat" when justifying the inclusion of information. I will say this, though: Guido, you have to calm down and stop looking at this situation as a war. You may be in the right on some of these edits, or maybe not. But you've started out with a combative attitude that has made building a consensus difficult. Look at your response to me, for instance, when I've been supporting you! As for the ME vs. ME and neurasthenia nomenclature dispute, my point is that a clear inline cite either way would be helpful, and no, I didn't look into it so closely. But Sciencewatcher, this goes for you too. Both of you have been escalating these situations into an edit war. It's particularly unhelpful to remove dispute tags: it's like a slap in the face to those who disagree with you, and a sign that you aren't even willing to discuss the issue. Mangojuice^talk 14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Mangojuice. I'm not really that agitated, but I am tired and information processing is wobbly at the moment. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The ICD10 classifies Neurasthenia (F48.0) thus [19]:

Excludes:

• asthenia NOS ( R53 )
• burn-out ( Z73.0 )
• malaise and fatigue ( R53 )
• postviral fatigue syndrome ( G93.3 )
• psychasthenia ( F48.8 )

ME is listed under postviral fatigue syndrome, i.e. neurasthenia explicitly excludes ME, as well as all other terms that have the code G93.3. Some of the confusion stems from the fact that neuromyasthenia used to be an alternative term for ME. Almost the same word, but biological rather than psychosomatic. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And many researchers think that ME and neurasthenia are the same thing, although this is better discussed on the talk page. And I'm happy to add individual refs for each illness in the psychosomatic article if that is what the consensus is. Again let's discuss it on the page for the article itself, not here. As I said in the talk page, the reason I removed the pov tag was because it was inappropriate in that case. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is now a content discussion and belongs on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. I'm going to cut and paste this last bit there and reply there. Mangojuice^talk 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

@SW: No, they don't. That's your pov. Stop basing your edits on it. Literature shopping to find that one poor study that in contrast to all the other publications halfway seems to support a statement, is not neutral editing either. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tmpafford and anonymous sock attacks

“Phi Kappa Psi” has being repeatedly attacked from various IP numbers, including 65.66.204.17 ([20], [21], [22]). This IP number has a stable association with domain garzo.com. Please note the name of the person to whom that domain is registered; please note the middle initial of that person. The name maps perfectly to “Tmpafford”. User:Tmpafford has made the same unconstructive edit to “Phi Kappa Psi”, backing this simply with a personal attack. (I believe that a checkuser could associate Tmpafford with other anonymous attacks; I am going to request that checkuser.)

Tmpafford has been repeatedly warned about these acts of vandalism. Anon:65.66.204.17 has repeatedly been warned about these acts of vandalism.

I strongly urge that the account Tmpafford be blocked from editing Wikipdia until its owner agrees to stop vandalizing articles and to refrain from any use of anonymous accounts or named sockpuppets. I also urge that the stably assigned IP number 65.66.204.17 be blocked from editing for a long term or until it is no longer assigned to garzo.com. —SlamDiego_←T 07:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have since filed a request for checkuser. —SlamDiego_←T 09:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, the checkuser has (unsurprisingly) confirmed 65.66.204.17 as Tmpafford. —SlamDiego_←T 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin spillover to Feminists For Life

Could I get some assistance with this editor?
Dstern1 (talk · contribs) is deleting sourced information - that Palin is, or at least was, "pro-contraception" and inserting unsupported content attributed to 2008 Republican platform, which doesn't assert Palin believes or supports everything in the platform - although she certainly might support it in full. I have detailed the issues on the user's talkpage and even pointed them to the Palin talkpage where those much more familiar might be able to assist. Unfortunately they have continued to edit war on this. It might just need another voice involved but any advice or assistance appreciated, I don't want to simply revert back again. -- Banjeboi 12:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like another connection-by-inference, as with her alleged connection with the Alaskan Independence Party, to try to infer that she believes in Alaskan secession. Meanwhile, I wonder what the FFL's position is on capital punishment. Any guesses? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

They are opposed to the death penalty. Deli nk (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm willing to chalk this up to ignorance of policies. I've left the user a detailed note explaining the policies he may be violating and hopefully he'll shape up. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You left your message on Dstern's talk page! I think you missed the point here: this complaint by Benjiboi is completely bogus. Benjiboi is trying to attribute positions to Palin that she doesn not support. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The warnings left for Dstern are indeed accurate on Dstern's page, as he is skating close to the line in all of those areas. GRBerry 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, I'm not a specialist in Palin's positions and have only relied on what reliable sources state, per NPOV if we have reliable sources that contradict each other we try to reconcile multiple viewpoints and let the reader decide what to believe. -- Banjeboi 00:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that it is acceptable that I am responding here. I have given further explanation of my contention on the Feminists for Life talk page. It was never my intention to have a "war" as I have been accused. It is my intention to delete information no longer valid. After I gained further understanding of the rules, I have limited my edits to political positions which I contend that I have provided verification upon.Dstern1 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

User:09jcsherrard posted a comment on my talk page that says, hey punk dont be deleting my stuff, you know nothing bout the harly drags so stay out of my shit you stupid nerd, punk fag female thats all u, bitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schuym1&oldid=237703644 Schuym1 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He's done it to a lot. I'd be tempted with blocking him. D.M.N. (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

From His User page i hate fags.im homophobic!!!! i am real good friends with User:HairyPerry. Nice.... I'd suspect possible SOCK issues here with HairyPerry but either way with that and the above diff I can't see how this account is helping build a collegial atmosphere never mind an encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that in my previous comments. Any checkusers wishing to do checkuser? D.M.N. (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I issued a 31 hour block for the comment, but indef'ed after viewing his... rather colorful contributions. seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Anyone wish to check his "friend" HairyPerry (talk · contribs)? Some of the info on his userpage looks "revealing". D.M.N. (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a safe bet they they are the same. Look at ThinkBlue's talk page --

• 10:14, 11 September 2008 HairyPerry added in a section header
• 10:08, 11 September 2008 09jcsherrard added in a personal attack.

Going through the contribs... seicer | talk | contribs 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since User:09jcsherrard has "i hate fags.im homophobic!!!!" on his user page, whilst User:HairyPerry has a straight but not narrow Userbox, perhaps they are indeed real world friends with differing opinions? ϢereSpielChequers 14:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[23] and [24] on my talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"This user is a high school student." Need I say more? Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why is User:HairyPerry still not blocked? Are you waiting for a checkuser? user:Everyme 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't actually been warned about anything, though I'm doing that right now with regards to his last comments to Seicer, above. Unlike his buddy, he has some positive contributions mixed in with occasional vandalism. Whether a CU turns up anything or not, I don't know, but I'll give him some free advice and see how it goes. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... So, if I wanted someone I did not care for ever so much (can't think of anyone, but it may happen!) blocked I might create a sock, write some abusive stuff to get me indef blocked, and casually mention I am a close friend of my targeted user. All I need hope for is that nobody does a CU, and my throwaway sock and My Mortal Enemy are removed from the site? Cool. BTW, I'm not saying 09jcsherrard is a sock - but they certainly appear to be kamikazeing at HairyPerry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seicer

Resolved

Counter Productive / Incivil Remark

Incident A)[25] - Derogatory Remark, Labling someone a trainwreck waiting to happen is a clearcut violation on WP:CIVIL and is certainly counter productive. Its allso borderline on WP:BAIT / WP:TROLL

Poor Judegement / Extention of Block

Incident B) The extention of a civilty block for so called "Abuse" of unblock templates. Reluctanty heeding two admins requests to reduce it back but not after labling me a trainwreck (hence the above). Serious concerns over knowlege of blocking policy because he still thinks the unblock template use was abuse. Can someone have a word to him, I understand he is a relativly new admin.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone who use to use multiple unblock templates, I can say that yeah, its rather uncivil to do such (or, at least disruptive). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking more carefully, "trainwreck" is not targeting any individuals. Its targeting a situation. I can parse out the sentence if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk)

wether trainwreck was directed or not is a matter of opinion but its removal would be a easy resolve.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

An easy action is not always a desirable action. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) "Trainwreck" refers to the entire situation. When he doesn't assume good faith anymore and admits that he becomes "hostile" and "bitter" towards administrators -- after being blocked, having his rollback and account creator privileges revoked, banned from IRC for a duration for trolling, then the situation is a trainwreck that he helped create. I did extend his block, but after a courteous notice, I refactored it back to three hours -- which is just slightly shorter than the original block, and is a showing that I made a mistake, as has every administrator at one point or another. It's clear from his prior incidents, battling various administrators and his actions at IRC, that he no longer is a constructive contributor and is only picking and choosing his battles, to which I was warned of earlier that I'd be invoking a witchhunt. And no, I'm not a "new admin." seicer | talk | contribs 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont mis-constude my words again please. Also you refracted back the Account ban, but there was an extended duration of the auto block for unknown reasons that led to me be blocked logger than intended (perhaps your tinkering). Also a reptuable admin on IRC said you were relativly new   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If i were to say someone was "a hoar in the works" which is clear cut uncivilty, how is the implications of that different to "have fun with the train wreck you are all setting up" which is grey but still in vio of WP:TROLL / WP:CIVIL. Secondly all I want is to make sure that he does Not extend a block again for the reason he did mine, his comment reaks with "im right your wrong, but ill abide this time just so you can have fun with the train wreck you are all setting up". all I want is the remark removed and it made clear that you don't extend blocks for the reason he did mine and to use better judegement in the future   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

that diff doesn't show a personal attack. And your statement of an "incident" here doesn't give anyone context for what the problem is. Protonk (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We are still on this? I thought all the other admins reviewing the situation would've been enough. MBisanz ^talk 14:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Prom3th3an even parroted back the train wreck comment on Seicer's talk page, stating "If im a train wreck, be careful, you might get hit."[26] Obviously I can't read minds, but does that sound like somebody who was offended by the train wreck comment? Also, Seicer's comment had nothing to do with WP:TROLL. - auburnpilot talk 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A Parady of the crime is not the same as initating it. "A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature " He knew that remark, which is like reading me like a book would get to me, hence why he said it.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just think - if they had unblocked Prom3th3an early, like he asked for, he wouldn't be doing this kind of attacking. Serves the admins right for keeping him blocked the full 24 hours, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

rofl, i mean hmph, this is a serious matter   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Move that this entire situation be closed as Lame. Stern look at Promethean for laughing. Are we done now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC) _{If all the worlds a stage, can i operate the trap door?}

• Prom3th3an is pushing his luck here to a remarkable degree. It is time to drop it and move on, or else his behaviour is likely to be considered disruptive. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, I find myself agreeing with this assessment. There is coming a time when community patience will run out. Orderinchaos 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree. Closed as resolved. Moondyne 01:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Exposed password

See here. Someone needs to block For this reason a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pronto. Kww (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vean aquí. Alguien necesita ser bloqueado. For this reason a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Soon. 190.51.146.45 (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the IP, it all seems to be a bunch of nonsense and really weird.... I don't know. Did Jimbo really unblock here? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to use it and that is not the password, so is not exposed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.146.45 (talk • contribs) 14:24, September 11, 2008

Blocked. And, uh, thanks for the translation, 190.51? -- Vary | Talk 14:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Several ec's later - PS, re Ottava's comment above comments - I checked before I blocked and it worked. It's been changed since - that's what happens when you share your password, eh? If the account holder is the one who changed it, and they post an unblock request, it may well be granted, but at the time of the block they were intentionally sharing access to the account. And no, Jimbo didn't grant the unblock request you linked to. -- Vary | Talk 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ok19O.51.146.45 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you editing from a new user account that is oddly similar to 190.51.146.45 above? seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note 193.22222O (talk · contribs) Verbal chat 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be a line in the username policy prohibiting usernames that resemble IP addresses? It seems it's no longer there. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Vary. I had a large suspicion that Jimbo wouldn't be using "Attention This IP address" as a screen name. Can we have that IPs talk page protected? Or semi-protected? It seems to just fill will problematic material. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kvvvvv (talk · contribs) blocked indef for impersonating the creator of this topic. D.M.N. (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rangeblock applied. Looking for more. Thatcher 20:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversions by user JBSupreme

I understand that unsourced material can be removed, but that does not mean that it necessarily should be. User:JBsupreme consistently takes long, in-depth article and reduces them to sentences because they are not sourced. In this case, a list of rappers of southern origin does not need to be sourced. A person is from where they are from, that is all. The same goes for much of the rest of the article's removed information. What he had done recently to Southern hip hop is my most recent example. He removed 20 thousand bytes of relevant, factually correct information. I know many of you will say that it is unsourced, but it is practically unnecessary. Do I really need to source the sentence which says that Miami bass music genre is from Miami? He is purposefully ruining articles so that they are later deleted. He has done this with 5 Elementz, Detroit hip hop and other articles, slowly, covertly chipping away sentences until all that remains is a worthless sentence, as in Southern hip hop. He must be stopped. I reported this under edit warring but I believe it is more likely vandalism.Cosprings (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and you are forum shopping it, without even notifying User:JBsupreme. I see zero talk page edits of your last 50 edits, which gives me the impression you aren't trying very hard to resolve this matter with him. I suggest you try that first.--Atlan (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried that of course and there is just no convincing him in the error of his ways. Someone reverted the southern hip hop article yet again, and he has yet again removed 20k bytes of information. Cosprings (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to inform me, I see the forum shopping that Cosprings is doing. He is welcome to provide reliable sources for the information he keeps trying to reintroduce. I have zero objection to that. JBsupreme (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

a list of rappers of southern origin does not need to be sourced - um, no, everything should be sourced, and if someone requests a source and none is provided, removal of the unsourced material is not correct, it's required. Corvus cornix_talk 19:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Not everything has to be sourced. We have fact tags, we don't delete non-contentious material just because it doesn't have a source, and we don't require a source for common knowledge. And while Cosprings should have gone to JB's talk page first, any look at the page and its history reveals that JB does not respond to such inquiries. He merely reverts them or ignores them and blanks them later. He also reverts warnings and ignores them, all while counseling other editors not to remove warnings from their talk pages, reverting and edit warring with them on their own talk pages. His edits over the past few weeks show him repeatedly removing biographical sections, discographies, birth dates and locations. This is not information that should be removed per BLP. Fact tags. His edit summary usage is atrocious as well. These are all things I warned him about on his talk page earlier today. It was one of, I believe, three five warnings on his talk page today, at least two three from admins. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another admin warning was just placed on his talk page. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that JBsupreme does decent work in the mainspace, if overzealous. He certainly needs to read AfD guidelines more closely; he's been notified several times of malformatted entries or insufficient research before initiation. However, I would like to strongly endorse Jennavecia's statement about JBsupreme's rather hypocritical habit of blanking any and all negative messages from his talk page, while reverting any removal of messages from others' talk pages. As Jennavecia mentioned, several admins have left him messages today, myself included. JBsupreme needs to be strongly cautioned that his continued hostility towards other users is not fostering the atmosphere that Wikipedia thrives on and will not be tolerated. GlassCobra 05:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats against an admin from User:166.109.0.238

Resolved

 – Nothing more to be done by us. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This: [27] I'm sure George can take care of himself, but maybe another admin will want to issue the next lengthy block against 166.109.0.238. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a couple of weeks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And now an apparent sockpuppet called User:Georgeherbertww. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked that account also. Thanks for letting us know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Death threat made against User:Georgewilliamherbert

I have recently come across a death threat made by an anonymous user on another user's talkpage which I feel should be brought to your attention. Judging from my brief look at Georgewilliamherbert's contribution's I would guess this is one of the troublesome users with which he has been dealing with recently who obviously didn't take kindly to his actions. It's highly unlikely this threat would ever come to anything, but even so, I felt you guys should be made aware of this. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See the above section, which I've now merged this to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV. Probably needs oversight. D.M.N. (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP resolves back to a school district: it's probably worth an attempt at contact. I doubt they're interested in having threats issued from their system. Acroterion _(talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

File a WP:ABUSE report, Ill contact them in the morning. Hopefully it keep me out of trouble ;)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing something to them right now. I'll wait an hour or so to send it, in case people decide that's a bad idea. Abuse report likely a good idea anyways, though. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol i was in the process of the same thing, use thier help desk link on thier website. Be firm about the seriousness of a deaththreat and provide a link. Do not oversight the network admins will want to see it.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I sent mine too. Nothing else needed, IMO. Oversight seems sorta' like overkill here, as I don't think many people could take that seriously. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure where it came from, go ahead. What's the worst they could do? Use a gigantic paddle on the offender, as 21 states allow in the USA? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Contact made, ive sent the diff. dont oversight for at least a few days   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: Most schools these days have responsible computer use policies (my high school did, and my college has about fifty of them). I'm pretty sure making threats doesn't fit within those; usually, violations result in loss of computer rights at the school (as in they'll delete your login so you can't even get on), some form of judicial action (in a middle/high school, this'll probably be telling the parents and/or detention), etc. Most likely the school will do something to put a stop to it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they do. The main point is to be sure you've got the right source. You don't want anyone getting slapped for the wrong reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We have the right source, WHOIS and RDNS support it. More importantly the techs at that school will know what ip range they use and will check before they go through proxy logs to hang the person by thier thumbs :P   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hence the expression, "rule of thumb". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply Brett, Thanks for the information. We are a consortium which provides Internet access to schools in the Southern New York area. We have narrowed it down to one school district and have notified the administration about this incident. We take threats like this seriously and will investigate with the information we currently have. Any new information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mike.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's an anonymous user anyway, all we can give them is the diff. A checkuser's not going to come up with anything of use here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

im aware of that, ive given them the url the user would have had to have accessed to make that edit. using proxy logs they should be able to catch em.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. There's a very persistent vandal in the New York City region who's more upset than average that I have IP range blocked them repeatedly... They're not a very good stalker, but they're very persistent, and as you saw can get sort of nasty / threatening... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:207.230.203.234

Blocked 10 times, last block was on the 5th of sept but was oddly only for 24 hrs. User has vandalised since. Requesting 1 year block per two blocks ago.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV for future reference. John Reaves 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AIV is for active vandals (this second) this vandal was active hours ago I thinks. Hence ANI ;) 203.122.240.118 (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruption at Calgary Flames

I stepped on AGK's toes here a little bit—while this isn't resolved, it's not AN/I time yet, and if necessary, I will repost a similar message. Maxim (☎) 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just what exactly is wrong with Fasach Nua's NFIO tag? It looks absolutely correct to me. Black Kite 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Aside from the lack of discussion, the disruption, editing against consensus, attempting to bully process to get his way and WP:POINT violations? Resolute 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ohmygod1234

• Ohmygod1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm going to drop this in an admin's lap. Today, I nominated Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album) for deletion, as it appears to me the article has been essentially fabricated out of whole cloth. When I went to drop notice/warning on the creator's talk page, I discovered that Ohmygod1234 has been warned numerous times:5 final warnings for disruptive editing, and innumerable lower levels. Image deletion notices for improper licenses. Image deletion notices for copyright violations. Speedy deletion notices for reposting deleted material.

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Simpson's Forthcoming Album, it appears that this same editor also created that article, which was deemed to be a hoax (something that Everyking and I agreed on, an event worth taking note of). Someone should check the history of this article, and correct me if I'm wrong: I believe it was Ohmygod1234, but I can't see the article history to verify it as I write.

How many final warnings does this editor get before someone starts using the block stick to get the point across?Kww (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that Ashlee Simpson's Forthcoming Album was created by Ohmygod1234. No comment on their other contribs yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also have serious concerns about this user; it's not clear to me that any of the content this user adds is factual, and certainly a large portion of it is pure fiction. Everyking (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked the editor, at least until they address the numerous concerns expressed by several editors. At the very least, there is a serious misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is about. — Coren ^(talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Barton Foley notability tags

Could someone please take a look at the large number of notability tags being placed by this editor, including to major novels by science fiction writer William Gibson, and to films which seen clearly notable? I can't tell if this is just a massive one-man cleanup effort or if there's something WP:POINTy about it. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the editor made his first edit on 25 August 2008. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A random sampling of the user's contributions to film-related articles reveals the addition of prod tags to many that aren't notable, so we're OK on that score. But there does seem to be little or no checking for notability on his part before he adds the tags. Just because an article doesn't currently cite reliable secondary sources, that doesn't necessarily mean that its topic is not notable. It may just lack a citation that can easily be found with a twenty-second Google search (indeed, this has been the case for a couple of inappropriately tagged articles). So I guess his use of the tag isn't wholly appropriate in this case, without those cursory checks for notability. I left a note on his talk page to this effect after a concern was raised at WP:FILM, and before it was raised here; I suggest waiting for a response to my and other editors' concerns before further action is taken. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but I do want to point out that the editor created The Forlorn Hope, an article about a science fiction novel by David Drake, and another editor tagged it with a notability tag. The tagging editor chided Barton Foley, and Foley answered:

Given the standing of David Drake in the science fiction community and his well regarded body of work, sumaries on his individual books, particularly those that have been re-issued due to their popularity should meet the notability threashold, despite the guidelines of notability. There exists many books on Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines for notability, but are still granted entries due to their otehr notable qualities, outside the realm of movie adpatations and awards. (Emphasis added)

It was only after this that Barton Foley went on a tear tagging for notability. I'm afraid that seems pretty WP:POINTy to me. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my response was as written above. In retrospect, my point about David Drake may be correct, but it does not automatically grant notability to his novels. Without providing the needed notability, the deletion of and redirection, I believe, was/is correct. If I disagree, it is my responsibility as the author of the article to provide the needed information. Further direction by User:Goochelaar and User:Collectonian as to notability, as well as the talk and discussion for both Douglas Hill and the David Weber novel Off Armageddon Reef I believe has given me some direction. The movies being tagged are in alphabetical order of the list of horror films of 2000. If one follows that list, there are several that I did not tag, as they met the notability guidelines. I also tried not to tag those films that were from a foreign market, such as Thai or South Korean films. However, the ones that were tagged are not notable per the guidelines. Originally, I was going to redirect these items back to the list, but after wandering and observing other editors actions, the prod tag seemed to be the most appropriate action. As I am not the author of these articles, I do not think it is my responsibility to Google or otherwise provide the notability credits to meet the guidelines. If the author(s) of the article believe the tag is incorrect, if my understanding of the procedure is correct, can remove the tag and state why I am wrong to apply the tag to the article. If I disagree, then I can AFD the article. Unless my understanding is incorrect as to this process, I do not think I did anything wrong. Also, unless I misunderstand again, the prod tag for notability is for how the article currently exists, not how it might exist or might prove its notability in the future or might exist in a Google search. Now, if the admins decide I did or was misguided, I will take any advice they have to offer on future edits.

I would state that I plan on moving to the Chick Lit book list next with my notability (and other) tags in tow. And as per User:Steve T • C I will provide more then a single word justification for my tags.Barton Foley (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And the more I think about it, let us say I was trying to make a WP:POINT. Why would I do so in the horror film list of the 2000s in a group of articles written by people who would have no idea of the WP:POINT I was trying to make? If I was trying to make a WP:POINT, I wouldn't expend energy on people who would have no clue of my purpose, I would track the contributions of the editor whom I was trying to make a WP:POINT to and tag his/her articles with notability tags and prods. That would be making a point. Tagging Anaconda 2 as not notable is not, IMHO. Barton Foley (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

True, if the purpose of the POINTy behavior was to get to the editor who tagged you. On the other hand, people have been known to do stuff in order to make a general POINT to the commnity, and it's not unknown for people to do pointy things because they're pissed off and want to strike back.

I'm not accusing you of any of that, but I do think that your attitude that it's not your responsibility to do a quick check for evidence of real-world notability is mistaken. We're all here, presumably, to help the encyclopedia. If that's the case, than your failure to check for evidence of notability outside the existing article could wind up with some notable books or movies being deleted, and that doesn't really help the project in any way. If you're putting a notability tag on something, it should be because you are truly convinced that it's not notable, not simply because the editor(s) who wrote the article didn't do a good job of it.

I would suggest that it is prudent, and responsible, to do some due diligence and, at the very least, perform a Google search to see what you come up with before tagging an article. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Review of the unblock of Dark Tea

Dark Tea (talk · contribs) was today blocked for three months by Moreschi (talk · contribs) with the following reason: "Incredible amounts of disruption: this user has basically fouled up our entire "race" topic area". This was Dark Tea's first block.

Dark Tea subsequently requested to be unblocked. Upon my review of his request, it became apparent that Moreschi had been engaged in a content dispute on Caucasian race with Dark Tea, as shown here and confirmed in the block notification. This means that the block patently violated the blocking policy, which states: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute".

I have therefore lifted the block without consultation with the blocking admin, but I am reporting my action here for community review. I'm also notifying Moreschi of this thread. (I have not reviewed the underlying content dispute, whose subject matter does not interest me, which means that I have no opinion about the merits of either side's arguments).  Sandstein  22:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come Sandstein. You knew better than just unblock without at least making an attempt at talking with Moreschi. I agree the block might be iffy, and should probably have been lifted, but doing it that way is a call for drama. Wheel wars start like that. — Coren ^(talk) 22:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll dually agree with that. There is no rush to unblock, given the incredible messes Dark Tea has created. At least, we could have gotten some dialogue from the blocking administrator before performing an unblock -- to which you know the only end result would be disdain towards the unblocking administrator (you) and possible wheel warring. There were many other ways you could have handled this better. seicer | talk | contribs 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would normally have contacted Moreschi first. However, WP:APB allows for unilateral overrides of clearly unjustifiable blocks. My lifting of the block allows Dark Tea to participate in the present discussion. If consensus develops here that the block was indeed justified, or that another sanction (such as a topic ban) is needed, I will not oppose it and indeed help enforce it.  Sandstein  22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think in the interest of all parties involved, we should gain new consensus on whether a block of three months (+/-) is required. seicer | talk | contribs 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is pretty much never ever a need for an involved admin to block. Taking it here first would have been the way to avoid drama. IronDuke 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I say below, involved how? If I actually thought ANI would get a profitable result and had much faith in my fellow admins to recognise the problem, I would indeed have come here. To seicer: thank you. A block will not be needed if we can agree to a topic-ban from race articles. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate your efforts in trying to maintain the quality of our articles about this obviously difficult topic, but as soon as you removed content by Dark Tea on the basis of its (perceived lack of) encyclopedic merit, you became involved in a content dispute with him, and ought not to have blocked him. You might, however, have asked another admin to do it, or you might have suggested a topic ban in an appropriate forum.  Sandstein  22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, per the diff Sandstein cites. I see that there is much you reverted. How much was nonsense by Dark Tea, I have not checked deeply enought to see, but I don't think it all was (not even saying, BTW, that I disagree with your reversion). But saying you don't have faith in your fellow admins means that you are essentially out of step with policy consensus. Is your way better than this consensus? Quite possibly. But most admins -- most editors -- feel that way as well. If they all acted on it, this place would simply shut down. IronDuke 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I say: Number 46 - this barely qualifies as a "content dispute" at all. Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I find you quoting yourself persuasive here, nor does it answer why it is that you won't use a community aproved forum to double-check your actions. I also see (correct me, please, if I'm wrong) that you never even warned him -- your block was the first communication on his talk page. IronDuke 23:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguably he was warned at the FTN thread. He chose to ignore that, and the fact that consensus found his edits unacceptable, and started reverting. Moreschi (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no warning there. IronDuke 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin agnosticism

I'm getting increasingly frustrated. Here we have one user - Dark Tea (talk · contribs) who, over three years of editing on obscure racial and UFO articles, has managed to mess a huge amount of them up. Take a look at at this - the bits in italics and the lengthy quotations are usually all him - [31] (admin only this, the rest aren't) [32], [33], [34], [35] not to mention Stereotypes of white people, Afro-Asian, and Mongoloid race as they stand. You don't need to know anything about race to see that Dark Tea is creating havoc here. So, I have a go at cleaning some of this hopeless junk up, and he starts reverting. I block him for 3 months for his 3 years of disruption: Sandstein promptly unblocks, citing the miserable blocking policy. I'm sorry, but this may just be one instance where the encyclopedia trumps procedure. I don't mind Dark Tea getting unblocked per se, but if so, I desperately need some help cleaning up his various messes. Moreschi (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered bringing this editor to the attention of another admin, then? While I very much disagree with Sandstein's unilateral unblock, I am forced to agree that a three month block from an admin who has had content disputes with the blockee was an iffy move. You were under no obligaton to effect a block yourself, and it's understandable that another admin might think you were too involved to act impartially. — Coren ^(talk) 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What content dispute? There's a difference between a bona fide genuine dispute and me trying to remove this useless crap and him trying to retain it. This is classic Number 46, again. This is ordinary maintenance/disruption prevention: no rational person could possibly think that any valid content was under dispute here. Moreschi (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. This is a perfect case to WP:IAR. That guy is worthless and will probably end up blocked again, and again, and again, until he gets indefed. Jtrainor (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi may well be right with his assessment of the value of Dark Tea's contributions, but may I please strongly suggest that we do not call other people "worthless"?  Sandstein  22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, no, Dark Tea is certainly not worthless. AGF is perfectly valid here: he's quite sincere. Unfortunately, his bizarre mix of racialist and non-racialist theories make it bloody hard to work out what's going on: his writing style is unbelievably unencyclopedic, and his contribution quality is generally awful - it's quotefarm after quotefarm, occasionally POV-pushing, with no attempt to establish context. What's worse, he has a terrible habit of uncritically reporting the very worst of archaic (centuries-old) sources, and then claiming they're somehow reliable and thus sacred. And the UFO stuff was so left-field I'm still recovering from the shock. Wikipedia:Competence is required applies here, I think. Moreschi (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Was the original block appropriate? Probably not, but irrelevant since it has already been undone.
2. Was the unblock appropriate? Probably not, since there was no discussion about the suitability of the original block.
3. Is a block for disruption appropriate. Discuss. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A new block seems appropriate. Verbal chat 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was improper, and I don't believe it would be correct to go straight to a block at this time even if Moreschi's analysis is entirely correct. First, let's determine whether there is a problem; then, if the editing is found to be problematic, let's hope that Dark Tea will take the right lessons from that. A block might be appropriate down the line, depending on how things go, but not now. Everyking (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic-ban from race articles

I have submitted the necessary evidence above. Please look carefully through all my links (also worth noting that Dark Tea is a classic SPA. Discuss. Moreschi (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's room for at least one warning before any topic ban, no? IronDuke 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He's already been told at WP:FTN#Caucasian race that his editing is not on. He just ignored that with a snarky comment and started reverting. Also, this is not a newbie: he's been doing this since August 2005. Concerns must have been raised before. Moreschi (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no warning there that I could see. IronDuke 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

well, arguably, two people saying "this article you wrote is horrible - and your style is horrible too" counts as a warning that you need to rethink your approach. And it's reasonable to assume that he read the thread, which contained lots of warnings, before he started reverting today. Moreschi (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the thread as full of complaints -- most likely quite well justified -- but a complaint is not a warning. "Dark Tea, knock it off or you will get blocked" is a warning. IronDuke 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly the sort of warning we don't need for a topic-ban. He's already been told his editing is horrible and sanctionable: judging by his reverts today he won't change it. Furthermore, someone who has messed up an entire topic-area can surely be topic-banned without warnings (which he got): and after 3 years, too. What more do you need? Moreschi (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a topic ban is out of line. The diffs are damning, and there does appear to be a long-term pattern of doing poor edits with little or no discussion, no care for consensus, and quite a bit of dismissive attitude. There might not have been any explicitly worded warnings, but that does not mean that the editor wasn't very well aware that his behavior was unacceptable. (Which is, after all, the point of a warning: not as a ceremonial "rule of engagement" or as a Miranda warning, but as a genuine concern that the editor might actually not know his behavior is out of line— something which is not an issue here). — Coren ^(talk) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the point of a warning is that it carries an "or else." That's what makes it different from "user is not listening." It isn't ceremonial, it's how WP works. IronDuke 00:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is a courtesy borne out of assumed good faith and a presumption of ignorance, rather than avoidance, of the rules. Someone who has been here for years either knows the rules he choses to break, or they are beyond his understanding. In either case, an "or else" will only delay the inevitable sanction and cause more damage to repair: he either already chose not to behave or is incapable of doing so. — Coren ^(talk) 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Most "or else's" do delay the inevitable. Nevertheless, people who contribute here for three years are entitled to at least one warning. That's just common sense. IronDuke 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's entirely backwards. Vested contributors are one of Wikipedia's biggest problems; and someone who's been contributing for years definitely should know better already. A warning is neither useful nor required. — Coren ^(talk) 01:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That link didn't work for me. I believe it is you who have it backwards. The warning may not prove useful, but it is absolutely required in situations such as these. IronDuke 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with different thoughts here: First, I agree that Moreschi made a bad block. I see no attempt by Moreschi to post a caution to Dark Tea's talkpage, or indeed, any communication there whatsoever. Instead, Moreschi jumped straight to a 90-day block, with a clearly emotional block message.[36] However, I also agree that Sandstein should have posted a note to Moreschi's talkpage first, before overturning the block. Then again, this was a block that pretty clearly needed to be overturned. I disagree (with respect) with Coren, who says that a warning is not necessary to a vested contributor. In my opinion, we should always try to issue warnings, especially to vested contributors. Only with anons and obvious vandalism-only accounts should we block without notice. See also WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings. --Elonka 01:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much my point, Elonka. The point of warnings is to educate, and they are pointless one someone who unarguably already knows what you'd warn them about. — Coren ^(talk) 01:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at recent history, it seems most people have talked about him, not to him. Would it kill us all to start there and see what comes of it? AFAICT, this user is making decent contributions (possibly in tandem with rather not-so-decent ones). I think he's owed a tiny bit of leeway, considering how we give obvious trolls chance after chance after chance. IronDuke 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Coren, the "unarguably" is the problematic part there. Moreschi says that Dark Tea has "messed up" race-related articles for three years. Well okay, where's the paper trail? An editor causing that many problems would normally have multiple warnings on their talkpage, a swath of blocks, complaints, ANI threads, RfCs, mediations (or attempts), and so forth. A few of which Moreschi could have diffed to Dark Tea's talkpage. Instead, there's one very vague message from Moreschi, which makes it look like Moreschi has just decided all by his lonesome to block a longstanding contributor for three months, without warning, from a topic area where Moreschi is active. This is a very very bad idea. What if all admins did that, made unilateral decisions to block long-standing contributors without warning? No, WP:AGF requires that we assume people are acting in the best interests of the project. If someone's behavior is veering off the road, then they deserve at least a warning shot across the bow, to let them know that there's a problem. We shouldn't just assume, "Well gee, they should've known it was coming." --Elonka 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not an unreasonable position, although I'm a more than a little sceptical that it is, in practice, more than an extraordinarily rare occurrence. At any rate, I agree that in the present case a warning would have been a Good Thing; and that Moreschi has probably jumped the gun in frustration. I'm disputing that there is a sine qua non requirement that a warning be explicitly given, especially to longstanding editors. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Look, of course there's not going to be a paper trail of ANI threads. Dark Tea hasn't been editing Barack Obama: he has been editing very, very obscure articles, populated by nutters, which sane people, even if they do know something about the odder quirks of 18th, 19th, and early 20th century thought, are naturally going to avoid because they fear a nest of flamewars. Quite rightly, too. Ultimately I don't care what you guys do this chap, so long as he stays out of my way as I waste my valuable time (which really should be spent sorting out Afrocentrism topics, which is what I'm supposed to be doing at the moment) clearing up the crap he's left behind over the last 3 years. I do not have the time for revert-wars over this. If he starts trying to interfere, I will be furious - not with him, but with you. He's not a troll, just a rather clueless obsessive: you lot should know better than to give him any credence. Moreschi (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

After reading through pretty much all of the diffs here I have concluded that a topic ban from race-related articles is completely justified here, and I have placed a note to that effect on the editor's talkpage. Black Kite 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The matter hasn't been discussed in depth, and I don't see consensus for a topic ban at this point. I'd much prefer to see this user given some suggestions on how to improve, with a caution that the existing editing problems could not be allowed to continue. There is no need to risk frustrating or alienating anyone at this stage. Everyking (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only has it not been discussed in depth, the user in question has not had a chance to reply. Yeesh. I find myself getting frustrated when problem users are given ten "final" warnings before getting booted -- but this user is given none, and no chance to explain/apologize/promise to mend ways. IronDuke 00:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, have a look at the contribs. He's broken so many articles with his mish-mash of pseudo-scientific claptrap that it's untrue. If this user really wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, he can prove that he can do it on other articles first. Having said that, if an uninvolved admin wants to try a different tack, feel free to remove my topic ban and mentor him (or similar) - I'd be fine with that. Black Kite 00:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look, found this, which looks like a pretty good edit, this edit looks fine to me – I could be missing something. And this?. Again, I’m just skimming, but is that a bad edit? Bad faith? Removed this uncited statement, which is fine by me. I’m sure there must be examples of nonsense, people are probably not getting fed up for no reason, but again, a 3-year contributor gets the benefit of our process. IronDuke 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been here over a couple years. How many good contribs do I have to trade in to insult you? How about if I want to edit war to put some far left-wing sources in to the George Bush article? Sorry but that kind of logic is just absurd. This mentality of "he or she has been here awhile, let them run all over the project" has to stop. The fact that they've been here this long should mean they'd be held to a higher standard than the guy who just showed up. If we'd string up a "newbie" than we should certainly be stringing up someone who has been here for 3 years. I'm all for a topic ban.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have informed the editor in question of this thread. It seemed the polite thing to do. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see no consensus for a topic ban. Black Kite, the only times that an admin can place a topic ban on one admin's say-so, are when dealing with areas that are in an ArbCom enforcement area. To my knowledge, race-related articles do not qualify for any ArbCom sanctions. And even if they did, every such case that I know about, requires that the editor be formally warned beforehand with a specific message to their talkpage. For example, see WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. The ban would also need to be logged at the appropriate case page. Barring that, a topic ban could be instituted if there were community consensus, but you would have to provide a link to that consensus. A ban would also have to be instituted with certain parameters, such as stating how long it was supposed to be in effect. But just going to a random editor's talkpage and stating that you've decided to topic ban them?[37] No, that's not how it works. --Elonka 03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, broadly considered? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This has been discussed by several editors and administrators following the posting on WP:FTN. Procedural details are necessarily not the foremost priority when the concern is over content fairly well typified by the surreal paragraph below from Mongoloid race, made up entirely of a meaningless patchwork of quotes. This should ring alarm bells for any wikipedian. It is disingenuous to call DarkTea a "random editor". Please see WP:FTN and try to take into account the extraordinary method used for adding content. Wikipedia is not a jigsaw puzzle for randomly chosen quotes, it is a scholarly encyclopedia.

"Native Americans are clearly derived from an Asian population with affinities to the Mongoloids.^[1] However, Native Americans retain certain non-Mongoloid features.^[1] These might represent the genetic legacy of a pre-Mongoloid, Australoid-Caucasoid population, swamped by a later Mongoloid immigration;^{1] more likely, they reflect the broad range of physical variation found in early northern Asian populations, before Mongoloid traits became predominant." ^[2] "When we compare Native Americans with the other living races of mankind, we find them to be most similar to the Mongoloid peoples of Asia.^[1] Among the visible physical characteristics that these groups share are coarse straight black hair, relatively hairless faces and bodies, light brown skin, brown eyes, epicanthic folds (only occasionally present in American populations), high cheekbones, and a high frequency of shovel-shaped incisor teeth^[1] ... The distribution of patterns of invisible genetically determined traits offer less clear-cut evidence of relationship."^[1]

Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Elonka, and more, with Sandstein's action. This was not an iffy block, but a bad one. Process, particularly standard and successful process, is important, particularly when an editor has been treated in an unusual manner up til then. As she says, We shouldn't just assume, "Well gee, they should've known it was coming." - why should DT have known? In this rare situation, DarkTea has formally adhered to content rules, but has successfully introduced eccentric positions and edits into many articles - for years. People naturally judge what is acceptable and practical by their own experience, and DarkTea's SPA experience has been quite unusual - there just hasn't been the opposition one would expect. One can't just say without proof that there must have been warnings, and apparently there were none. Talking to, not just about, as IronDuke points out, is essential and obligatory. Did "the consensus" find his edits unacceptable to the point of actually reverting them, of backing up Moreschi - apparently not, although it surely would have in a little while. Note Moreschi's statement, when he says that he doesn't mind the unblock but desperately needs aid in cleaning up. Rushing to block, using quick but ultimately weak administrative powers rather than the superficially slower but infinitely stronger exercise of consensus backed up by the 3RR if need be, is a pointless procedure and a bad precedent.John Z (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - we should act as if we were real researchers and educated people "The scientific support for terms such as Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid used widely in these earlier theories has fallen steadily. ... the Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid paradigm has fallen into near-total disfavour." (That's actually one of the pieces of text reverted back in by Dark Tea!). We should stop tolerating the kind of demeaning ethnic labelling going on here: "added racial ancestry of Xxxxxx Xxxxx because it was pertinenet to the citation about him being Asian with white blood rather than white with Asian blood". I can't go far into these diffs without feeling physically sick, we're seeing a dangerous and unpleasant obsession at work. And we've no longer any excuse, we do know where it leads. PR^talk 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus and Boodlesthecat edit warring on Controversies of the Polish–Soviet War

Resolved

 – Both parties notified of 1RR restrictions, Tiptoety ^talk 13:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[38] Bringing this to WP:ANI for more eyes. This 3RR report was closed as stale; however, from some perspectives this appears to be more of a classic two-editor edit war focused on a genuine content dispute. The talk page of the article describes the concerns about the content being added by Piotrus. The history of the article shows that Boodlesthecat requested Piotrus to take this to the talk page of the article. The article is now protected. Question: How best to address a situation where there is a clear edit war, one of the warriors is an administrator who promptly posts a 3RR request even before discussing the concerns raised on the talk page of the article. Ideas anyone? Oh. Please note that Piotrus is also a named party to an RFAR, in which Boodlesthecat has given evidence. Risker (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the user who closed the 3RR report. After reviewing the case I saw a clear content dispute between two users who have a very clear history of bad interactions with one another. While Boodlesthecat did in fact violate 3RR, that does not make Piotrus exempt from WP:EDITWAR (which is clearly what he was involved in). Personally, I would hope that common sense would have kicked in on Piotrus part seeing as he is an experienced editor and a admin, whom is currently going through a RfAr, but that was not the case. I am thinking that some form of topic ban is in order (those two staying away from one another, 1RR, or something) until ArbCom makes their ruling. Also, if I would have got to the report earlier (before the report was stale) I would have blocked both parties. Tiptoety ^talk 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And so have I (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Special_case:_Boodlesthecat). As the evidence shows, discussion with Boodes (who never admits he is wrong) goes nowhere (and anyway, his discussion style includes sending others @ "you are a dick" or accusing them of antisemitism). There is a reason why a mediator from our case has resigned and is now supporting me at ArbCom. Past evidence shows Boody will not shy from edit warring, and will revert war till he is blocked (see his block log) or till enough different editors revert him that the article gets protected and/or he gives up and moves to another article. Alas, if he can break the 3RR with impunity, why should we bother reverting him at all? I am considering ignoring his edits - if I revert him, I only fall into WP:EDITWAR, apparently. If the community has suggestions what can be done before ArbCom reaches its decision, it would be appreciated. Somewhat frustrated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI isn't the right place to be judging Arbcom evidence. We lack the deliberation and process of an RFAR. If the situation is so bad, maybe someone ought to propose a temporary injunction at the RFAR, pending a final decision. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting proposition. Some form of 1RR on affected articles (topics?) may be a solution here, but how to phrase it properly? Any suggestions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempt whenever possible to stay uninvolved in these sorts of things. I'm sure a clerk could give you some past examples. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While the RfAr is somewhat relevant, I would like to note that it is not the reason this thread was started. The issue here is more specific and could be easily resolved by simply staying away from each other, but neither seem to want to do that. Tiptoety ^talk 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Piotrus would like you to overlook the fact that it takes two to tango. If there is an edit war, there are at least two warriors. While pointing to Boodlethecat's block history, Piotrus neglects to mention the admonitions he has received that 3RR is not an entitlement. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly agree, and I think that Piotrus fails to see that it takes two to edit war. Either way, the reason for this thread was to get some form of resolution to this issue, not simply sit around and throw rocks at Piotrus. I am more than willing to write up a proposal, but I would like to hear from others before I do as to if they even feel that a topic ban would be appropriate here. Tiptoety ^talk 02:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, I'd be happy to support some form of 1RR. For instance, I could promise not to revert Boody more then once per article per day (1RR), if he adheres to the same standard. If one of us breaks our promise, they are blocked. Simple - and should stop edit warriors (whomever they may be... :).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 1RR restrictions

The real solution here is for the two of them to stay away from each other, but seeing two of them edit the same articles and often cross paths, I think a all out ban from interacting with one another is a bit harsh and is more up ArbCom's ally. So here is what I propose: 1RR restrictions on both Piotrus and Boodlesthecat when reverting one another (generally speaking). This includes such reverts as: 1) Piotrus reverts 2) Boody reverts 3) neutral user X reverts to Piotrus version 4) Boody reverts him. Either editor found in violation of the restriction will be subject to a block. (I would also like to note that Piotrus as already agreed to 1RR restrictions) Tiptoety ^talk 03:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that--what I ideally would like to see is an actual adult solution where I can discuss my concerns with articles that concern Polish Jewry--(and there have been some serious concerns) without coming under a full fledged assault by Piotrus and his team of edit warriors working in concert, inevitably leading to Piotrus filing the inevitable 3RR (instead of ignoring my constant pleas to discuss things like adults on the talk page). It's boring & juvenile (and this abuse of admin authority is precisely what is being scrutinized at arb right now). I have fullest confidence in arguing my points in an open forum without the hostility I am inevitably subject to.

But here's my predicament--given that Piotrus works in concert with others--is 1RR practical without having it apply to his team? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please see my message above: "1) Piotrus reverts 2) Boody reverts 3) neutral user X reverts to Piotrus version 4) Boody reverts him." - simply reverse it so that you are the first one to revert. Tiptoety ^talk 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Piotrus has a number of IRC and IM "admirers", happy to blindly revert to Piotrus's versions I doubt that it would work, but we can try (edit conflict) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "neutral user X" of whom you write? It often feels like there are battle lines drawn at the articles related to Polish-Jewish history. It sometimes seems like Piotrus and other editors are engaged in tag-team editing, and it no doubt seems to him like Boodlesthecat and I do the same thing. I have a feeling that this is going to lead to edit-warring by proxy, but I suppose it's worth a try. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Any random user, a third party if you may. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Malik is indeed sometimes bizarrely vilifed (kinda silly, since Malik hardly ever reverts.) It's actually typically Piotrus and his team bum rushing me; some of Piotrus' team members even see me as a sort of all powerful dark force seeking their destruction such as those spoken about in the Protocols of the Editors of Zion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A charming accusation ("Bum rushing"), however I beleive 1RR on both editors should be sufficent at this time. Also about being the "dark force", I was under the impression that was me :P Prom3th3an (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you're currently doing your best to secure that title. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know and im doing a good job hey? I should get a barnstar, someone make me a barnstar :P Prom3th3an (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about this discussion. First, because I’m Polish like Piotrus I’m already a tag-team member, a guilty party if you will, and I haven’t even done anything. Articles on Polish-Jewish history are routinely defaced with polonophobic propaganda, and than locked for weeks at a time by non-Polish admins. Not a single Polish editor voiced his opinion here so far. That’s because some of us are simply afraid of being called anti-Semites who do nothing but rant. What I would like to see is some kind of system of coping with constant intimidation we are being subjected to recently. I do not understand why am I supposed to be restricted from editing because of other users incivility therefore I do not accept your proposal based on guilt by association. Please, think up something different. --Poeticbent talk 06:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

First let me say that the majority of this discussion is not appropriate. This thread was not started to simply stand around and say shitty things about Piotrus, say that he is operating some kind of cabal or dark force, and inserting propaganda. Seeing as all of that is considered a personal attack, anyone who continues to do so will be blocked. The hope in starting this thread was to get some form of resolution between the two parties (so Poeticbent, the 1RR does not affect you) and seeing as both parties have agreed to do so, I am going to go ahead and put the restrictions in place and close this thread. Tiptoety ^talk 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let's see if this will work. The less edit warring, the better for the project. I only wish we could do something about the immense amount of bad faith expressed above... but I guess that's something for ArbCom to work on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, it will be nice to get some remedial relief, and seems a viable first step towards addressing the issue of tag team edit warring, which is being addressed on Arbcom. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

again Kirker

He has been banned on my request because of insults on 6 september. Because of that and because of our editorial dispute I have not asked block after he has called me pathetic with small-minded mentality [39], and I have not started new "idiotic" try to block him [40], but I have been happy with administrator 8 september warning ( all discussion in Archive473. This has been OK until yesterday when he has fallen to in my thinking harass account trap and answered: "If I get any more messages like this, I'll turn Kvarner Bay into blood" [41] Similar to demand for new Kirker blocking I am asking block for Rjecka-budala (name translation: Rijeka fool) and I have asked checkuser check of Rjecka-budala account [42]--Rjecina (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious vandal Sock blocked indefinitely. And I don't understand the rest of what you said Rjecina, but I'll look into it.--Tznkai (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My small problem is with Kirker statement "I'll turn Kvarner Bay into blood" ? If you are thinking that this is OK then OK (I from Rijeka which is on Kvarner bay)--Rjecina (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Just a couple of things, if I may. Firstly, to be clear, Kirker was not "banned". He was blocked for 31 hours for incivility. Regarding the comment about Kvarner Bay, it was obviously intended to be humourous, in response to a series of messages that were in themselves intended to raise a smile. Misplaced humour on both sides, I guess, but there you go. Meanwhile, Rjecina, your ongoing campaign to have Kirker eliminated rather reminds me of a hydra, but as you obviously believe it to be for the good of the encyclopedia, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! A few days ago I received a message that I initially assumed to be Rjecina's work. I see now that such humour is beyond Rjecina, so it must have been a clever parody. Among other things it said: "Today Rijeka river flows uphill becaus of your insults and pupptetry." In my stern response (likewise confined to my own talk page) I mentioned Kvarner Bay only because that is the bay into which the Rijeka once drained (before I reversed its flow). But for the time being the people of Rijeka City should stay in their homes as there is some doubt about whether I am even capable of carrying out my threat. Poor Rjecina!

Thanks for alerting me to this complaint, AlasdairGreen27 - you were right to guess that Rjecina hadn't bothered. But then Rjecina added me to some Wikipedia project today and didn't even consult me about that! Kirker (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh.... I see Rjecina has acknowledged, albeit on someone else's talk page, that the project thing was inappropriate, so I wihtdraw that bit. Kirker (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Stymied by large article history delete

I've been going through and cleaning a trail of edit summary vandalism. When I requested deletion of California, I see:

This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions.

Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia.

So, what do I do? —EncMstr (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe only developers have the means to delete pages with that many revisions. Alternatively, if the edit summaries cause serious concern (i.e. outing an editor), I prescribe a shot of revision hiding. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 07:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is the best bet here. I think stewards have the bigdelete permission, but they are probably not too keen to start cleaning articles here. If I remember correctly, there is also an open bugzilla enhancement request, which would allow admins to delete single revisions without doing the whole delete/undelete-routine. I cannot give you the bugzilla number for that, though, as I have never been able to find anything there :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that most of the time, if the vandalism is not worth bugging oversight then it's not worth killing the database by performing a big delete/restore anyway :). I couldn't find the revisions so I guess oversight acted upon it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting pages to remove edit summary vandalism should not be done without gaining community consensus. Such mass deletions affect all of us, including potential new editors who try to edit for the first time and are met with the server lock message. Most of these summaries aren't even worth the trouble. It's in the history, not on the page. If it doesn't qualify for oversight, locking the server down to remove it only serves the vandal in extending the negative impact their edits have had on the project. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? I cannot say I have ever heard that before ... --Kralizec! (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The 5000 revisions limit has been enforced to prevent admins from deleting the sandbox again :p (last time, the db was locked for an hour as a result)

Spamming sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Socks ironed and put back in the draw _Gb^T/c 07:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi these accounts keep adding the same spamlink to articles like the Pickens Plan article, and some others. People keep removing it but they just come back and put it in again. The accounts are User:Peakoil30 and User:Peakoil40. I think another sock may be User:Global10133. I was going to file my first checkuser but that page says to come here with obvious disruptive socks. Schweingesicht (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Socks (Peakoil30 and 40) blocked, I've assumed Global10133 is the master account and have warned it accordingly, although it could itself be a sock. Someone had tagged one of the socks as being a suspected sock of Pythagoras, but I see no evidence of that from their contributions. _Gb^T/c 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding the Lindsay Lohan article into the LGBT project

It seems two users are attempting to add this article into the LGBT article due to the suspicion that she may be marrying another woman. So far this has only been reported in tabloid press and in Newsday her representative was quoted denying the claim. I have repeated reverted the addition of the project tag due to WP:BLP but the other user keeps reverting back. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think these are just rumors and have been denied by Linday's official rep's. Unless the fact is verified, the article shouldn't be added to the LGBT project. --Superflewis (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of those other users. The project inclusion has been there for a while. The issue isn't whether reliable sources have said Lohan is gay ... they haven't, and neither the article nor the talk page makes that claim. Reliable news sources have discussed her relationship with Ronson, and the discussion of that relationship with Ronson has generated discussion about modern tolerance of homosexual and bisexual celebrities. There isn't a BLP issue here.Kww (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I also don't see why this would be an AN/I or BLP issue - is being associated of interest to LGBT supposed to be defamatory? Other sources include the San Francisco Chronicle,[43] the Telegraph,[44] ABC News,[45] and probably hundreds more. Wikidemon (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are behind the veil, BLP violations exist in the article. This is just standard wikipedian in fighting, and should be settled by talking it through. Also, 3RR counts on talk pages too kids. Play nice.--Tznkai (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Along with Kww, I am the other of those other users. The question to be asked when adding the LGBT project template is not "Is Lindasy Lohan gay?" but "Is the Lindsay Lohan media story that she's engaged to another woman of relevance to the LGBT WikiProject?". To which of course the answer is yes. Tagging someone under our remit is not a violation of BLP. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Once more, WP:LGBT is associated with imposing its views upon an article simply by placing its Wikiproject template on the talk page. Either I'm just becoming aware of the frequency of these disputes, or they are rising in number. Either way, it's really draining to have to explain in multiple articles that members of WP:LGBT are just as interested in accuracy of detail than any other Wikipedian. Regardless is Lohan is or isn't gay, her article needs to reflect what has been published by reliable sources; that is the reason why that template is there. We do rumor control just like anyone else who watches the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that gay people "impose" their views just by having them is always a little suspect. If LGBT designates something a subject of interest that isn't a disparagement is it? Wikidemon (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understood my comment to mean that others are assuming we're imposing our hope or view that Lohan is gay simply by placing the Wikiproject template on the talk page. That is not what it means, nor is it why it's there. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because a BLP has the LGBT project tag on does not mean that the person in question is gay. Such blinkered thinking/assumptions are unfortunate. The rumours around Lohan mean that if anything it is more important that the LGBT project is involved to help ensure that only accurately and reliably sourced info is included, because the project has more experience at dealing with scandal-led reporting of certain newspages/papers. This really shouldn't be an issue for ANI. --Ged UK (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Given how widely Lohan is being discussed in GLBT media, inclusion in the WikiProject seems reasonable. Being listed by the project just means a person is of interest to people interested in this subject; Fred Phelps is also listed under this WikiProject, and I'm 85% sure that he isn't gay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There has been substantial newscoverage of the relationship including lots of sources that certainly pass WP:RS (a few of them are quoted above in Wikidemon's post, but there are lots more[46]) and the relationship has been routinely characterized as romantic by these sources. In view of this I don't see a problem with adding the LGBT project template to the page. Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if mere rumors were spread by questionable sources such as Perez Hilton or TMZ, the fact that WP:LGBT must get other editors to agree and confirm that an article is within its scope is bizarre and unnecessary. Why are its own members not the best judges to make that determination? I must confess that I find this a source of continuing frustration. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with Moni and Ged UK (among others). A WikiProject, any Wikiproject, should not have to "explain itself", should not be subjected to repeated accusations of disparagement, and should not have to justify its taggings, for a talkpage of an article of itnerest. This debate is old, and it is not 1957. Keeper ǀ 76 13:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice no one seems worried about whether we might be implying that Lohan is transsexual. Why is that? I think it's because it is obviously ridiculous to make that conclusion, simply based on the presence of a Wikiproject tag on a Talk page. I think the same argument applies equally well to the letters L, G and B. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant point.Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:206.40.105.3

Resolved

I've just discovered repeated vandalism by user 206.40.105.3, e.g. on [Charles Borromeo], [Saint Nicholas] and [Saint Dominic] but also several others. Unfortunately, only discovered it today whereas it happened Sept 10 and 11. On checking, also discovered that this user has been vandalising for a long time. Please take appropriate action. Thanks. --Oliver Stegen (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked for a week; the IP is likely dynamic or shared, so the owner/user changes too often to do much else. Other than the recent spree, the last we heard from them was one edit in July and one in June, so it's not that much of a long-term problem. Comparatively. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Egregious violation of WP:AGF

Resolved

 – No admin action required or possible. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Guettarda just made an egregious violation of WP:AGF [47] by construing something completely offensive and untrue. It's an obvious violation of WP:5 and I believe his recent edits to Relationship between religion and science don't improve wikipedia in part because of the violation and in part that logically they don't make sense. For his or her next actions seem done to provoke an edit war. His or her removal of material that was never questioned by any other editor before. In fact another editor put it in its prominent location. what can be done about this? --Firefly322 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Please follow the dispute resolution processes rather than telling tales here when you are in a content dispute. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any egregious anything, obvious content dispute. Pete.Hurd (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How is someone assuming that I somehow meant screw you not an egregious violation of WP:5? If you said that in a workplace you could easily loose your job. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Which part of "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department" did you not understand? Content disputes go to dispute resolution. Admins are not your mummy and will not give another user a telling off for you when you are having a content dispute with them. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone assuming something bad about another editor is not a content dispute. Wikipedia should not allow obvious unWP:CIVIL and non-WP:AGF actions/comments to go unchecked, especially ones that can easily accumulate and help to cultivate a hostile work environment. ЯEDVERS as someone who states that they are gay on their talk page, I would think that you may know something about a hostile work environment. Wikipedia has WP:5 and includes WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, there's nothing about don't ask don't tell, because this isn't the U.S. military. It's supposed to be welcoming to gays, straights, religious and non-religious persons alike. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. Would you like an example of an egregious violation of WP:AGF? Here's one for you. Your AN/I thread on Hrafn succeeded in driving him into retirement when all your previous harassment of him had failed to do so. Having discovered the magical power of AN/I, you're eager to try it out against a new opponent. Hesperian 14:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Me harrassing Hrafn? Check the diffs. With all due respect, think you've got it backwards. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that all the response I get? Aren't you going to take me to AN/I or RFC or ArbCom or something? Or do you prefer to save your frivolous complaints for people who scrutinize your contributions? Hesperian 14:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Evilimaws - blocked sockpuppeteer needs attention

User:Evilimaws (recently blocked sockpuppet of User:Swamilive) is leaving me personal messages on their talk page about recent account creation sprees. There was a recent influx of disruptive sockpuppets from this user. It would be nice if an admin could protect their talk page and double check that account creation is disabled on their recently blocked accounts and IPs. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)