Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orravan (talk | contribs) at 07:53, 6 February 2009 (→‎Disruptive POV-pushing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion


    Historicist edit warring on BLP violations

    Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is edit warring across multiple articles to insert more or less identical poorly sourced / unsourced claims that a Palestinian-American professor, Rashid Khalidi, printed a "fabricated" or "bogus" quotation in a New York Times editorial. This has continued for several days despite numerous warnings, talk page discussion, discussion at WP:BLP/N#Henry Siegman - "anti-Israeli" criticism and reversions from several different editors. I have found five articles so far:

    The edits have been reverted and/or opposed on the talk pages by Nbauman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), GrizzledOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), myself, and Mackan79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the first four of whom removed or refactored the material on BLP grounds, and the last suggesting administrative intervention on the Khalidi talk page.[18] I can see at least a couple editors who added or restored Historicist's material, but Historicist seems to be by far the main editor involved.

    This continues a month's long pattern by Historicist of adding poorly sourced derogatory content to the encyclopedia, then edit warring it in against consensus. The presence of administrators has in the past not been enough to stop the edit wars or to keep the talk page discussion fair or civil - there was full page protection at least twice. The earlier trouble dates back to the period when Khalidi was a political football over the John McCain "pals around with terrorists" smear of Obama. I bring this report with some reluctance because in the past these reports have turned into forums for making ridiculous accusations against me for my role in keeping the peace.Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Section break

    Many of the edits you provide as diffs are old and some of them aren't reversions. If you think there's edit warring you should report it to the appropriate board. Instead you are stringing together edits to make it look like edit warring and casting aspersions on his motivations, this strikes me as being disruptive and tendentious. As I recall, in one of the cases you cite Historicist signed on for mediation and you refused and obstructed for months. Without commenting on the merits of the content he's trying to add, it's not like he's making it up out of whole cloth and without any citations. I find your attempts to treat every content dispute as a battle that requires administrator intervention unfortunate. Personally I find that you are aggresive with warning templates and abusive in your accusations of edit warring and other accusations where there is none. Certainly Historicist could act with more prudence, but he's not the only one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stick to the matter at hand - you are an involved party here, having defended historicist and participated in edit wars and accusations on Historicist's side, and I'm tired of dignifying these tit-for-tat complaints with a serious response. Historicist's diffs speak for themselves and show edit warring BLP violations against consensus. Four editors reverted on BLP grounds, and the sourcing for this derogatory material is unquestionably weak. The problem is that as in past incidents he does not stop unless he is stopped. This has gone on for months and it has now flared up twice the last three weeks, resulting in long term full protection of the article both times. Neither policy, nor warnings, nor pleas to follow BRD, nor failing to obtain consensus, have prevented him from simply reverting again and again, until the article in question gets protected. There is nothing to mediate here. It is a behavior problem. This is the correct forum for such things. Wikidemon (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidemon mentions part of the problem, but not all of it. In the same obviously inappropriate paragraph that Historicist added (and both ChildofMidnight and he then reverted into place), Historicist also attributed to Efraim Karsh a comment about Khalidi's "blind nationalist belief," that it "reduces his academic work to the level of mere 'political polemics.'" In fact Karsh said nothing of the sort, commenting only on a specific quote of Khalidi's that it "may have some merit at the level of political polemics."[19] Historicist's addition is, in other words, a blatant misrepresentation of source material, intentional or otherwise, on top of the other issues. In fact I do not see how ChildofMidnight should be editing this article either, however, as his interventions have been almost entirely to replace not just poorly sourced but mis-sourced material, while attacking editors on the page but refusing to engage or discuss the content. His replacement of this paragraph without any explanation in talk is just one of several examples over the last months. In most articles I would be more willing to deal with this, but considering it is a BLP I think that administrative action is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are both setting a new standard for false accusations, personal attacks and incivility. Are we to believe that if there were a legitimate instance of edit warring you wouldn't have reported it immediately? Making false accusations is itself an offense, so save us the fake dramatics. You've brought up concerns over the content, and now you need to work through the discussion and dispute resolution remedies to decide what can and should be included if anything. Did you try rewording or was the edit simply reverted in its entirety? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ChildofMidnight seems to have some weird problem keeping his cool about this page, and for some reason has been shielding Historicist via edit wars, personal attacks, assumptions and accusations of bad faith, etc. Most of this seems to come from thin air and/or a complete misunderstanding of BLP. BLP violations and POV pushes do not have to be rephrased or agreed on - they are deleted on sight. Yet we have worked with the problem editors for months to try to make peace, without any improvement in their behavior. I did not include him in the initial report because until now most of this was a little stale and his role in the latest flare-up was relatively slight, but this report seems to have triggered this bizarre reaction again. A review of his record on the page shows that he has been seriously disruptive and quite at odds with policy and editing process - he probably ought to stay away from the page as well. Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If a comment is false, it helps to say why (and please do show what I said that's uncivil). I addressed earlier, here, your replacement of an earlier paragraph created by another editor that substantially misrepresented the source material. Again here you arrived on the page, without discussion, to do the same. What's odd to me is that over this time you still won't see that it is in fact extremely shoddy material that is being added to this article, and that this is why people continue to remove it. Instead you seem to think people should somehow just fix it even though you admit the material is problematic and show no ability or attempts to do so yourself. This isn't complicated in any case. The material Historicist added here, and you replaced, clearly misrepresents the underlying sources. My experience is that when editing is this bad on a BLP, the editors responsible are prohibited from editing the page. If we aren't at that point now I think we must be pretty close. Mackan79 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Content issue

    The most obvious issue here is ongoing edit warring that resists all attempts to stop. However, lest this get into a discussion of content and the applicability of BLP, please note that the only reliable source offered to date is an editor's note in a New York Times editorial noting that the widely repeated quote (which did not originate with Khalidi) could not be verified and does not appear in the source it is generally attributed to,[20]. The source does not say that anybody "fabricated" anything. The material disputed on BLP grounds includes accusations that are synthesis, opinion, or original research, or sourced to editorials appearing on pro-Israel attack websites / organizations Middle East Forum and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA, which has a notorious history here - see CAMERA#Wikipedia Campaign).Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite the explanation of WP:BLP guidelines, I had to revert his changes as well. He seems rabidly insistent that his derogatory and poorly sourced opinions be included, despite consensus against him. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rabidly insistent"? How about this comment [21] where you say "Historicist's butchery of the English language was just so painful, that I had to go and vent my frustration somewhere." That sounds like a personal attack to me. I think everyone involved could do a better job of following the appropriate dispute resolution protocols and civility guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the use of this remark to get at Khalid Rashidi and Henry Siegman is questionable. Both the Camera and the Commentary piece flaunt the 'bogus' claim to a purpose, to smear the former's scholarship and the latter's competence. For the record, the phrase translated as 'sear into their consciousness' did not arise with Moshe Ya'alon, but was IDF jargon, used in contexts for harsh military, as opposed to political, measures against any Palestinians involved in any form of revolt against the Occupation, during the intifadas. Both the Ricki Hollander, Alex Safian, and Jason Maoz's pieces from activist sites make out that this is a total fabrication, one drawn 'ad nauseam by Arab news services, neo-Nazi websites and leftist bloggers', and the innuendo is obvious. Yet Hollander and Safian's own construal is questionable, and like Maoz they ignore the fact that a distinguished Israeli scholar like Yoram Peri uses it in his highly regarded book,Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy,US Institute of Peace Press, 2006. Peri is on the other side of the political fence from both Khalidi and Siegman and yet uses much the same language of Peri's remark, which created an uproar in Israel when it, and his remarks before the rabbinate some weeks earlier, were published. I suggest in the meantime that Historicist dig out what is now an idiom in Hebrew, and provide wiki editors with the full Hebrew text, so that at least those fluent in that language can examine the source and its translations, and allow us to judge for ourselves. Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ChildofMidnight - My choice of adjectives is not the issue here. The edits by which Wikidemon has asked for administrator intervention IS. If you wish to accuse me of harassment, derogatory statements or such, please do so within the context of this issue, or do so separately. Looking through Rashid Khalidi history, you appear to have a record of supporting Historicist's edits. As I see it, you are not an unbiased party. Pot kettle black?GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional civility issues

    Yes, I would say your comments show clear signs of a bias against Historicist and I don't see how bringing up old gripes does much to help the situation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's purpose was not to help heal anyone or any situation. It's purpose was to put the user's specific behaviour in this case in the context of a broader pattern of incivility and problematic editing. If that disturbs you, look away. But any admin who is going to address this will benefit from knowing the whole history of problems with the user, and this was intended to assist him or her in that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that what you offer is a one-sided portrayal rather than a fair assessment of all sides involved. In this very thread there are examples of problematic edits from others, but you've ignored them. This is a content dispute, and while it's certainly appropriate to remind Historicist and everyone else to use dispute resolution protocls rather than editing back and forth over content, I don't see anything to be gained from your negative characterizations and assessment of one party with whom you've had difficulties in the past. If he's expected to show restraint so should you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it was one-sided—the personal attacks were leveled against me. The target of the attack usually can't help but be "one side" of the issue, and the target is not a neutral party. That's why it's not me who is pursuing the issue as a type of "mediator", as I stated above. Any admin who is neutral and is further interested in pursuing the issue could (and I expect would) examine the entire thread of our discussion to see what my comments were, so your concern that I am being "one sided" is a red herring. If you yourself would care to examine the discussion, I think you'd probably conclude that I had "showed restraint", as you put it, whereas he did not. (Or, just ask the user—he could simply tell you the "other side" of the story.) The entire point is that the user's behaviour has, in the past, gone well beyond mere "content disputes" into personal attacks, which they very well could end up again. Let's try not to have such a spider's-eye-view of the matter. I would prefer that editors try to address the underlying problems and not just deal with every issue as a discrete content dispute with no connection whatever to previous or future actions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A little reality check

    • User:Good Olfactory appears to engage in rapid-fire requests to delete categories, many are useful, but when I happened upon him he was attempting to eliminate two Holocaust related categfories and do so in the language of Holocause minimization, his claim was that "merely" suriviving the war in Europe as a hunted Jew in hiding was not Wikipedia worthy unless the Jew in quesiton had been in a death camp, his casual dismissal of the mass murder of millions of European Jews outside of the death camps is the definition of Holocaust minimization. I have cooperated with Good Olafactory on other articles. But Holocaust minimization is vile. I am troubled that he is still defending his remarks and behavior.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a gross misreading or mis-statement of my comments devoid of context. The comments were made in the context of a CfD discussion–proposal to delete a category. I did not say that a mention that someone was a (non-concentration camp) Holocaust survivor "was not Wikipedia worthy". I was suggesting that a certain category for Holocaust survivors did not fit into the then-existent WP categorization scheme. There is a vast difference; it is one that almost every editor that participated in the discussion (except Historicist) has realised. I have explained this to him before and even (twice) apologised to him that my comments were misunderstood. But even if I had suggested what Historicist seems intent on misunderstanding me as meaning, that is no excuse to engage in incivility and attacks on another WP user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Wikidemon patrols the Rashid Khalidi page. It took me three months of many-times-per-day editing argument on the Rashid Khalidi talk page to enter the straigntforward infoormation that Khalidi was a PLO official in the 1970's and 80's. This despite the fact that the info I was struggling to enter was sourced to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times Pacifica Radio the New York Times several well-known reporters who interviewed Khalidi in Lebanon as a PLO official and academics who have written about the periof. Wikidemon and accomplices argued for three months that all of this evidence was invalid. The arguments Wikidemon used them are the same kind of personal attacks on me that he is using now.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it that unruly POV pushers always accuse the accuser? That's one of the tiresome things about dealing with the Palestinian/Israeli partisans, they're so jumpy. My record is clean here and that morass is not really my little corner of Wikipedia. Historicist keeps trying to source disparagement of Khalidi (and possibly other opponents of Israel) to political attack blogs, think tanks, letters to the editor, and opinion pieces by partisans and pundits. The text he tries to insert in the article does not even follow from those non-reliable sources. For example, the Republican presidential campaign talking point he was pushing for months, that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO but lied about it (and hence, his supposed friend Barack Obama, as Sarah Palin put it, palls around with terrorists) did not have good sourcing, was flat-out contradicted by some sources, is denied by the subject of the article, and may in fact be simply untrue. It's pointless to argue content here though. Now he's been trying to add to five articles material implying that Khalidi fabricated a quote, which is clearly untrue. These ongoing BLP violations, however blatant, are a content issue that we could easily deal with on the article page. The months-old behavior problem, which shows no sign of acknowledgement or abating, is not proposing the material. Anyone is free to propose content for the encyclopedia. It's the drama when he does not get his way - gross incivilities, wikigaming, and accusations against those who disagree on the content, then when asked to stop, blowing smoke by accusing others of the same thing. Historicist has been the source of most of the edit problems on the page, with occasional fly-bys from less frequent editors. Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The real issue is whether crtiticism is allowed

    • The material at immediate issue consists of:
    • 1) A fabricated quotation, published by Khalidi no fewer than four times. It was not only removed, the removing editors implied that the quote was not fabricated. Note that the correction ran 22 days after the fake quote. In that time the Times contacted Khalidi (departmental scuttlebut) and Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote, and failed. If Khalidi couldn't rind it, and the Tiems couldn't find it, its a fake. The quotation was first published by journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, without a citation. The citation to a particular Ya'alon interview was first published by Khalidi. That is, he fabricated the citation to a source twhere the quote did not appear. In a junior professor, this sort of fraudulent scholarship lieds to denial of tenure.
    • 2) an academic article about a second instance of Khalidi publishing a quotation from a Christian cleric with a fabricated attiibution to a Zionist, and also making a verfiably false claim about a book by Theodore Herzl. That is, I was adding to the Khalidi page three well documented instances with good sources in which Khalidi published false information about what a Zionist had actually said.
    • 3) an assertion by a distinguished historian Efraim Karsh making a widely shared criticism of Khalidi as writing books more as a propagandist for the Palestinian cause than as an objective scholar. Similar statements appear on the Wikipedia pages of many of the pro-Israeli historians whose work contests Khalidi's claims. I point out here that Khalidi self-describes as an advocate fo the Palestinian cause and actually worked for the PLO as a young man as an official propagandist. Many historians view Khalidi's work as part of a centuries old tradition of nationalist historians promoting their national cause. It is not a category to be scorned; most of us regard Herodotus as a nationalist historian, he gives about as balanced an account of the Greek cause and the Persian Empire as Khalidi does of the Middle East. When historians write as partisans, it is appropriate to say so. I admire some of Khalidi's work, I use some of it, but I recognize it as an entirely one-sided account of reality, polemic in the best sense of the word.
    • My purpose in adding the material critical of Khalidi was to begin a section that might, with time, develop into an appropriately-sized section on academic criticisms of this highly controversial academic.
    • The real issue here, as I see it, is whether well-soruced material critical of Rashid Khalidi will be allowed onto his page, or whether anyone trying to add such material will be required to run the gauntlet of a months-long battle on the talk page and subjected to false accusations and personal attacks.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits were rejected because you provided poor sources, inflammatory/libellous language and made personal inferences on the facts. Just as you are doing here. Just taking what you said of Khalidi's quote issue...
    • "fabricated quotation" - There's a world of difference between "unverified" and "fabricated". Perhaps you could provide a source where Khalidi specifies his source for the quote, and the original interview transcripts (I assume they're in Hebrew), so that editors can view it more impartially? Perhaps a neutral 3rd party who has done so?Failing that, the NYT wording of "unverified" has to be accepted.
    • "In that time the Times..."
    1. "... in that time..." - you imply that the NYT investigated the quote for 3 weeks (actually, you said so specifically, elsewhere). There is no source documenting when the NYT first questioned the source. If one is to accept your argument, then CAMERA has been researching the issue for the better part of 6 years? And it took them that long to figure it out? Is this the subject of a feature film?
    2. "contacted Khalidi" - this isn't mentioned anywhere in the NYT article.
    3. "Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote" - he did? Your source? Where does it say that?
    4. "fraudulent scholarship" - this sort of statement is potentially libellous and has to stay out of BLPs. I don't think anyone rejected the possibility that an error was made. But an error is quite different from fraud. Your use of inflammatory language is not justified. If he has committed academic fraud, then surely you can find neutral 3rd party sources which have covered the issue of the alleged fraud?
    This is an example of how you failed to support the allegations you brought up. Inflammatory language, poor extremist sources and a failure to address any concerns which the other editors brought up. It is not, as you claim, a vendetta to slander Ya'alon. You could help by finding a source where Siegman specifies his source of the quote, and the original Hebrew transcripts. It'd be original research, but it would at least help cast some light on the issue.GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we please not argue content here? The content is poorly sourced, as most of the editors on the various pages concur - and Historicist's argument above is as leaky as a sieve. Per a whole bunch of policies it is the responsibility of the editor proposing content to provide adequate sourcing, and obtain consensus for disputed edits. That is not going to happen unless there is a new development because the sources are just not there. The reason this is an AN/I issue isn't specifically that Historicist keeps trying the more prudent editors' patience with months of these weak proposals, but that he causes unending trouble when they are rejected. By revert warring poorly sourced material into the article again and again, he leaves the well-behaved editors few options. I will revert him once, or maybe twice, but he will take every one of these edits up to 3RR, badmouth those who disagree with him, and if he didn't get the last revert he will start again another day. Dispute resolution, discussion, etc., have not seemed to work here. If he does not stop the only reasonable outcomes I can see all involve administrative intervention.Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long answer to rhetorical question

    In a spot check of Historicist's edits, I see two main focuses - articles about politics, and uncontroversial articles about various Jewish and Israeli organizations. With respect to the former, nearly all of Historicist's edits are to repeat criticism made by pro-Israeli or pro-American partisan groups and individuals of people perceived as anti-Israeli or anti-Western. Overall it displays a weak appreciation for our standards of neutrality and sourcing, in that the criticisms are backed only by primary source citations to the group leveling the criticism, and many make claims not contained in the source or contain on-Wiki editorializing.
    As an example, Historicist's most recent edit ats the moment is adding to the "criticism" of Amnesty International article, and to the "praise" section of NGO Monitor a claim that the Asian Tribune has "praised" NGO Monitor for "pointing out" that Amnesty International is biased against democratic regimes. Omitted are the disclaimers that the Asian Tribune is a tiny online newspaper published by an expatriate living in Sweden, that NGO Monitor is an Israeli partisan group that defends Israel against its repeated run-ins with Amnesty International over Israel's human rights record, or that the source in question is a five-paragraph editorial in the online paper that serves as an introduction to a reprint of an editorial written by NGO Monitor's Executive Director that appears in the New York Sun. Surely, if there is criticism of Amnesty International worth noting in this encyclopedia there must be stronger sources. A more serious problem is that the material misrepresents the sources. The Asian Tribune does not praise NGO Monitor or its director, and does not endorse their editorial or the conclusion - it merely reprints it word for word.
    As another example, a couple weeks ago Historicist created an article about Gary Gerstle, who is apparently "one of the nation's leading historians" (though the citations come online from his own department). He then created an article for another professor, Janice Radway, with little content other than that her scholarship is noted for "radically anti-American" for covering American oppression, domination, and imperialism, cited only (and with a long quote by) Gary Gerstle to that effect. The link is not online so I cannot tell if that is what Gerstle really said, but the fratricidal tendency of history professors to tarnish each other's reputation is not the stuff of encyclopedias, at least not unless it can be cited to neutral reliable secondary sources.
    So in answer to the rhetorical question of whether criticism is allowed, yes, if it meets all of the various Wikipedia policies on verifiability / accurate reflection of sources, reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, BLP, WEIGHT, and so on. Even at that, criticism is generally supposed to be worked into the article for context, and should be relevant to the notability of the subject of the article - not just criticism for the sake of criticism. However, Wikipedia is not a forum for repeating poorly sourced partisan accusations. And it is certainly not a place for edit warring poorly sourced material against the protests of other editors, then calling them names for disapproving of your substandard content.Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guinness Question

    This is getting me wondering, if there's a Wikipedia record for the longest thread in an WP:ANI posting... or perhaps the greatest number of forks. If there is, I'm curious which we'll hit first - a record, or an admin doing something? I'm not certain. Better check the records... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That would probably go to one of the many discussions that got moved to a subpage. This isn't even close. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Defending falsehoods on Wikipedia

    The Henry Siegman page contains the bogus quote as an example of Siegman's writing. I inserted a brief statement explaining that the New York Times has established that the quote is bogus. It is, in fact, an inversion of what Ya'alon actually said, and, as such , something of a canard. Which is, of course, why Rashid Jhalidi has published it four times. User:GrizzledOldMan and USER:Wikidemon immediately removed my explanation. I expostulated on talk. They accused me of various high crimes and misdemeanors. If they are sincere in their protestations that they wish to uphold Wikipedia standards for reliable, souced information, they will insert information from the New York Times establishing that the quote it a fabrication on the Henry Siegman. Their failure to do so establishes that they are simply interested in using Wikipedia to promote anti-Israel propaganda.Historicist (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, that personal attack, which you repeated on the Siegman talk page,[22] shows zero attempt to come to grips with the BLP vios, incivility, or edit warring. The content you edit warred over, despite being asked to stop, was reverted by three different editors on BLP grounds on that page alone, you are the sole proponent there, and it is a BLP violation. If you are not blocked or banned from editing Israel-Palestine related articles, will you promise not to impugn the intentions of other editors you disagree with, and not to restore content that has been removed or disputed until and unless you get general consensus / agreement from the editors on the page? The New York Times article says nothing of the sort you claim it to. So while we are at it, it would be nice but not mandatory for now that you make sure the content you add is actually supported by the sources you propose, and not to source disparagement of people you consider anti-Israel to partisan pro-Israeli blogs, think tanks, and editorialists. Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Palestine-Israel general enforcement

    I just came across the arbitration committee's decision here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. The repeated edit problems on the Ya'alon, Khalidi, and Siegman articles, and this aspect of the CAMERA article, are clearly over the Israel / Palestine conflict. Can we simply warn any offending editors that they will be expected to stick to 1RR, civility, etc., that they are expected per BRD not to make disputed changes before gaining consensus, and that there will be a zero tolerance policy with blocks or topic bans for further violations?

    The Khalidi article is now indefinitely protected. None of this discussion seems to be getting through to Historicist, and I see little chance absent some administrative action that his edit warring, BLP vios, incivility, etc., will stop if article probation is lifted. If a version of the content gains consensus, fine, it can go in the article. If not -- the far more likely outcome -- he needs to accept that. In the meanwhile it is unacceptable that he or anyone else would edit war this material (4RR between two editors over a 7-hour period) into the article without gaining consensus, particularly when it is challenged by multiple editors on BLP grounds. If this discussion ends without a block or a topic ban, can we use arbitration enforcement or some other appropriate tool to ensure editors don't do this again?Wikidemon (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Incidentally, I think Historicist is actionable now. His personal attacks are continuing - in the past few minutes he has cut-and-pasted the above personal attack, that another editor and I are "simply interested in using Wikipedia to promote anti-Israel propaganda", on one of the article talk pages.[23] Clearly, the warnings and the fact we're here on AN/I are not slowing him down - and if you look at his record he has already been blocked twice over doing the same thing on the same subject matter. Can we please put this one out of its misery? I believe editors who do this sort of thing repeatedly get blocked or banned from Israel-Palestine related articles.Wikidemon (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this thread goes to the great blue yonder of the archives, per this suggestion on my talk page[24] should no action be taken on this report I will give Historicist the required notice per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions that any future edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, or accusations of bad faith will be reported to WP:AE. I'll also suggest unprotecting Rashid Khalidi (no concrete proposal has been introduced there since the protection and this AN/I report began) and attaching the {{sanctions}} tag to that and the other articles affected by article probation. If anyone sees any flaws or has objections to this approach, please let me know.Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... I do. Sorry to make this difficult, but being a BLP, it specifically comes under the exception. As I read it, edit-warring really only applies to those who are trying to put in objectionable content - it doesn't apply to those removing those changes. Or have I misread things? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think you're missing something. My reason for proposing this is the same as for my filing the AN/I report, to restore sanity and civil stable editing on a number of article pages. Anyone can revert in good faith content they legitimately dispute - once - without it being considered warring. If they do it properly, with an explanation, edit summary, etc., then per WP:BRD it is supposed to stay out until and unless it gains consensus, BLP vio or no BLP vio. Anyone reverting it back in is violating the arbitration decision by edit warring and, if they have been put on notice of the decision, is subject to arbitration enforcement sanctions by a neutral administrator. If that doesn't work and a perceived BLP vio remains in the article, you can take your chances. You can revert again and carefully explain why you are doing so, warn the offending editor again, take your chances, complain, and/or ask for help or guidance. Getting into a revert fight, even to remove perceived BLP vios, is always iffy - except in the most blatant urgent cases you take your chances on whether people agree with you and it is often best to ask for guidance first. That's always the case, whether or not we are under general sanctions. However, at this point it should be clear from this article and the discussions on all of the pages affected that there is no consensus to add the material, it is legitimately challenged as a BLP violation, and the involved people know full well at this point that they are not supposed to keep reverting it back into the article. Increased attention by administrators who are helping to keep the peace on the Israel-Palestinian corner of Wikipedia are a lot more likely to do something about the problem than the administrative or editor community at large, who sees a lot of smoke and fighting, and often has trouble making sense of exactly what the fuss is about. Wikidemon (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) You may have misread only in that Historicist was adding the incorrectly sourced negative material, not removing it. I think the approach is fine, though I believe that only an admin can give the "official" notice under the case. If it's raised on the relevant board, in any case, an admin should deal with it one way or another. Mackan79 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give the notice if no admin will, and if they object they can repeat or endorse it. The point is to make sure the person knows about the policy before they are sanctioned for violating it, not to get into details about how they know. Wikidemon (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I see that the notice is supposed to be given only by administrators, and that reports are supposed to be made at WP:AE, which I did and note below. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported to WP:AE

    Because nothing is happening here, and the edit warring[25] and incivility continue on one of the articles, I have gone ahead and asked for help / guidance at WP:AE as discussed above.Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's not stopping his edit warring - it continues here. I think article protection is needed on Siegman's article as well. Or admin intervention. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed a note on Historicist's talkpage. --Elonka 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia

    I have received an email from the person behind the User:Manhattan Samurai account. This person is also believed to be the same person behind the User:BillDeanCarter account - which, as far as I am aware, is an account in good standing, but which hasn't been used since Feb 2008. The Manhattan Samurai account, however, has been troublesome and was recently blocked. The only personal information in the email is the name of the person, and the email address which I am not repeating, the rest of the information is clearly intended for this board so I repeat that here:

    You might want to save this email. Consider me the Lex Luthor of Wikipedia now. A high-profile prank has begun. I have figured out how to change my IP address and now many biographies are swapping stories between themselves and fictional families are rising up across the Wiki landscape.

    If you want to know, the last straw for me was fucking with my featured article "List of works by William Monahan". Slowly and methodically I will have my revenge. Find a way to terminate Bali Ultimate's account and reverse the damage he has done and I will hand over the names of the accounts that I'm now using

    I don't doubt that this person will do as he says, but such vandalism occurs everyday and is dealt with by the systems we have in place. I don't see that there is much for us to do with this information, but felt it was appropriate that I pass it on immediately. SilkTork *YES! 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should give him what he wants. Sorry Bali. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Papa! I'm scared! Drmies (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) sent out around 50 emails in the past two days, to a wide variety of users (looks at first glance like one email per recipient). Zdefector (talk · contribs) is looking a bit sockish, as mentioned above, and is a  Confirmed match for Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs), though I'm not seeing a direct connection between those three and the MS account. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange. I received an e-mail from this user on Sunday, one that seemed at face value to be a good faith request for me to pass on his desire to see the Manhattan Samurai account unblocked. His reasons amounted to his "sincere" desire to reform and quietly work on potential featured articles. I was mulling over whether to pass the request on, intending to look into the editor's history a little more closely first, when I saw this. Either the editor is simply trolling, attempting to disrupt the project as much as possible, or is so highly-strung that he genuinely changed his mind from wanting to reform to wanting to vandalise in the space of a few hours. One other thing: he explicitly asked me not to reveal his name on-Wiki. If he made a similar request to the OP, vandal or no, it may have been inappropriate to reveal it here. On the other hand, this might have been a ploy to stop my revealing the name of one of his accounts. Either way, despite my belief that many problem users are redeemable in some way, I suggest that should the account ever be unblocked (highly unlikely), it is done so only if the editor is placed under strict mentorship, with several thousand strings attached. Steve T • C 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where anyone has revealed the name of the email account here. To see where people have previously made a connection between the Manhattan Samurai account and other Wikipedia accounts, do a Google search for "Manhattan Samurai". That such a claim has been made on WikipediaReview doesn't mean it is true - it is simply another piece of information in this tortured case. Given the "playful" deception that the user behind Manhattan Samurai has previously used, it is equally likely that the user is NOT behind the other account but - for fun - wishes to make us believe he is. Who knows? SilkTork *YES! 11:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, he sent me an email saying he was User:BillDeanCarter, which mostly made me wary of belief. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (To SilkTork) What I meant was in reference to revealing the previous account name, he said: "Please be sensitive about revealing that my real name is [X] because I wanted to abandon that account so that my real life information was kept secret." Editing histories seem to indicate that this at least is the truth, but whether this is something we do for people who subsequently turn out to be vandals is something I'll leave for more experienced vandal-fighters to deal with. All the best, Steve T • C 12:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to be uncivil, i knew that MS was trouble the moment i met him (his "wiki-conspiracy"). It seems we've found another Bambifan101. Elbutler (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    By calling himself the "lex luthor of wikipedia", does he mean that he's going to repeatedly come up with numerous elaborate and convoluted schemes which always have fatal flaws which the good guys/gals always exploit easily, resulting in the scheme failing and him going to jail?--Jac16888Talk 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah pretty much, like Superman, Wikipedians can't be blackmailed easily. Lets just whack every sockpuppet account that pops like a whack-a-mole, after sooner or later he'll come to sense and realize he shoudn't waste his life on "getting revenge on Wikipedia", but if he does waste his life, he/she is a deluded child. Elbutler (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does he realize that Lex Luthor is just a pain in the ass who never actually wins? He should think of himself as the Washington Generals of Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, as if those drawn here aren't into pain? :D Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lex Luthor! Lex Luthor fired nuclear missiles into the San Andreas Fault in an attempt to plunge the entire West Coast of America into the sea! At the moment this guy is somewhere inbetween Mister Mxyzptlk and Toyman. Stilh, he made me laugh tho, so I say we comply with his request. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Bibbo Bibbowski of Wikipedia" or "The Kandy Man of Wikipedia" don't have the same ring to them, though. – iridescent 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread gives him the drama he craves. His apparent point at wikipedia all along has been to play games, insert fictional memes here and there involving inside jokes between him and his pals. I don't know which are his socks or even if he has many, but there is always lots of sock-type behavior around him (if you look at almost any article he's edited heavily, there's always a series of SPA's that make 50 or so edits, then dissapear when a brand new SPA comes along). However, i've been deeling with abuse from Zdefector (talk · contribs), Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs). This sockmaster is at least a confederate of MS, yet no blocks have been handed out over the confirmed socking?
    All three now blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Domain_name#Official_assignment, think of en.Wikipedia topics as something alikened and all the kerfluffle becomes much easier to understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I got an email from MS too. I blocked him from sending email from his account. Just deny him and he'll go away. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot on. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this might be a good situation in which is would be appropriate to revert/undo all edits made by confirmed socks. Especially based on the threats of providing false information. This would further support to deny the attention this 12 year old craves as well as ensure that content has not been compromise. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I received an email from him, too, but the one I got seems to have good intentions behind it. What would you guys suggest I did? — neuro(talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He has obviousley stated his bad intentions. I say delete the email and ignore him. His account has also been blocked from sending email (and all sock accounts should be similarly blocked as well IMO). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It will come down to behavior. I'd bet the farm that Billdean, deathdestroyer and MS are the same. Smith jones while an odd character (he deliberately uses mispellings to create double meanings as well as spoonerisms and prose that is generally so impenetrable that it can't be by accident) i have no opinion on. But MS would absolutely love to cast suspicion on "innocent" accounts. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SJ was one of MS' more ardent supporters/friends, which casts some suspicion. Should we be opening a specific SPI thing on this or are Checkusers handling behind the scenes? //roux   19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Luna Santin did run a CU, looks like, from the post above; not sure if another one would be appropriate to try and connect with the other claimed editors. I suspect MS is just trying to take some innocent victims down with him at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By 'Lex Luthor' I thought he was stating that he we made him go bald and he hates us for it. HalfShadow 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • this is a personal dreisappointment to me. manhatan samurai was a good friend and while he idd have some issues that he oftne caused him to tangle with adminsitrators and other wikipedians he contributed to some very effectual articles such as Alan Cabal, gareth penn, ralph bakshi, and is Google making us stupid. however, i concede that eventualy the conmmunity has to have put up with enough bullcrud from this user and while it pains me to see a good editor go down for something so childish and quizotic, i agree that tis probably for the best. hopefuly User:Manhatan Samurai will take this opportnunity to withdraw, rex-amine his proiroties, and if he really wants to continue his contributions reutrn secretivly under a new name and edit constructively without lapsing back into hsi old behaviors and amake a good faith effor tto follow community policies and bylaws. as someone who considers him a friend, i hope that he will abandon his curent strategorizing and behave with more dignity in the future when he returns. Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • i just noticed tha t some other users are comparing me to Manhattan Samurai as if i am sockpuppet of him. Let it be known thus far declared; i worked with Manhattan Samurai colaboritvely to save an article Alan Cabal which it hought was being deleted unfairly. we followed all the rules' when we lost the initial WP:AFD, we took it to deletion review, then got the assistance of an adminstrator to userficate the page, then improved it through extesnive resarch to the point where it was valid to reintroduce it to the mainpage. as a srueslt of this collaboration, the spirit of Wikipedia i might add, i decided to contineu working with Manhattan samurai and develop working relationships with him to improve aritlces for which he had a shared interest.
    • That is the extent of our involvement; i am neither his meatpuppet nor his sockpupet and if any good faith suspicions remain in existence among my fellow wikipedian i Welcome a CheckUser or any other sockpuppet investigative tools since i believe in operating on a high standard and I invite any good faith users to scrutinize my behavior and correct any mistakes which i have made itn the past. Smith Jones (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Our involvement"? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at all of this, I was expecting someone to have stolen 40 cakes. And that's terrible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone who was watching this thread is interested, i believe the sock farm is agrowing, and have opened up a request to look int it here [[26]]. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive POV-pushing

    Lear 21 (talk · contribs) has been pushing for the inclusion of the European Union in the various "List of Countries by ____" articles for some time now. A wide discussion over a year ago (a discussion he participated in) resulted in a consensus that has held steady to the present. Recently, he has edit-warred on List of countries by population and List of countries and outlying territories by total area in contravention of seemingly apparent consensus against his position. He has also canvassed inappropriately (example) to gain support for his position on the latter article. Most recently, he has announced his intention to edit-war on a daily basis to ensure his position is upheld. He has also claimed that I and other editors are a cabal of chauvinist ideologues that is a threat to an encyclopedia...dedicated to inform{ing} humanity. This all smacks of someone on a crusade to "educate" the rest of us, and demonstrates a clear intention to disregard any consensus that disagrees with his own view. This type of disruption is damaging to the encyclopedia and a waste of all of our time. Is it perhaps time for a topic ban? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify further, I am not seeking to get Lear blocked for any of this; I'm sure he is a very helpful contributor in other areas. I think an editing restriction would be a much more effective means to rectify the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered an RfC on the subject? After one year, established consensus can change. Either way the RfC should either reaffirm the consensus or establish a new one.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we did have an RfC on the issue a couple of weeks ago, but there wasn't much of a concrete result (mainly due to lack of participation from uninvolved editors). Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a topic ban (as a participant in the dispute), and I don't think a block is necessary. Consensus can change, certainly, but the point is more that Lear clearly doesn't intend to accept any consensus that doesn't go his way - he tells us to "be prepared that this boring discussion will go on every day for the next years" in one of Parsecboy's diffs - so RFC would be a bit useless.
    I've found it difficult to AAGF in Lear since he told me I was here to spread hate and ignorance early last month, and the recent discussions (if they can be called that) rather reinforce that view. I, too, was reminded of WP:TRUTH when reading these posts - he uses the word "reality" instead, but the concept is the same. Pfainuk talk 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly against blocking - Come on guys, discussions can get quite emotional and hot. For the vast majority of his statements in the long discussion of the EU's entry Lear21 always came up with very valid points. The whole discussion became quite fruitless because of a lack of new arguments and not because of uninvolved editors as stated above. So don't try to find some single incidents that may be caused by some frustration about the fruitless all-over-again discussions to cut him out here, as this would be censorship. - Additionally, I feel obliged to add that it was Pfainuk who opened up this Pandora's box by deleting the EU's entry and violating the standing comprise in the first place. This started the whole mess/discussion and therefore his view in this incident notice can hardly be seen as impartial. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll not get into the details of the content dispute here because it's beside the point - though I'll point out that the original edit did not delete the EU from the article (I moved it from one part of the article to another), and that the EU did not have an entry on the list before this discussion started. I will note that I did declare my interest in this at the very beginning of my message - and I note with interest that you, also an involved party, did not.
    Discussions can become emotional, sure, that does not justify Lear's personal attacks, nor his apparent intent to force through a change by perpetually edit warring, nor his refusal to AGF (here he told another editor that his comments were "a joke and therefore inexistent"). I'm not arguing for a block, I'm arguing for a topic ban. I think that when an editor all but announces that he's going to continue to edit war against consensus for "years", he needs to stop editing on those articles or be stopped from editing those articles. You say the discussion has got quite emotional - maybe (though apparently only one one side). But that's not an excuse to edit war until you get your way. Pfainuk talk 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any block or topic ban should be based on the real facts. So, he announced he could go to edit war ... so what? Did he actually do it? When did he violate the WP:3RR? ... I think that in both our countries we wouldn't get convicted only on basis of announcing a misdoing - why should we act differently on Wikipedia? Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is this: Lear has canvassed in violation of WP:CANVASS. He has attacked other editors. And he has edited in direct contravention of apparent consensus on the talk page; that is disruptive editing in my book. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that partially goes for Pfainuk as well, as he has pushed for the removal of the EU's entry from the initial section of the article, in direct violation of the established consensus without creating a new consensus on the talk page first. That's disruptive editing by the same standards. Consensus can change, nobody is saying anything different, but there was no new consensus in the first place. - Having said that, if Lear21 should be topic banned, so should Pfainuk ... and I'm nominating myself as well, as I'm not completely sure that I acted without flaws in all my past edits. - Otherwise, we all could just cool down and forget this whole nonsense. Really. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I boldly moved the EU from above the list to below it. When I was reverted, I took it to talk. That's actually endorsed by guidelines, not condemned. Pfainuk talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no one is perfect, but that doesn't give Lear an excuse to be disruptive. I think all of us—save Lear—could quite easily drop the issue and leave it as it is. That is exactly the problem; Lear has indicated that he will accept no outcome other than his own version. That unwillingness to compromise is totally unacceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Lear 21 has tried to uphold an article´s version which has been thoroughly discussed over several years including many editors and ended in a stable compromise version which lasted for more than year. User:Parsecboy and others have been involved in these previous discussions and now deny to stick to the compromise version. In this light user Lear 21 has come forward with a new proposal citing several external expert sources. As these credible sources (among them the CIA World Factbook) are constantly denied user Lear 21 took the freedom to insist on the acceptance of these sources. User Lear 21 has given credit to one of the basic principles of Wikipedia while conducting an argumentation based on multiple facts and high-profiled references. Lear 21 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, Lear has mischaracterized my position in regards to the article; my only comments have been in support of maintaining the long-standing consensus version and towards attempts to keep the discussion on track and within policies (i.e., no edit-warring, canvassing issues, etc.). As far as I know, Polaron is the only other editor (with Lear and me) who participated in the old discussions, and he too (I believe) favors retaining the old-consensus version.
    None of that really has any bearing on this discussion though. We are talking about the disruptive actions Lear has been doing over the past weeks. He has posted biased notices on the talk pages of those he believes will support him in an attempt to votestack (example diff provided above), he has edit-warred with other editors, and has more or less announced his intention to continue to edit-war. He has also attacked other editors who disagree with him. In my opinion, Lear 21 clearly needs to stop editing in an area that he has obviously made a personal issue; if he will not agree to do that of his own volition, then we need to make that decision for him. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Lear 21 insists to either recognize external expert sources and the methodology of more than 20 sister Wiki languages OR to stick to longterm stable version which was backed by more than 10 editors over the last 3 years. User Lear 21 has not announced to start an edit war ! Quote "This will be a very long boring discussion in the next month, I promise." Instead user Parsecboy (initiator of this notice) and user Polaron have not intervened the breaching of a longstanding compromise version although both have been part of it a year ago. User Parsecboy is only willing to give incorrect and biased summaries of the discussions in order to get rid of an unwanted participant but established Wikipedia editor Lear 21. I have no doubt that this behaviour stands in a stark contradiction with guidelines issued for administrators. Lear 21 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We do not follow what other Wikis do, we are our own project; what fr.wiki or de.wiki do is totally irrelevant. Moreover, this discussion here is not over any content; it's about your poor behavior on both the articles and their talk pages.
    As for whether or not you literally said you intended to edit war, "I will be a frequent editor at this list from now on to ensure that credible sources are acknowledged. On a daily basis." seems to be pretty clear in its meaning to me. I have made 1 edit each to both of the articles in question; I have no intention of fueling any edit-warring by adding to the reverts. Note this edit summary, where I chastised both edit-warring parties to stop reverting each other. Where exactly have I made incorrect or biased summaries? You have canvassed in violation of WP:CANVASS, attacked other editors, and edited in a disruptive manner. That you have not refuted any of these is telling. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly against blocking too
    It's sort of intellectual dishonesty to quote people out of context. If interested, people can judge by themselve how does Lear can progressively come to such behavior. I can witness that the communication with two wikipedians on this article, namely BritishWatcher and Pfainuk, appear to be impossible as long as we don't follow their POV. They seem to fail to understand the aim of making medium proposals when there is strong POV dispute, they seem to fail aswell to understand that their POV are not worth more than others, they are infringing the 2nd pillar of WP and yet reminding others about WP rules.
    For what I have seen, they are pushing -consciously or not- to avoid reaching a consensus that could not satisfy them at least at 90%. That's not called trying to reach a medium equilibrium between parties, and that's not an encyclopaedian spirit, a WP spirit even less.
    So, when facing such behavior, when you keep explaining that 1+1=2 and you keep being answered that 1+1=3 for more than a month, I can understand that people can lose patience. Some here judge that Lear has been disruptive, he's probably not perfect in his behavior, but maybe those who launch such accusations should take a look in the mirror too and get a perspective.
    I personally stopped fighting this, as such closed and rigid mind is out of my understanding. I'm trying my best to assume good faith and accept something that please everyone, but I have to admit that in the present case, it's hard. Rules, conservatism and own POV should never overlay common sense, wide view, flexibility, honesty, self-questioning, logic and deductive mind.
    I, too, could ask for something that suit me better, but I'm trying not to overweight my requests to allow different POV to be displayed, as I'm constantly trying to follow the spirit of Voltaire ("I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"), but I have limits, like everyone else, including Lear. Orravan (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubious block by William M. Connolley

    William has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs) after a complaint on AN3 by a content opponent (Collectonian (talk · contribs)). Collectonian offers four edits in evidence, but there's no question of DreamGuy violating 3RR; if anything, Collectonian himself is closer to doing that. DreamGuy's edits are less than recent, and are spread out over three days. So I presume William's block reason, not explained on DreamGuy's page except in the form of "We don't all have Ed's admirable patience", is edit warring and not 3RR. However. DreamGuy is the one who is following policy in his editing of the article. What he does is remove, repeatedly, an absurdly over-long plot summary, leaving a concise summary in place. Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, subsection "Plot summaries", which he has repeatedly referred to. I will not review Dreamguy's unblock request, since I know him and have supported him on other occasions.. But could other people take a look at this block, please? WP:NOT is serious business. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Without commenting on the specifics of this case, the idea that "being right" justifies edit warring is simply wrong. There are very few exceptions to 3RR and editor warring in general (BLP, copyright infringement) and "too much plot summary" is not one of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, William seems to think being right (or rather, being wrong) justifies edit warring by Collectonian. Both users, if any, should have been blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Please back up your false claim that I was edit warring with two reverts after someone posted about the situation at WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no violation of 3RR - there were four edits over the course of six days. The highest he got in a single day was two. There was no discussion on the talk page from DreamGuy, but he does seem to have tried talking with one of the editors. DreamGuy has a point about the plot summary and WP:NOT. It seems his original edits were to trim down the plot section; perhaps a bit too much, but in accordance with policy. The most recent total removal was probably a bit over the top, but I still don't think it was enough to block without any chance to explain the edits. I'm prepared to unblock, however I'll wait for a few more comments first. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor is he "right" in this issue. The plot summary is not "absurdly long" it was only 100 words over the guidelines, and there IS a talk page discussion which resulted in it being cut down below the guideline recommendations (discussions which he ignored). He is not shortening overly long plot summaries, he is ripping them out. Please explain how I am closer to doing 3RR before making such accusations. I reverted him twice, after he was reverted 3 times by another editor. As noted in my report, which clearly stated this is beyond 24 hours, DreamGuy has an extremely lengthy history of edit warring as is evidenced by his block log and his ArbCom injunction from last year. He is not following policy in editing the article nor in his warring over it. He is violating policy, and making some pointed disruptions in various places. As I also noted in the edit warring report follow up, others have attempted to discuss his inappropriate plot removals with him, and he is either ignoring them completely or giving replies that are uncivil and falsely claiming that he is just following WP:NOT. He told one editor, who tried to correct his claim, "it's pretty ridiculous for you to show up acting like you know everything and assuming that I must be a newbie ("welcome to Wikipedia") when I've edited this site several years before you ever got here and am the one actually following policies. The only 'assistance' you can give me is to do what you are supposed to be doing." He's also doing a lot some rather NPOV editing to various biography articles, claiming that he is correcting their neutrality because, in his opinion, multiple personalities are not real so he is removing them from articles where people are said to have them. I do hope more admins will look at his actions of late because they are very concerning, as are his false statements on his unblock request claiming that I "took no effort to solve any dispute" - he warned to stop reverted and instead said "don't template the regulars" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... so simple disagreement means you're going to ignore clear policy, label it edit warring, bring up a history of people making similar accusations from the past, and expect to get me blocked over it? That's not even close to a reasonable attempt at solving conflict. On top of that, multiple editors with more experience here are clear in selling out that your interpretation of WP:NOT is completely in error, so continuing to insist otherwise isn't helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no simple disagreement. You are pointedly attempting to claim that WP:NOT is a justification for your ripping out plot summaries from a range of articles on no other view but YOUR interpretation, which is not backed up by other guidelines. WP:NOT does not say that plots can only be X number of sentences, its says "concise" which is defined by various MoS for the articles you are ripping apart. Your removal of the Near Dark plot summary was ridiculous. It was not excessive to the point of needing complete removal, if was only barely over the guidelines, and there is clear editor consensus on the talk page against its removal. Why not read further down in WP:NOT about not being disruptive to make a point, which is all you are doing. Your interpretation is the one in complete error as shown by the overwhelming consensus among multiple projects, FAs, FLs, and GAs. You are the one not being helpful by attacking anyone who dares to correct you under some claim that you are just enforcing policy and that you've been here longer and somehow know better. And yeah, considering your block log, your history IS relevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's clear that you aren't willing to listen to the people here and elsewhere who pointed out that you were wrong. Good luck on getting WP:NOT changed to support your rather unique interpretation. DreamGuy (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No real justification to block. Wouldn't be the first time either for Connolley. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottava, that was out of line - please keep comments here relevant to this situation. Not that there are likely to be too many more comments, since it seems he's been unblocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:57, 3 February 2009
    Well, the admin in question does have a questionable editing history, so it would have certainly been highly relevant to the question of whether his block was proper or not. I think personally that he ought to be told in no uncertain terms that he can't use his admin status to try to further his history of personal conflict. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Past history of making bad blocks without justification is a strong enough justification to desysop someone, let alone undoing the bad block. It isn't out of line but 100% completely relevant. You may like Connolley, but you can't alter what his history with the tools says. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done work like this--some of our articles have ridiculously long plot summaries that make the article difficult to read,and put off anyone wanting to obtain a concise summary of the plot. Having said that there's no excuse for edit warring. In what way is this a bad block? --TS 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A user was blocked for a 3RR violation on an article he appears to have only edited once in 48 hours. The block was reversed, so it doesn't particularly matter anyway. - auburnpilot talk 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a user was blocked for the reasons I specified, it would be good if you took the trouble to read what I wrote. You might also find V's recent contribution history interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we're talking about this block:
    19:36, 3 February 2009 William M. Connolley blocked DreamGuy (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring on Near Dark)
    this shows the relevant editing history. In particular I note that DreamGuy did not go to the talk page at any point. --TS 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the edits, he was indeed edit warring on Near Dark, although not past 3RR. He had 4RR over a 48 hour period around the 31st, then another one yesterday and at no time did he take his concerns to the talk page. I wouldn't call his edits vandalism, but he's interpreting WP:NOT as a license to delete, rather than improve. Dayewalker (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Improvements can be achieved through deletion. In this case, deletions were definitely needed. Seeing as how Jimbo has come out strongly against excessive plot summaries, fancruft type entries, and the rests, I think it is obvious that we should lean towards those who try to correct this and chastise those who tend to want to put it back in, especially seeing as how those who want plot summaries and the rest tend to use forums, have friends who reinforce them, etc, to game the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottava, I disagree with every single thing you've said. Dayewalker (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is so beyond insulting to dozens of editors who do none of the kind, but are following the actual guidelines and consensus regarding plot summaries. I find it slightly amusing as well, considering most editors consider me a deletionist and anti-plot and regularly attack me for going against excessive plot. Excessive does not mean NONE at all, nor does it mean you rip out an existing summary for a completely useless one without discussion, tagging, etc. Please actually point to a single change at WP:NOT that negates all of the existing plot summary length guidelines, rescinds the featured article status of all articles with plot summaries, and with Jimbo saying specifically "I want everyone to go out and remove every plot summary from every article right now." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, your view of "actual guidelines" is contrary to what they are, as has been pointed out to you multiple times here and elsewhere. If you find that insulting, you're choosing to find insult in what's a pretty clear cut noncontroversial topic.DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has said that here or anywhere else. You are attempting to twist this into justification for your inappropriate ripping of content from articles, then adding insulting edit summaries as you went back and reverted the undoing of those ripping. Multiple people have said that you need to discuss instead of just ripping, but you attack and dismiss those people. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "No one has said that here or anywhere else." Are you kidding? Multiple people in this very section say that. And, honestly, if you continuously choose to interpret someone revering you as an "insult," you need to grow thicker skin. I think you need to calm down and get some perspective... and read for the content of what people are actually saying and what policies actually say instead of just what you want to believe. DreamGuy (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to double check that I was reading the diffs right! There are many really excessive plot summaries which can be trimmed without the least objection from anyone, and there are many too short or cryptic that need expansion. Both of these give enough work to do for everyone interested, without fighting about those that are tolerable or better, or defended by good editors. As we slowly move towards compromise in this we need to watch for edits that would disrupt whatever agreement there is. DGG (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I seem to recall making many edits to trim and even remove whole plot summaries (though it's thankless, plodding work and I eventually became disheartened at the size of the job). Good editing practice, though, is to use the talk page in case of disputes. I see that he did make one discussion edit two days earlier on his own user talk page in response to an expression of concern by User:Rydra Wong. He then removed an edit warring warning, which indicates that he was aware of an ongoing issue. This was an editor committed to edit warring. --TS 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing a warning and taking it to the other user's talk page is proof of intent to edit war? You've gone beyond a mere lack of assuming good faith to assuming bad faith. Oh wait, you always do that when you see that it's me editing. Bottom line is people agree that the way it was was wrong, and I was nowhere near 3RR. The admin who made the block did so without any attempt for input and after a well-vocalized history of trying to find any excuse of lashing out. Admins have to stop thinking they can block for no reason, and if it really was edit warring then both sides should have been blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arboropia, a recommendation

    I just looked at this, but it seems to me that a vast amount of tree discussion was going on, at the expense of the forest. A person was blocked. The block was for an ambiguous or incorrect reason. An administrator brought up an improper block. What then resulted, above, was a vast and wasty discussion of the general principles of editing, of the content, of similar content, of whether the editor's position was good or bad. When you see someone coming to AN/I to talk about a block, would you please discuss the block, not the general, you know, philosophical, like, stuff, or how much you agree or disagree with the edits. It's about a block. If the block is going to be reversed, then you can say, "What is the way forward?" Then you can ask if the blocking administrator needs interdiction of one sort or another, if the blocked user needs mediation of some sort, if the people complaining about the blocked user need policies explained, etc. Here is the cart, and there is the horse: let's make sure they're put in proper order. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With respect this is just not true. It was brought as a block to review and marked resolved when someone unblocked it. The unblock was at least as arguable as the block especially as the unblock reason (not 3RR) did not even match the block reason (edit warring). This was a process abuse. The block should have gone through the appeal process for blocks. IF (a big if) the reviewing admin had unblocked it then perhaps it should have come here.--BozMo talk 14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So the assumption is that any admin who doses something should always be considered right even if multiple admins disagree? You've got consensus backwards. Especially in a case with an admin who was not at all nuetral jumping in to block when he already saw another admin trying to solve it -- admins should get agreement BEFORE doing something, the presumption should not be that an admin has to agree before anything they did was undone. You're asking for a system of red tape where any single admin can make any action with consequence and bad admins can gain the system to strike out at editors they don't like. Beyond just overruling admins like this, ones that take such questionable action should be disciplined so they don't do it again. The idea that the admin has to be contacted and discus it is often gamed by admins who do bocks and then sign off specifically so nobody can discuss it -- further most admins who take these actions never admit they were wrong, even when an overwhelming majority of other admins agree. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd. I thought that, when you blocked established users it was standard practice to bring it to AN/I. I guess I haven't been keeping up with "process." Apparently you block established users, and then an unblocking administrator has to justify that on AN/I? Something's surely backward. I thought default was "not block" and "block" took something unequivocal. What a fool's paradise I've been in. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed...particularly now that DreamGuy is using it as a justification to continue making personal attacks against myself and any other editor who disagrees with his plot ripping from articles, and turned around and "restored" all of his removals claiming that this AN/I thread has proven that he is correct and dozens (if not hundreds) of other Wikipedians are wrong.[27][28] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The block was quite proper, but Geogre is correct to say that there was a lot of nonsense about side issues when the block itself was the question. --TS 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikistalking

    Funny... User:Collectonian above claims that there was a problem with multiple article edit warring, when there was no such thing happening, but then he/he seemingly looked at my edit history and went around reverting edits I made to many other articles beyond the one he had a conflict with me on. Apparently he wanted to start edit wars on multiple locations. On top of that he falsely labeled my edits as "vandalism" -- which I think is actively deceptive.

    I also note that User:Arcayne, who has basically essentially unilaterally decided I cannot edit the Jack the Ripper article by blind reverting every edit I make there (typically with claims that it wa not discussed on that talk page, despite the fact that it was but that he had deleted that discussion before reverting me by "archiving" it for no reason despite the discussion being active and current) showed up at Near Dark (the article at which my editing down the overly long plot section initially drew User:Collectonian's wrath) to insert himself into the controversy. It's no wonder we have people freaking out and calling for blocks at any sign of dispute when I have an editor with a long history of filing bogus charges against me to try to get me blocked showing up to egg things on.

    I think both of these editors should be strongly warned against such behavior. User:Collectonian seems to b e actively involved in trying to escalate a controversy through methods (edit warring across multipe articles) he was accusing me of. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, for crying out loud.... this guy who was supposedly objecting to my shortening/removing plots that were too long allegedly without discussion has gone and removed the tag I added saying that th plot was too long even after the person who first objected to my shortening the section there agreed it was too long and multiple editors here have said it was too long. Apparently he doesn't care about discussion or resolving anything, just in undoing my edits. DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely seems like Collectonian is the edit warrior here and may be in breach of the WP:HARASS statements in regards to Wikistalking. This should have been obvious to the original blocking admin, which only verifies an extremely bad block. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is harrassing anyone here nor is anyone stalking DreamGuy. When one does a disruptive behavior, it is common to check recent contribs to see if it was done elsewhere. However, DreamGuy has now accused no less than four people of stalking him, with the latest here[29]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Collectonian, but following an editor to multiple pages, declaring their action as vandalism, and constantly reverting is the very definition of wikistalking. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but wrong, again. I looked at his first page of contribs to see if he had abused other film articles (and yes, ripping entire chunks of valid, if bloated, content from articles without discussion, tagging, etc), and reverted 3 or 4. He had many other contribs I didn't look at at all, only those specific to a film/play/book and his summary noting that he'd removed the entire plot section without consensus nor discussion. Nor am I "constantly" reverting. I reverted inappropriate actions that is NOT in keeping with any policy nor guideline, despite his erroneous claim that WP:NOT support his actions and his later dismissal of the MANY other guidelines that do not (calling them guidelines without consensus because, you know, WP:MOSFILMS was created by two people with no consensus despite it being held to standard for FA discussions). I am frankly appalled that you seem to be giving him carte blanch do to what he likes without even remarking on his rampant personal attacks, his edit warring with MULTIPLE editors (note that I was NOT the first to revert his edits to the Near Dark article at all), and are basically excusing it away. I sincerely hope I'm wrong in this, but I suspect, unfortunately, that I'm not, showing an extreme prejudice in how this was handled. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC
    Saying that I am wrong does not make it so, nor do you provide an adequate defense for your actions which are easily visible for all. If I was in your position, I would apologize immediately and stop following people between pages to start revert wars. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't even an administrator, and considering your block log is as length as his for disruptiveness, why are you attempting to tell anyone what's right or wrong? ~ignoring~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an administrator on other projects and run an administrators ethics projects. I am also heavily involved in those wanting to become administrators. My block log is meaningless in terms of -your- actions. Your own attitude right now only proves that you should probably be immediately blocked as disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)*sigh* See the article talk page (as I said in my summary). On the talk page, the plot length was discussed and has since been edited down and is still being worked on. Sticking a tag on there when there is already an active discussion and efforts being made to fix it just seems spiteful and pointless. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you choose to interpret adding a tag, one expressing concern that the plot summary is too long -- an opinion expressed by multiple people on that talk page and on this page (see above) -- as "spiteful"? Good lord. There's that bad faith again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll *sigh* along with Collectonian. Look at DreamGuy's edit history before you jump to conclusions. RoyLeban (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please do... The admins who do instead of just taking the word of the people who complain tend to find that the people complaining are the real problems. Roy, for example, might be headed for a block for WP:COI problems, edit warring, and so forth. No, Roy, I think, is acting in good faith, unlike some others, but he doesn't yet seem to understand how Wikipedia works in general, and he seems unlikely to learn if he's joining up with people attempting to game the system and thinks that their behavior is acceptable. (He followed the lead of Collectonian in choosing to falsely label my edits vandalism, for example, and is going to various talk pages to complain). But of course I leave that to any interested admins to look into if they want. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, i've been watching this discussion since yesterday, because DreamGuy's talk page happened to be on my watchlist (probably because of a dispute I had with him ages ago) and I was bored. I've looked over the contributions that have been called into question, and although I think DreamGuy is probably overzealous with applying WP:NOT, and there should probably be a separate discussion on whether or not said policy allows this, I feel that his block was extremely improper. I believe that DreamGuy is attempting to follow policy, so some people need to reread WP:AGF.

    That said, there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed. There seems to be disagreement over whether or not WP:NOT supports this sort of editing. Although i'm not an admin, I would suggest that a reasonable compromise would be something along the lines of DreamGuy voluntarily agreeing to not edit plot summaries for, say, a month, while a discussion is made at Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not to determine if substantially shortening plot summaries as DreamGuy has been doing is in line with that policy. I think that with a little work, all involved parties can agree on a solution without the need for formal dispute resolution or sanctions.Firestorm (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOT certainly supports removal of unsuitable material such as ridiculously long blow-by-blow plot summaries--in that sense DreamGuy was right. But what he blocked for wasn't removal of unsuitable materal, but edit warring, which he did without once going to the talk page. Edit-warring in good faith is still edit-warring. --TS 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that neither side is completely right here. However, I maintain my position that the block was improper. There are many means of dispute resolution that could have been used before it got to AN/I (actually the block wasn't even done after AN/I, it was at AN/3), that were not taken. I think that the issue of edit warring can be dealt with in an informal, MEDCAB-style mediation. If all involved parties just sit down and talk things out without threatening to block, etc, I think we could reach an agreement that everyone would be satisfied with.

    Luck by Chance

    User:Legolas2186 has for several days been posting uncivil edit summaries threatening fellow editors with "reporting" them, and blanket reverting good-faith edits by calling them vandalism. [30] [31] Some of his edits are genuinely useful, but many others involve movie fancruft.

    Regardless, he posts hostile and threatening posts such as this at Talk:Luck_by_Chance:

    Don't try to act high and mighty by wiki-linking as if you know everything. You are continuously removing information under the assumption of gossip when they are reported by authenticable sources. As i said before, if i do see you again removing info, I'll make sure your editing priviledges are blocked. "Legolas" (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    I've pointed out this WP:OWN behavior and incivility on the same talk page, and have left a note with this editor, who has also been uncivil on my own talk page. Can anything be done about these threats and the unnecessary hostility? I believe my editing record shows someone who tries to work with other editors and discuss things (such as here). I ask for any help you might give in fostering non-hostile dialog. Thank you very much, very seriously, for your taking time on what is a voluntary effort on your part. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but I don't think Legolas has done anything wrong here. First of all, your edits have been removing references and prose without giving a rationale; this is the wort of thing you usually get a {{uw-delete}} template message for. Secondly, Legolas has not always been calling your edits "vandalism," and at least one time he specifically said that your edit was good faith but had to be undone because it removed references and added unsourced material. I think in your first paragraph you have mischaracterized Legolas's actions. No admin action against him is needed, and I don't even see any point keeping this thread open; if no admin action is required, the discussion needs to be continued elsewhere. Politizer talk/contribs 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Politizer and Legolas appear to be tagteaming at Luck by Chance and now here. Legolas' own words, above, illustrate better than I could his hostility and incivility toward others. Judging from Talk:Luck by Chance, I'm not the other only editor who believes so.
    Indeed, Legolas is threatening and bullying me again on my talk page, and excusing his vicious rudeness as "trivial":
    There was no point in going to ANI for such a trivial matter. Learn editing first, then try your quarreling attitude. I still have kept good faith and didnot report you. But remove valid references again, this time i won't forget that.
    I have not reverted his edits since this began; this isn't about his fancruft content or the fact I did not, in fact, remove references but simply moved them to EL after removing gossipy fan trivia. I'm coming to you now because of Legolas' inappropriate behavior, in which he insults and demeans other editors and their edits, and threatens other editors, in addition to displaying WP:OWN. I don't believe these represent "a trivial matter". Thank you for any help. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, since Legolas has erased it, I'd like to excerpt here my attempt at politely trying to initiate discussion and collaboration with him, which he rebuffed with unaccountable, and unacceptable, vitriol.
    This post, which he erased despite this current request for admin help, said: "There's no need to be rude. I direct you, please, to WP:ETIQUETTE, which you are violating … I left a good-faith note on the talk page suggesting we discuss your edits. I ask this again. … What do you say? And, please, say it politely. There's no need for the hostile behavior you've been exhibiting. Thanks."
    It's not proper to spit back angry, threatening posts when a fellow Wiki-editor exhibits politeness and asks to discuss things and collaborate, is it? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) Your accusations of tag-teaming are unfounded. I have never interacted with User:Legolas2186 before you came to this noticeboard and brought your edits to everyone's attention; I've only communicated with Legolas once, to notify him of this thread (it is common on WP to notify another user when they are the subject of a discussion on a noticeboard somewhere). Please don't try to characterize yourself as "exhibiting politeness" when the very fact that you started this ANI thread and misrepresented other users is quite impolite. As I said above, there is good reason why your edits were reverted, and the fact that I reverted them again isn't because I'm in cahoots with Legolas but because I agreed your edits were unconstructive. In any case, it seems you have started making more constructive edits to the article now, and I urge you to keep up with making constructive edits and let this unconstructive dispute end. Politizer talk/contribs 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointedly, you make no mention of Legolas' bullying, his threatening, and his rude incivility. If I misjudged the familiar-sounding banter in your various posts to each other, I apologize. But the point of this request for intervention is Legolas' vicious, vitriolic posts and edit summaries. What do you -- or more importantly, what do admins -- have to say about his behavior and language? That is the issue here. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above and in my talk page, I don't think it's something that requires administrative action, as it's not egregious at this point. A civility warning could be issued, although I won't give one (personally I don't think it's necessary, as I don't think a line has been breached), but someone else reading this discussion might think it's warranted. I'll wait and hear what an uninvolved reader here has to say. Politizer talk/contribs 18:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken on good faith your claim that you and Legolas are unfamiliar with each other. I'm sure you can understand now how it must appear when an ostensible outside party as yourself is expending so much time and effort on something that is between two other parties, Legolas and myself.
    I would ask that you please let an admin decide whether such gross incivility as "Don't try to act high and mighty by wiki-linking as if you know everything" and "if i do see you again removing info, I'll make sure your editing priviledges [sic] are blocked", among many other examples, is in any way acceptable. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I stumbled across this thread and weighed in with my opinion. You came here looking for an uninvolved editor, and that's what you got. Since you persist on leveling accusations against me, I'm done here. Politizer talk/contribs 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to User:Politizer, who is now User:Rjanag, I came here seeking help from an administrator. I have found your efforts to thwart my grievance confusing, though I appreciate your willingness to leave the discussion to Legolas, myself, and, hopefully, an admin.
    The pertinent issue is, will Legolas be allowed to continue bullying, threatening and being uncivil to other editors, as he has done to me and others in his posts and his edit summaries. I ask for help. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved

    OK, Ignatz Lichtenstein was a rabbi who was controversial in various ways. The AfD was started by and is being peppered with SPAs;

    I'm not sure what the best course here is but maybe a rummage through the sock drawer? Also, user name ParisYid seems likely in violation. -- Banjeboi 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why ParisYid would be in violation of the username policies. However, these do look like socks. Note for example that all three of the first few are of the form NameNumber. Also the second account in question responded on a talk page to a comment I made to the first account. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You should probably add Texas Muslimah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list... it's another SPA who just joined in on the discussion. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 17:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! -- Banjeboi 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Activator technique: Let's prevent an edit war

    Resolved
     – hold a watching brief

    The Activator technique article is the subject of an IP's attentions, with edits introducing unscientific nonsense as if it were legitimate. I'm not interested in edit warring and would like more eyes on the article. Currently it is only sourced to the promoter of the instrument and technique, which is used by a significant portion of the profession. At one time it was banned by a provincial branch of the Canadian Chiropractic Association as the quack instrument it is, but that was later rescinded, which is par for the course in the profession. Quack instrument or not, the article needs improvement with better sourcing. It needs some kind of tag to draw attention to the need for secondary and tertiary sources. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've stuck a couple of {{fact}} tags on the new additions, which replaced an equally uncited refutation of the leg-length thesis, and put it on my watch-list. There's probably nothing much more to be done at the moment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Now let's see what happens. The Activator technique is pure pseudoscience, and the article, in common with other chiropractic articles, is vulnerable to the attempts of chiropractors to promote their favorite quackeries and pseudoscientific ideas. For an idea of how conservative ("straight" or "real") chiropractors think, the chiropractic article was actually worked over by such a visiting chiropractor and the result was this "straight" version made by User:69.127.37.241, who made this massive revamp of the existing Chiropractic article, leaving us with a version as only a very typical and truly deluded straight chiropractor could wish it. A very interesting object for study of the straight chiropractic mind. Believe it or not, this is classic chiropractic in 2009! Seeing this type of ignorance might be considered unbelievable to most, but for those who study the chiropractic profession, this is quite a common phenomenon. PBS did a special on alternative medicine and chiropractic, and Alan Alda hosted it and can be seen discussing the Activator with a former chiropractic professor. It's very interesting. Go to the "Adjusting the Joints" section. Then turn on your speakers and watch the video. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WorldFacts

    I have indefinitely blocked WorldFacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making legal threats per our policy on legal threats for the following comment I think litigation is in order. This bullshit ends now.. The background is that I recently warned the user against edit warring against consensus at USS Liberty incident. Their response was to come to my talk page to argue that consensus was with them and then to release the legal threat when I commented that current consensus was clearly against them. Since I don't have any time today to do any follow up I am listing the block here for comment. Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dumb question - how do you know he wasn't talking about the possibility of opening a request for arbitration? Our own Signpost newsletter refers to arbcom cases as "litigation". --B (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if that's the case they can be unblocked as soon as they clarify their meaning but NLT is about removing the chilling affect of legal threats and I read that sentence as being a threat to go to court. I'm sure that I wouldn't be the only one who reads it that way. Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I could see how that would go: 'Your Honor...The Wikipedians...they...they were being mean to me!' HalfShadow 07:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For information, User:WorldFacts has been a long term problematic SPA, with a single-minded campaign to insert a POV edit into the USS Liberty Incident article. The proposed edit falls down on a number of counts WP:RS (source is a blog on a hard core porn website), WP:POV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. A somewhat pointless exercise anyway, since the report he insists is mentioned, is actually already included in the article. He was recently warned that he would be blocked if he repeated the exercise. I would wholeheartedley endorse Spartaz's actions over what is a clear legal threat. Justin talk 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he has been building up a head of steam for some time, this was to be expected I think. Before any admin thinks about unblocking him should he recant, I would suggest they look over his contributions to users talk pages. Like this one on EdJohnston. After blocking WorldFacts for a 3RR breach, we are informed how Wikipedia is 'crawling' with 'Sayanim' (A Jew who helps a Jew, also used to denote Mossad helpers, adopted as an anti-semetic 'code word' for part of the zionist conspiracy in some cases), and how Ed having blocked him is obviously now a Sayanim. Really, before any admin unblocks, consider whether it would be a net gain, or any gain at all. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I draw it to people's attention that this is the third time, just recently, that allegations of antisemitism have been made against other editors (either personally, or generally) in discussions concerning this article (2 of the allegations made at ANI). And it is the 5th block handed out recently on those attempting to write the article to policy.
    May I also draw people's attention to the fact that the problems at the article are quite sensational, with the RS completely flouted (and thereby UNDUE, 60 missing citations, OWNERSHIP etc etc etc). As anyone examining the TalkPage can see.
    I would add that I personally consider WorldFacts particular concern to be relatively trivial in the scale of things, and I think this is the first time I've appeared to "support" him on anything. PRtalk 14:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I point out that User:PalestineRemembered has repeatedly asserted that other editors have made allegedly made accusations of anti-semitism. However, this is simply the case of a comment made being taken utterly out of context. In addition, PR frustrated attempts at mediation, for utterly specious reasons and has claimed consensus based on head count rather than the weight of argument. A number of blocks have been handed out but solely because those involved violated wiki processes to pursue a POV agenda. PR himself was blocked for legal threats at ANI. Justin talk 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Acctually Justin, in this case I am saying that we have to look at the tone and wording of WorldFacts constant Jewish statements, inline with his clear status as a SPA, and consider whether it adds up to a disruptive SPA; obviously I think it does and so would urge that his recanting (a prompted recanting no doubt) be ignored as there are more reasons to keep him blocke than let him back. I would also point out that the headcount PR uses is often wrong. His famous 5-2 against-for count is really 3 clearly against (PR, Wayne and a short lived account called Yellabina or some such), 3 clearly for in the circumstances (Myself, Justin and Jayjg) and Ken wavering between the two though favouring against. So even if Wikipedia did work like that, the picture is never quite as clear as PR paints it. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to back up those claims? I especially like the idea that because the page is in a bad shape you are right. It is a good leap of logic. Remind me, what was your reaction to a mediated attempt to drive the article forward? As I recall it was that the US military would engage in a conspiracy to subvert the article through BQZip. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need mediation at this page to reconcile different points of view, we need administrative action to deal with the OWNERSHIP, to stop the shovelling in of bad sources and the shovelling out of good sources. But administrative action to stop the personal smears of good-faith editors would be a useful start. PRtalk 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in other words, no you wouldn't like to back it up. You don't find it a little odd to moan about accusations when you yourself then make one, only you use neither evidence or cohesive argument? Ah well, to each their own I suppose. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Atheism

    Resolved
     – No action needed at ANI, vandalism can be reported at AIV. Politizer talk/contribs 06:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There were many recent vandalisms of this page, and upon furthur investigation, most of the vandalizers were contributing nothing but vandalisms to other pages. 67.58.85.10, 168.216.189.8, 75.146.39.25, 68.34.169.216, Dr james peanut are a few of the offenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactusbin (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Report vandalism on WP:AIV. --TS 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Peanut was blocked, and presumably his evil Italian cousin, Sal Monella. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war erupting at James Hansen

    There are a number of editors attempting to remove long-standing sections of the article and an edit war is ensuing. The war began as a result of this edit. I would recommend that appropriate action be taken to address the situation and to restore the article to the stable version which had existed prior to that change. --GoRight (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think I'd call it an edit war. A number of different editors have each made one revert. Nobody has reverted twice and I don't expect anybody to do so. A discussion will probably start now. Possibly the "stable" version wasn't as stable as previously thought. --TS 07:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute, and I don't think it requires administrator intervention. -Atmoz (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the deleted sections have been there for over one year. I think that qualifies as stable. The entire section, with 4 separate subsections, has been deleted and restored 3 times without a real discussion. One subsection was being discussed and Atmoz decided to delete all 4. Q Science (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter how long a section exists in an article. If it is disputed it can be removed. It has been deleted and restored by separate people, which certainly establishes a dispute. --TS 08:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a policy or guideline justification for the first two sentences of that? My understanding of WP:CONSENSUS is that the longstanding stable version of an article is presumed to have consensus absent a good reason to the contrary. Anyone is free to be WP:BOLD and remove once in good faith and within reason, but if it is a change to a longstanding stable version of the page, a legitimate serious editor's reversion of the proposed deletion is the "R" part of WP:BRD and should stay while the matter gets discussed if presented on the talk page. The exceptions would be certain blatant policy violations like WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP. There is indeed a content dispute, but edit warring to get the leg up on the "right version" rather than discussing, or while the discussion proceeds, on is a behavioral problem and not a content issue. Wikidemon (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant; TS invents "The Vandals Charter" - if you can get a few puppets to support editing an article to the effect that the subject "sucks" then this is no longer vandalism, it is a content dispute! Go play with a zebra crossing, Tony, if you really want to argue that black is white. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bb515200000001‎

    This user has been copying barnstars and other such things (when they havnot been awarded to him from User:Alansohn and user:Mufka dispite repeted warnings in edit summeries and one on his talk page.

    also: his last edit summery (EDITING MY PAGE! I DID NOT STEAL ANY OF THESE BARNSTARS! I KNOW THE ADMINISTRATOR! HE'S MY COUSIN! SO CUT THE S*** OUT!) seems to contradict statments made to him in the said talk page by the above User:Alansohn.  rdunnPLIB  10:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ownership aside, I can't help but remember the "Major Asshole" scene from Spaceballs for some reason. MuZemike 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2 things
    1st to the above= please explain.
    i think Wikipedia:User page (or some where anyway) used to say that this was not allowed.  rdunnPLIB  16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Few week long edit war?

    Hello! Could you please look at this as there appears to be an edit-war going beyond 3RR that if you go back appears to have been going on for weeks now and I believe those involved know better per this and this. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 10:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added the article to my watchlist and warned both users that the next revert will result in a block. - auburnpilot talk 16:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kinomakoto

    Resolved
     – Blocked for 31 hours following report to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The only edits of Kinomakoto (talk · contribs) have been adding hoaxes to Wikipedia. Since the edits aren't recent, I haven't reported to WP:AIV, but (s)he has vandalized after a final warning and I think someone ought to at least keep an eye on it. JuJube (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not familiar enough with Americana to say that all edits are hoaxes, but the few I am sure about certainly are not based in reality. I suggest an indef block once there is agreement that this editor is not producing material for the benefit of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that I blocked the editor at the same time you were making your comment at AIV [32]. Based on the initial AIV report (and without any knowledge of this AN/I thread), I blocked the editor for 31 hours and issued a final warning before being blocked indefinitely [33]. Any admin who feels I was too harsh/lenient should feel free to adjust the duration of my block as they feel fit. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vienna2 - repeated page blanking and edit-warring

    This concerns Lydia Caruana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Vienna2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created this article about a living (and only moderately notable) opera singer in December. It was unformatted, did not conform to the Manual of Style, was poorly referenced and did not adhere to a neutral point of view - it read like an advertisment for the subject. In the course of the last two days he/she has repeatedly reverted all the formatting, addition of references, wikification, and copy-editing by two different editors as well as all maintenance tags. He/she has now blanked the article 3 times in the last two hours. No edit summaries, no engagement with repeated warnings on the article talk page and their user talk page. I have reverted the blanking again, but don't want to end up edit warring, even though it it has now become a form of vandalism. Can someone please take a look at this. I strongly suspect the editor in question also has conflict of interest issues. Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon adding unsourced material and nonsense

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

    Hee Yit Foong is a Malaysian politician whos recently been involved in a political controversy. I've been fighting a combination of vandalism (juvenile name calling etc) and unsourced non-NPOV edits with the help of a few other editors (I raised the issue on BLP/N). Some vandals have already been blocked. In the latest case, the editor has been adding a variety of inappropriate stuff (some unsourced stuff which may be okay with a source, some clearly nonsense), but since it isn't clear cut vandalism [35], I haven't take it to WP:AIV. I have already warned the user they may be blocked for addition of unsourced non-NPOV [36] (as well as a previous warning for clear cut vandalism) and given the lack of any attempt to discuss the situation and the lack of any appropriate edits, I feel a short block is warranted for this user. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jakeislebron

    Jakeislebron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is carrying on with vandalism after recently being blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantpole (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Report him at WP:AIV if he continues to vandalize. Politizer talk/contribs 13:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Handing off

    LirazSiri (talk · contribs) is, by admission, the co-founder of a software project, TurnKey Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article Liraz wrote on this project was deleted as promotion (WP:CSD#G11). It was reposted, again by Liraz, with the addition of a couple of trivial non-independent sources (the Ubuntu community wiki newsletter). This has now been to WP:DRV, my talk page and WP:VPP. Liraz is convinced the deletion means we are an evil deletionist cabal. Liraz also believes that my statement that continuing to argue the toss over content you write about your own projects can lead to blocking, amounts to "suppression". Rfwoolf (talk · contribs), who has a long-standing grudge against me personally, chose to try to "help", and in the end Liraz appears to be interpreting everything xe doesn't want to hear according to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and to interpret everything which is even slightly pleasant as support for the crusade to have the article. Liraz' judgment that the original deleting admin was an abusive bully has now been transferred to me and amplified, and I am now "suppressive" a "bully" and "censoring" stuff. So I am walking away. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It [37] reads like an advertisement, and the belligerence displayed by its author is typical of self-promoters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree. Guy has been, in my view, reasonable in his dealings with LirazSiri, who apparently feels that there have been personal attacks and harassment occurring, none of which I've been able to spot in their dealings. Rfwoolf has a long and problematic history with Guy, was not involved in the discussion, and then threw an attack in out of nowhere. There is also a lengthy discussion on the Policy pump that is horribly misplaced as it's turned into an argument over the admin activities. While the deletion may have been a borderline decision at the start (I may have AFD'd the article, for example, while others would speedy it), the entire situation is now spiralling into a brawl. Definitely needs more eyes (besides mine, as I'm a cranky bastard with too many deadlines this week and next and the block button is getting bigger and shining red as I go along). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this edit it sounds like the editor is stepping back too. Various editors have left advice should LirazSiri (talk · contribs) choose to re-create the article. Mark this as resolved?
    Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it be helpful if an outside person had a sit down with Rfwoolf about his/her "help"? AnyPerson (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Help" indeed. This minor skirmish reminds me of the battle royale that occurred last summer over someone else's pet computer language, something called MKR. [38] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another PoliticianTexas sock: RCK11

    Resolved
     – Blocked by Protonk. Thanks! --Uncia (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RCK11 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is probably a sock puppet of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short). PolTx has generated several dozen known sock puppets. The last was HoyaFan! (talk · contribs · logs · block log) who was blocked 05:18, 28 Jan; the RCK11 account was created 06:53, 29 Jan, and has edited a total of 3 pages, all of which have also been edited by PolTx. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Some more specifics:

    How about a block on this editor? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent editing against consensus

    User:Wolfkeeper is involved in a long-standing dispute at Glider with a number of other editors (including myself) over what the scope of the article should be. Although discussion has been protracted and at times acrimonious, there has been visible progress towards a middle ground (see the table in this section). There appears to be broad consensus as to what the article should and shouldn't encompass, but Wolfkeeper persists in editing against that consensus and restoring material that other editors don't feel belongs in the article: here, here and here.

    At one point, Wolfkeeper asked for a Third Opinion. When this opinion was contrary to what she or he hoped for, he at first agreed to abide by it, but has apparently changed her or his mind since then.

    Incidentally, I'm not sure what triggered the latest reversions. The article had been pretty stable between 20 Jan and 4 Feb, but note this aggressive post on the talk page.

    I'm not going to edit war over this, so I would appreciate it if someone else could remind Wolfkeeper about building consensus before making controversial changes, and restore the article to User:Jmcc150's version here. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On the other hand, the gliding articles are a mess at the moment. There's
    • Glider Which is about sailplanes
    • Gliding Which is about sailplanes and replicates most of the same material
    • gliding (flight) Which is more general, but replicates most of the same material
    • Sailplane Which is a redirect to glider
    • Unpowered aircraft Which is more general, but replicates substantial material about sailplanes
    • Soaring Which is a disambiguation stub
    It really needs someone with a heavy hand to reorganise (which is happening at the moment) and this appears to be ticking off many of the regulars. Stable != good. AKAF (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, AKAF pretty much has it right. The long term contributors (who appear to me to be mostly sailplane pilots) are trying to force and define gliding/glider=sport sailplanes (only) but there's a lot of non sport gliding (birds, the space shuttle) as well as other types of sport gliding (hang gliders) and NASA and others define it much more widely, and the history of gliding/gliders includes military gliders for deploying troops and so forth.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the dispute is spilling over into unrelated articles. For example, at one point Wolfkeeper was edit-warring to tag Gimli Glider (an article about an airplane accident) under Category:Glider aircraft to prove a WP:POINT. --Carnildo (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nancy Cartwright

    Resolved
     – via talk page.

    Jayen466 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson, has been in the news these last few days over a robocall recording in which she jokingly used Bart's voice. According to both the Times [39] and Fox News [40], the robocall went out to Scientologists, inviting them to a Scientology event in Hollywood. (The robocall message used Scientology jargon, making it quite clear in my mind that the recipients were Scientologists.)

    Our article on Nancy Cartwright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made no mention of the fact that the robocalls were sent to Scientologists, creating the impression that they went to members of the general public. Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) has three times reverted a sourced addition to the article which follows coverage in reliable sources (i.e. Times and Fox News and others) in reporting that the robocall message went out to Scientologists.

    I've asked Scorpion to self-revert, which s/he has failed to do. I don't want to edit-war over this, but I don't want readers to worry that their 12-year-old children will be called by Bart on their cell-phones and be told to attend Scientology events, because that quite clearly isn't what happened here. Note also that this is a BLP. Jayen466 16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, 10 minutes of correspondance and you're already going to ANI. I had a class I had to go to, pardon me for giving my real life precedence over wiki life. All it says is "she used Bart's voice in an automated telephone message promoting a Scientology event in Hollywood." The way you are reacting, you would think it says "she called and annoyed thousands" or something along those lines. Neither of the sources you quoted are clear and I just think you need one that definitevely says it. -- Scorpion0422 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, we have two very good, first-class sources saying the calls invited Scientologists to the event. There is no good reason to withhold that information, and there is no good reason to edit-war over the inclusion of material sourced to the Times and Fox News that is uncontradicted. Jayen466 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said at Talk:Nancy Cartwright, there are two ways you could interpret it. 1) The message was to everyone but she was speaking only to Scientologists (which is how I'm interpreting it) 2) The message was sent only to Scientologists. -- Scorpion0422 16:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't have to interpret anything. This is what the Times said:

    that is what Scientologists were led to believe this week when they received an automated telephone message featuring the voice of Bart inviting them to the Scientology Flag World Tour, an event being held in Hollywood tomorrow.

    This is what Fox News said:

    her voice message urging Scientologists, in Bart's voice, to attend an upcoming conference.

    I would like to add this reliably sourced information to the article. Jayen466 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a content dispute not requiring Admin intervention; I suggest parties take it up on the talk page and thereafter Dispute resolution if you can't negotiate a consensus. --Rodhullandemu 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayen466 is using scare tactics. I told him I didn't want to make a big deal of this and he immediately adds it to ANI and the Scientology ArbCom case. He's just trying to make me say "bah, it's not worth it" and give up. -- Scorpion0422 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Scorpion, you have reverted the addition of this three times now. If you don't want to make a big deal out of it, don't edit-war. Jayen466 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying every minor content dispute should be taken to ANI and ARBCOM? -- Scorpion0422 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to say this but this doesn't belong here, it's a content dispute. Padillah (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't hate to say this (respects to Padillah): it's a content dispute. Am I missing something? Aren't Scientologists part of the general public - it's not like they're holed up in some caves or cloistered in monasteries or convents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be too sure about that. Tom Cruise and John Travolta, for example, are well-known for being shy and retiring recluses. One thing that's unclear from the citations is whether it was only scientologists who got this call. However, it doesn't sound very important either way. Content dispute. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ericthebrainiac

    Resolved
     – Blocked indefinitely by yours truly. --barneca (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ericthebrainiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was last discussed here in May of last year (Archive 417, Archive 423). He is an editor fixated on telenovelas, which is fine, and specifically his own ideas for telenovelas, which is where he runs into trouble. What valid contributions he makes are always unsourced and frequently rely on a translation from Spanish, which hinders fact-checking. Unfortunately, the rest of his contributions make me believe that fact-checking his stuff is essential.

    I'm most concerned, though, by this message that he left on my talk page this morning: Eric not only fails to understand that stuff he made up one day isn't suitable for Wikipedia but seems to think that it's a moral imperative that he do so (and seems to use a fictional story to justify the same). He followed this up by posting his stuff to Requested Articles. I've warned him repeatedly that our patience for this sort of behavior is limited, but that's clearly not making an impact.

    As a result, I think it's time that (should consensus warrant) he be told, in no uncertain terms, that his chances are up, and that any further mention of his soap operas, fictional cities, or whatever else in that category, will result in an indefinite block. And now, I'm off to notify him of this thread. — Lomn 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. Having looked through his contributions and, most tellingly, the sheer volume of warnings on his talk page, am inclined to hand out an indef block. Anyone else have any views? GbT/c 16:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's either a kook, or someone pretending to be a kook. (I know, namecalling isn't nice, but I can't think of a better word to describe this behavior.) I would concur with a indefinite block at any time for reasons of exhausting community patience and/or no useful contribs. He's had a good while to learn what Wikipedia is about, and shows no signs of getting it. Friday (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully support this. He's infamous for asking nonsensical questions on the reference desks and will sometimes ask the same question over and over even when he's been given a sufficient answer. The fact that he's still creating articles about his made-up soap operas shows he's clearly bad for the site. It seems like every time he gets into trouble, he'll make a bunch of good edits right away to try and balance out the bad. I'd say 3.5 years on the site is more than enough to understand policy. --Ouzo (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef block. As Ouzo says he should have got a basic grasp of policy by now. Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been going on for the better part of a year, with no apparent change in approach. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on my review of the previous ANI discussions, his talk page, his recent edits, and the developing consensus above, I am going to block him indefinitely for long-term disruption (assuming no one else does it while I'm typing this). Enough final warnings, enough second chances. I hesitate to guess how many hours of other peoples' time has been taken up dealing with this user. --barneca (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Very appropriate block. His plea that he should be allowed to use wikipedia for publishing his own ideas, clearly indicates he either doesn't get it or doesn't care. And either way - blockeroony. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request block review

    I just blocked 201.19.174.239 (talk · contribs) without warning for a week (the AfD period) for interfering with an active AfD by changing a comment [42]. The same IP also attempted to delink the AfD from a deletion sorting page [43] and I believe is the one responsible for multiple past attempts to redact an old closed AfD on the same article [44]. But since the comment that was changed was my own, perhaps I was too precipitate and should have let someone else handle this, so I would like to open up this block for review. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why didn't you just warn him once? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption of internal processes such as AfD seemed to me much more severe than adding "penis" to some random article. And it didn't seem to be a first offense, though there had been no prior warning. By the way, an editor with a similar IP has since added two questionable and conflicting comments to the same AfD; I haven't done anything about that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have probably given a 12 hour block for being disruptive, however a 1 week block is reasonable. Obviously, if the IP posts an unblock message, then we can look at the situation again. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentor for newly unbanned editor

    User:Rms125a@hotmail.com has recently been unbanned following a discussion here on ANI. Now that he has been unblocked, per the terms of his unblock, he needs a community-appointed mentor to help him through the early stages. Although he has been dealing with unfortunate IRL stuff and is unable to contribute at this time, I nevertheless wanted to put this to the community now. Is there an experienced editor who would like to volunteer for the position, or do you know someone who would fit the bill? Experience in Troubles-related disputes could help but isn't necessary. Volunteer and/or nominate away! ~Eliz81(C) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you mean Rms125a@hotmail.com? swaq 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my improper capitalization. Fixed. And yes, him. Any ideas? ~Eliz81(C) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't care about that, but is there a name change condition somewhere in the unblock agreement? Aren't there technical problems with @ signs in names now? --B (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if an administrator was to grant rollback, IPBE, etc. The software doesn't like @ in Special:Userrights. -MBK004 22:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am willing to be a mentor. I would recommend that someone else agree to be an alternate or assistant mentor. My qualifications are that I am neutral regarding the Troubles, I have been certified as not being a RMS sock (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADurova&diff=267423818&oldid=267422659 ) and I have a genuine desire to help any and all Wikipedians. Chergles (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately I'm not available to take on more mentorships at this time. DurovaCharge! 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for volunteering, Chergles. Anyone else want to step up and co-mentor? ~Eliz81(C) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Betacommand ban evasion: User:Ringkjøbing

    Resolved
     – User blocked as ban-evading sock. –xeno (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser indicates that the account User:Ringkjøbing is operated by User:Betacommand. --Deskana (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you not block him for reasons of conflict of interest? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single edit to make the same minor change to a bunch of random pages? Who'da thunk it? – iridescent 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a banned user, conflict of interest doesn't matter. Secret account 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The account's been tagged as indefblocked, but not actually blocked as yet. Can someone block him? Algebraist 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done –xeno (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Back last spring or summer, in one of the many discussions about this guy, someone warned there was no point in blocking him because he was astute enough to get around it anyway. I wonder if these sockpuppets are all he's doing, or if that's just the tip of the iceberg? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good reason to nip problem users in the bud, rather than letting them build up a serious addiction. If he'd been handled properly years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation. Friday (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be like not locking your door because a burglar can just break the window. –xeno (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ... no. Betacommand was running bots on his admin account for a long time. Many of us (I am among them) were more than willing to look the other way because we agreed with the outcome of what he was doing. That is our failing (I count myself among that when I say our) and we should have enforced the rules that were there. --B (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who took a fair amount of stick (from a wide selection of admins) for raising concerns about some of BC's problematic behaviours in the past, it is gratifying to see that there are at least a few admins willing to admit that things could have been handled better. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a few things to say.

    • I got criticism on IRC for not blocking the account myself. Checkusers are duty-bound to report what they find with the tool. I didn't want to block him because I happen to like him. That has nothing to do with checkuser. I did my duty as a checkuser. If I don't want to block an account, I don't have to. No administrator does. If you think that's condoning ban evasion, it's not. Not saying anything about the account would be condoning ban evasion.
    • I also got criticism on IRC for not keeping this secret. To those people I have one word, and that word is "No". By suggesting I have the power to decide whether or not I keep things secret or not, you are also suggesting that checkusers have the political power to decide when the community is wrong and overrule them on their decisions. They don't. I reject the idea of checkusers having such power.

    If people have a problem with what I've said above, then ask me to resign my checkuser ability on my talk page, because what I've said above is not changing no matter what anyone says to me. --Deskana (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no problems with your actions... I was initially confused as to why you didn't perform the block yourself, but I didn't feel the need to press the issue... Oh, and keep off IRC, it'll melt your brain =) –xeno (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Criticism for not blocking? That's silly. Providing the information and letting someone else evaluate your results and decide whether or not to block is exactly appropriate, especially since you have personal feelings about the issue. I've been in similar positions myself, and it's much easier and fairer to let a third party with no druthers one way or another wield the knife. I've no idea what you were supposed to keep secret; it's hardly news that Betacommand has used socks in the past -- and as such, will regularly be checked for continuing similar behavior. Oh, and, keep off IRC, it'll melt your brain. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We are volunteers. Someone will carry out a block you do not do. No issue here. ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Especially when there may be personal connections (pro or con) with the target, it is absolutely proper to want a third party to implement any blocks. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c with Xeno who I think says the same thing) Simple solution: don't listen to people on IRC. I'd endorse pretty much everything you just did and said. --barneca (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your actions were 100% correct. Ignore anything said on IRC, problem solved. --B (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This just makes me that much happier that I have no involvement with IRC because it's apparently full of people who don't know what they're talking about. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "people who don't know what they're talking about" you mean a good chuck of ArbCom, almost every ArbCom clerk, half the active CheckUsers, the entire WMF technical staff and most MW developers... I could keep going but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. BJTalk 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People we can ignore, correct? seicer | talk | contribs 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If people have issues, they should raise them publicly on wiki.
    Deskana's actions here are not only permissible—they represent our very best practices. It's absurd that someone should be scolded for declining to make themselves judge, jury, and executioner, and it's equally absurd to suggest that Deskana ignore the community. By presenting the facts here, the community (the actual editing community—not the subsection of voices on IRC) could make an informed decision. Good job. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call, Dan. You did the right thing. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having extra eyes look over actions is always good - I have seen other checkusers await admins to act upon their findings. It does make a nice check-and-balance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, though in this case, since the CU was the only thing identifying Betacommand (there's nothing behavioural as far as I can see), it would've been impossible for a non-CU admin to actually confirm. Black Kite 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just add me to the list of people saying "Deskana, you're doing it right." Your approach is reasonable and ethical. Anyone criticizing you for this doesn't know what the hell they're talking about and can be safely ignored. Friday (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I don't go on IRC (I am told I need to have a brain, for it to be melted) I don't know which people were criticising Deskana for advising the community that BC is again violating WP policy and consensus; I suppose these same people would then have no problem with me abusing my sysop flags by executing short blocks on those accounts as encouraging a banned user to evade the consequences of policy violation? Lucky old us that I hold IRC in such contempt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with all of the above. --Kbdank71 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "zomg I hate IRC." Shut up. To hate a medium of communication is not one of the dumbest things I've seen on this site, but it certainly makes the list. As others have pointed out, the Wikimedia technical staff, a good chunk of ArbCom, and hundreds (if not thousands) of Wikimedia users use IRC every day. And to Seicer's "People we can ignore, correct?" Um, no. Some of them are some of the brightest people we have on the site. Others are directly in charge of saying what is and is not appropriate for technical matters. Though I'm starting to think MediaWiki needs an ignore option if people are going to make such inane comments on pages like this.

    As to Deskana's post, as Thatcher and others have pointed out, ArbCom regularly ignores CheckUser results (or manipulates them) in the interest of politics (wiki and otherwise). To act as though there's a duty to report every finding that they make, while noble, is complete nonsense when it's compared with the reality of how these things actually operate. (Peter Damian being a prime example in my mind.)

    The point that I brought up on IRC regarding this was that Deskana seems to have not blocked not because of a friendship, but because he couldn't bring himself to block a non-disruptive account. That's my take.

    We need to get back to basing users and accounts on their contributions and little else. As I said on IRC (quick, get the pitchforks!), if I were to create an account and edit like MascotGuy and be blocked a sock of him, that doesn't make me MascotGuy. It just means that the behavior of the account was similar to behavior that we've (rightfully) determined is inappropriate for this project. Try as we might to ban people, we will only ever be effective at banning behaviors and actions.

    I would appreciate it if people diverted their time and attention from attacking a very old medium to instead figuring out a way to do away with this noticeboard. It's a plague on the project. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone once said to me.. "Could you assume any more bad faith here?" SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is worse, attacking a medium, or attacking people? You're right about one thing: we do need an ignore option. --Kbdank71 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, MZMcBride - the admin who undid the consensus derived protection of the Sarah Palin article after a quick chat at IRC, and got brought up before ArbCom for it... Perhaps my disdain for the channel is simply coloured by the closed shop superiority inclined drama mongers who are part of the population there rather than the medium itself. Speaking of which, is the transparency of the admin noticeboards (open to all to view and most - not just admins, luckily - to post) not to your taste? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever was doing the criticising on IRC ought to have the balls and the honesty to say it here, where the community can comment. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    MZMcBride did say I could mention his name here, and has commented here himself, so at least he's not hiding away from what he said. That is more than can be said for a lot of people. --Deskana (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a serious accusation of malfeasance as ArbCom regularly ignores CheckUser results (or manipulates them) in the interest of politics (wiki and otherwise) really ought not to be asserted without substantiation. A year and a half ago Kelly Martin claimed to have been pressured into giving a specific checkuser result regarding Poetlister. Nobody confirmed Kelly's version of events and Poetlister was eventually caught with three admin socks on a sister project. That was one master manipulator who cajoled a spurious claim, period. Any other examples, MZ? Substantiated examples? If you've got 'em, provide diffs and I'll open a second RFC on ArbCom. Otherwise please withdraw the accusation. DurovaCharge! 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fair point, though. This is unrelated to the Beta sock mentioned above, but there are probably quite a few accounts out there that are editing 100% productively, but that are socks of banned editors. Put yourself in the shoes of member of ArbCom X who accidentaly picks up one of those during an "unrelated" checkuser; what do you do? Do you indef the account, despite - in some cases - a long history of good edits (provoking ZOMG drama when the block is noticed), or do you just ignore it and keep an eye on the account in case it goes rogue again? I know which course I'd pursue. Black Kite 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. The Wikimedia Foundation runs 650 wikis, about a dozen of which are in English or Simple English. So banned users who wish to demonstrate their ability to edit productively and abide by wiki norms have plenty of opportunities to do so. The key difference between whether an individual gets banned has more to do with whether they're willing to curb problematic behaviors in accordance with norms. Every editor sometimes ends up on the short end of a consensus. Most of us accept that; a few don't. And ban evasion is fundamentally a refusal to accept that part of the social contract. DurovaCharge! 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, English Wikipedia gets a fair amount of stick from other projects for dumping their problem users elsewhere. Simple English Wikipedia in particular has expressed concerns. There is little in common with the other projects except language. Several of these projects also have some very odd practices that aren't acceptable on Wikipedia, either: Commons doesn't have any policy comparable to BLP, Wikiquote's interpretation of copyright is not in line with this project's, and Wiktionary's sourcing policies are not at all like ours. Wikiversity too has had serious problems with some of our banned users. Risker (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is a good reason why actually mentoring them on those other projects is a good idea too. As an admin on three of those sister projects, what I hear from my colleagues goes two ways: partly what you're saying, Risker. But also that they're glad to get people and often find people blossom in a smaller and mellower environment. DurovaCharge! 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was being sarcastic on the whole IRC bit. I was a former IRC user myself until recently. seicer | talk | contribs 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting the checkuser result, and allowing another admin to do the block, was an excellent call. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per followup by MZMcBride I have opened a request for comment on the checkuser policy. Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Request_for_comment. DurovaCharge! 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences

    Can I get a few more eyes on Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, please? A persistent anonymous IP is adding unsourced negative information; I've reverted twice, but I have a conflict of interest and would prefer to hand it off to someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, both of you. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    201.19.218.49

    See the comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos nemer by 201.19.218.49 (talk · contribs) and in particular the diffs [45], [46], [47], [48], and another one from another IP but apparently from the same server [49]. The users (it appears to be multiple users using the same IP) are engaging in what seems to be disruptive editing not limited to refactoring others' comments, soapboxery, and making personal attacks. I haven't seen a situation like this before with several people commenting from the same IP, so I'm not quite sure what is going on, so I'm bringing it here. MuZemike 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request block review, a couple sections up, re 201.19.174.239 (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wall?

    I have no idea what's going on between them, but Foxcow (talk · contribs), David the Dogman (talk · contribs) et al. (see their talkpages for some more "participants") seem to be doing some networking via Wikipedia relating to something to do with Wall. (Your guess is as good as mine.) Thoughts?  GARDEN  21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are attempts to use Wikipedia for social networking growing? This is the 3rd incident I've seen in the last month. Indef blocks? That's what I did last time after a warning. dougweller (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The b-man had some interaction with one of these folks, maybe he can lend some insight here... –xeno (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much about them---I blocked one of them for making legal threats and then again for block evasion, but have since come to the conclusion that the person I blocked might be part of this cliche. I suspect that they are all a group of HS friends/buddies. Beyond that, I can't really add much.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC with Xeno)We apparently have several bored schoolchildren in Florida, who are using Wikipedia as a substitute for social networking sites which are blocked by the FCAT explorer software (or the school's IT people have installed a similar filter). I'd suggest nuking the user talk pages, and directing them to any of a number of social networking sites, all of which should be accessible from their computers at home. Since Balloonman has changed his name, I suspect that would confuse the kids. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the talkpages that were pure vandalism/testing/advertising/whatever and blanked the others, leaving a friendly message on each. Might be worth noting that someone created Ihatefoxcow (talk · contribs) and at least one other account to attack these users.  GARDEN  22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "wall" is a reference to Facebook, with the "wall" being the place that you post comments, see what the person is doing, etc. Wikipedia is not Facebook (WP:FACEBOOK not withstanding). Users that are here solely to socialize should be told to contribute to the project as a first and final warning; if they don't get that, they should be forcibly shown the door.
    For the record, I'm all for friendly chit-chat; however, such chit-chat should come secondary to positive contributions (either mainspace edits or project-level edits). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusal to comply with WP:SIG

    I'm not sure how to deal with this, because blocking seems to be rather extreme, but it's frustrating dealing with an editor who refuses to comply with a behavioral guideline. User talk:Ottre (userpage is a redlink) has customized his signature to eliminate any links (to his userpage, his user talk page, or even his special:contributions page). I first contacted him on January 21st on his userpage (diff) asking him to change his signature to conform to WP:SIG. He never responded to me, but when it was raised on another talk page, he dismissed it, stating that he "didn't abide by policy on linking signatures". (diff) Meanwhile, when he left another comment on a talkpage that is on my watchlist, and I followed up on my original message, he responded on my talk page "I saw your first message. I am not fixing my signature, as it encourages contact with editors who follow WP:V—contact I would rather avoid." (which was left with only a timestamp, no user name whatsover).(diff) Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve this situation? Horologium (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignore it for goodness' sake. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    ↑What Bish said. Is there really nothing worse going on to worry about? – iridescent 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I'll ignore behavioral guidelines. Should I ignore all of them, or only certain ones? Horologium (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the ones that, when ignored, don't actually harm the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)Only certain ones. Knowing which ones to ignore is part of the IAR final exam. --barneca (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I *did* say that I tended to be more EGOUR than rouge. I've invoked IAR only twice since confirmation, although I have been tempted on a few more occasions. However, it's a bit frustrating to have to pull up the talk page history to leave a message with a user who doesn't have his sig linked, which is what originally prompted me to address the issue. The page in question (the one on my watchlist) is under article probation, so it's a little more than just rule-wankery or nannyism. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that it was going to be something stupid like a excessively bolded names, but I would say a sig with no identification is bordering on disruption, and pointy disruption at that, considering he apparently wants to "avoid" those who follow policy. There's no reason to invoke IAR for this; it's not improving the wiki; I say we give him the chance to fix it or block. Simple as that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly inconsiderate. If he didn't sign his name at all, I'd be more inclined to make a big deal of it. But if the signature includes his unlinked username (I believe User:Doku does something similar), you don't need to go into the history, it's just the extra effort of cutting and pasting. That's not really a sig with no identification. I suggest just muttering under your breath about his lack of consideration for other people, and leave it at that. Now, if he's being disruptive in other ways, this would be one more log on the bonfire. But I wouldn't act on that issue alone, if there was nothing else. also, I don't understand why he's worried about editors who follow WP:Verifiability? :) --barneca (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's User:Docu who used to do that (and still does: [50]); and similarly drew complaints. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing EVula, while having a non-WP:SIG compliant signature is annoying, annoying ≠ disruption. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I've made thousands of edits without any major problems so far. Is it a wank that I think WP:V is a trademark, which should be replaced by freely-created American, Australian, British, Canadian and South African versions of WP:RS? I know thousands of editors share this view, and do things like deliberately red-linking to their (deleted) userpages, so it can't be that disruptive. 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    (as an addon to my previous post) That said (for whatever reason my browser didn't want more text, sorry to split this) do you have examples of no-name signatures in article talk? That's where it's disruptive, and while it's still acting like a jackass to not link your username if he's at least making it clear it's him there's not as much of an issue. (ec twice) ...And the above is exactly what I'm talking about. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with David Fuchs. Ottre is aware of this is causing discomfort for others. If he is unwilling to be a collegial member of our community by following simple norms about signatures, he should choose an alternate hobby. If he doesn't fix the signature promptly, a short initial block would be in order. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just ignore me then! I have never made a completely anonymous post to a talk page, and indeed have signed ~100 IP contribs—particularly at AFD. Not linking to my history on WP is a core part of my editing philosophy; do you refuse to consider the idea that if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition? I do, and am actively in sourcing information by adding page refs, and checking the print edition of newspaper refs used in WP:ACOF articles. 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    So, I genuinely prefer WP:RS to WP:V. Could you tell me why not having a linked sig is a protest against WP:V? I'm really confused. Skinwalker (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am really confused. Some of the posts above have no signature at all. I do not know how I can follow this thread when I don't know who is posting the message. It becomes impossible.SteelSkin (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll watchlist both your talk pages now. I'd also like to submit this case be closed, as I always sign with my unlinked name (except in this case, to prove the conversation can easily be followed with just a timestamp and identifier) and this practice per se can hardly be considered disruption. Likely just an intolerant administrator, rejects the concept of generationalism (my name for the above, editing philosophy). Ottre 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, but what does this have to do with verifiability vs. reliable sources? Does not having a linked signature somehow abrogate WP:V? I'm not an admin, and therefore can't block you, but I'm genuinely curious about your stance. Skinwalker (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is not the place to discuss how (incredibly) well it works. Ottre 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Warn & block. There are good reasons for linked sigs, and I'm unconvinced by reasons to the contrary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Warn and then nuke. The attitude to ignore is ridulous and a reason for alot of drama. Should we ignore until there is a certain threshold of disruption and drama? Is or is this not against policy/guidelines? If it isn't then I apologize but I would be more than annoyed if I was interacting with this user with his present signature. --Tom 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support a final warning, followed by a block if there is no improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? And what , Tom, does "policy/guidelines" stand for—why do you call it that? Do you think WP:SIG is "almost policy", or "policy on a bad day"? It's in fact an editorial guideline Do we really need to display our ZOMG Great Adminz Powerz at every opportunity, like the peacock displays its tail? I'm sure very few people *want* to sign like Ottre does, and out of those that do want to, peer pressure will stop most of them putting it into practice. That leaves a miniscule minority who will actually do it. It's a bagatelle. But contrariness might turn it into a Movement, if somebody here insists on making a big deal of it. Please mellow out. Contrariness ≠ disruption. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    I think the only one who needs to mellow out here is you, Bish. We agree on a low-drama solution to possible and past POINTy disruption, that's done with. Ottre and you want to turn this into something more. Bringing this back in hand, Ottre, I think you should consider yourself warned. Please sign with at least your username, linked or no. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen, I was trying to say that if this user is not breaking any policy or guideline, then I apologize and that user can carry on, but I would find it annoying, thats all. Also what does ZOMG stand for since i see it alot. I know after its explained I'll have know that. Anyways, no biggie, cheers, --Tom 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained here [51] and also with somewhat less clarity in wiktionary, OMG is "Oh My God" and the "z" or "Z" in front of it has no particular meaning except emphasis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting to note that "All Gods Forfend" is the most common equivalent amongst pagans. Anyway... Ottre 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    You entered the discussion without even clicking on WP:SIG first? Wow. I mean, I see. ZOMG means Oh My God, with a Z in front of it for extra internetspeakiness. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    I did read it, but missed the part about it being "behavioual" vs a "guideline" which is different from a "policy"?? My freaking head is going to explode :) Even with the user name, without it being link does make it more effort to contact a user. For the 3rd time, if this user is within policy or guidelines or whatever, then its my problem not his.OMG :) --Tom 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you haven't been following, please don't use words like "effort". My talk page can be accessed via PageUp > History > Ottre:Talk. This is a matter (I hope) of whether or not it is acceptable for an experienced editor to flaunt established but minor editing practices. Ottre 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    I really don't want to waste your time. That past POINT was made for a very constructive reason, unlike the "policy-wise" admins who are calling for a block if there is "no improvement" (Come on! Of course I am going to agree with consensus), and I only had to sign three times without any username at all. Ottre 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • For the love of Jesus' butthole, you're not required to have an account, you're not required to sign your edits, you're not required to link to anything in your sign - it's a polite suggestion, and shrugging it offer carries the penalty of getting nasty looks and naught more.
    • WOW! what an utterly ridiculous complaint this is. Some admins really have too much time on their hands. RMHED. 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheap. On a collaborative project the ability to communicate clearly is rather importance. Making authorship of talk page comments easy to identify is kinda an important part of this.Geni 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, they could just edit as an IP, or register a new account for every edit. Then they'd be perfectly in line with policy and even less traceable. WilyD 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I might add that my words above, where I said this whole discussion is about a "minor editing practice", aren't meant to suggest it is unimportant. It's minor/trivial because by this stage in the project, there are probably millions of edits where people have logged out to contribute something to an article. Ottre 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Then log out and edit as an IP so no one will bother with you, or else continue with your unlinked sig; however, WP:SIG as guideline or essay or no, leaving only a timestamp is disruptive; if you continue to do so, you may be blocked. That's all that needs to be said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this an encyclopedia, or a social experiment by one member to see how much annoying behavior can be withstood by other project members? The only convincing argument s/he has made so far is that s/he does it so other project members will have a more difficult time verifiying if s/he is making constructive edits. The ability to do this is what protects the integrity of the project. I'm all for personal privacy rights, but their rights end where the rest of societies rights begin. Deliberately annoying behavior for it's own sake is disruptive.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What is going on here? Ignore this guy. There is no reason to ban/block/lose someone over something so amazingly trivial as a signature. there is a name and a timestamp. IF we are honestly considering blocking this person for that and only that, i'm...well I'm not even sure that I recognize this place. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. Come on, it says right at the very top that there can be exceptions. This. Is. Not. Blockable. SarekOfVulcan, 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No name signatures are little different than IP signatures; there's no return address likely to connect with the sender so the conversation must be of little import. Although I shouldn't be by now, I am surprised how much angst such a minor thing that doesn't affect anyone gets some people - go on, edit something by now... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:SIG clearly states that a signature must link to the user page. This is to provide easy communication amongst users. Some think that communication is a minor thing, but I think it is vitally important. My suggestion to Ottre is to put the link back into your signature and sign your posts properly to avoid angst among other users, and to end the fuss. Do it now, then we can all go home.SteelSkin (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside, what's with all the sigs that include names but no links all of a sudden? Is this in response to this? rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat by disgruntled user

    Resolved
     – blocked for attempt to extort an unblock of an IP address Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I received the following on my talk: [52] from user User:Moviemaker92. Seems he/she is upset by a schoolblock I made (least I'm assuming that). Could someone leave a note on the users talk about this, they'd probably not react well if I were to do so. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have issued them a suitable response. --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :-) Vsmith (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CCFSDCA

    CCFSDCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating a lot of pages about holidays around the world. Only source given is a book, "Christopher Corbett-Fiacco, The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World".

    Claims on user page to be Christopher Corbett-Fiacco, and probably is. So there is only one source - the articles' author.

    Google search for "The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World" reveals only hits from Wikipedia.

    There are WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:POV WP:Notability and lots of other issues here, and I'm out of my depth. pablohablo. 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has a thing or three to learn about editing on wikipedia - like not signing articles - and it is evident that he's pimping his book. But the one substantive article I've checked so far checks out - there is such a holiday. I suspect he needs a good talking to, which I see you've started; I'll pitch in. All of the articles he's created need to be checked and very probably de-sigged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A note - it is considered extremely rude to not notify a user when you mention them here. The user is now notified, but please remember this for any future noticeboard postings. — neuro(talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As Pablomismo pointed out, the very existence of the book being cited/flogged appears to be impossible to establish. It therefore can't be used as a reference in these articles. Deor (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then remove it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban of User:Deeceevoice

    Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

    Pursuant to WP:ARBCOM/Clarifying motion RE:SlimVirgin "administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard" I'm asking for consensus on the validity of Deeceevoice is banned [..] until 5 May 2009. [...] Tom Harrison and further discussion at User_talk:Tom_harrison#Banning.

    Without (at this stage) going over the exact he-said she-said, the motion linked above additionally states that "It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors." This was in the context of Elonka warning a user and was that warning an administrative action.

    I feel that the Commitee needs to provide greater clarity. Tom has, in my opinion, warned a specific editor. However, Rather than being forced to go to arbcom, can I not unwarn them? Can consensus here at ANI unwarn them? Am I smoking crack again?

    I'm hoping we can avoid a long and rambling thread, so please attempt to make your replies succinct: Is the topical ban valid until removed by arbcom?
    Thank you.

    brenneman 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Brenneman, I think Tom has banned an editor, which can be undone by a consensus of uninvolved admins. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with philknight that a topic ban can be undone by a consensus discussion at a general forum such as AN/I. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have an opinion on the quasi-legal question, but it's fine to get it clarified. I guess we could meta-ize it one more level and ask if it can be clarified by a consensus of uninvolved admins, or if it can only be clarified by arbcom. (But who to ask?) Anyway, if the community decides my 3-month topic ban of Deeceevoice was unwise, I'll lift the ban, let someone else monitor the article probation at Ancient Egyptian race controversy , and return to my crucially important work on the History of English land law. Tom Harrison Talk 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CU/OS election has started!

    Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, I'll leave my two cents.  Marlith (Talk)  01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Old Account

    Resolved
     – shy bairns get nothing

    I previously used the account "thomsonboy93" in a very juvenille way that eventually got me banned. I now have taken the wiki process much more seriously, and am even the senior editor to a page that I helped create and improve[1]. With my old account, I posted to pictures on my friends user talk page, but they were deleted. After I lost the contents of my hard drive, the pictures were also lost. Wikipedia deleted them, because they had no value to any articles, but I thought that since at one time they were posted on the wiki servers, wikipedia may have a copy of them. Could you please do me this favor? The files are:Image:Kacani.jpg, and Image:Katranny 2.JPG My email is frebel93@gmail.com, if you wish to get in touch with me Frebel93 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the404
    That's probably a fair assessment of the situation. However, I don't see a problem with giving reformed editors a second chance, if they can demonstrate that they're here to edit constructively. I've sent the images requested to the email address the user provided. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Chalk one up for common sense. RMHED. 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Inviting scrutiny like that is about as "good faith" an attitude as we'll find here. In contrast to a certain other user. What's his name. Alpha Commando, or something like that. I'm a baaad boy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tsk. Uncalled-for. //roux   06:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term block for 125.255.113.214

    I've blocked 125.255.113.214 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for two years for persistent vandalism. I was going to block for 6 months but came across these charming threats: [53][54][55] and that this is the ip's 11th block since June 2007. It's registered to an ISP in AU. I figured I'd bring it here for discussion. Feel free to change the length if discussion warrants. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is a way to get rid of this. just find an Australian user willing to call police in Melbourne and report his various death threats. I don't know anything about Australia's data privacy and carrier protection laws, but I bet the police can get that ISP to divulge his name/address without any trouble whatsover. Should stop the problems pretty soundly. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jimmy Hammerfist

    Referred from WP:WQA, beyond the scope of minor incivility, personal attacks on another user [56] and [57] Gerardw (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 2 weeks for that since the second one was on the heels of a final warning. Watch for the promised socks. Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is User:Soloni2 spam?

    Resolved
     – Yes

    Before I approach the user and ask them to edit their User page, can I get a second opinion? Is User:Soloni2 spam? AnyPerson (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked for the page to be speedied under G11. It was spam. Please, talk away to the user, though he now has two notes from me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. AnyPerson (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Scribe711/Wired for Books

    On January 27, 2009 Scribe711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added links to over 35 biography articles, mostly in their "External Links" sections. The links were to an external website, Wired for Books, consisting of audio interviews of important authors. One of those articles was Maya Angelou, one of my "pet projects" on Wikipedia. Several hours later, I reverted Scribe's edit, and put a warning on his talk page. Then administrator Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wrote a note on Scribe's talk page, explaining why his additions were spam. In spite of this, Scribe replaced the link, which I again reverted.

    This began a discussion over the next several days between Scribe, Anthony.bradbury, and me. Instead of spending time detailing this conversation, I direct you to Anthony's talk page: [58] and [59] and mine. As you'll notice from these discussions, Scribe was rude and condescending. You'll also notice that Scribe711, on several occasions,[60] [61] [62] deleted content from all three talk pages. It certainly is his right to delete content from his own talk page, but certainly not the talk pages of other editors. After some warnings, he ceased deleting Anthony's and my talk pages, but he continued to delete any kind of communication from either of us on his. This in spite of the fact that I offered to listen to the Maya Angelou interview and determine if its content was suitable for any Angelou-related article. (In the meantime, I placed the link on Talk:Maya Angelou, as per WP policy.)

    It's obvious from Scribe711's behavior that he's not at all interested in contributing to Wikipedia. He has an agenda and as Anthony.bradbury states, he's arguing from a conflict of interest. (Scribe711 is David Kurz, the creator of Wired for Books.) He has accused me of eliciting other editors (meaning, I suppose, Anthony.bradbury) to label his additions as spam and vandalism, but Anthony, someone I've never had any kind of contact with in the past, joined the controversy on his own. Anthony and I both believe that adding a link to the end of an article, and doing that to dozens of them, constitutes spam. Scribe711 disagrees, and instead of negotiating a compromise with either of us, has chosen to reinsert the link with no conversation about it, or to delete content from talk pages. I believe this behavior warrants a block, at least a temporary one. Thank you for your consideration. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential edit war developing

    I was wondering if someone experienced in the art of diffusing edit wars could keep an eye on the contributions of Radioist (talk · contribs) and the article Internet radio, which SlubGlub (talk · contribs) has been diligently improving over several months. Radioist seems to have a vested interest in having this paragraph about HardRadio retained in the article, despite it being completely unsourced and unverified, so I'd appreciate it if somebody who knows what they're doing (which excludes me) could give Radioist the low-down on what they're doing wrong, and stuff like that. I just really don't want SlubGlub to get dragged into an edit war and potential 3RR block when he/she does such great work. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to have been brewing for quite a while. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-20 Internet radio. Toddst1 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=268875133"