Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
This time he reverts 17 edits made by three editors (myself, Quiddity, and Gwalla) [1], then reverts Quiddity's attempt to restore the material: [2].
His contribution to the talk page between these two edits, and only recent comment even vaguely relevant to his reverts, is one about working together: [3] --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved in several disputes with Badagnani. I'm currently involved in one now with him, on Talk:Buddha's delight. But the way I approach the issue with him, is much different than how others do it. I use the discussion page and wait a bit. My experience tells me that Badagnani has only the best intentions for Wikipedia, but his method is somewhat eccentric. It seems that he expects other editors to understand and agree with his POV without much fuss, as if we were all inside his head along with him. This perspective often leads to edit wars because frustration levels rise on both sides. I think if we all calmly use the talk page with Badagnani, things will work themselves out and everyone will be happy. I would like Badagnani to make an effort to put himself in the minds of others for once, and in this example, I would like to see him try to understand where Ronz is coming from. Far too often, Badagnani puts us in his head, and that isn't reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen he just repeats his point of view, and reverts any changes against as "massive blanking", or has his MO changed? Verbalchat10:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly one way of looking at it, but there are multiple perspectives on it. I'm coming from a different POV. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia has many different personalities, and it takes a certain kind of person to use this site for any period of time. Some people have strengths in one area, and serious weakness in another. Badagnani does a great deal of good work here, but when it comes to dealing with anyone who disagrees with him, he has problems. As others have mentioned in previous/ongoing discussions, Badagnani needs a mentor. I've found that he is open to reason, but it takes some effort to get there, and some editors find it easier to edit war. Simply saying that "he repeats his POV and reverts any changes" could apply to many editors here. Looking at my discussion with him on Talk:Buddha's delight, I think Badagnani makes some really good points, but the chasm between the way he goes about doing things and general policy and guidelines is very wide. All I'm saying is let's at least try to bridge that gap with more discussion. After some discussion, Badagnani does get around to compromising, but we all need to work towards that goal together. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been at Talk:Buddha's delight too, and see nothing different: the usual false accusations of stalking, and Badagnani revert-warring to keep completely unsourced material on grounds of appeal to personal status - "An enormous amount of research went into the writing of this article (by a WP veteran)". Why should the rest of us have to compromise to humour an editor who is at odds with a long list of content/conduct policies, guidelines and conventions, and is producing a trail of substandard material and bad interactions alongside whatever good? It's not merely about style of handling disagreements; he appears not to understand stuff such as the importance of WP:V, and how we don't write articles by personal compilation of primary sources. 86.148.152.232 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please put aside your anger and try to see this with clear and calm eyes. I wasn't asking anyone to compromise against their will. I'm asking for those involved to take a different approach, one that works harmoniously towards a satisfactory resolution rather than the edit warring and reverting that seems to follow the same group of editors who complain about Badagnani again and again. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been discussing a related subject on the talk page of Badagnani and myself. I am glad you are following both discussions on our respective talk pages, but I am concerned you are falling back into your previous pattern of harassment and stalking, a behavioral pattern that has got you blocked in the past. I would like to strongly suggest that if Badagnani needs a mentor, you should be required to have one as well. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're just threatening again with the bogus accusation: I've never wikistalked him but he has. I've been trying to cooperate with Badaganani in a very good air today, but the person like you rather ruined his reputation. I'm so sad to reconfirm that that kind of disruptive behaviors is your typical character since I've seen more than third time. You must brush up the definition of stalking and meatpuppeting that you did for Badagnani. I don't remove anything on my watchlist after I edit so would many others. So my warning to the anon about your vengeance is no wonder. However, I see your block records in the past are also very impressive, so I don't find any good from your blatant threats. Please do not threaten constructive editors any more. That is only harmful to the community.--Caspian blue02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are free to follow the discussion on our talk pages, but your obsession with our talk pages is a bit troubling considering your past pattern of bad behavior. To recap what I said below, if it continues and is brought up here again, I will support your immediate ban. Thanks for listening. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is no wonder that you're deliberately distorting my comment again and harassing more. I'm not watching you at all because I have never visited you or do not need to waste my time. You're wikistalking and digging my talk page to harass me. If you continues this kind of disruptions and which is brought here again, I'm surely convinced that the community i better off with you. Thank you for providing such valuable evidences on your disruption for your impending future. You know what? Anyone who say a curse is going back to the initiator. Good luck! --Caspian blue03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of bad behavior I'm talking about. You made a series of false statements and then accused me of "deliberately distorting" your comments. You seem to only be here to cause problems, not to help resolve them. You really aren't fooling anyone. We were discussing edit warring by Badagnani, but it's clear that his detractors are just as guilty, if not more so, of the same bad behavior. I would encourage you to put aside your anger and frustration and turn over a new leaf. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who has produced a series of false statements and then accused me of wikistalking him. I have a religion, so I don't want to see such highly inappropriate comments more coming from you. Enough is enough. -Caspian blue04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. To recap, you wrote above,"Whoever the ip user is, be wary of Viriditas' sockpuppetry accusation." No such accusation has been made. I expressed concern with the dynamic IP SPA's following Badagnani around, with Buddha's delight (and Talk:Buddha's delight as one example). I asked Badagnani if he knew what was going on,[4] and he responded with the following on my talk page:
The dynamic IPs (I think in the same range) began showing up about a week ago at a handful of articles, usually using longish edit summaries that show familiarity with WP, take a legalistic and fairly aggressive tone, and accompany removals of text or references. Often the IPs would begin operating once a day had come to a conclusion and various editors at the pages in question had already "used up" their two reversions for the day. I wouldn't guess who is doing this, but what I do know is that it's wrong.[5]
I then followed up with a comment about how the IPs always showed up right around the time of another editor.[6] And earlier, I mentioned that I found this to be a form of harassment.[7] Using dynamic IP's to revert a single editor and harass them isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. No outright sockpuppet accusation was ever made, contrary to your claim. Isn't it interesting, however, that you appear to be defending this type of bad behavior? Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calling me as "The lady". Funnily, I've thought of you as a female. Do not try to excuse your ill behavior. Didn't I ask you for "No more disruptive behaviors and harassment". You feign to be surprised that your plan on the open place while you're indeed wikistalking to my talk page and mocking me enough. Your history tells me that you're indeed having a big problem with incivility such as frequent WQA reports. Whether you further trying for the sockpuppetry case based on your view is not my concern. I concern about somebody who might get trapped in your behaviors, very unfortunately. Why don't you stop such harassment campaign? Writing the last is not winning, my milady.--Caspian blue12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you have trouble with common English phrases (The lady doth protest too much, methinks) and generally misunderstand what is being said. This is why you often ignore the issues under discussion and engage in repeated aggressive displays as compensation. It's ok, I understand why you act this way. But in the future, if you don't understand something, just ask questions. Don't engage in wild speculation and aggressive displays fit for animals. If you can't address the topic under discussion, such as why you defend the use of SPA IP accounts who follow Badagnani around, then just remain silent or plead ignorance. Otherwise, your repeated digressions into wild fantasy and personal attacks make you look silly. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel very lucky that we have no common interest in editing areas. Again, you're making up another story. I have not defended the IP at all, but just alarmed him/her to be aware of the accusation thrown by you. Then, h/she might not use Ips. As I'm seeing your vicious personal attack campaign and threats, I think I really can have more patience in dealing with Badagnani's problematic editing. Thank you for the valuable opportunity.--Caspian blue12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that I edit cuisine-related articles, and you showed up to demote Cuisine of Hawaii during one of your last disputes with Badagnani. I logged a protest over your last dispute with Badagnani, and you went to the top of my contribution list and suddenly "showed up" for the first time ever approximately three minutes after I edited it.[8] You have a habit of "showing up" to articles like this whenever you disagree with someone. It's called hounding, and you need to stop doing it. Please don't reply with the excuse that "it was on my watchlist" because it wasn't. You edited the page for the very first time three minutes after I did because it was the last edit I made on my contribution list, and you've done this to many editors. The problem with dishonesty, is that you can't keep track of what is true and what is false. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is certain that you see, what you want to see. That's why your imagination has no value to me. You're obviously incapable of assuming good faith. At that time, I was editing "many cuisine articles" other than Korean cuisine. Almost every cuisine articles are on my watchlist because I'm interested in improving such articles unlike you. Your sudden show-ups to Eugene, Ronz and their edits do not add up at all. That's called indeed "hounding" and reverts for Badagnani are called "meatpuppeting". You have harassed and threaten them and the admin who knows the whole situation regarded your behaviors and view are way off the mark. Now you're expanding your specialty to me. No thanks for more excuses on your disruption.--Caspian blue13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me bring you up to date. I have more than one diff. You hounded me over at Cuisine of Hawaii because you were upset about your dispute with Badagnani, a dispute that I had commented on in a discussion with you during the same time. You visited my contribution list and followed me to that article during the discussion. While you were hounding me, you were also hounding Badagnani in separate articles, and you were following his contribution list as well. And the admin who "knows the whole situation" apologized on my talk page. Hopefully, you will find this update educational in some way. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history of the article in question, List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, I see 153 peaceful edits (many by Badagnani) from inception on 29/01/2006 to 25/03/2009, that is roughly 50 per year. There have been over 150 edits to the page since Ronz's first edit on 24/02/2009 (50 in the last 2 days), not to mention 2 afds and much heat on the talk page and several user talk pages. It seems to me that Ronz, having manifestly and deliberately stirred up an edit-war on and about this page, is now complaining about it. A simple solution would be for Ronz to remove the page from his watchlist and police the other million or so list pages, many of which are far worse than this one. There is List of symphony orchestras in the United States, for instance. Or is just Eastern lists that need attention (cf List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, afd'd and deleted by Ronz et al)? Occuli (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's comments like these are the best support that Badagnani gets for his tendentiousness, then he most definitely needs a block. Arguments that assume bad faith and intentional disruption are of no help. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith has been amply demonstrated on this particular list; AGF was exhausted long ago. Ronz has now (yesterday) followed the 2 unsuccessful afds with an immediate rfc on the talk page. I would consider a block on Ronz for perfecting a new variety of Wikihounding, WikiPitBulling or similar. The jaws are locked and there is no respite in sight. I take it that it is just Badagnani-related lists that are to be subjected to RonZealotry. (I am watching List of symphony orchestras in the United States, a Badagnani-unrelated list.) Occuli (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made me check to see if you were an admin, because you're saying like above. Don't make such the wrong impression to others. I see your bad faith instead.--Caspian blue11:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Badagnani again. I warned him at Talk:Nokdumuk last Sunday not to further edit war with editors, but that does not work obviously. At that time, he may have breached or been close to 3RR violation to several articles as wiki-stalking his another opponent. My suggestion is just to report Badagnani to WP:AN3. No need for further him indulging in endless edit warring. Even before Ronz and Badagnani battle, Badagnani has been always edit warring with multiple editors for his nonsensical insistence and made bogus accusations like "blanking". If I would've reported his 3RR violations, his blocks (more than 4 blocks perhaps?) would have been piled on. Enough is enough. Mentorship? Who's gonna take the hard job? One admin failed it already. I guess Viriditas will do the honor.--Caspian blue13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am pleased to announce that my discussion with Badagnani on Talk:Buddha's delight has led to fruitful results. Perhaps this demonstrates that a calm and direct discussion with Badagnani can work. In the future, I hope more editors will engage Badagnani in this manner. It is the least we can do for our fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think I have not reported him once to ANI/AN3 regardless of his numerous 3RR violations and wrongdoing to me and editors for a long time? Badagnani wikistalked not only me but also other editors (Jeremy, Tanner-Christopher, Melonbarmonster) to harass them. I was once in your position - I created many articles or edited per his requests and persistent nagging - and did discussion with him in calm manner with patience, but that did not make him changed a bit. He is still doing the same behaviors and I gave up my hope that he will be changed. Please do not boast your one time effort. I still recall "your dreadful threats" to Eugene. What a first impression.--Caspian blue10:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been here longer than you, and I have been involved in other disputes with Badagnani. These things have always worked themselves out to completion. We cannot "change" others, only ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick research shows that you have met him much less than I have. You have a even willingness to revert for his sake even though you know those are wrong. However, I can agree with your last sentence, and my impression on you seems valid.--Caspian blue14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I will ignore your false accusations as I find them childish and impolite. We simply have a different approach to Wikipedia. For example, I believe that this kind of behavior is not acceptable from any editor, and anyone who does it should be banned. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're obviously "wikistalking" and "harassing me" again. I've been already ignoring your absurd accusations and threats because I don't see any slight possibility for our cooperation given your repeated such behaviors. You're quoting the 20 min. research which are mostly filed by abusive sockpuppeters or SPA, and including Badagnani' absurd accusations. I already told the admin about it. However, I have a lot to say about Badagnani's long-term wikistalking and harassing of me which can be confirmed by adminstrators in Korean cuisine. While you can enjoy your hypocrisy. Anyone who frequently threaten and curse editors like these [9][10][11][12][13] should be banned from the community indeed. Don't forget that one admin thinks your behaviors and blind defending for him is very troubling. Why aren't your behaviors consistent with your lecture? :)--Caspian blue02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you need help with your English skills, feel free to ask. There are no "threats" or "curses" in any of those diffs. I would also be happy to provide you with any links to online dictionaries if you need them. I think the record is pretty clear concerning your disruptive pattern of behavior, and the next time it happpens and is brought up here for debate, I will support your ban without any hesitation. That is neither a threat nor a curse, just a statement of fact. So please, continue your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a cheap attack you're relying on. I've been attacked for my English in only a few occasions by "notorious harassing editors" such as abusive sockpuppeters. Those have been repeatedly indef.blocked by my RFCU, so that's why I've falsely accused by them. Thank you for another reconfirmation on my first impression and valid criticism on you. You're truly repeating such disruptive pattern of yours. So go on. Your another "curses" and "threats" are all being recorded in the history.-Caspian blue03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is your poor comprehension skills. The other part is your need to generate conflict through attention-seeking behavior. Your attempt to derail this discussion has only provided further evidence of the people behind the harassment campaign against Badagnani. I want to personally thank you for shedding light on that topic and demonstrating the real problem at work. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your problems is your complete denial to look back on yourself and not to know when you have to cease your behaviors. As I said, some admin thinks of your talking highly troubling and threatening. Your attempt to discredit my valid concerns on him is only proving that you're letting him continue his problems, rather trying to fix them. You do not assume good faith at all on editors who disagree with you. My relationship with him is up and down, but you're just getting down and down. No thanks for "more opportunities" to know about you. --Caspian blue04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Another false accusation and lies. Edit warring? Why don't you do better research instead of making up such imagination. You mean your recent edit warring and reverting for Badagnani? I don't recall any edit war with him in my several months. My time has been wasted by your disruption. As I said "enough is enough".--Caspian blue12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More recently, on April 24, you threatened to continue harassing Badagnani "forever" by keeping the RFC open.[14] I don't think RFC's are used in this way, and WP:BATTLE comes to mind. You have an obvious grudge against Badagnani (and evidently anyone who questions you). Perhaps it would help if you just ignore him from now on since you seem more than a bit obsessed with him. Making veiled references to my talk page discussion with Badagnani is creepy enough. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another false and vicious accusation based on your creepy imagination. I said, unless he does not comment about it, the RFC would not be wrapped up. That is an advice for his sake. Other RFCs that were filed even later were wrapped already. Your endless WP:HARASSMENT and threats here are really intolerable. Your obsession with such ill imagination for Badagnani is no wonder. Now, say about "my alleged edit warring with him". Your habit of lying and making bogus accusations indeed are proven as one of your typical characters. Desisting your such behaviors is your burden of your life.--Caspian blue12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC will be closed at the appropriate time, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia is not your personal, private battlefield for you to harass someone "forever". Frankly, I encourage you to take this to arbcom. There is so much evidence against you at this point, I think the case will backfire on you. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: This is a discussion about "more edit-warring by Badagnani". Nobody is forcing you to participate. If you feel compelled to do so, perhaps you can get back to your original statement where you recommended that I should be Badagnani's mentor.[15]. In other words, you began this discussion by discussing me. And now you call the discussion you started, harassment? I'm talking about my direct experience with Badagnani and I'm proposing solutions. What are you putting on the table besides nominating me as a mentor? Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but if the user is blatantly ignoring and disregarding the RFC against him and continuing to engage in the activity that has led to the RFC in the first place, then, as has been done in the past with other users, a block may be necessary and probably an indef one until the user decides to address the RFC. MuZemike16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMO, the RFC was started as a vendetta against Badagnani, and some of the editors participating there (both in the creation of the RFC and as commentators) were hounding Badagnani to the point of following his contribution list and reverting all of his edits in retaliation. To me at least, the RFC was made in bad faith, although some of the concerns there are of course, legitimate. It's akin to catching flies with honey, and this RFC is dripping with vinegar. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely indifferent observer checking in. The topic of discussion is framed in the title, the "bickering Bickersons" need to stop the carping and go back to the original question, how to deal with an editor's contributions that have not been helpful. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I think I've addressed that topic in full.[16][17][18][19] If there is something I've missed, let me know. Basically, this dispute with Badagnani involves a small group of people who have prior disputes with him. I think Badagnani means well, and most of his contributions are helpful. But there has been edit warring on all sides here, and each party needs to take responsibility for contributing to the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't agree that the only people who dislike Badagnani and can't work things out with him are in this small group that he's accused of stalking him and reverting all those edits. There are many other people, myself included, who have spoken against him in the RFC and in the last ANI thread and in previous ANI threads. I had no prior history with him when I ran into a dispute with him at Talk:Musette last September, but he behaved exactly the same way (that is, terribly) that he has in all the other disputes I've seen. And if he's so blameless, why can't he offer any defense of his actions himself? It's pretty ridiculous in my eyes for him to be excused based on one or two other users inventing a defense for him.
He should have been blocked based on the last ANI discussion; clearly, there was no kind of consensus otherwise, but no admin wanted to go ahead and actually take action so the thread just got archived without any resolution, as seems to happen a lot with Badagnani. Propaniac (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propaniac, I spent some time looking at the example you gave above, namely Musette and Talk:Musette and I'm afraid I disagree with your overall assessment. According to the page history, Badagnani has been editing this page for years, beginning on 19:30, 13 August 2005. He also edited it as an article and after it was turned into a dab page. User:Tassedethe tagged it for cleanup on June 3, 2008[20] and you responded to the request on June 26 by removing the majority of the content as extraneous per dab guidelines.[21] No message was left on talk about the deletions, nor was any material moved to the talk page. Badagnani first noticed the deletion on September 7, 2008 and restored the missing material.[22] At this point, Propaniac should have used the talk page, but he didn't, and that's when the edit war began, with a third user User:Philip.t.day, showing up to revert Propaniac's deletions/cleanup.[23] Badagnani was the first to use the talk page[24] and his usage was polite and courteous, adhering to all manners of civility and respect. Propaniac showed up to the talk page almost 13 hours later after reverting again, and the discussion became sarcastic, and full of incivility. Now, that is in the page history, and everyone can see it. Regardless of who is right or wrong here, it is how we communicate with our fellow editors that matters the most. Propaniac did not treat Badagnani in a civil fashion, and expected Badagnani to just agree with him because Propaniac was doing the Holy Work of Jimbo and Larry. Propaniac could have slowed down a bit, asked for input from the dab project, pursued a third opinion, and tried to work out a compromise with Badagnani. Instead, we get this diff from Propaniac taking a stubborn stance, saying "I'm not going to back down on this and allow you to change it back to the old version, no matter how long you drag this "discussion" out by saying the same things over and over..." But, User:Philip.t.day and User:Badagnani were against the change. I think this could have been handled better, and some kind of accommodation made, either by educating editors about the dab guidelines or by moving the deleted content somewhere else. In summary, Propaniac felt that by his writ and Holy WikiPower, the dab page would be cleaned, by hell or by high water. This is not the best attitude to have in a collaborative environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with propaniac as I share a similar experience on my first interaction with Badagnani. To claim this is the fault of some small group of editors is false. Anyone who disagress with Badagnani gets treated the same way. Whether he knwos them or not. Wikipedia doesn't need that kind of editor.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that I can as you read the email I sent you. That only happened 4 months ago and shows his behaviour was the same then as it is now as was prior to that by all accounts. His behaviour hasn't changed. For an editor that has been here 4 years, 4 months is plenty recent [25]. I don't stalk him, but following some of the links that have been provided at the RfC and in the AN/I threads on him his language has been exactly the same since his interaction with me 4 months ago, which shows he has hasn't changed his behaviour at all. Badagnani also refused to get involved with his own defense at that time, and is doing it yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crossmr, I acknowledged that I received your e-mail on your talk page at 09:15, 1 May 2009.[26] However, I do not discuss the contents of private e-mail onwiki. (In the spirit of Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence) You are, of course, welcome to discuss it here, so that was why I was prompting you to do so. The diff you give above is not very specific, so perhaps you can pick the most egregious incident and briefly link to it? Or, feel free to discuss this in any way you like. You could even repost the links you sent me here. Unfortunately, I no longer have your e-mail due to several issues with my inbox. Please send it again if you can. I took a look at the diffs in the section linked to the diff above named, "User:Badagnani personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and stirring the pot" and didn't find anything out of the ordinary or problematic. Maybe you could find one that you think is the best example. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing problematic about repeatedly lying about what a user has said and insulting them multiple times over a period of 2 days? Wow. You and I have a very difference definition of problematic. Those diffs are well laid out and explained. He repeatedly lied about what I said for 2 days and when called on it, just moved on to other insults and other attempts to misrepresnt different things I said. #8 is the most telling about his behaviour. After literally begging me through numerous insults and misrepresntations to engage on discussion on an article page (which was fairly pointless in the context of the discussion since we were having a policy discussion that had far reaching implications beyond a single article), his first response was to insult me after I did what he wanted [27]. You can clearly see there was nothing uncivil about my tone in the comment prior to that and yet badagnani's response is immediate personal attacks and insults. Anytime he's asked to explain what is wrong with my tone, he refuses to explain it. The reason I put quotes around good was because the policy was specifically addressing there be a good reason for the galleries inclusion. Not to mention that message wasn't even in reply to him but a different user, in addition to his insults and personal attacks he edited my comment to thread it after his.[28].--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see lies and insults in those diffs. I'm not saying they aren't there, I'm just saying that I don't see them. If you can focus on one specific article or incident, it will be easier to take a look. Keep in mind, that you are talking about things that you have interpreted, rather than what is actually there. For example, if I hold up one hand and ask you to count my fingers, it is likely that 10 out of 10 people will say I have five fingers. There isn't really an interpretation here. It's a "truth" we can agree upon. Likewise, try to pick a specific incident where there is little room for interpretation and where many users can see the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to interpret there. He makes claims, he's asked to provide evidence to those claims, instead he ignores those requests and moves on to other false claims. I Already focused on a specific diff for you and spelled out exactly what was wrong with it. After a long campaign of insults he repeatedly asked me to post on an article talk page and after doing so he continued further insults. If you don't think that someone labeling your contribution to a discussion as tendentious and disruptive is an insult or personal attack, then let me be the first to tell you that you contributions to this discussion clearly are. As for insults and lies: here he outright lies about my actions in this dispute: [29]. I did nothing to indicate I was going to continue to remove galleries without further discussion (as soon as that discussion started and not once since have I removed a gallery from an article), and a month before this all began I attempted to engage him in conversation by posting several pieces of talk to one of the article talk pages that he was heavily involved in[30]. Not once in the month I waited did he respond to it. Here he is lying again try to claim I never tried to discuss things [31] and again [32], here her claims I want only 1 image for all the articles [33] which is a lie. He can't produce a single diff where I've ever said that, and yet again more lies [34]. He tries to paint me as someone who was going to ignore consensus and yet after my application of bold and a discussion which result in no consensus I didn't continue at all. How many lies and misrepresentations would you like? Those are all the blatant ones. You wanted a recent event. I gave you that. You wanted a specific event. I gave you that. I also gave you a play by play of all the blatant lies. Anyone who has a look at the discussions that took place over those 2 days can clearly see that I didn't say any of those things he claims I said. In addition the style of language he used and his behaviour then is identical to now. Telling users to moderate their tone who clearly aren't being uncivil, or instead of continuing the debate simply making an insult and calling for everyone to get back to work on the encyclopedia. Then when finally called on his behaviour refusing to defend his actions and letting some other user fight the battle for him.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Please check out this diff – enough said. I didn't come to Wikipedia to receive this kind of attitude; being unregistered has nothing to do with the constructiveness of my edits. In general, this kind of language cannot be tolerated – notice the following highlights:
If we can figure that out, you bet we can figure out more. This is a direct threat to try and mess with my computer based on my WHOIS info.
You have no authority whatsoever here on Wikipedia. Say what???
You are nothing but a punk, a social reject who likes to stir up havoc and controversy... so much for all of this narcistic [sic] “experienced integrity user” hoopla that you try to pull off. One personal attack after another.
So why don’t you do me, Captain Infinity (talk) and others you like to pick a bone on a favor...and go f’ yourself. The Grand finale was only expected.
The editor should have been left an ANI notice, which I will do now, but this sort of thing is so gross that I have left an NPA warning already. Rodhullandemu13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these editors display rather aggressive edit summaries, and obviously have different philosophies about what should be included and excluded. The difference is that, at least under the current ID's, KeltieMartinFan has been at it a lot longer. He's got one particularly outrageous comment (from a year ago) stating that a user with whom he disagrees "is under federal investigation", or at least that's how I read it: [35] Any user has the right to notify another user about rules violations like 3RR, and he's dead wrong that only admins can do that. However, an aggressive user is not likely to respond well to such a warning, and may well resort to this kind of bullying. In any case, if he actually has violated 3RR, you can post it at WP:3RR. If not, you could raise the content issue on the talk page of the article. If the item you're trying to add is not currently on the talk page as Keltie claims, then maybe it's in an archive. See if it's been discussed previously before you take further action. This seems to be mostly a content dispute, wrapped in fire by opposing users. The over-the-top remarks by Keltie justifies notification from an admin. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots14:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an oddity, and maybe my eyes are just not working right yet - but here's a warning from a rollbacker (not an admin) to the IP about an alleged frivolous WP:AIV report [36] except I can't find any WP:AIV report filed from that IP address. What's up with that? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Something caused the attacks, so we have to look at them as well - nothing occurs in a vacuum. It does not excuse incivility, but it explains it. Your actions at AIV, and editing contrary to WP:BLP are potential key events that of course require investigation. We need to know what happened, and why. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complicating matters is that the Keltie saw those 3RR postings as the IP pretending to be an admin. I've explained to Keltie that anyone can post those warnings, not just admins. I also asked him to come here to comment, when he gets the chance. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots16:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Maybe the IP didn't understand that exactly 3 reverts does not qualify for posting an entry in the 3RR page. It has to be 4 or more. And if the IP misunderstood that, then that's partly what evoked the outraged response from Keltie. I can tell you that I've received warnings sometimes when I'm at (not over) 3RR, and I don't much care for it. But it depends on how it's worded. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done nothing that openly violates WP:BLP. I have brought up examples of satire/parody in contemporary media, with the respective episodes serving as undoubtedly reliable sources, in order to demonstrate cultural impact and alternative criticism. The fact that the way South Park chose to do it is pretty much pure slander does not change the fact that a popular show took a jab at Katie Couric, which makes the reference notable enough.
If I'm being reverted with an empty edit summary, then request one and get another empty edit summary in return, I'm not the one asking for an edit war. My opinion matters just as much as KeltieMartinFan (talk·contribs)'s or anyone else's. Wikipedia welcomes all editors, not just those who choose to decorate their user page with banners and flashing colors to "show they care." Why am I expected to "get reverted and shut the f@^k up?"
Although you can technically call my edit summaries "aggressive" at times (because I'm forced to repeat my arguments when they keep being ignored), I still try very hard to assume good faith and act somewhat wp:civil. Never in my life, incognito or not, have I used a kind of language that comes even close to the tirade of jock-like intimidation and insults that were left on my page. I am not a vandal, nor am I trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I have my way of seeing things and KeltieMartinFan (talk·contribs) has his/hers. I do not have to tolerate being called a "punk" and "social reject" who "seeks to stir up havoc." I have my shortcomings just as much as the next guy, but I know that I am a constructive editor, whose views might be seen as unorthodox by some.
The {{3RR}} warning is a standard procedure on the way to reporting to the 3RR notice board. I didn't want to "rat out" that user and tried to engage them in a constructive dialogue, but I guess some editors cannot be conversed with at all. I never impersonated an admin and never intend doing so; it's so moronic and easily traceable that I couldn't think of any reason why one should even think of such ridiculous action. The reason I left the template after only three reverts is that I wanted to prevent an unpleasant situation for the other user (and potentially myself as well).
You clearly have, from your edit history, made a bunch of positive contributions, so I will assume good faith.
That said - this particular incident, the information you kept readding to the Katie Couric article is, while correct, not notable (from her perspective) and undue weight. Appropriate on the article for the episode? Sure. Appropriate on Katie's article? No.
Could this be subject to a consensus decision to add it? Sure. But it's going to be controversial enough, and is pushing enough buttons, that anyone being WP:BOLD after multiple reverts, especially to the point that they are making other editors angry, is being disruptive.
AGF and the detailed history indicate that you probably felt this was reasonable and didn't do it to provoke an incident.
With that said - that's the effect that it had. We can slap everyone with a trout for bad behavior, if you like. But you need to stop inserting that information. The end result is controversial and disruptive. You should have seen that before now. You are responsible for having kept pushing, after there was clear evidence that what you were doing was controversial and upsetting people.
That is not good behavior. AGF gets you past the intent issue - but doesn't cover having continued to edit war over it.
If you keep it up, I'll block you for it.
If you take it to the talk page and get a consensus go right ahead. I doubt you'll get one, but I won't stand in the way of the normal process here.
Please calm down, back off, take it to talk if you feel that strongly about it, and try to avoid provoking people into being nasty to you in the future. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am being accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING without any grounds. The concerns I have raised on that board are about KeltieMartinFan's misconduct during edits. Please take a look everyone, I actually found many examples. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Georgewilliamherbert, please take a look at the sub-section below (and the examples brought up by Ricky81682 (talk·contribs) above, right before my reply) and tell me all these people provoked Keltie into reacting in such a way. Considering that I have been making edits to WP in an entirely good faith and never in my life tried to vandalize a page, I'd say that telling me to "try to avoid provoking people into being nasty to you in the future" is exactly what you don't do when confronted by a bully. Am I supposed to be as nasty towards Keltie after I have found out how many of his edits focus around merely rewriting the text while reducing the overall grammatical quality? No, I am assuming good faith and if I'll ever revert these, I'll explain nicely that his grammar level is sub-standard for Wikipedia by far. According to your theory, I should stop editing if anyone else is displeased because of supposed "controversy." Sorry, but Wikipedia gives an equal opportunity to all editors, be they registered or not, and if anyone disagrees with my edits – they are most welcome to take it to the talk page (I'm not the one who always has to do it first...) and I will be more than happy to discuss it in the appropriate manner. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I got balls so here goes...that Keltie dude is a bully. Both Ricky (an admin) and the IP dude have proven this with far too many examples to ignore. Something's got to give here man. Can an admin block Keltie for repeated incivility and personal attacks? This guy needs to be set clear that his bully type of aggressive behavior will not be tolerated. If all else fails, you can send him my way and I'll kick his ass for free. Joking. Cadenis cool12:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks, vandalism, accusations
As you may see above, I have been recently accused by this user of being a non-constructive editor, a vandal, a "social reject", "punk"... you name it. I think reading the diff itself should cover it, at least as far as false accusations and personal attacks go. I have done some basic research about this user, and here is some of what I have learned.
I apologize in advance for the next couple of paragraphs being poorly formatted, as I have copied and pasted it from a text file I made. Below are some examples of KeltieMartinFan (talk·contribs)'s contributions (note that most of them have empty edit summaries).
[37] poor grammar (including a multiple disambiguous "she" instead of her name), highlight: "came to MSNBC in 2003 where she spent four years there"
[45] another useless "word lego" - no constructiveness in the latter two by a long shot
Notice that all the diffs above are from the latest page in this user's contribution history. I am positive that had I gone deeper, I would fill this page, which is not exactly what would have helped the case :-)
Now we have come to the really interesting part. According to this diff, KeltieMartinFan claims that "[i]t is never in [their] nature to be uncivil here on wikipedia"... please take a look at the following (again, my apologies for the crude formatting):
[47][48][49] restoring unwanted attack on another user's talk page THREE TIMES in spite of those being repeatedly deleted by the owner of the talk page
[51][52][53] multiple attacks on (apparently) the same anonymous editor
[54] deleting someone else's contribution from someone else's talk page, in other words - vandalism
I have found all these in the first couple of pages in this user's contribution history. If the case will require me to "dig deeper" I will.
When Keltie was informed of this discussion, this was his reply. In other words: "I feel no regret whatsoever, this anonymous IP is a douchebag and I won't even dignify his sorry ass with an answer." Great attitude...
P.S. Considering the heavy insults I had to put up with last time I tried to place a civil warning on that user's page, I am not going to do it this time, even though this is technically against regulations. Due to the special situation that has been created here, I am asking that an admin do that. Thank you very much in advance. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Send Keltie my way and I'll kick his ass for you. Just joking. No, but seriously this dude has behavior issues and an admin needs to look into this asap. Cadenis cool07:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the whole text, not just assorted portions of your selective choice, and understand my case in depth instead of focusing on keywords (again, of your choice). 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's WP:AGF a little here, Mr/Ms IP address. You opened an ANI filing, and THEN a WQA. You edit-warred on WQA where people politely tried to help you to understand that this needed to be dealt with in one forum. You have argued with me on my Talkpage as I tried to assist as your advicate in the situation.
I fully agree, a few of the diff's you provided regarding Keltie's insults on a wide variety of user pages show them as being complete violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but your continued aggressive actions are weakening your case, and indeed have become disruptive. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the above and looking at your contribution history, I have some doubts about whether or not this is all you are going to say at this point. However, it's all disruptive. I can't see any further good that will come from this discussion, and in a larger light, you have been prone to theatrics, drama, and contentious editing for a long time. It's gotten to the point where even if you are right, no one is going to agree because you've been so argumentative, tendentious and prickly in the past. Tan | 3914:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific, I really fail to understand how come after I have been doused with a bucket of excrement by an editor, whose edit history demonstrates very poor grammar, disrupting other editors, calling names, vandalizing talk pages, conducting extreme personal attacks and what not – I'm the one "on trial" here. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were unblocked on the condition you would not mess with others' comments. Did you forget that promise? Also, please address whether or not you have any relationship to the users Mexicomida. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a connection to that user at all, if this is what you are asking. As for removing comments – you are still ignoring the fact that my comment got reversed three times, which seems OK, but my reversal got instantly criticized. No double standards, please. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your unblock was on an unconditional promise by you not to mess with others' comments, which you quickly broke. You can complain about the apparent double standard, but messing with others' comments directly is a violation of your promise. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing us back on topic As much as the actions of the IP editor is distracting from the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, there remains the actions of User:KeltieMartinFan
While Keltie's comments have been pretty aggressive, he's also been dealing with this South Park garbage trashing Katie Couric for at least a year (example:[55]) from various sources, and he's probably fed up. I know I would be. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was previously dealing with other editors, not me. I do not have to serve as a sewer pipe for Keltie's frustration. His or her behavior was only short of a physical attack. As for "this South Park garbage trashing Katie Couric" – keep your POV to yourself please, this is Wikipedia. We must provide relevant information in an objective manner, not "shush" anything that might be considered offensive to some fans. This is not a fansite, no bias can be tolerated. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor's actions may explain the incivility, but never excuse it. If Keltie needed help, there are proper forums for that, and reaching for the name-calling was not correct. Like I suggested, let's deal with the improper reactions first, and then do what Keltie should have done and deal with the IP edits. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keltie is probably exasperated from dealing with these characters for over a year, but I agree that he needs to speak up here rather than sitting quietly and letting everyone talk about him. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things worth pointing are that (1) Keltie said the South Park stuff had already been settled in talk, which is true ([57]); and (2) neither editor brought to the talk page, the IP's attempt to re-insert that stuff; the "talk" was all done in the edit summaries and on each other's talk pages, as each of them flung various objects at each other. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also opine that the obvious anti-liberal bias shown by the IP is probably the reason his swine flu joke was deleted. Coming from a neutral party, it was probably harmless. Coming from someone with an anti-liberal agenda, it's easy to see why some would read racism into it. And any hint of racism has to go. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Obvious anti-liberal bias???" Are you f@^king kidding me? This has nothing to do with my political beliefs (if anything, I'm somewhat of an Obama supporter). This is a joke I heard and liked because it's funny. To apply a quote by Seth MacFarlane (creator of Family Guy) to you in this case: "Being funny is something you're quite above, and for that I salute you." Stating that some racists said in the past that "there will be a black president when pigs fly" does not make me one! You might want to consider joining the Parents Television Council and conduct this ridiculous witch hunt against anything that might be funny, scraping for racism, slander and other types of offense. I see your latest comment as a personal attack against me and demand an apology. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: yes, when I face such uncivil and outright ridiculous accusations, I react in a way that might be seen by some as "aggressive" but it's because I try and protect myself. To set the record straight: again, I am not a racist and never have I displayed the slightest hint of anti-liberal bias. "Why do Jews have long noses? Because the air is free." There you go, I'm an Israeli Jew. So much for my reparations for the day, I'm going out for a bit :-) 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)You demand an apology? Would anyone here (besides our would-be humorist) be shocked if I gave out a brief disruption block? This is getting out of hand. Tan | 3918:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I'm supposed to "shut the f@^k up"... no problem, no more "disruptions" but if anyone tries to pin imaginary blame on me again, I will react. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking standard procedure personally. Relax, no one's "out to get you," they just want to make sure they have all the facts. Constantly leveling accusations and attacks just lead to escalation. Soxwon (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took the continued attempts to trash the Katie Couric article, along with the "fan club" comment, to be indicative of anti-liberal bias. I, personally thought it was a funny joke and didn't see anything racist in it. I even repeated it to some co-workers, and of course they groaned. But others did see it as racist - not the jokester necessarily, but the joke itself, and that's why they (rightly) removed it. Regardless of any settlement here, though, the content issue (of which I believe this whole thread to be a distraction from) remains out there. But previous consensus said the South Park stuff does not belong in the Couric article. If the IP thinks otherwise, he should bring that to the Couric talk page rather than trying to debate it in edit summaries. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you assumed wrong. Here's the thing: since I am not an American, I never knew who Katie Couric was until I saw the South Park episode. It was not the first and not the last time I learned about American culture via similar shows. I do not know (and frankly, do not particularly care about) her political agenda, but I believe that if I found out who she is thanks to South Park, there must be many others like me out there in the non-US universe. This alone is the reason for me wanting to include that information (I also generally have no particular interest in US politics, although as I previously stated, I have respect for Obama). As for the joke – I have explained myself in the Swine influenza section below, you are welcome to take a look.
To Soxwon (talk·contribs): thank you for the good faith comment. However, since the beginning of this thread I have been accused of the following:
Racism
Anti-liberal bias
Vandalism
Sockpuppetry
Bad faith
Incivility
Non-constructiveness
Disruptive editing
Impersonating an admin
Forum shopping
Wikihounding
I'm pretty tired right now so if I left out anything, I'll add it later. Naturally, all these accusations have no firm ground whatsoever as my sole intent is to help Wikipedia, not thrash it. Considering all that, would you not feel that they're "out to get you" if you were in my shoes? Come on dude, I came here to complain about the trash talk and barrage of personal attacks just because I have a different view on the subject than KeltieMartinFan... "and all I got was this lousy thread." :-) 87.69.176.81 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but comments like: You might want to consider joining the Parents Television Council and conduct this ridiculous witch hunt against anything that might be funny, scraping for racism, slander and other types of offense. and asking someone who was named for adminship if they were someonelses sockpuppet doesn't exactly breed good will. I'm not saying this is all your fault, just that everyone's human and a comment like that will probably escalate things. Address points, respond to questions, and relax man, if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear. Wikipedia didn't get this far by pinning the blame on constructive contributors. :) Soxwon (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. However, I don't agree that if I've done nothing wrong I've got nothing to fear. I've been wrongfully charged with at least eleven different counts, one of them is sockpuppetry (by the same user) during the past 24 hours. As far as I know, this user, along with an admin, are still at it despite the SPI complaint being declined. Yes, due to all this I feel unjustly targeted. As for my sarcastic remark – you are right, I should not have left it, but the current course of events pretty much lead me to take the bait; we're all human... 87.69.176.81 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but i think a wikibreak might do you good. Scurrilious charges usually don't get far and you can edit with a cool head. Soxwon (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur about the article content issues. However, since there has been some significant NPA issues, let's deal with them, and then deal with content where it belongs is all I'm sayin' (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:KeltieMartinFan will be given a personalized, non-template warning, linking to this, this and this, advising them that although frustration may explain incivility, it never excuses it based on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. They will be advised that should a situation arise that requires hard action, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:AN, or similar forums should be used, rather than lose their cool.
There's nothing inherently blockable, I believe. Agree/disagree/additions/changes? You'll then be free to follow the Plaxico route as needed. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want KeltieMartinFan to go back to the IP addresses he warned and rewrite them so they aren't so aggressive. At some point, those addresses will reset and some innocent anonymous user will get that vitriol for no reason at all. It's one thing to be nasty to logged-in users, but there's serious collateral damages concerns here. Following this warningin May 2008, a new user freaked out at my page which I explained. Imagine someone seeing his comments. Until I see some attempt to fix the problem, "suggestion taken to heart" isn't enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if KeltieMartinFan can actually rewrite all his or her offensive posts from the past year, it sounds like a great deal. This user has been offending God-knows-how-many people during his or her course of being at WP (just for having different opinions that his or her own), most likely abusing the fact that most IP users would not complain. This is the true definition of bullying: pick on the weak knowing they will not retaliate back. Correct me if I am wrong, but this kind of behavioral pattern requires a zero tolerance policy. We are not on the streets of Rio, this is (at least supposed to be) a civil community. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to other users that he or she slandered during that past year. By the way, are you sockpuppeting KeltieMartinFan by chance? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you want to know which IP addresses I used, I do not remember. They are periodically changed by my ISP. What is the relevance of this question please? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would help with the SPI if you would list other articles you've edited and when. The argument is that you zoomed in on Katie Couric and placed edits that others had placed before. Maybe that's just a coincidence. If you tell us other articles and when, it may help your case. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots07:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously cannot remember which articles I edited prior to receiving this IP address, but I guess there is more than plenty in my current edit history. As for your points:
I never "zoomed" on Couric. I tried to contribute, got bluntly reverted, and tried to reinsert. Then KeltieMartinFan took a crap on my talk page – that's when I zoomed on the case.
There are probably as many opinions on Wikipedia as there are editors. Why on Earth are you so determined that everyone complies with your outlook on this (not so) little universe? Is there not more than one person that maybe has a different view on the subject? I never saw it as even close to vandalism and never will, I am a good faith editor and would like to remain such. It's a pity that I'm getting lynched before even having the chance to take a breath. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because, if you look closely, they left the offensive comment on my talk page right after mentioning the previous discussion(s) in their edit summary. Had I been given more time, I'd probably discuss the issue. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a basic instinct to protect oneself when attacked. I've already dropped the content idea a while ago, I see that too many editors just don't get jokes (as appears from my attempt to insert the Swine flu joke as well). 87.69.176.81 (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I might bring it up on the discussion page, just to see why editors are so opposed to it, but even then I will not edit-war over it again. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is appropriate for this type of gross offense. All I want is to make sure no one else will have to put up with this kind of crap from that user ever again. Afterwards, I'd like a sincere and extended apology from KeltieMartinFan for the unjust attacks and from you and Georgewilliamherbert for the sockpuppetry/serial vandalism accusations. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely on this because no editor deserves the crap that you've been getting on this ANI. It's uncalled for and rather cruel in my opinion. I know Keltie deserves to be blocked but he never will be. You wait, he will do to others what he's done to you and he will never be warned or blocked for it. He reminds me of another editor who put me through hell (on ANI) and not a bloody thing was done to him. Regardless, Keltie owes you a big apology as does Bugs and George. They have assumed the worst bad faith I've seen in a long time. Cadenis cool`
Thank you again for all your input, CadenS. I'll paste your other comment here, since it seems to have been archived:
I can't help but be suspicious over the appalling behavior of Bugs concerning this IP editor. Bugs I would like to know what the purpose is for your allegations and why you're demanding a SPI with no evidence for that? How about your never ending bad faith concerning the IP? Why are you following (stalking?) this editor from one talk page to another? Why are you having conversations about him on user talk pages with multiple admins (your buddies?) and other editors? Who appointed you a judge here? You sure are acting on this ANI as if the IP is on some kind of (witch?) trial. How many more times do you plan to lynch the poor guy before you stop? Please be honest because it appears to me you have an agenda. It's obvious you're up to something and as usual its not good. Everybody knows how much you love to make trouble (kicking others when their down) and even though you were told by so many on your failed RfA, it looks like you learned nothing from that. Cadenis cool 09:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
What I learned from the RfA is that many of the opposers have their priorities out of order. The average internet reader could not care less about the constant soap operas here. That reader comes here for information. The content should always be the highest priority. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots13:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another red herring coming from you. No one mentioned anything about content. What you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with bullying other editors as one pleases. While content is indeed there for the reader and is utmost important, it cannot distract from WP:NPA and other policies designed to protect editors from unjust attacks. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPA complaints are often a distraction from content disputes. I have been personally attacked countless times, but I don't bring it here unless it somehow impacts content, which is seldom. Meanwhile, why are you so reluctant to tell us when and which articles you've edited in the past? Every time I ask that question, you ignore it or give a vague answer. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots13:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. They usually indicate aggressive approach... I guess from the way you are defending Keltie you like that approach. My initial issue was the appalling NPA violation by Keltie and you are trying to imply sockpuppetry as a distraction. Yet another double standard coming from you, but at this point I am not surprised the slightest bit. As for previous articles I edited – I have given a straight answer. I do not remember at the moment and in any case, it is irrelevant to this discussion (another red herring... boy, you could have opened a fish market by now). 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are: NPA complaints are often a distraction from content disputes. Keltie was defending the article against content that (as he told you) was against consensus. I said early on here that he was being aggressive. His comments to you were probably too strong. But if you had been defending the article against that same stuff for a year, you might have reacted that way also. And if you had had the experience we established editors have had, in defending certain articles against sock after sock trying to insert some kind of nonsense, you might understand why we get suspicious. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, several users just took a huge dump on my head and all you have to say is "you might understand." Also, "were probably too strong?" Their first comment on my talk page was something like "I know what you're trying to do, you're a social reject, a punk, you have no authority over Wikipedia... why won't you go and fuck yourself?" This is like a cop who beats the living crap out of the suspect before even looking at the case. This is only short of a physical attack and requires at least a civil response from Keltie, who has been dead silent throughout this affair. Judging by their talk page, they are still convinced to have done the right thing, meaning they intend to keep acting this way in the future. Finally, as for "protecting" the article – from what? I won't add it since it is not even remotely as important to me as it is to you/Keltie/George/whomever, but I know that what you are really after is that South Park episode... almost wishing the Couric reference were never there. Therefore, you will always fish for such references and try and eliminate them from the public eye (which, of course, will never happen) but the problem is that the episode exists, has been and will be watched by many, and that in my opinion constitutes a valid encyclopedic addition (what you all dismiss as "trivial" "vandalist" "nonsense"). Nevertheless, I do not wish to participate in such frivolous discussions anymore, so I've dropped the Couric article. Happy, Pappy? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more query: if I adhere to your policy of "content is always the highest priority," would you understand and turn a blind eye (just like you're doing now) if I went to Keltie's talk page and told him something like "Go back to elementary school and get the fuck out of Wikipedia until you've learned some basic grammar, you illiterate piece of shit" based on some of their edits (a few examples given at the beginning of this sub-topic)? I think not. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't, and this is why you will (hopefully) never become an admin unless you change this attitude. We're human beings first and editors after. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it would be appropriate, I said it would be understandable - which it would. You haven't been in the shoes of long-time defenders here, so you don't understand. And as far as becoming an admin, I have even less interest in it now than before that RfA was held - and I didn't have a lot of interest then. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna go there? Sure! Let's picture the proper allusion: I sit in the sandbox, some kid comes and tells me to get out, I say "na-ah" and he throws a rock at my head. Later I find out that some kids before me tried to sit in that sandbox (which he declared as his), but he likes to play alone. Despite his ongoing aggravation (which may have explained the act of extreme violence), my fractured skull could not care less. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These disputes all seem to involve articles about minor popular culture topics. Is there a content issue that matters here? Is there a substantive issue that needs to be sorted out? If not, how about just giving the annoying parties some corner time to cool off? --John Nagle (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly uninvolved observer checking in. The brouhaha was begun by 87.69.176.81 and revolves around introducing contentious and non-notable commentary that was challenged, albeit harshly as inappropriate. A range of similar submissions have been made by the same editor who was upset by his treatment at the hands of other editors who reverted or removed his contributions. One of the notes that appears on this and other pages clearly states: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." The question of Wp:Duck was also raised which is now an entirely separate issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
If the IP spent half as much time on the talk pages of the articles he'd like to insert trivia into he might have reached a consensus by now. I suspect he just likes to argue, this being a perfect venue for that. David D.(Talk)19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, this discussion is over. I'll go by the book, introduce reliable sources and take a thousand notability tests. If I don't like a contribution, I'll start name calling, attacking, telling users to go fuck themselves and that they aren't worth shit for Wikipedia. This way everyone will like me. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trashing? Again with the personal attacks? (Not to mention the implied sockpuppetry accusation???) Were we the ones that invented the fictional measuring unit for weighing feces? No, it was South Park. Therefore, as a popular show watched by many, it deserves inclusion, regardless of all Katie Couric fans out there who might be hurt by the reference. If you have problems with this, you are welcome to address them to Trey Parker and Matt Stone. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but be suspicious over the appalling behavior of Bugs concerning this IP editor. Bugs I would like to know what the purpose is for your allegations and why you're demanding a SPI with no evidence for that? How about your never ending bad faith concerning the IP? Why are you following (stalking?) this editor from one talk page to another? Why are you having conversations about him on user talk pages with multiple admins (your buddies?) and other editors? Who appointed you a judge here? You sure are acting on this ANI as if the IP is on some kind of (witch?) trial. How many more times do you plan to lynch the poor guy before you stop? Please be honest because it appears to me you have an agenda. It's obvious you're up to something and as usual its not good. Everybody knows how much you love to make trouble (kicking others when their down) and even though you were told by so many on your failed RfA, it looks like you learned nothing from that. Cadenis cool09:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stop it, everyone just please STOP this. This is worse than a kindergarten sandbox. On the one hand, people who are highly involved in contentious areas, such as the I/P arena, are going to have the same articles watchlisted, and talk pages of editors with whom they interact watchlisted. It is very easy to see when something new that piques your interest pops up on the screen, and if you happen to strongly disagree with the editor, you may make your opinions known quickly. That is not wikihounding; that is the natural result of differing editors having overlapping areas of interest. On the other hand, popping in and tagging a brand new article without trying to engage in discourse on the talk page isn't the most civil thing either. You all have to take four steps back, realize that the other party may, just may, have a point, and learn to work together instead of continuing the vicious cycle of having contentious articles posted, reverted, protected, blocked, and then having everyone run to AN, ANI, AE, RfC, and RfAR on a regular basis. At this point, it is becoming a tempting thought to topic ban about 25 people from the I/P arena for six months or so and see if the rest of the project can bring some level-headedness back.
In a nutshell, no one in the conversation below is either as clean as the driven snow or guilty as sin. Stop wasting your own efforts quid-pro-quoing with each other, apply even HALF of that energy into some form of RESPECTFUL collaboration, and wikipedia would be a MUCH better place. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to put my money somewhere I would bet that Nocal is concerned that the same POV violations are occurring over a number of related articles, something that is excluded from WP:HOUND. I don't know if NoCal's POV concerns are valid, but the validity of his concerns should be discussed at the article's talkpages, where he has joined or initiated discussions. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having mentioned BlackKite by name, I informed him of this post on his talk page. If he's in, perhaps he'll pop by to clarify. Tiamuttalk19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If NoCal can explain how he got to any of those articles I would be interested in seeing it. All of these are articles that NoCal had never edited before, may not have even known of their existence, but LP makes an edit and he shows up. Tiamut starts a new article, he shows up. I am going to keep quiet now, as I really am interested in seeing whether or not he can explain how he got to any one of these articles besides by following those two. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, even if true, NoCal100 still followed me to Lydda Death March (an article I had created hours earlier) after I asked him not to edit war at Ramot, which has been on my watchlist for about a year I think. Anyway, that was certainly wikihounding. So the charge still stands. And he's the one with the final warning from Black Kite. Whether Lapsed Pacifist has ever received such a warning is beyond my ken. Tiamuttalk20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that NoCal edited Ramot before Tiamut. Tiamut's first edit to Ramot was to revert NoCal's edit. I'm not saying that Tiamut is hounding NoCal, but considering that Nocal was first to Ramot and Tiamut was first to Lydda Death March they both seem to have the same hounding probability. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had Ramot and the other Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem watchlisted for about a year now and been involved in centralized discussion about how to characterize them here for about as long and since it started. Long before NoCal100 ever touched one of those articles or even starting editing here. Note too, he doesn't bother participating in the talk about it, just reverting to his preferred version over and over. When I warned him not to edit war at Ramot on his talk page, he immediately showed up at Lydda Death March which I had created hours earlier and slapped it with a POV tag. There's not only wikihounding going on here, but edit-warring and disruptive editing without sufficient participation in talk until after people warn him that he is pushing it. Note he's already been warned by Elonka against edit-warring without discussion on his talk page as well. Its odd to me that no one sees this behaviour as disruptive. Tiamuttalk21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully believe you that you had Ramot on your watchlist. After all you are heavily involved in I-P articles. To that end, I would similarly fully believe that Nocal had Lydda Death March on his watchlist. The incident was notable and controversial and NoCal is also heavily involved in I-P articles. I currently have 1,700 articles on my watchlist and a substantial number of them are redlinks. They're on my watchlist so that I can see them whey they are created.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He watchlisted Lydda Death March before it was created? I've had redlinks in my watchlist, but as a result of an article having been deleted. Seems an odd set of words to put together to add to ones watchlist. Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bunch of uncreated articles on my watchlist (including my name which might get created any day (I'm just kidding, I'm a big loser)). Gaza War for one. The "March" was a notable incident; nothing weird about an I-P editor having it on his or her watchlist.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The 3 articles that Nableezy mentioned are indeed related and it was one topic, I have been working through some issues with LP and have engaged extensively on talk pages. If anyone cares to note, these pages are in fact pending mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corrib Gas. Looking at this situation, it would seem that none of the involved parties are without some guilt, LP & NoCal following each other to different pages or vice versa and Nableezy brings his dispute with NoCal to LP. GainLine ♠♥20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are related to each other, but not to what NoCal had been editing prior to this. And I dont have a dispute with NoCal, matter of fact his antics amuse me more than anything. Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me that this is essentially par for the course on I-P articles, and maybe contentious articles elsewhere on WP. Someone starts, or heavily edits, an article about Israel-Palestine or related issues, and a swarm of detractors and supporters arise. "Wikihounding?" Sure, on all sides. But nothing is done, because it simply isn't considered that great a "wikicrime." I'd love it if it were, but it isn't. IronDuke21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come one Iron Duke. Elonka warned him under ARBPIA not to edit war without discussing months ago, she said if he continued in the future he would be blocked. Well, he did it at Ramot over the last two days, and he did not participate in talk until after I warned him about edit-warring. Right after that, he follows me to Lydda Death March created just hours earlier by me and edited only by me, slaps it with a POV tag and begins making WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments on the talk page that have little to do with policy, sources, etc., and everything to do with what he doesn't like. This is ust plain tiresome, unproductive and it amounts to disruptive editing. He was also warned by Black Kite specifically not to follow editors under any circumstances anywhere the last time such a complaint was brought to WP:AE (which wasn't the first time either). When are the ARBPIA sanctions going to be taken seriously around here? Tiamuttalk21:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nocal edited that article before you did, and before LP did. LP clearly followed NC to that article, and made 2 reverts w/o any talk page discussion - as did you. To come here and complain of hounding after such behavior takes a bit of chutzpah, which is exceeded only by the behavior of the editor filing this complaint. This editor has apparently been following NC for weeks now, after the 2 have edit warred on an a number of articles [58]. He followed NC to Lydda Death March and reverted him there /w/index.php?title=Exodus_from_Lydda&diff=prev&oldid=287065277 today], and went as far as to urge LP to complain about NC at an admin board. One has to wonder how he even saw NC's edits to Willie Corduff, Corrib gas controversy, Integrated Risk Management Services and Pobal Chill Chomáin, or NC's 3rr filings against him ([59], [60] if he wasn't following NC's contribs himself. In short, no shortage of blame to go around here, as User:GainLine says. The old adage "people who live in glass houses..." certainly applies here. Canadian Monkey (talk)
Right. As mentioned in the collapsed section, I did issue a warning to NoCal100 that any further editing that could be defined under hounding as following certain editors to articles where they had not edited before would clearly qualify for a block. If anyone can make sense of the above conversation and show me clearly that such has happened, then I will issue a block. However, the situation appears somewhat confused at the moment. Black Kite22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're actually going to present that 'evidence', Exodus from Lydda was brought up on both brewcrewers and NoCals talkpage by Tiamut, both of which are in my watchlist, Charities has been discussed already in a previous thread, Mt Hebron was brought up in a 3RR complaint by NoCal against Nickhh who was rather furious at the gaming displayed to add nonsense to articles, so I corrected an issue there, and NoCal's delusions on my talk page mean exactly what? Care to say how you got to the Lydda page? But as to the request from BlackKite, which I was going to leave alone as Avi requested until I saw this, it seems pretty simple to me. Tiamut makes a series of edits to Ramot from 3:57 to 4:07 this past morning [68][69][70][71]. NoCal then edits a newly created article, which if you look at Tiamut's contribution history at the time of these edits had been what she had primarily been working on. He then shows up at that article at 4:12. The Lapsed Pacifist edits you could look at the histories, but I dont know if he had some other reason for finding those articles. Here, his whole purpose was to follow another editor to antagonize her. Nableezy (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit to having my talk page on your watchlist (for what purpose, exactly?), to following my contributions to 3RR in order to go to the article in question and revert me there, , and still have the gall to complain about other people? You seem to be under the illusion that its not hounding if you have some way of following another editor's edits that does not involve looking directly at their contribution history - which is simply not the case. As BlackKite notes above - hounding is "following certain editors to articles where they had not edited before" you have done that to at least 4 articles where I have edited, and this behavior has been going on for several weeks now. The real kicker in your "evidence" above is that you start it with listing Tiamut's series of edits to Ramot from 3:57 to 4:07, somehow forgetting that this series of edits started here, with a revert of my edit within 10 minutes of me making it, on an article she had never edited before. NoCal100 (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please, stop trying to throw each other under the wiki bus. Having groups of editors, from different perspectives, involved in closely overlapping areas, all making use of watchlists, is going to result in the same editors editing the same articles in close chronology. Of COURSE somebody is first, that doesn't make the second person necessarily hounding. I think blocks here of any kind would be overkill. I'd rather see a "time-out" anyway. A nice two-week vacation from I/P articles to let the emotions and adrenalin run down a bit. -- Avi (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me emphasize that a bit more. When a bunch of people on two sides all start pushing buttons, uninvolved admins may step in and block everyone involved to prevent the dispute from continuing to escalate.
I agree with Avi and GWH above. If this doesn't stop, I am inclined to issue "bang their heads together" blocks of equal length to both parties. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if people took the time to actually examine the situation closely, they would be able to identify who is actually engaging in disruptive behaviours and who is not. I understand the reticence to do so. We are here to edit an encyclopedia after all.
The kicker is that those of us who actually want to build content are generally frustrated in those efforts by others who seem less interested in building articles, than they are in defending their own POV. If you check out the article history and the talk page history of mutliple articles and look through some of the diffs, you can see which editors are which. But it would take hours. I don't blame you all for not wanting to get involved. Those of us who have edited in the area for years and who do build content have learned how to get around it by finding quiet spaces to edit in until others come crashing through in waves to make a whole lot of noise with very little substance.
That is what I find so frustrating about your comments above actually. When I created Lydda Death March it was one of those quiet spaces. Its nom for DYK sailed through with no problems and it was aleady queued to appear before the NoCal100 showed up to slap it with a POV tag. I find the claim that he had it on his watchlist to be not credible. Particularly since he has argued on the talk page that the name is biased and not in wide use.
Anyway, I don't expect anything to happen here at all. Partially because I've seen this happen a million times before and there is never a definitive result because a) no one has the time or inclination to look into it deeply b) people are afraid of being labelled partisans, so when they do take a decision to block someone, they often block a person on the "other" side just to be "fair". Even if there is no comparison between the behaviours being exhibited. Just a reflection of the power imbalance in the real world too I guess. I hope this statement doesn't get me blocked. Cheers and happy editing. Tiamuttalk01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a group of editors who edit exclusively (or close to exclusively) Israel/Palestine dispute articles. Tiamut has created a series of articles in this area, such as Lydda Death March and Judaization of Jerusalem, that some other editors think have NPOV problems. The way it plays out is that, when editors who think that these articles are POV and begin to make changes, the editors who think the article is already NPOV go on defensive mode; and, because they have discovered that circling the wagons is seldom a sufficient defense, they go on the attack against the unwelcome editors that they regard as intruders. This AN/I thread is a case in point.
Since WP:NPOV, a foundational WP policy, is based on the expectation that neutral articles are the result of compromises between editors with differing POVs reaching consensus (The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.[72]); the effort block participation of editors opposing editors -- which is what Tiamut is requesting -- is a threat to the entire project. While I sympathasize with the wish of Tiamut and Nableezy to keep articles the way they were written, which represents their view of 'truth', trying to prevent other editors from making WP:V changes is contrary to the WP policy of NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to prevent good faith editors with a POV that differs from mine from editing. I have repeatedly asked people whose POV differs from my own to actually edit the articles they have taken issue with, as I think that would be a vast improvement over the tendency to indugle in circular, nonsensical IDONTLIKEIT arguments on the talk page. Unfortunately, very few of those engaging in such behaviours have been willing to do that. Too bad really, since I would appreciate having good faith additions representing other POVs to enrich the article. The more information the better. Tiamuttalk14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The problem is that in disputed areas, such as these Israel/Palestine articles, neither side can be trusted to objectively to decide what is, or is not, POV. Both sides fully believe their own edits are NPOV, and that the other side's edits are POV. So your labeling of editors opposing you as POV may be less than fully objective; not to mention the apparent failure to assume good faith in your labeling all attempts to add balancing content as not being made in good faith, as POV, and indulging "in circular, nonsensical IDONTLIKEIT arguments". That is the reason WP:NPOV says
The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.
I understand that you fully believe that you are right and the other side (the side you describe as indulging "in circular, nonsensical IDONTLIKEIT arguments") is POV. To the extent you are successful in blocking additions to your articles, by those who you characterize as making POV edits, you are succeeding in contravening WP core policy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm, with all due respect, the issue is not POV editing, so much as it is disruptive editing. I am compiling an evidence page on the subject to better clarify the problems in this regard that have beset the Lydda Death March article. See User:Tiamut/DE for the draft in progress. Tiamuttalk16:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is POV. When an editor, for example NoCal100, makes an edit that may be contrary to your editing goals, the edit is soon reverted. If the problem had not been POV, but some other problem, for instance, inadiquate sourcing by an inexperienced editor, it is the WP intent that the editor should be helped. No one would claim that an energetic effort to make sure the edit does not get into the article is helping inexperienced editors. What we actually see is something more like a defending team trying to block an opposing team from scoring a goal (ie succeed in getting an edit into the article). This is not the WP ideal of good editing, but it has become the 'normal' process in the writing of Israel/Palestine articles. I do not see how anyone could defend that sort of editing as anything but contravening WP core NPOV policy, and WP views on collegiality. Your saying that "I am compiling an evidence page on the subject" makes it appear that you have every intent on pursuing the soccer match model of editing to the end. I wish WP articles were edited differently. I wish Israel/Palestine articles would just describe the conflict, not model the conflict. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i could take you more seriously here malcolm if you were taking responsibility for your own "soccer match" behavior rather than acting as if you have shiny clean hands.striking unnecessary comment whether or not an article is pov is not subjective, it is testable by looking to the number and prominence of such items in reliable sources. someone's opinion that it is pov isn't enough; prove it. research. add and improve it. i've only been here a few months but, sadly, i was initiated by some bad examples and have had to seek out respectable editors to emulate. tiamut is one of those editors. she is not a pov warrior, though she has every rl reason to do so. look at the dicussion on the page in question, and the quality of her edits and arguments. this discussion should be taking place on a user talk page, though, so i'll stop there.untwirl(talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut has made it clear (when she says "I am compiling an evidence page") that she wants to add NoCal100's scalp to her belt. There is edit warring from both sides, but when has Tiamut collected 'evidence' to get someone on her side blocked? She is approaching this as a completely partisan fight. Of course she is a very intelligent and talented editor who I admire a lot. And she certainly does not edit war, but she sometimes does seem to pursue selective editing goals more energetically than might be good for a truly balanced articles. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that either, and WP assumes editors will all have a POV. Where the problem comes is in the attempt to eliminate editors with an opposing POV. What more effective way of wiki-warring over article content could there be? It the opposing editors are blocked, there is nothing further to worry about. But WP needs both sides (to achieve balanced articles) even as Tiamut apparently tries to achieve a contrary goal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malcom, I am not collecting scalps, and take offense at the accusation. If you review User:Tiamut/DE you will see that it is an honest representation of who did what when. I am trying to build article content. Unfortunately, whenever I try to, in good faith, do so, I am encumbered by IDONTLIKEIT arguments that offer little in the way of sources that might to further improve the article. Instead, I have to spend hours arguing over nothing (as I am here and at Lydda Death March) instead of working on building content. I have to do this because I don't want to see the article defaced by a POV tag when it appears as a DYK. Is that so awful of me really? Tiamuttalk19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wiki-scalps. What you seem disinclined to admit is that all involved are adding content to the Israel/Palestine articles based on POV. Sure it is sourced. But sourcing does not eliminate the effects that POV has on editing choices. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Israel/Palestine articles would just describe the conflict, not model the conflict too Malcolm Schoscha. In order to do that, we need to view battleground type edits seriously. I urge everyone to review the "evidence" page. I've been honest about my role in this too. If people feel I should be blocked for edit-warring, I will humbly accept my penalty. I've tried my best to edit in good faith and I think my edits reflect that. But if the community thinks otherwise, I accept my fate. Tiamuttalk17:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why blocking you, or anyone else involved, would improve the editing situation. The fact is that the editing of these articles is played as a winner take all wiki-conflict; and all the blocks that have been given out up to now have not done a thing to change that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about one thing. The blocks that have been imposed so far have done nothing to change it. Perhaps we need more. Perhaps we need another approach. Tiamuttalk18:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Levineps splitting articles
I have just blocked Levineps (talk·contribs) for a week for splitting articles without consulting their talk pages. It appears he has been doing this for a while. He caught my attention when he split the last two sections from Harvey Milk (an FA) into a Legacy of Harvey Milk article that had no lead and no coherence and was subsequently deleted after an AfD process.
A peek at this user's talk page makes it clear he has been approached about this before. Any suggestions for mentoring or someone else to explain why this is a bad idea?
Is there a quicker way to revert all these Logos of articles rather than merge discussions and AfDs for all? --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, Moni, but it's surprising that an administrator since 2006 would not realize that immediate redirection was an option. Any merger or split can be performed without discussion (subject to reversion). And why would an AfD debate be initiated in tandem with a merger discussion?
I believe that this block was warranted, but I strongly suggest that you review the relevant procedures before engaging in further administrative intervention in this area. —David Levy16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to recommend granting it or shortening the block. Seems a touch BITEy to me, unless there is something else going on. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A week isn't an excessive block in my opinion, given the number of prior warnings and advice he's received and the level of disruptions his splits have caused. Nathan T (formerly Avruch)16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user's attitude doesn't seem confrontational, and he says that he regrets his actions. If he'll agree to an explicit limitation on splitting articles without every discussion step taken care of first, I'd support unblocking immediately. GlassCobra07:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This users' disregard for heeding warnings before and during the block makes the block length appropriate in my opinion. He was told numerous times in very specific and detailed language on how to properly present an unblock request. He simply did not listen and therefore I've changed the block to prevent talk page use to stop abuse of the unblock process. Nja24709:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps this should be left to the clerks, but I'm putting up a notice here. Hipocrite made some fairly outrageous proposed decisions at the Workshop for this arbitration, and apparently decided to remove them. But he removed the whole proposal section, including comment by others. So I reverted. He then altered his prior edits, removing his name from the proposal section, etc. I have not warned him, because I'm sure it wouldn't be useful, it's up to the rest of the community what to do about this, I'm done with it now. --Abd (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to bring this here other than to waste valuable time. It's well-established that the community aren't going to do much over this sort of thing at arbitration - arbitrator delegates exist for a reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, NCMV. I have never been a party to an arbitration before and never had to face or possibly deal with what's been encountered, so I'm learning. What you say makes sense; after all, most RfArs are being watched by quite a few editors with buttons, plus the clerks, etc. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the past two and a half weeks Npovshark (talk·contribs) has continued (slow) edit warring and POV pushing on Europe. They are currently disputing the neutrality of the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic. Having initially strongly objected on the talk page to the mention of any countries with predominantly Muslim populations, they have challenged the use of the term transcontinental country.
Their edits have been reverted by several editors. They have spammed the talk page with unsourced claims and have refused to take their worries to WikiProject Geography for clarification. Europe has been an anodyne and neutral article for a long time; it is one of the 200 most read articles on WP. There is no need for this kind of tendentious and unsourced editing on such a major article. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(noindent) The above remarks were edited by Npovshark. I have restored what I wrote. His remarks are below. Since he says everything is a lie I will later add diffs. However, it should be clear from the manner in which he treats the contributions of other editors, that something is badly wrong. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(noindent) Again Npovshark is displacing my comments. I have a collected a set of diffs from the talk page of Europe. It shows his failure to recognize secondary sources and his use of the talk page as a forum to soapbox his own views, without sources. What I do not understand about this editor is that, even after two scholarly sources had been added to the main article that carefully explained why the Urals and their watershed had become used as the Eastern boundary of Europe since 1730, he refused to accept this. I will not comment on the diffs, although at one stage he does accidentally slip into german (dafür instead of therefore). I don't see any need to pick examples from the main article, since almost all his
proposed changes were reverted by five or six different editors. These included a complete rewrite of the lede, the separation of trancontinental countries into a new list, the removal of the principal map, the rewording of text from newly added content which contradicted the sources, etc.
[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98]
(slips into German)
[99][100][101][102][103][104]Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I don't understand what Mathsci's problem is. The way the user phrases things above, it sounds like I deleted his comments or tried to hide them or something. I get the feeling this is the impression he wants to give. This should be your first clue that this user has an axe to grind, and a personal vendetta against me. I would like to note that HE refactored his text, leaving one of my responses floating out in the middle of nowhere, so I was forced to delete it and move it to "NPOVshark'S edits are making this section unreadable" - a bit ironic I know. Anyway, what I did originally was reply line by line to Mathsci's text above, but this is something Mathsci has no right to complain about, since I undid it and refactored his text. I note that on three occasions, including the section "NPOVshark'S edits are..." he has pointed out how I have supposedly "distorted" his text. Yet another bogus claim. I don't have the time or patience to collect every single edit Mathsci has made that has issues (!?!), but I will address some of his bogus claims, listed above, for my own sake:
This is a lie. The current debate began over how to phrase the surtitle, and he thinks two sources - Nat. Geographic and Encycl. Britannica - have primacy over all others, including World Book Encyclopedia, the world's best-selling Encyclopedia. You yourself have made a number of edits over the last two weeks, and because of your constant position (you also once called Europe a "myth"), I too could say you are "pov-pushing". We have reverted back and forth, so this must mean you too are "edit-warring". Smoke and mirrors from Mathsci. --Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having initially strongly objected on the talk page to the mention of any countries with predominantly Muslim populations, they have challenged the use of the term transcontinental country.
This is also a lie. This user is bringing up a very old discussion which I already commented to him about, so now I have reason to believe that Mathsci is purposely misrepresenting his case here, for what reason I fail to understand. You know full well, Mathsci, that my intentions were not what you wrote here; you cannot claim ignorance because I spoke to you about this at length. If you are going to try to address POV-pushing, then find a factual argument to use against me rather than going on a crusade of dishonesty. Reading the talk page shows that my concern is what the logic was for making the border where it is. Is it religious? Well then it is odd that the Muslim countries are mentioned. If it isn't religious, then why are Iran and Iraq not covered? Only since then has the history of Europe, as a "thing" defined by Russian sources as limited by the Caucasus and Ural Mountains appeared in the article. My challenge to transcontinental is that, in calling these countries either European or Asian, some reliable sources are not calling them transcontinental. Sadly, Mathsci apparently has no interest in resolving this dispute by working towards a consensus, and so he is trying to find out ways to attack me and discourage me from working on the project. He has used intimidation as a tactic on several occasions already.--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their edits have been reverted by several editors.
They have spammed the talk page with unsourced claims
I already admitted that my "thinking out loud" first post was a bad way to begin work on this serious topic, but again, you are avoiding the issue, which is your view of the surtitle and mine. I am not brining up your behavior on the talk page, or boastful I'm a wonderful editor and you're not statments. I don't care what you said or did thirty days ago. Let's resolve the issue, which is the surtitle. What is your problem?--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and have refused to take their worries to WikiProject Geography for clarification. Europe has been an anodyne and neutral article for a long time; it is one of the 200 most read articles on WP. There is no need for this kind of tendentious and unsourced editing on such a major article.
Yet another misrepresentation. I have refused nothing. Again you exaggerate to create an argument where there is none, all part of your wild sensationalist crusade.--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci wishes to ignore the views of World Book Encyclopedia, the CIA and several news agencies. He has falsely accused me of breaking the 3RR. He has also failed to stay civil, to assume good faith, and to comment on content rather than contributors. Simply looking at my talk page makes this very clear. [105] Ah, and one other thing: it was Mathsci's idea to mention that there is a disparity of source opinions - that this version of Europe isn't the only popular one - only in the footnotes. We have tried various versions of the surtitle, but I note that in each one, Mathsci has apparently rejected mentioning that World Book has a different opinion from the Encyclopedia Britannica version. I find this also very odd behavior. --Npovshark (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved administrator, I have reviewed the situation and I conclude that Npovshark is advocating a fringe position, trying to give it undue weight, violating NPOV by trying to promote it as the default viewpoint, and is clearly a single purpose account.
I have left a final warning on their talk page. Continuing to edit war on article contents is grounds for blocking. Discussion to change consensus on talk pages is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How in the name of anything have you come to your conclusion? What is your logic behind "advocating a fringe position" when I mention World Book Encyclopedia, the CIA, Europe.org, Asia news and other sites? Isn't "giving undue weight" what Mathsci is doing, which is to essentially ignore these sources? --Npovshark (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Npovshark has tried to defend his edits (now reverted by a fifth editor), I should mention that in his most recent edit to Europe he gave as a source CIA (sic) Presumably he meant the CIA World Fact Book. This source does not discuss the geographical delineation of the boundaries of Europe, indeed its map of Europe excludes part of the Ukraine. It's hard not to see this kind of careless editing as deliberate. For the list of countries, two recognized sources were mentioned by me - namely the CIA World Fact Book and the BBC - which classified transcontinental Eurasian countries differently (CIA in Asia, BBC in Europe, including Armenia and Cyprus). Again Npovshark has misrepresented this edit: both sources were mentioned by me without any further interpretation. Npovshark has not sought consensus on the talk page: he raises the questionable points he wants to push, fails to elicit any response within 24 hours and then interprets this as agreement. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I have restored my comments above to the form prior to Npovshark's edits on them. He has a thing or two to learn. Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you write "(sic)"? Is this a joke to you? Let me interrupt you and point out that the CIA is behind the CIA World Fact Book, so obviously their version of Europe is the version that the CIA uses.--Npovshark (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point. The point is what you assume is a common opinion regarding what others depict as Europe is not common at all. The CIA uses a different version, World Book Encyclopedia uses a different version, Europe.org uses a different version (UNESCO), Asia news uses a different version...and this is exactly what your sources, Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic do. They give one interpretation of countries within, and do not say where the borders are. You make me so angry, accusing me of caring only if sources say country x is in "Europe" or not; accusing me of not providing the source that says exactly where the border for Europe is. I have, in fact, ASKED YOU FOR THE SOURCE THAT SAYS PRECISELY WHERE THE LINE BETWEEN EUROPE AND ASIA IS DRAWN and I am still waiting. Do not steal my ideas and try to use them against me here.--Npovshark (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, why have you not mentioned the exhaustive list I have found which includes World Book Encyclopedia? You are lying here and exaggerating (which I have called you out on several times before...if I need to pull up these examples, I will). So you run to the Admin rather than answer my questions on talk...I asked for sources, they never came. And my comments on talk are over one week only. I'm sorry, but your BS about me giving you 24 hours...I have no respect for that. That happened one time: I waited, noted that 24 hours had passed and reverted your edits which I had addressed on talk. Having received no response from you, I figured you had no response to give...this was mostly because it was one day after a very heavy debate on talk, and I figured it would be important in your mind to respond, given your interest. And now, funny how you try to use that against me. Wow, you are really quite a spectacle, I must say.
As for Piotr, you remove mention of Poland bombing Silesia, which means the statement of "these were the first few bombings of the war" is no longer accurate. Then, you add that the purpose of bombing Wielun was not to test bombing but to "simply" test bombing. Then, you added an unsourced and actually untrue statement about Germany "leading the bombing" early on, although the facts suggest otherwise and Britain attacked many many sites in Germany before Germany opened up the air war over Britain. This is a FACT. Scroll down further in the article and you can read the summary of attacks, month by month. Also, your edits, buried deeeeeeeeeep in the article history, have totally messed up the text, and I refuse to sort through them. Sorry Piotr, I will not stand for your blantant POV-pushing and then listen to you accuse me of "pov pushing". Every edit you have added, all unsourced, pertains to how a Polish nationalist would like to look back and see the war.--Npovshark (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting that Npovshark is calling Piotr a "Polish nationalist. Isn't that a serious personal attack? I ignore most of what Npovshark writes now. He obviously has no idea how to source articles. Never a mention of academic geography books or for that matter the Times Atlas of the World. Just what he apparently knows as "FACT". Mathsci(talk) 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call him a Polish nationalist. In fact, I did exactly what you just did on my talk page: [106]
and I quote:
Mathsci: "your persistent slow edit-warring on Europe over the last two weeks combined with these kind of statements could easily be misunderstood as the POV-pushing of an editor with sympathies on far right, eg from Stormfront (website)"
I ignore most of what Npovshark writes now. This was fairly obvious from your "inability" to address my concerns on the Europe talk page. You ignore everything you don't want to hear, including the fact that World book encyclopedia, for the 13 thousandth time, does not agree with you.--Npovshark (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never a mention of academic geography books or for that matter the Times Atlas of the World. Just what he apparently knows as "FACT".
I'm sorry, did you forget my exhaustive list of references which seem to avoid your cookie-cutter classification of the world?
Here it is - again:
World Book - these regions are not included in Europe: [107]
CIA - these regions are not included in Europe: - [108]
Europe.org - these regions are not included in Europe: [109]
Middle East times - on Georgia: (called "European" because it serves political objectives): [158]
Conceding Georgia as being in the Caucasus leads to the equally hypocritical parallel of Armenia's occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which for 18 years has been tacitly approved in Washington because of much muscle flexing by the Armenian-American lobby. If, on the other hand, Georgia is considered to be squarely part of Europe, then Putin will be seen as spearheading yet another Prague '68, Hungary '56, or Sudetenland '38 -- just as American neocons are now calling it in their effort to get key European allies to buy into their rhetoric. Sarko l'Américain already has. Yet what might a loyal NATO ally like Turkey, whose territory is all to the west of Georgia, have to say about this -- especially when told by many that they are not sufficiently "Western" to qualify for EU membership? Isn't there a better place for Georgia -- in neither Europe nor Asia? From now on, why not think of the Black Sea as the Russian Caribbean, and let Georgia be renamed the Cuba of the Caucasus? Turn it into a fully fledged U.S.-allied junior NATO member and give it a few rusty missiles pointed north. U.S. military advisors are conveniently already in residence there.
Odd interpretation of Europe (to Siberia and beyond): [159]
(filed under Asian news: [163]) (filed under "middle east"): [164] (as "far east asia":[165][166]
Cyprus: (not filed under European news, but "World")[167]
Europe and Eurasia:
CSIS (center for strategic international studies) uses "Russia and Eurasia" as a grouping, no mention of Europe or Asia:[168]
Georgia: (listed as "World" when the issue deals with Georgia, "Europe" when the subject is Europe's response to Georgia:)[169][170]Georgia as "Southwestern Asia":[171]
So as we can see, these definitions are not set in stone and it is important that we do not play favorites to certain views (ex: why the EU and BBC's opinion and not the CIA, World Book or typical "of-the-region" publication's opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) --Npovshark (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good plan Piotrus! Then you can continue to make the grossly POV edits you've made to Strategic Bombing of World War II without restraint - and yes, I mean those edits which I addressed after you, of all people, reported me. Now I know my tone here has been really sarcastic, but really, if you want me to respect you, either of you, you are going about it the entirely wrong way: fabrications, hypocrisy, and a lack of interest in neutrality, for example. --Npovshark (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the adminstrator: Piotrus has again added the false, unsourced sentence that Early in the war, Germany led the bombing, in particular, with The Blitz campaign against the United Kingdom, which I have spoken of on his talk page, on the administrator discussion page and in the edit summary (at least two times). Unfortunately, to write such a thing goes against the facts which, fortunately, appear later in the article. His other edit removes mention of Poland bombing Silesia as the war began, which means a paragraph about "the first few bombings of the war" is no longer complete. Thankfully, he has not reverted to a version where he changed this town was bombed as target practice to this town was bombed simply as target practice, which smells awfully POV-ish. This appears to be POV-motivated editing in general, which...ironically, I have been accused of. I encourage the administration to follow Piotrus' link, given above, in which I have explained why Piotrus' edits were detrimental to the article. Nevertheless, he has restored several of them minutes ago.--Npovshark (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Piotrus and GWH. Npovshark is making trouble on various articles because of his extreme views on the eastern borders of Europe. He is evasive on talk pages. His attempts to push his POV on an article like Europe is misplaced; his accusations that other neutral editors are pushing a contrary POV (presumably because he does not agree with their edits) is exceedingly disruptive. From his editing history so far he does not seem interested in adding significant sourced content to this encyclopedia; he is however creating difficult editing conditions on normally tranquil talk pages of uncontroversial articles. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we all know how "extreme" World Book encyclopedia is. Typical. Say your view is mainstream, others are "extreme", that my edits are POV, others are neutral. Yawwwwnnn. Well, the actual content of Piotrus' edit is explained above, apparently Mathsci thinks these edits are neutral. As for that article, Mathsci, every edit I made has a source. Every edit Piotrus just made has not a single source. "Tranquil talk pages?" So now it is wrong, in Mathsci's view, to not only make changes to the text if it is wrong, but to also talk about it on talk. --Npovshark (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Npovshark's edits are making this section unreadable
Npovshark seems to be freely moving around my text and removing introductory phrases. He started by adding comments between the lines of the inital report. I have added a series of diffs from the talk page of Europe which give a fair idea of his behaviour there. The history page of the article
with the edit summaries tells its own story [174]. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop blaming me for everything that is wrong in your life, including your inability to follow the text. Yes, I responded to you line by line, but you complained and I put it back exactly as it was. So now what is wrong with you? And by the way, you still haven't answered me about World Book, and why we should overlook their considerations instead of Encycl. Britannica. I am not saying either should be overlooked, only that the surtitle should make it possible for the reader to understand that neither version is actually inaccurate. I think you simply have a bone to pick with me. I really don't understand what your problem is.--Npovshark (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, interesting. I just reread the convo and it appears that Your edits are what has made it unreadible, and as it is, I am responding to myself. You have removed the following:
Since he says everything is a lie I might later add diffs; what I say has been supported by 2 admins and by the multiple editors that have reverted practically all his edits to Europe. However, it should be clear from the manner in which he treats the contributions of other editors, that something is badly wrong. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, you lie. Before you said that my complaints about the article got you to see some things that were missing and incorrect. I've fixed so much that was wrong on this article and helped plan the definition section. I have every right to make a liar look like a liar, and why you are willing to go to such lengths here but not discuss my objections on talk (which have been there for nearly a week now) really blows my mind.--Npovshark (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
...and changed your text to sound more credible. Mathsci, just give up. Nobody cares that you have a bone to grind. And since I have your attention (maybe?) take a look at this image: http://www.worldbook.com/wb/media?id=mp000070
They call it Europe. Now do your edits make it possible for the reader to understand that this version is supported by THE best selling Encyclopedia in the world? NO. Now will you please STOP ignoring that and wasting your time on this noticeboard instead of helping me come up with a surtitle that is fair to both versions? --Npovshark (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(noindent) Npovshark it is you that broke up the initial report. You have also claimed that all your namespace edits are sourced when this is evidently not the case. Here for example is a diff where you have inserted material without a source. The two nearby citations (NG and A.J.P. Taylor) were put there 1 1/2 years ago by User:Hemlock Martinis and me respectively. For some reason you also decided to complain that antiquity and Ancient Greece were different things here: you obviously hadn't bothered to look in the source. This kind of uninformed criticism is extremely unhelpful and disruptive. I have no idea why you have gone out of your way to misrepresent and attack neutral editors. As far as sources go, there are many definitive places to look, eg Times Atlas of the World or for that matter the Larousse Encyclopedia, etc, etc. The administrator User:Husond explained to you about the Urals being generally taken as part of the Eastern boundary of Europe, something that you seem to have a problem accepting this evening. This is carefully explained in the namespace article using the following sources:
Lewis, Martin W.; Wigen, Kären (1997), The myth of continents: a critique of metageography, University of California Press, ISBN 0520207432
Jordan-Bychkov, Terry G.; Jordan, Bella Bychkova (2001), The European culture area: a systematic geography, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0742516288
I never said that about the Urals, in fact I never said anything about the Urals. Still, World Book does not include Kazakhstan in Europe and throws it into the Asia category. As for the Caucasus, do the above sources say where in the Caucasus the line is drawn? Is it just as the mountain begins, halfway through the mountain chain or to the end of the mountain? That is the whole point, and why sources can say "to the Caucasus" and still exclude Georgia and Azerbaijan as many do. Well, you missed it. And then you attack me again. And lie again. This time, now I'm "attacking neutral editors". Who decided they were neutral? Who decided it was an attack? This will be my last post on this page. You win. I cannot tolerate you anymore. At the moment, I regret that I have, for the last 6 years, been adding any material to this website or fixed any errors. I want the world to know that Wikipedia is not reliable for anything, and I wish to God that it was the last possible result in Google and nobody ever used it. Have a miserable life editing Wikipedia.--Npovshark (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Npovshark's proposed list of so-called "sources" he continues to challenge transcontinental countries. He still challenges the boundaries of the prinicpal map because of this. He writes above, quite inaccurately "Only since then has the history of Europe, as a "thing" defined by Russian sources as limited by the Caucasus and Ural Mountains appeared in the article. My challenge to transcontinental is that, in calling these countries either European or Asian, some reliable sources are not calling them transcontinental." What makes Npovshark's position completely untenable is that there have been detailed articles on wikipedia about Transcontinental country, continent, etc, where the material that I added from my two sources is already discussed in greater depth, and has been for years, including the Swedishcartographer and geographerPhilip Johan von Strahlenberg's proposal to use the Urals and Caucasus mountains as natural eastern boundaries. Some atlases do draw the boundary and have explanations (eg the Times Atlas of the World), some text books explain the boundary in detail. But this is still missing the point. Npovshark also made tendentious edits to Strategic bombing during World War II, whitewashing the Nazis, the inclusion of a Nazi map; and now for over almost three weeks he has persistently tried to declassify transcontinental countries in Europe, starting with his anti-Muslim rant on the talk page. The changes he wished to make to Europe have been reversed by multiple editors. He has continued a game of sometimes polite arguing without ever consulting or citing a source (eg antiquity vs Ancient Greece). As above, rather than consulting secondary sources about transcontinental country, he seems to be presenting an argument himself based on his interpretation of primary sources. His changing of the phrase about who started the bombing typifies his style: he seems to believe he knows what's true and by hook-or-by-crook, perhaps by sheer persistence, will get it into the article, source be damned. Npovshark has only been editing for a short time under this username, yet he now writes that he has been adding material for 6 years. Did he edit anonymously before or have a former account that can no longer be used? Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
Following the personal attacks made by NPOVshark, editwarring, and violations of policies (such as refactoring others comments) - made on this page - I would support a preventative and educational block. A topic ban from Europe related editing might also be in order. Verbalchat08:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This editor needs to learn how to edit properly. This recent diff has him challenging the data of the distinguished historian Richard Overy, from a published book, simply because he cannot find an online version of it on the web (I could partially check the dates on www.amazon.com). Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:81.214.147.154 is blatantly canvassing support in order to influence the outcome of a CFD discussion. They have left over 100 user talk messages in an attempt to stack votes, I think the CFD should probably be prematurely closed as a sort of "mistrial". The fact that these are the only edits made by this user also strongly suggests that this ip is a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the CfD. There's no point in keeping it open when extensive campaigning has taken place, especially since we can just close it without prejudice to a future nomination being made. As for the user, is a sockpuppet investigation even necessary? In the canvassing statement, the anon IP says, "Will you support my arguement for the deletion of the Category:Anti-Armenianism that I put forward on May 1, 2009?" To me it's fairly clearly User:Saguamundi; the only real question to me is whether User:Saguamundi meant to be logged out when the canvassing took place. It could be an "innocent" mistake of not being logged in, though the canvassing would still have been inappropriate. The IP didn't vote in the discussion in an attempt to "votestack". Good Ol’factory(talk)07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meowy incivility
Please could another administrator look at user:Meowy breach of WP:CIVIL. I have directed him/her to this page in the past (see this edit to his/her talk page on 3 October 2008.
There were several examples at that time, but there has been a lull until the start of this month when there have been two attacks:
I'd let 1st May slip if it were an isolated incident but the edit on the 2nd May is in my opinion an escalation as it say nothing constrictive about the edit and is just a personal attack. -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through user:Meowy's talk page and block log there is a lot of problems with this editor's attitude. See for example:
PBS is objecting to two words I used: "malign" (used in relation to his edits on a particular article) and "pedantic" (used to describe one of his edit summary explanations). My description of PBS's prior edit history on that article as "malign" was not incivility but was fair comment that was justified by the facts. It is unfortunate, but PBS has a history of editing Armenian Genocide related pages with the aim of denying or minimising its genocidal aspects (he has also tried the same thing with the Greek genocide article). Here are some of the facts that justify the word "malign": for the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article he tried to get it renamed "Armenian Genocide debate". Using his administrator powers he did rename it, without following any of the proper procedures (he didn't even bother proposing it, see [175] and [176], even though there had been two earlier proposed name changes that had been discussed and rejected), and he then got the article protected to prevent it returning to its old title (see [177] and[178]), as well as trying to bully those who opposed his move, including accusing them of incivility (btw, PBS is referring to one of those accusations in his "I have directed him/her to this page in the past" comment - which shows insincerity here). When the article eventually reverted to the old title, he then tried to get the whole article deleted by merging it with the "Recognition of the Armenian Genocide" article ([179]). A lot of time and effort was expended by many editors to resist or repair the damage he did to that article, time and effort that could otherwise have been spent improving the article. PBS has also inserted a lengthy genocide "terminology" section into the article that is full of weasel words and is intended to make accepted facts appear vague or uncertain by disguising them within overly convoluted and unreadable sentences. He appears to have ownership issues with that article and the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide article - with his explanations for deleting material often descending into the breathtakingly bizarre - such as his explanation that statements released by organisations that no longer exist should be excluded because, quote "the think tank is not longer in existance therefore it can not hold a position". (What next - "nothing that was decided at the Nuremberg Trials should be mentioned because the tribunal is no longer in existence"?) My characterisation of that reasoning by PBS as "pedantic" is a fair description (if anything, I was overly mild). Just read through his talk page comments and edit summaries in both articles to find many more examples of his hair-splitting. Other editors have also called PBS's arguments pedantic - here for example [180]. For an indication of how far PBS's edits have affected the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article in a negative way, compare it to the equivalent Wikipedia Holocaust denial article. Meowy17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved party comment. The root of the problem here seems to be an inability on the part of both parties to work constructively with one another. Rather than run back over a folio of instances where either Meowy or PBS made an incivil or unhelpful comment, I would encourage both parties to keep their distance from one another. When you are required to interact, proof-read every comment you make to ensure that it is wholly helpful and is likely to benefit the project; if it doesn't, then don't bother posting. By extension, if either of you find yourselves unable to adhere to this, then I'd implore you to not contribute to that article at all: bickering solves nothing. Show friendliness to your fellow editors; it really does make everybody's lives easier. Regards, AGK10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Potential revert war (User 293.xx.xxx.xx)
There is an issue with 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk). over the page VIA FP9ARM. They insist on having one particular photo as the main photo on the page, no matter what other photo is added to the page he reverts it. They initially changed the image for an almost exact same shot as an earlier one that I had added when I created the page. When 67.193.221.128 (talk) reverted it with the note that changing the photo was pointless as it was the same angle, etc. However it was reverted back. To stop a potentential revert war I added a totally different photo but this was not good enough for User 293.xx.xxx.xx who still continues to revert it. I have asked User 67.193.221.128 to not get into a revert war (I know them in person and they thought they were helping me by reverting the image). I am however totally flabbergasted by the continued insistance by User 293.xx.xxx.xx that one particular photo is to be used for the main shot.
Also it was brought to my attention by User 67.193.221.128 that User 293.xx.xxx.xx wrote something not pleasent on the talk page of User 67.193.221.128. The comment in question is:
Uh, whoopie ladi freakin' dah? Maybe you need to relook at your comments first before flinging accusations.
Not sure what he means at the beginning but I agree it doesn't look pleasant.
It seems that the thread on WP trains has the situation covered. One thing that I find appalling is that Talk:VIA FP9ARM is completely empty despite all of this supposed negotiation over pictures. Here's a rule to live by on WP: except for vandalism, if you revert someone and they revert you back, always discuss it on talk. If you believe that the user has not been civil enough, take it to WP:WQA. There's nothing here that requires admin attention. Oren0 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May not be "resolved"; User:Jsp3970 seems to be throwing a hissy fit, removing "his" images from articles, "reasserting copyright" over said images, and placing Ffd templates on the images description pages. His actions were followed by similar actions from IP user:67.193.221.128 (IP edits were reverted by me, and user was reported to AIV).
Question, is his reassertion of copyright even possible, given that he previously released the images under GFDL-with-disclaimers and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 licenses? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sure isn't possible. He released these images and there's no undoing that. I have rolled back the removals. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JSP3970 appears to be quite insistent on his position, as he has reverted all the reversions. Looks like another potential edit war. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Wikipedia gives me restitution for the copyright to the photos thereby buying the copryight, which they didn't, the copyright remains with me for a duration of 50, 75, or 100 years after my death. Therefore I have everyright to reclaim the copyright. All I want is for the photos to be deleted so that I can leave Wikipedia as I want nothing more to do with it. But no one here seems to understand that I just want to leave with my photos, there are only 8 of them after all. Jsp3970 (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Jsp3970 has the copyright to the pictures. What Wikipedia has is an irrevocable license to use the image. The image allows Wikipedia and downstream users free use of the image with no compensation required to JSP3970. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the relevant text from the CC 2.5 legal code: "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above" (emphasis added). —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl
Vintagekits again
this is completely inappropriate. Regardless of the validity of his edits he is going about it in completely the wrong way. He has been warned repeatedly for the tone he takes with other editors and the language he uses, but seems to be treating it as a joke. I'd like some admin intervention here, preferably in the form of a short block for incivility. Ironholds (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Vintagekits for 24 hours after he resumed moving Baronet pages again, and started edit-warring even though I provided him with references as to the correct name of the person concerned. (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#John_Grant_Lawson
I am reporting this here because while it is normally inappropriate to block someone with whom one is in a content dispute, Vintagekits's aggression and rapid-reverting is becoming so disruptive and time-comsuming that some other way needs to be found to deal with this. I will leave it to other admins to decide whether they feel it appropriate to lift or reimpose the block. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew it was inappropriate why did you do it? Why not let someone else decide? You should reverse your block until another admin decides it needs to be. The blocking policy is very clear about this. Chillum15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should have left it open for other admins to decide if the block was needed in the first place. Using admin powers to block someone over a content dispute you are in with them is damaging to neutrality, one of our core goals(even if you are right and they are wrong). The best person to unblock would be yourself, if the block is needed another admin can do it. Chillum15:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chillum. The block may have been justified, but it should not have been placed by you (and you were aware of this). —David Levy16:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block: Didn't we have all this last time, BrownHairedGirl, knows very well that she is like the proverbial red rag to the bull to Vintagekits, no doubt we shall have Sussexman and his various sidekicks here shortly, that's assuming they are not already! I suggest VK is unblocked with a warning not to make further changes until there has been a full debate. If not, this will escelate out of all control - yet again. Do none of these people evr learn how to handle the situation? Giano (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, vintagekits made the first move, and I've seen him be far more incivil and inappropriate to BHG than she has been to him. The "warning" was already given - remember that bit where he had a massive ANI thread about him? He was told his actions were inappropriate. It went to ANI. Various people agreed it was inappropriate. He continued making the edits. He's had his warning. Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on substantive grounds. Vintagekits re-entered this area after his topic ban expired with what can only be deemed malice aforethought (see the edit summaries quoted further up the page), caused considerable disruption (see Benea's remarks), and has ignored many people advising him to back off and obtain consensus before making more moves. Benea has cogently explained why these moves have been disruptive; Vintagekits has chosen to ignore that, as well as advice by Spartaz and Galloglass that he take a more collaborative approach to making these moves. If anyone wishes to lift his block on solely procedural groups (that is, on the grounds that BHG was involved and should not have blocked), I am willing to reimpose it on my own authority.
That said, a few of his moves have been correct by a strict reading of our MoS. However, these seem to be outnumbered by the ones that are not correct, due to his unwillingness to adequately research whether disambiguation is necessary for a particular name. If he prefers not to go to WP:RM, I invite him to submit the names of baronets for whom he think the title is superfluous on my talk page. I'd be happy to help with the research to determine if there are other notable people with that name. Choess (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, but in complete agreement with Choess) The situation after the previous discussion seemed to be that no further page moves would be made until there was a discussion. Things went quiet until today, less than 24 hours later, when VK returned and restarted his mass-moving of pages. No discussion had even begun to take place, let alone a clear consensus reached. He claims that any opposition is disruption and his edits 'are in line with wikipedia guidelines' so therefore everyone else is in the wrong, despite a number of editors suggesting a more nuanced approach needs to be taken. I even broadly support the basic intent behind his actions (if it is determined that no disambiguation is ever likely to be needed, and if the guidelines suggest no disambiguation, then move the page), but my first interactions with him yesterday have left me completely opposed to the way he has undertaken it. Benea (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block is probably correct. I wish it was not discredited by who made it, but it is discredited in my opinion. Chillum16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take Giano's point about red rag to the bull, but as Ironholds correctly notes, it was not my decision to get involved with this. My watchlist started showing more page moves by Vintagekits, and given his previous failure to pay any regard to the consequences thereof, I started checking them. When I found one which was wrong, I moved it to a more appropriate name (per WP:BRD), and replied with refs to Vk's abusive posts on my talk page.
As Choess points out, there is a really simple way to handle all this: Vk (or anyone else) can list any such articles which he feels are wrongly named at WP:RM, and then the moves can be checked out against the guidance at WP:NCNT by other editors, including those with the expertise in that area. No drama, no reverts, no howls of horror from Vintagekits.
I think that it would be better if Vk stayed out of this area altogether (because he seems to get so angry when editing in this area), but since he seems unwilling to do so, WP:RM is a fine solution. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've lifted BHG's block and replaced it with my own. There's no need to get heavily into the discussion of BHG's decision to place this block given the appearance of bias. The point is, page moves require consensus and should not be edit warred over; after ONE revert, Vintagekits should have stopped.. even more so given his history here. Mangojuicetalk16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban discussion (header inserted by closing admin)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Community consensus is that the topic ban described at [181] is re-imposed indefinitely on Vintagekits. It may be lifted or modified by community consensus as determined by an uninvolved administrator. This is not to be construed as a community endorsement of the actions of the user(s) currently in conflict with Vintagekits. Sandstein 06:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment: Sorry, I was imprecise. Consensus is only to re-impose the topic ban on "anything that relates substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof". The rest of the original topic ban remains expired. Sandstein 06:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support Mangojuice's actions - I noted it when I went to substitute BHG's block with my own. The question is; do we discuss a topic ban on VK re Baronetcy articles now, or go straight to RfAR in 1 days time? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban now. If i understand the situation, a topic ban expired on this precise issue sometime in the past 48 hours for this user, and he immediately put his foot in it, was warned, put a second foot in it, was warned again, stuck his face in it, etc... indef topic ban him from page moves, as broadly defined as possible, and move on. Any other approach is wasting a lot of time to no net benefit.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban now. This has already generated ten times more wikidrama than it needed to. I would probably have been a person voting to move some of those articles myself, but from the offset I was accused of disruption, and now myself and editors who have been trying to seek a solution have been accused of lies and 'talking bullshit'. The user has shown no evidence of wanting to take part in collaborative editing at any stage, his return to this area is a textbook example of tendentious editing. Benea (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how it would work now his probation has ended, but if this block fails to sort things perhaps asking for an extension might work? It keeps him contributing well and away from drama. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shut up Kittybrester! you aggrevate these situations quite intentionally all the time, I for one have not forgotten your association with David lauder/Sussexman/Counter Revolutionary, or whatever that banned user is currently calling himself. And as for you BHG, how you have survived as an Admin for so long is quite beyond me, in that capacity you are a walking disgrace. If we had one Arb paying attention to the game, VK would be unblocked pending an enquiry, your tools suspended and all this mess avoided, and if one Admin with a gram of common sense is reading this VK will be unblocked and warned, before even more of this mess very UK political mess unfolds. Lets not forget who Kittybrewster's brother is for a start. Now get real, and get him ublocked. Giano (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, since VK has decided to use his talk page for personal attacks, then after being warned that I would revoke his talk page privileges if he continues did it again, I have revoked his talk page privileges. In my experience when people are that mad they will tend to dig themselves into a deeper hole. I believe this action will prevent such an occurrence. I welcome a review of my action. Chillum19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Giano, there is absolutely nothing in your above point that you could not have conveyed politely. "Shut up Kittybrewster!" and "you are a walking disgrace" add nothing to your point and are needlessly uncivil. You can make your points without that. But you have been told this already countless times. Chillum19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Kittybrewster and his associates have been told worse in their time, and you Chillum need to wise up ...fast! Giano (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've analyzed the block of Vintagekits. I think it may be wise to unblock him now, and ask him to cool down. Blocks are not to punish people, it is used to prevent disruption. He is suffering. This is not something we want. I know he has a history of disruption, but he also makes good edits. I'm willing to unblock him. AdjustShift (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally not a good idea to unblock someone when they still do not accept they have done anything wrong. I suggest that if unblocked VK will get into more trouble than now. Chillum19:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know something? Lots of admins make blunders, but they never accept they have done anything wrong. :-)
I'm willing to unblock, and tell him to not to cause any more disruptions. He has a history of disruption (negative side), but he also makes good edits (positive side). AdjustShift (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering he has had 3 unblock requests declined by 3 different admins I suggest you get a consensus before unblocking. Chillum20:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is locking out of the talk page likely to give good results? I don't think so when it involves a long-time editor. At least let VK make statements there. Gimmetrow20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock:He is locked out of his own talk because he said to BrownHairedGirl (who has just wrongfully, as an involved admin, blocked him: "You are a disgusting and disgraceful example for an admin." I do Chillum knows what he's doing, cool off blocks and sanctions etc have long been frowned on. When this matter is thoroughly investigated, I hope Chillumn is not seen as another busy little bee who should have known better. I prefer to think of it as fools treading where angels fear, i hope I am correct. Whatever, VK needs to be unblocked. Giano (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unblock I would support unblock this all came about due to an involved admin making a bad block of course VK is going to be annoyed at the block. BigDuncTalk20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a story about a similar situation and how it turned out: User_talk:Chillum/Archive_21#Consider unprotecting. My actions are guided by experience. My goal is to prevent VK from taking actions in the heat of the moment that will result in a longer block. Things look different after a good night's sleep. Chillum20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a matter of how much Vintagekits is hurting by being blocked, but how much Wikipedia was hurting prior to the block. This may seem strange, considering my interactions with Giano, but I feel Vk is being disruptive in article space; Giano's more contentious edits occur in Wikipedia space and are not related to what the reader of the encyclopedia may view. I feel this is an important difference. It may be that Vk is right in some, most, all, a few or none of his actions but it is the manner by which he makes those edits, and the appearance that he is mindful of the reactions he is likely to create and that he welcomes the antagonism. In short, the edits by Vk in these articles are not in such good faith as not to create disruption on the part of editors with whom he has long standing disagreements. The encyclopedia would benefit by Vk editing other areas of the encyclopedia, or by Vk arguing each proposed move (rename) at WP:RM.
My edits are never contentious; they are to the point! BrownHairedGirl and Kittybrewster are the known and sworn enemied of VK, I would actually like to see all 3 banned from baronets, their cousins, neighbours and lovers. Kittybrewster's interminably dull, but fortunately brief pages about his relations, BrownHairedGirls's defence of them and VK's opinion on them are now all too familiar to us all. Then there is the underlying tensions brought about by the "Baronet socks" (most of whom are banned users) all help to make an unpleasant situation. BHG was very wrong to ban VK over this, as can be seen by Kittybrewster's salivating comments above. Either ban all three from editing baronets or let them fight it out, but without BHG's tools giving her an unfair advantage. Giano (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 24-hour block, it's not indefinite, let's not blow this out of proportion. He was edit warring with a page move. In my book, that's enough, end of story. On top of that, he hasn't promised to stop or seen that there was some reason for concern with his behavior. Given his block record and the recently expired ban, he should be glad it wasn't for longer. Mangojuicetalk20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblock VK. The purpose of the block is to stop disruption, not to punish people. I don't think this block will stop disruption. Yes, there were three different admins who declined the unblocked request. Mangojuice, the blocking admin, was one of them. Yes, VK got engaged in personal attacks, but when a user is blocked, he can get angry. Yes, VK has caused disruptions in the past, but he has written a FA. VK is a good article writer; I know he has a positive side. I've adviced VK to concentrate on articles and not to get involved in disruptive activities. AdjustShift (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't commend you for changing your mind about the whole getting consensus thing. I just hope you keep an eye on VK now that you have done this. Chillum20:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for anyone to keep an eye on me. I am a fair man, I am an honest man, maybe I am not sneaky enough to game the system like others. But who is going to keep an eye on BHG? She pulled the exact same trick two years ago and got away with it. And again today. What is going to be said or done about BHG's involvement today?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite topic ban. Per this discussion, VK has stated that he has no interest in this area. Yet on the day his prior year-long topic ban expired, he began his moves without consensus. The arguments he made on BHG's page about why he was doing what he did go directly against what he was arguing here - an area he does have an interest in. That would point conclusively, as far as I'm concerned, that the real reason this is going on is merely to disrupt and annoy those against whom he has an axe to grind. (Note that I am one of those who previously argued against a permanent ban for VK). BastunBaStun not BaTsun21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite topic ban per Bastun above. Vk was fine when on probation; maybe the probation clock needs to be reset. Vk has good intentions but he also has a track record of enjoying conflict, beyond what is productive. Disappointing unblock which seems to go against the consensus here, but I won't reblock especially if Vk can avoid making this sort of mistake again. Also agree with LessHeard vanU above. --John (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There can only be a topic ban if BrownHairedGirl and Kittybrewster receive one too. They antagonze and protagonize and there is a long long history, involving banned users masquerading as kittybrewsters friends. If not all 3 topic banned, then nature must be allowed to sort this out. whatever, BHG needs to lose her tools in this particular arena. Giano (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed she has! That evil cow has written hundreds of articles in this area (not one of which has been deleted), spent hundreds of hours disambiguating links and cross-checking reference sources on the articles involved. So she has quite rightly been denounced as "disruptive" by someone who wades in with little knowledge of the subject except a vitriolic dislike of it and engages in rapid-fire renaming of articles while others try to sort out the damage and get more abuse while doing so. Ban her instantly, I say -- we can't have people disrupting this project by actually building an encyclopedia, can we? In fact, why not ban any of those scum who go around writing content instead of doing the constructive work of threatening other editors, denouncing half-a-dozen people as liars when challenged, and demanding that they be allowed to continue.
What should we do? Behead the bitch, disembowel her, or what? People like her who create content in any given area MUST BE STOPPED, and wikiedia must be restored as a playground for aggressive serial troublemakers like vintagekits who want to "whup ass". Some people have been getting distracted from all this by reading all that rubbish about [[WP:CIVIL], [[WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND], and it's time now to make a stand in favour of those who want to "whup ass" and who warn other editors than the end of their probation means it's time to "be VERY scared!!!!!!!!". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing judgment with equivalence isn't an enticing option. It is entirely reasonable for us to come to the conclusion that one editor merits a topic ban for being especially disruptive or disputatious and other editors, even those party to the same dispute do not automatically need to be given a topic ban simply for being on the other side. In the rare case where we find a situation where there are two or more editors who are equally disruptive and mutually antagonistic, then we can consider topic banning the lot of them. Outside of that sort of problem, insisting upon equal punishment regardless of severity of disruption is a non-starter. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban Seems to have worked before to prevent disruption. Also. FFS. Stop reversing 24 hr blocks without talking to the blocking admin. It's usually hard to justify the ensuing drama. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What have I started - I didnt do and effing thing - I came here instead of getting involved - isnt that what you wanted me to do - so I am doing it. Two minutes after I am unblocked and following KB's call for a topic ban he makes an edit like that. Which is the centre of this dispute and is totally against naming convention. Its deliberate, its disruptive and its provokative!! Step up to the plate if you guys have any credibility!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VK you already know my view of most baronets; that most of them have no notability at all. All I am suggesting is that you re-visiting this area is not a positive way forward as you really clash with most of the people involved in this field to the detriment of all concerned. - Galloglass22:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a perfectly good disambiguation page to me. It might be worth reviewing in a few months if an article on the second baronet doesn't materialize. --Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that looks like changing a redirect to a dab to "win" an edit war so the page can't be moved back over it by a non-admin. I'm going to have a word with Kittybrewster. Black Kite21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. I said somewhere earlier up there above about Kitytybrewster antagonizing and protagonising; it's about time this whole thing was clearly and adequately sorted. All three of them (VK, Kittybrewster and BrownHairedGirl) need to be topic banned from baronets, any other person with a title an each other; then we can all have some peace on the subject. Why there is such a problem with the naming of these pages is ridiculous, it could so easily be sorted. Giano (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake, this is rdiculous, because it's not just that it can easily be sorted -- it has been sorted for ages, until Vk came along. What on earth are you playing at calling for a topic ban for me? Giano, I make huge contributions to baronets articles (those who are MPs), and the only thing that Vk does to rename them. If Vk feels that the articles are wrongly named, there is a mechanism already in place (at WP:RM) where editors can review the disambiguation issues which he ignores or denounces as bogus. The whole problem here has been Vk running in and rapid-fire renaming dozens of articles without checking the disambiguation issues, and then hurling abuse at anyone who challenges this . There is a perfectly clear guideline on this at WP:NCNT, and it works pefectly wel the rest of the time, until Vk comes piling in to do rapid-fire renaming. The disambiguation issues arises here because so many members of the same families share the same names and similar reasons for notability, and the only way to disentangle them is to pre-emptively disambiguate. Huge messes are created if the titles are removed without careful checks of the need for disambiguation, but I see no evidence of any great harm done by an article uneccessarily disambiguated. What on earth is all this "disruption" that Vk is talking about?--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not [allowed] to comment. Apparently for fear of involving 3 editors who have not edited for a year (if my memory is right). Or for fear of being interminably dull. Whatever. BHG put it much better than I could. A page sprang up on my watchlist as having been moved to what should have been a disambig; I fixed it. I may find some more similar moves when I return from holiday; meanwhile I am following advice. I was warned for canvassing once (before I knew about the rule). Does it not apply to Vk? I wouldn't have a particular problem with it if it were not seemingly specifically directed and if there were an emergency. Kittybrewster ☎22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and was succeeded in the baronetcy by his only surviving son Ellis." So it appears there's a need for disambiguation - if the son gets an article. Which would appear to be the very same logic you were employing in this talk page, when it seemed to be perfectly acceptable to you, VK. Really - take Giano's advice, stay away from the Baronets, it won't end well. BastunBaStun not BaTsun22:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty has (possibly deliberately) spelt the second guy's name wrong, his first name is "Elis" not "Ellis". Expalin that. Explain that if I had done this you would want my balls for it but because it is someone else you are bending over backwards in an attempt to defend the indefensible--Vintagekits (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. If it's wrong (I don't know and you've provided no evidence), then maybe becaue some people are not very good at spelling? Three from you, above, for example. 2. If I'm after your balls, why did I argue against you being perma-banned a year ago? Bottom line, you're arguing against a practice that you're in favour of when it's a topic that you have an interest in. That, my friend, is the hypocrisy... BastunBaStun not BaTsun22:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bending - you neck is nearly touching the floor! Is there a naming practice in place for Volunteers? Are you happy with KB's actions? You only seem to bring up things that I have done but then go AWOL - spineless!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Forget about the content, the application/interpretation of MoS, the scrutinising of "right or wrong", the persons involved, or the purported intentions of the involved parties; is this dispute becoming disruptive to the general caretaking of the project (or this part of it, anyhoo)? Is there a way of resolving this matter between and involving the parties, or are we needing to take it to the Committee? I would not be adverse to filing a Request if it is the consensus of the respondees here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good one - hang me out to dry and then when the truth is reviled then forget about it lets sort it another way. Is it any wonder I go crazy here?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I am asking for is that these articles are titled proper - there has been a deliberate policy by Kitty, BHG and Tyde to shoehorn the "Sir" and "Baronet" bit into the page name. Set this straight!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem that's not going to go away. The three of them cannot co-exist on the same topics. VK has proven that he can write and is serious about the project, so it is wrong to idly dismiss and block him as some try to do. There is no doubt that BHG has used her tools to gainsay her opinions and wishes against VK. VK, you may be pleasantly surprised at the views of this new and improved Arbcom. Giano (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have agreed Naming conventions for the names and titles of those in the British peerage and baronets that is laid out in Point 4 of this MOS and is confirmed at the Peerage Project guidelines! These are in place and have been for a long time - where are two editors allowed to ignore these and edit war? Why?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring this to arbcom. I am sick of this nonsense, which has used to happen before Vk as topic-banned, and which he has raised again as soon as his topic ban has ended. The core issue here is very very simple: the MOS (at WP:NCNT) says use the title inly when needed for disambiguation, but Vintagekits is doing rapid-fire renaming without checking the need for disambiguation, and not just leaving it to others to pick up the mess, but hurling abuse when his messes are fixed and howling about victimisation when challenged. Over he last two days several editors have repeatedly pointed to the importance of disambiguating these families of privileged notables, but still Vk keeps on saying that the MOS requires removal of the title .. while those of us who create, edit, maintain and cross-link these articles are being dragged away from substantive editing to deal with yet another Vintagekits-manufactured drama. There is a perfectly simple solution to all this: Vk or anyone else can list any disputed articlesa t WP:RM, where there is time to gather and consider the evidence before any moves take place. But since Vk repeatedly rejects that and insists on just saying "MOS MOS MOS" ... so please, let's hear it from arbcom. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long of wind - short on substance. I havent manufactred this situation - the abuse - intentional abuse - of the MOS over the past two years has. We dont need Arbcom - we have naming conventions and an MOS agreed at the Peerage project - they need to be enforced by a admin with some balls!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need some enforcement of the principle that a style guideline is not a cudgel, and that exceptions shoukd be discussed rather than edit-warred
We need some enforcement of the part of that guideline which you persistently ignore -- the part which refers to the need for disambiguation
And we need some enforcement of the basic principle that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to indulge an editor with a block log a mile long whose final-final-final-chance probation has been followed by a rampage of ill-considered renaming of articles which has been opposed by all the editors who routinely work on this set of articles.
Zzzzzzzzzzz! You interpret edit summaries in whatever moronic way you want (13 - unlucky for some - what a hidious threat!) - stick you the subject - you abuse your admin powers, your blocked me twice when in a direct dispute with me, you intentionally inflamed all this, you edit war and you ingore and flaut naming conventions and MOS. How the hell can this disgraceful actions be acceptable from an admin.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will write up a Request - and do my damnedest to make it both neutral but also of sufficient urgency - tomorrow providing there is no breakthrough in resolving this here (or somebody else decides to place the request, I have no cyber ego that can be bruised in such things). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, that just looks like the same people arguing the same things as above. I'd venture that LHvU's comment above (that RfAR may be the best venue for this) looks like a good suggestion. Black Kite22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mervyn Manningham-Buller appears to be the only notable person that name, and IMO the article should be at Mervyn Manningham-Buller, withot the title. (I have been checking today for other MMBs, and can't find any)
[[Sir John Lawson, 1st Baronet of Knavesmire] is "Lawson, John Grant" -- family name of Lawson, not "Grant Lawson". So he is a "John Lawson" to disambigaute, which requires the title, and since there are two 1st baronets called John Lawson it also needs the territorial disambiguator.
But Vintagekits reply reveals the core of the problem -- his view of the pomposity of the title makes him determined to remove them, and that's why he is manufacturing this drama. (I happen to share that contempt for titles, but the difference is that I don't allow my POV to disrupt the articles) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His name is John Grant Lawson - always known as that and you were provided evidence to show that - he was always known as John Grant Lawson on wikipedia - unit today - when you manufactuered a shorter name and therefore the name to add the Sir and the Baronet - and yes you and Kitty do do it out of pomposity - its as simple as that.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so previous article names are irrelevant.
The evidence is there on my talk page, to authoritative sources, but all you can find is a link to a website about a park.
Anyway, here's the core of it. The article is now named according to the MOS -- by title, to disambiguate -- but you denounce that as "pomposity".
Finally, the truth outs -- you don't actually care at all about the MOS, this whole thing is about your POV that titles are pompous.
No you and Kittys moves are about pomposity - mine motive is to enforce the MOS - the agreed MOS and the long standing naming convention. You have refused to discuss the issue time and time again and prefer to edit war. Your actions disgust me and make me sick to be a wikipedian. Shame on you!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vk, this is really very simple, so I will try to explain it you in very simple terms.
The titles are to be used only when there is a need for disambiguation. That's what the MoS says, at WP:NCNT.
But since you started on your rampage of renaming, you have moved dozens of articles, of which ten or more have been moved back because you ignored the ambiguity involved or didn't bother to check. (More articles may yet need to be moved back, but it takes a long time to check)
I don't know at this stage where you are incapable of understanding this issue of ambiguity in names, or whether you are wilfully ignoring it ... but your claims to "enforce" the MOS are either a deliberate lie or evidence of some gross stupidity. One or the other -- I see no other explanation.
When this gets to arbcom, I will take the time to supply the long list of articles whose renamings by you have caused problems of ambiguity, and which have had to be sorted out by others, taking up lots of time which could otherwise have been used to actually write encyclopedic content.
This is all part of your long-standing dispute with Kittybrewster. That dispute is why you have repeatedly tried to disrupt articles on baronets in revenge for some dispute with Kittybrewster years ago over articles on Irish republicans, and the one helpful thing you have done today has been to repeated make clear in this thread that your motivation in all this is nothing to do with the MOS -- it's about our own POV. I too am no fan of the British aristocracy, but the point you consistently miss here is that Wikipedia is an NPOV project -- we document things accurately, regardless of our own views on the subject at hand. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While both sides make arguments refering to apparently contradictory (in interpretation at least) policies, the crux of this problem is an unwillingness to discuss moves before they are made, which is a basic piece of Wikipedia courtesy. I haven't reviewed all of Vintagekits' page moves, and perhaps some were appropriate. However it is very clear that a significant number were not: they were made without adequate research and without any discussion, in the clear knowledge (because let's not forget that we've been here before) that these moves would be controversial. My initial recommendation is that Vintagekits recuses himself from a subject that has been a flashpoint for his behaviour in the past. However failing that I urge him in future to raise the pages he wants to be moved at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage first. Then any disambiguation problems and disagreements can be ironed out before the moves are made, thus preventing any disruption and giving plenty of warning.
On a related note, despite a number of very unpleasant interactions with you in the past, I supported your unblocking based on the understanding, discussed via email, that you would reform your behaviour on Wikipedia. For a year you were an excellent contributor in the area of boxing, one that you are clearly very knowledgeable about: I supported your successful efforts to get Michael Gomez to FA standard. However the fact that within hours of your probation being lifted you are sending aggressive and in some cases abusive messages to other editors with whom you are in an editing disagreement is very disappointing. Whether or not you agree with their actions and opinions, there is no excuse for such behaviour.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing to say about them. As far as I can see, neither has been abusive or particularly aggressive and neither has made edits without discussion or research that caused significant disruption to an area of Wikipedia. Do you have anything at all to say about my proposal to discuss these moves first.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the amount of energy spent here shows quite clearly that all three disputing users are too passionate to remain suitably objective for writing on the topic. That, and there is obviously disruption, so I suggest a community topic ban on the the topic of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on Vintagekits, Brownhairedgirl, and KittyBrewster until disposed of by Arbcom or six months time, whichever comes first.--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tznaki, you accuse me of not being objective, so please can you identify any edits which I have made which breach WP:NPOV. My only interest in baronets is in documenting British Members of Parliament and in disambiguating them. All I have done here has been to oppose a set of drive-by-renamings which break the cross-linking of articles because they have not been properly checked. I have supported the use of WP:RM to assess any moves that editors feel are needed, so why exactly are you accusing me of disruption?
What exactly do you claim disruptive about opposing page moves which are not properly checked for disambiguation problems and where other editors then have to spend a huge amount of time repairing the damage? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your judgement cant be trusted with regards this issue - you have abused your position and consistantly lied, created distruption, refused to discuss the issue in a rational manner and purposefully enflamed the situation. You've blocked me twice whilst in the middle of a dispute with me. You are a digusting and disgraceful admin and no one can believe a word you say! Want proof? She pulled the exact same trick two years ago and got away with it. And again today. What is going to be said or done about BHG's involvement?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't trust my judgement, then you have a choice of mechanisms to resolve this without relying on my judgement: either list the articles at WP:RM and allow a consensus to be reached on what to whether to be moved, or accept Choess's offer to review any articles which you cared to list. If you actually want to resolve any naming problems, you have a choice of mechanisms which will allow a consensus to be formed, but instead of using them you prefer to come here and shout yet more personal abuse. (I'm about the sixth person in the last two days who you have called a liar)
And yes indeed, this did all happen before, nearly two years ago. You did then exactly what you started on friday -- a rapid-fire session of drive-by-renamings which caused disambiguation problems -- and yes, I did block you then, to prevent further disruption by allowing moves to be assessed properly before they are made. (see my explanation here). As you may recall, the block was upheld by other admins, but shortened (seee here).
So we have twice, exactly the same pattern of behaviour from you -- mass-renaming without proper checking, leaving others to clear up the mess. And exactly the same pattern of personal abuse from you when you are blocked from doing so. You say that you don't trust the judgement of any of those who routinely work on these articles, so if you are serious about resolving any problems with controversial naming, what exactly is your problem with using WP:RM? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Count the number of replies you made and the number of words written. Now think about this like an outsider. "Does this look like someone overly invested, or someone objective?" You've proven my assertion more than I could with any number of diffs. You're in too deep. Let other people handle it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you don't actually have any diffs or other evidence that my work breaches NPOV ... but the fact that I write to explain myself in order to defend myself against a proposal for a ban is sufficient of itself to ban me? Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I presume that you will also be proposing that arbcom now starts to automatically ban anyone who replies to a compliant about them? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My contention was that you were to passionate to be objective, and then I believe your behavior here proved that. My solution is to get such non-objective parties removed from the conflict area. There was in fact, no need to defend yourself, certainly not at length. In that defense, you have displayed a battleground mentality. --Tznkai (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great shout - blocks and topic bans for those that works within wikipedia policies - off scot free those those that game the system! Three cheers! --Vintagekits (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually read what you write? Or what you are replying to, for that matter? Blocks and topic bans for you and BHG and Kittybrewster. You know, those two people you've been accusing of gaming the system and not working within WP policies? Yup, those ones. Ironholds (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I wrote - they (BHG and KB) have been abusing wikipedia for years, I have been trying to correct their abuse and I get blocked and a topic ban. You've shown your colours from your first post to the last - you jumped in shouting about my incorrect moving of articles and then had to admit that you hadnt even read the naming convention - do you think anyone can take your opinion serious after that? You've provided a misrepresented, slanted and one sided view of this situation in every single post you have ever made on the issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The post you were replying to read "I suggest a community topic ban on the the topic of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on Vintagekits, Brownhairedgirl, and KittyBrewster". This is a topic ban for all three of you. Your reply was "Great shout - blocks and topic bans for those that works within wikipedia policies - off scot free those those that game the system!". That was needless criticism of a suggestion that was perfectly valid, and in addition it was incorrect criticism. Tznkai has suggested equally weighted punishment for all three of you, and you are saying he's letting Kittybrewster and BHG "off scot free". Ironholds (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except it its equal - is it - who is the only one that has been blocked - who has taken all the shit here? Why hasnt BHG been stripped of her adminship? Why am I even discussing this with you?--Vintagekits (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So they should both be blocked for an equal period to you - even though Kittybrewster wasn't involved in the actions that got you blocked? Ironholds (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, putting aside everything else for a moment, no one here has the power to strip adminship from anyone else. That is a steward/Arbitration Committee decision.--Tznkai (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a temporary topic ban as proposed by Tznkai. I haven't heard a better solution to this recurring dispute. Will Bebacktalk 05:16, 3 May
2009 (UTC)
I have one. But no one likes to hear it. PermaBan All three. For as long as I've been here, the VK-KB fight has been raging. KB got in big trouble a couple years back for his happy horseshit with titles, esp. as related to his family tree, as I recall. He should've learned then. Instead, his infatuation with a boatload of nobodies who had the fortune to be born into the 'right' families has led him to continue to effectively pursue the right set of titles. VK, and later BHG, have been here over and over for running off to pick the same fights over and over with KB about the same shit, often it seems the same articles (But who can tell Sir Foppington Saxby Chamblee Wallace Grommit the 9th, 8th baronet of Muddlefuckstickington, from Sir Foppington Saxby Chamblee Wallace Grommit the 8th, 9th baronet of FuddleMuckstickington?) VK and BHG should be coming here to report this shit promptly, they never do. KB should be off with a wallboard with a string map of the british aristocracy, but he's here mucking up Wikipedia. Throw them all out. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thuranx, please clarify exactly what you are accusing me of. Several years ago, I was one of several editors who organised a clearout of non-notable articles on relatives of KB. It was followed up by a wider clearout of non-notable baronets, about two years ago, and there has been no conflict since. So what fights have I been "picking with KB"? Is this about that process two years ago, or about something else? My interest in baronets extends only as far as they are Members of Parliament, who are the devil of a job to disambiguate, and who I try to disambiguate according to the long-established guidance at WP:NCNT. That's the only reason I get dragged into this mess, because yet another drive-by renaming session leaves lots of broken links to repair. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating that you have, for way too long, engaged in behaviors contrary to what is expected of an admin when it comes to this are which you are too attached to. You know you're an 'involved admin' on this topic, as evidenced by your bringing your recent block of him here for review. While I agree that the block was warranted, you must have known the storm that would be stirred up, yet instead of simply presenting a brief case to another admin, you shot first, asked questions later. You continue to have conflicts with him, and none of you seem at all able to change your behaviors. I'm not calling for your to lose your buttons, I'd oppose that. I've seen you act effectively as an admin in many other cases. But you're too attached to these infantile titles and such. There's an entire WP for these nobodies, they can handle it. But you need to walk away, at least for a while. any 'permanent' ban can be revisited if needed. Regrettably, KB is likely to stalk this material for too long, and restart it at any point if you come back to it, meaning this ban will be permanent. You did bring this on yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Cool has been lost, heads are hot, this will go no where until composure is regained. You can't solve a fight in a written format, and this is no longer a discussion. Keegantalk05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there actually any grounds for blocking BrownHairedGirl and Kittybrewster as I'm unable to se what extactly they have done wrong? All either of them have tried to do is prevent some very bad page moves. That does not appear to be grounds for even a temporary ban.- Galloglass05:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban is not the same as a block. BHG has engaged in an unwise administrative action, and KB has been writing articles realted to Arbuthnots. This isn't about punishing anyone, it's about reducing disruption of the project. I don't see any better proposal for solving this dispute. Will Bebacktalk06:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's disingenuous at best, Galloglass. If all the links and discussion above doesn't demonstrate bad behavior on their part to you, you're not looking. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that Vintagekits Appears to be preparing a RfC for BrownHairedGirl. While I have no control over another users actions I strongly feel that any RfC should look at the situation as a whole rather than the actions of one particular user. A larger problem is that an RfC is unlikely to fix anything; at the best of times an RfC is essentially a Request for Throwing Shit To See What Sticks that eventually turns into a shouting match, and the amount of drama around this AN/I thread suggests that this RfC is going to be louder than most. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one of three, Will. Now, as to the topic ban for KittyBrewster, and BHG? BHG perhaps could do with only a ban on admin buttons related to either of those to, be it blocks or unblocks, but KB should really get the same damn Topic Ban. He's got a long history of trouble with baronet articles, which is no surprise because he is one, and clearly places an inordinate amount of importance on the luck of his birth, making for an obvious COI. He showed up to the VK threads here just to provoke a response and cause trouble. We'd all be better off if AN/I didn't see any threads about the titles of English nobodies for a couple of seasons, or even till 2010. (never would be best, but eventually some other idiot with an anglomonarchophiliac fetish will arrive.) ThuranX (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how public KB has made his title, but I'd advise you not to shout it out since it makes him easily identifiable IRL. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know his name or his specific title, but it's been made note of in any number of threads about him, by him himself, and is mentioned by Giano in one of the threads above on this very page. I'm not planning to shout it out anyways, but it's no secret at all, though all this fear of revealing it, and apparently, of his brother, is nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would certainly think a ban on KB creating such articles or moving them to headings reflecting titles and such where there is no need per dab concerns would be reasonable. There are sufficient articles, surely, for him to practice his interests otherwise. As a Brit, however, I would note that there are likely to be some interest in British aristocracy from some parts of the world and having articles on the more visible of this section of society is at least on a par with all those very many articles on otherwise nondescript Americans who have in their lives donned some pyjama's and crash helmets and spent their time running into otherwise similarly attired gentleman - and very rarely having their feet connect with a ball. It is the readership that validates the existence of an article, not the editorships bias'. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic bans on all three for now. Just for the sake of simplicity. Now, if someone is writing articles on their own personal family, I say we follow some ideas from the COI rules and topic-ban them from article-space on those subjects. They can still use the talk pages and try to convince people that way but they surely shouldn't be writing. Personally, I'm finding the number of articles linked to this non-RS personal site quite disturbing. We wouldn't allow any typical spammer to conduct even a remote amount of linkage like this. Frankly, I'm considering whether to go the reliable sources noticeboard and clean these out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky8162, if you check back, you will find that not only have I supported the deletion of many non-notable Arbuthnots (I think I actually AFDed several myself), I have on more than one occasion blocked Kittybrewster for COI editing. I quite agree that www.kittybrewster.com is not a reliable source, and repeatedly raised that problem in the AFDs. So what exactly are you accusing me of having written about my family, and what unreliable sources do you claim that have I been using? (To the best of my knowledge I have never written or edited any article on any relative of mine)--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Ridiculous. None of these editors has made abusive or controversial edits to this area of Wikipedia since Vintagekits' undiscussed moves two days ago. Even a quick look at their contributions will confirm this. BHG in particular does a large amount of constructive and useful work in the area of baronets on Wikipedia and to block them based on . . . what exactly? Is a gross overreaction. Just advise all three to discuss moves before they are made and this problem solves itself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, and you ignored it when you made the moves. Baronetcies are permitted to appear in article titles if it is necessary to disambiguate them from other people - this includes redlinks that have not yet been created, which you ignored.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mechanism for this, at WP:RM. I quite accept that some baronet articles are named with their titles unnecessarily ... the problem is in determining which ones, because of the huge levels of ambiguity in this area. What we need is proper assessment of the ambiguity issues before moves are made, rather than rapid-fire drive-by renamings leaving others to pick up the pieces afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every article I moved either had a. the more simple name as a direct redirect to the long winded version, b. it had the more simple name as a disamb page to show the long winded version and a load of red links (mostly created by you!) or c. the shorter version of the title was a redlink. Thems the facts. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly that doesn't make any grammatical sense so I'm a bit confused as to your point. Secondly, (if I understand what you are saying) that is obviously not true, as at least four editors pointed out after you had made the moves. I'm not going to guess at your motivation, but the simple fact is that you moved a large number of articles with no research into whether there were red links that, when created, would conflict with the newly moved pages. If you had discussed the page moves first then this problem could have been easily avoided. I still don't really see any justification for a ban here for anyone (including you).--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you have wanted me banned for a long time and therefore I can understand your slanted view. There is a MOS anda naming convention for these articles - are you aware of it? I move the titles in accordance with that! If anyone had an issue with that why didnt they open a discussion with me? They never did - this has been discussed on multiple occasionspreviously - discussions that both BHG and KB have been involved in.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being paranoid. Jackyd: "I still don't really see any justification for a ban here for anyone (including you)". You: "you have wanted me banned for a long time". Do you read what you are replying to? Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history is irrelevant: I supported your unblocking a year ago and your successful drive to get Michael Gomez to FA, so to accuse me of having an agenda against you is absurd. It is an absolute and undeniable fact that you came back from a year topic ban two days ago and immediately made a large number of page moves in an area you are not knowledgeable about without discussing it first with those who are knowledgeable, causing a significant degree of disruption - if I am wrong and you did discuss it first then please provide the diffs. Simply discussing these moves with other people before making them would have saved everyone this drama. My recommendation remains that no one (still including you) is banned, but that all moves in this area of Wikipedia are discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage before they are made to avoid the confusion created by widespread moving without discussion or research.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the benefit to the encyclopedia of topic banning me from an area where I make repeated well-referenced contributions rather than simply requiring that page moves in this area be discussed in advance? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a) I did not revert all the moves, as you could have found out from a quick check of Vk's contribs log -- I reverted only a small proportion of them (others reverted more, but most of his moves still stand). It takes a long time to check them, and I reverted only those where the move either caused disambiguation problems or otherwise breached the naming conventions.
b)Vk tried opening up discussion twice. The first time was after his first batch of moves, when his gambit was to open his request for dialogue with "stop the bullshit", having already dismissed disambiguation as "disruption". I am not prepared to waste time trying to discuss the problem if the opening gambit is a personal attack from someone who preceded his efforts with warnings to "be very scared" and who has previously engaged in a near-identical series of rapid-fire pagemoves, and who has alreday dismissed my substantive concern per the guidelines as "disruption" -- the naked hostility with which Vk approached this whole thing guaranteed that no bilateral solution would be found, and I find it intensely distressing to be subjected to this endless barrage of personal absuse from Vk ("you are a disgrace", "you are disgsting", "you are a liar" etc). The second time was after his second batch of moves, when he again opened dialogue by accusing me of being disruptive and provocative, and promptly reverted my move without waiting for my reply. WP:AGF and WP:BRD are really clear on what to do here: ask why someone did something rather than instantly saying "you are being provocative", and if reverted then discuss to reach consensus.
This is not the way to resolve this: as WP:BRD says, be bold but don't be reckless, and mass renaming in an area which Vk know sto be controversial is reckless. There is no urgency in this, no great damage being done that requires an instant solution -- we need to get it right, but we also need get it right with less drama. The established mechanism is to list the proposed moves at WP:RM and allow a consensus to be formed on what to do. That way anyone interested can have their say and the evidence can be assesed in advance.
And BTW, let me repeat again: I fully accept that that there are many articles on baronets which do need to be renamed. My concern is solely that adequate checks are done in advance to ensure that there is proper disambiguation between both existing articles and redlinks to other notable people of similar names. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. BHG has been doing significant and useful work on British MPs which would be significantly impaired by such a topic ban. I think the fact that this area has been perfectly quiet and undramatic during the period when VK was topic-banned rather undermines the judgment several have made here that blame lies equally on the principal parties. "Send them all to Coventry" may quiet things down, but it's hardly in the best interests of Wikipedia, nor does it show particular discernment on the part of those who have advocated it. Choess (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a topic ban on VK and KB only. I would extend that to a topic ban on BHG using the tools in this area, but I'm sure she's realised that would be a poor idea anyway. I don't see a reason for an actual topic ban on BHG. Black Kite15:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please clarify exactly what it is that KB is alleged to have been doing that is so disruptive as to merit the extreme step of a topic ban?
He had a big splurge of writing articles on his family, but AFAIK those were all tidied up in a mass of AFDs and mergers two years ago, but I am not aware of it having resumed.
If KB's editing is so awful, how come there appears to have been no problem with it until a serially-disruptive editor came off his final-final-final-chance probation? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder The topic ban described above is temporary. Its a hold over for some sort of more permanent solution, or to clear the decks for Arbitration. Keep that in mind while you !vote.--Tznkai (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on other users' statements to avoid more overheated discussions, but will instead offer a short compilation of the facts and my opinion to it.
User:Vintagekits has moved a great number of articles and has intended to move more, only hours after his ban over exactly this topic had expired. Justified or not, some of these moves were controversial, destroyed previously done work and had to be discussed before. After an "outcry" by several other users, this issue and their objections to it was brought in here and commented. A mediation was attempted and apparently successfully. Aware of this, User:Vintagekits nevertheless continued to move additional articles on the following day. In my eyes, he has hence this shown himself not capable to edit constructively in this topic at the moment and I therefore support the extension of the ban over articles regarding baronets for at least another year. I however oppose a temporaray unlimited ban, since I hope User:Vintagekit's good work in other parts of Wikipedia will also apply for this topic one day.
It is not the first time User:Kittybrewster has proven his willingness to protect his own interests with inadequate means; considering this behaviour and the obvious conflict of interest, I think a ban over the two topics baronets and the Arbuthnot family for the span of a year appropriate. After the expiration of this ban I would request him to stay away from these contents voluntarily.
While the revert of some moves is clearly no wrongdoing, I agree that, provoked or not and also justified or not, as an involved user User:BrownHairedGirl was not authorized to block User:Vintagekits. However I don't see why this should entail a topic ban. As her misconduct lies only in the wrong exercise of her rights, any consequence should also happen only in this area. I don't know if it possible at Wikipedia anyway, but I would probably consider the revocation of her admin rights for the span of a month.
What's up with replacing Image: with File: everywhere? Doesn't everyone know that redirects should not be replaced just to replace them, as edits are very costly, and redirects are not? I happen to like calling images images, it helps to understand what they are, vs. calling them a file, which says nothing. Whoever is going around changing them needs to stop, such as User:MauritsBot. Please leave them as they are - if they say file, leave them as file, if they say image leave them as image. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not doing anything wrong. It is not changing Image: to File: exclusively, but doing that as part of numerous other fixes, including fixing interwiki links. Resolute16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding or fixing an interwiki link is fine, but changing image to file is not, nor is changing WP to Wikipedia. For example, changing WP:RM to Wikipedia:RM is silly. Both are still redirects. Any other bot doing that needs to be stopped as well. Click here. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bot page says it is running "cosmetic_changes.py"[183] from the tool server, which contains the comment ATTENTION: You can run this script as a stand-alone for testing purposes. However, the changes are that are made are only minor, and other users might get angry if you fill the version histories and watchlists with such irrelevant changes.[184]. Unclear if running that code from a 'bot is a good idea. --John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has also notified me, but I never run that script (except for testing purposes); just when it's making another change it also makes those trivial and almost useless minor changes, but they make the code look a little cleaner ;). Locos ~ epraixBeaste~praix17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're so angry about here. The image to file namespace change happened months ago, because we needed a namespace that made sense for sounds and movies also and nobody wanted three multimedia namespaces. As for the WP thing, WP: has always been a shortcut for the Wikipedia namespace. At least as long as I've been here, WP:foo has always pointed to Wikipedia:foo, which was actually the name on the top of the page. So no change there either. Oren0 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not angry, I am annoyed. Using Image: is more descriptive for images and should be encouraged; instead of some bot coming along and ignorantly switching them from Image to File. I have no problem with some of the "irrelevant changes", such as removing extra whitespace, but for example, at the end of sentences, some editors strongly prefer to use two spaces, others normally use one space, and I certainly would not want a bot coming along and changing any page with that change. The point that the script should not be used stand-alone to make an "irrelevant change" is secondary to the fact that I am arguing that the bot is making annoying changes, not irrelevent changes. If it could be edited to take out the WP to Wikipedia line and the Image to File line it is likely that I would not complain, although seeing those things I would want to scrutinize the rest of the bag of tricks it had to make sure that they also were not only irrelevent but annoying in any way. I also would not have complained about the WP to Wikipedia change if the bot had actually checked to see if the target was a redirect and not made the edit if it was. As I said changing WP:RS to Wikipedia:RS is totally pointless, as both are redirects to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and in fact, WP:Reliable sources doesn't even get redirected, it gets mapped to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, making changing WP to Wikipedia less than useless. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading back on racist, Amandajm - I've come to realize that in addition to his muslim name, he veritably hates white people. He deletes info about european history even if such info is based upon accurate inferences. Why he does this should be the subject of debate. My theory is that he's jealous of white culture and history being that he's muslim. Also, it's important to note that muslims of his poor ilk who exhibit such hatred additionally exude homosexual frustrations. This is well documented in psychiatric circles. Why a dirty, white-hating muslim should possess the reponsibility of writing an article on a culture and history not his own is WAY beyond me. If he wants to write about muslim history, he should. But, he shouldn't be given the chance to write about something he obviously knows nothing about and DOES NOT pertain to him. This guy IS NOT european. Honestly, he doesn't deserve to be on wiki at all. 'Stay on your side of the fence', is a motto I always quote.
An example of his ignorance shines through on the Castle article. He states that it was the romans who were the ones responsible for starting european castles. A little bit of research into the matter reveals that it was indeed the Goths (not the romans) who were the true architects and precursors to what we now see as european castles. I added this historical TRUTH into the article. Of course, he invariably deleted it because being the muslim that he is, he can't stand the truth.
To that, yesterday I followed up by sending emails to Homeland Security and the FBI Counter-terrorism Division for investigation into who he is and what his motives are. (No, I've not gone off the deep end). I received an automatic response email from the FBI stating that they will look into the matter, and will definitley be following up. Racist muslims of this type are tricky and can pose a risk to the US. Also, I sent an email to wiki complaining about this enemy of europeans and americans. I got an email back from wiki stating that he will be reviewed - thank god! His place in wiki - and in the US - shouldn't be secure.
We're really sick and tired of this "man". Davidx5 (talk) 6:05 pm, Today (UTC+1)
User:Amandajm hasn't edited since 1 May so probably doesn't know about this yet, and this is situation is ludicrous. The information Davidx is referring to was unreferenced and he is misrepresenting the situation. For example, I have recently been adding references to the article; so far it's only on the etymology, but Creighton and Higham are authoritive sources and to claim otherwise is displaying an ignorance of the sources. Also, it the changes I have made say the word castle has Roman origins, I have not made any changes indicating that the Romans invented castles themselves, indicating that Davidx is deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting the situation.
I also think Davidx is using 68.173.91.50 because of this edit and User:68.173.89.10 because of the similarity in editing pattern with 68.173.91.50. The discussion on the castle talk page shows that the IPs had been introducing incorrect information, such as labelling Italian castles as Spanish. Once references began to be removed from the article, the IP exhausted our reserves of good faith.
I think this issue requires attention, I would take action myself, however as an involved admin I would probably be accused of being racist or some other absurdity. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail was sent to OTRS claiming that Amandajm "refuses to admit certain historical truths" and that "this is considered racist"; we were "urge(d) to ban him". This is not a reason to ban Amandajm, and that action has not been taken. Nakon18:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the screed in the section above his block notice; it's nothing but a bunch of harsh personal attacks. I noted that the full text is in the page's history. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, earlier today I tagged an article for deletion via PROD with an anonymous IP address. My edit was reverted [185] as vandalism. This is unacceptable abuse of the rollback function and amounts to bullying of anon users. This user needs to be banned. Thank you, Myownusername (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that one mislabeled revert should result in blocking the editor. Please try discussing it with the editor on his talk page. Nakon19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially I saw it as vandalism/trolling in that the reason for the prod goes directly against the content of the article (it has multiple sources, all of which are sufficient) and I am suspicious of any new user that finds AfD and PROD in his first edits, which rather kicks the good faith chair out from under someone in my mind. Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a legitimate prod reason to me. When you remove a prod you need an edit summary explaining why you disagree. Rollback does not provide that, so it is not appropriate for removing prods(imo). Chillum19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it was not rollback but Twinkle, still the same logic applies. I have a rollback (AGF) button that asks for a summary, I think it is part of Twinkle. That would be a better choice. Chillum19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally legit prod. I'm not convinced that this article as it is now would survive an AfD, and to take a prod with a well-written reason and to revert it as vandalism with no reason is inappropriate IMO. If this was rollback, it'd be a bigger problem. Oren0 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree that this looks like a legitimate PROD; however, Ironholds made a mistake in that he rolled back when he should have simply contested the PROD. It is of course any editor's privilege to contest a PROD, in which case is then the original editor's prerogative to take the article to AFD. However, this is an extremely minor mistake and clearly is not grounds for disciplinary action of any kind, much less banning. GlassCobra06:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Ironholds has made a mistake. It happens, but one mistake is no grounds on which to start questioning the good faith of an editor let alone start turning it into an inquest on whether they should retain huggle/twinkle. A prod can be replaced in certain circumstances, and per WP:IAR, I think this is a case where the prod remover might replace the template as "removed in error" and we can then all move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we close this and move on. Yes he misidentified a legit tagging as vandalism, which isn't good, but things happen. Importantly however is it wasn't done via the actual rollback Wiki software feature as implied in the initial report. Lesson learnt, case closed. Cheers, Nja24709:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Swine flu I can avoid with handwashing and wearing a mask around the coughing/sneezing/madding crowd. Other things are harder to get away from. ;) Dlohcierekim21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue has composed a complex tapestry of words which appears intended to cause offense -- seelink. Unsurprisingly, these words do manage to succeed in offending.
As a constructive response, I used a sandbox to puzzle my way through a process of guessing how best to respond -- seediff.
WP:AN/I can help resolve an array of unfolding issues:
Teeninvestor now objects, arguing: "This is an attack page" and "I don't think it should be allowed to exist" -- diff. WP:AN/I can help resolve the problem Teeninvestor perceives, if indeed is a problem at all.
Regardless of what has gone on before, I need to figure out what to do now. Perhaps this will be construed as a constructive step. If so, this non-standard approach to a specific problem would seen to suggest what others should have done to avert an onslaught of escalating, extravagant claims? In the context created by the edit histories which led to Caspian blue's two most recent blocks, I would have thought that this link is problematic. If not, why not?
Bottom line: What could I have done differently? What can I do now and in the future to avoid being caught up in the swath of harms which attend this toxic long-term warrior? --Tenmei (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I objected because this page's only purpose is to insult and attack Caspian Blue, who I regard as a valuable contributor(he has dozens of good and featured articles under his belt). In the page, Tenmei insulted him(and even does now) and called him a "long-term toxic warrior". See WP:ATTACKPAGE.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The next two diffs were posted at User talk:Tenmei and moved here.
Just to add to whatever drama is unfolding here, I just declined to delete this as an attack page, as it has links to ArbCom. It does look deleteable at MFD, but I don't see it as an attack page per se. @User:Tenmei-- What purpose does this serve? Does it improve Wikipedia? Can we not dispense with further drama and delete it now? Let me know or tag for {{{Db-self}}}. Cheers, Dlohcierekim01:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The time stamp on the diffs make clear that this unfolded in the following sequence:
1. Teeninvestor's comment came after notifying at talk page of sandbox cam after alerting Caspian blue
2. I promptly created this thread to clarify any issues.
Repeating for redundant emphasis: What could I have done differently? What can I do now and in the future to avoid being caught up in the swath of harms which attend this toxic long-term warrior? --Tenmei (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well not making personal attacks while posturing here would go a long way. :) Don't know what's going on. Don't care. I'm tired. Want to rest. I can't cause i'm got up in this with y'all. Let me dlete the thing now, and we can all get some rest. Cheers, Dlohcierekim01:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can compromise by temporarily blanking the page. I can demonstrate cooperation in the service of averting a protracted exchange; however, there is no attack here -- no attack page. This so-called attack is a post hoc attempt to understand allegations unrelated to the issues ArbCom initially agreed to consider; and I am attempting to discern a way to parse the relevant and irrelevant material in a measured manner. For example, the so-called attack page captured the following examples of exactly the same sort of feigned indignation which is on display in posturing allegations about personal attacks, e.g.,
Excerpt: Caspian blue complaints that one sentence is a personal attack -- It's wretched stupidity.? You made the clear personal attack to me at this public place. Surely, admin would not condone such the violation on WP:NPA by you
Excerpt: After Badagnani asks "Would you kindly moderate your tone?" Caspian blue demands, "... do not falsely accuse me any more. That act is a personal attack."
Excerpt: Caspian blue creates section heading "Taemyr escalating the situation by his own personal attacks" ... but Taemyr observes: "The fact that you have been blocked over using NPA as a weapon in previous conflicts is relevant."
For redundant emphasis in this context, the fact that Caspian blue has been blocked over using WP:NPA as a weapon is relevant in terms of a complaint that a sandbox is an attack page.
It is not a personal attack to write plainly that dealing with Caspian blue is difficult. Juggle these diffs is tedious, but I see no other way to address such posturing except one-by-one ... and them the process of re-assembling them in a coherent fashion is also complex. Isn't this the purpose for which sandboxes exist? --Tenmei (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the page User:Tenmei/Ichijō, it looks like it was a sandbox to help the user compile evidence for the RFAR. If so, I would expect it to be deleted after the evidence has been submitted. Tenmei, could you please explain why your subpage it is named "Ichijō" ?
John Vandenberg(chat)02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the draft material is intended for deletion after it is posted in a dispute resolution context, or when I understand it sufficiently well that I don't need to manipulate it graphically as I am doing on this specific page using formatting tools which are made available in the context of the English Wikipedia, e.g.,
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
{{col-end}}
As for my use of "Ichijō" ...:Emperor Ichijō is the name of one of the Japanese sovereigns. To a large extent, these figures existed very much apart from the issues of their day. In the semi-private context of User:Tenmei's sandboxes (which are either identified with names of Japanese emperors or minor Japanese islands), I'm replicating a peculiar structure -- a deliberate, self-conscious, counter-intuitive disjunction between label or title and the subject of my writing. I don't think this formatting strategy would serve any function with the royalty of other nations, but it makes sense in the unique Japanese context.
The subject matter of the sandbox is irrelevant in relationship to the name -- which is precisely the point I'm trying to develop in hopes of improving the way in which I handle the article about pre-Meijitennō and the nengō of their reigns. As an illustrative example, please consider the term dairi may refer to the building in which the Japanese Imperial family resided in the pre-Meiji periodImperial Palace, the women of the Imperial family (Kōkyū), the Imperial court of Japan, or an indirect (now archaic) way of referring to the Emperor himself.
If you were wondering about this non-standard practice as an expression of opprobrium -- no, not at all. I would have thought that there is no way for anyone to be offended by this page name, but perhaps it would have helpful if I had appended the explicit label of "sandbox"? Frankly, I hadn't imagined that this might be perceived as a plausible problem; but you also need to understand that this is the first time I've encountered a situation in which anyone expressed any interest in what I doing in any sandbox. --Tenmei (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing WP:Attack page includes a paragraph which is relevant here:
Attack pages may be inside or outside the main namespace. However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes (although these processes have their own guidelines for deletion of requests that are invalid or in bad faith). On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody.
If someone could please review this diff. I'm involved, so I can't perform any actions myself. In a nutshell, this user uploaded a bunch of images and licensed them for use on WP. This user has since attempted to "reclaim copyright" because he is unhappy about the way the images are being used. Oren0 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That diff alone doesn't contain any kind of legal threat, imo. Saying that it is a criminal offence is (as well as being wrong) not the same as saying he's planning to inform the police of your activities. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no legal threat made against you, I was very careful in the wording in that aspect. My comment was meant to point out that it is illegal for someone else to change the license on my work. This is to do with moral rights of copyrighted work, there is even a page on Wiki regarding that Moral rights (copyright law) with a section pertaining to Canada. As far as I know I did not agree to sign over the moral rights to my work when I uploaded the image. If I am wrong, and someone can provide evidence concerning my moral rights, then I will apologize and personally revert each image to where it was when I removed them. But until then I truly do believe that I have the right to reassert the copyright to my images. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was covered in another thread. You did, when you tagged the images as under a Creative Commons license, grant rights for the image to be freely used and copied. Yes, you retained moral rights such as attribution. However, the grant to use the images on Wikipedia is irrevocable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou C.Fred. Since I am obviously wrong in my reassertion then I apologize to all concerned. Further as I stated above I will now go and revert my reversions and return the pages to what they were. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please that although the licensing of contributions under the GFDL is irrevocable, there is precedent for allowing deletion of images at the uploader's request if a reasonable reason is given for the request. I don't know whether the uploader still would like to pursue that here, nor whether he has an appropriate reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated attempts are being made to provide misleading information about territorial changes of the Republic of China (ROC). Prior to the Chinese Civil War, the ROC did not control Taiwan. The Chinese Civil War lasted a long time, and near the end of the war the ROC acquired Taiwan from Japan. A few years later the ROC lost control of most of its territory and retreated to Taiwan. As some are aware, the status of Taiwan remains a matter of dispute, including a dispute as to whether Taiwan is part of China.
The Chinese Civil War article contains a section in the info box labeled "territorial changes". If that is interpreted to mean changes that occurred as a result of the Chinese Civil War, there is no reason to mention Taiwan as Taiwan was not acquired as a result of that war. If it is interpreted to mean changes that occurred during the Chinese Civil War, then it should be pointed out that Taiwan was acquired during that war.
However, there is a POV desire to make it look like Taiwan was always part of China in order to bolster claims for that POV today. So some of the editors are using misleading wording such as saying that the territorial change was the ROC was "reduced to" Taiwan or became "limited to" Taiwan. Both of these wordings carry a strong connotation that the ROC had originally controlled the area and lost everything else, keeping only section of their original territory.
All alternatives designed to avoid misleading the reader to achieve NPOV and have been rejected by a pair of editors. I believe administrative action is needed. One of the editors, Liu Tao, has shown a consistent pattern of disregarding the merits of other editors' discussions and have shown great comtempt for WP:V in articles such as Republic of China, TaiwanChiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang. Readin (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
– User causing most obvious disruption has been given a final warning and will be actively monitored. Nja24709:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has long had WP:BATTLEGROUND problems. Tonight User:Satyashodak reverted the article to an unknown earlier date, removing a significant number of sourced contributions by User:Mitsube and others. There was some reversion by Mitsube and Satyashodak. I reverted once and asked Satyashodak to reconsider here , and opened a section about reversions on the Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism page. There was some more reversion- 3rr may have been broken. Some personal attacks have been made. The immediate issue is a revert war over the content that was removed. The larger issue is that the article is a wreck- it's a battleground that draws a lot of attention from partisans from both sides, including the use of some fringe-y sources, a lot of OR, and a lot of reversions of good faith edits. I'm not sure what the larger action needs to be, but the article has eaten up a lot of editor time without producing a lot of improvement. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 3RR vio, and the personal attacks came from the same person. More detail on this at the edit warring noticeboard report: [186]. Mitsube (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As explained here, I have removed the dispute tag he's throwing out there. You need to have an active dispute, which he hasn't done (and a dispute that there should be a dispute tag doesn't count). I've also warned him here that he posts another comment about "Buddhist chauvinists", I've giving him a week off. He's been warned enough on his talk page to stop with the battleground nonsense and he needs to learn people are serious about it. If he cannot or will not explain his concerns in particular details, we move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has opened a drawer of socks
I've noticed these names roll by in fairly quick succession at the User Creation Log:
Given the similarity of interests (the second-to-last one may be an exception), it's pretty obvious that these are the same person. They don't seem to be doing anything malevolent as of the moment, but the fact that this brand-new person immediately went for AfD discussions, where he or she cited policy pages like he or she already knows the ropes, while at the same time turning out sock puppets, makes me a little uneasy. I must get some sleep, but can someone keep an eye on this? Thanks. --Dynaflowbabble09:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the obvious similarity of names I don't see much potential for attempting to usurp consensus or those other abuses of alternate accounts. I should think the most obvious area of potential disruption is if they are part of a social networking grouping. I think we can wait to see what happens, if anything, before deciding if there is a need for admin attention, LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at the contributions, they are going through each account in the order provided (pretty blatantly), all on the bilateral article AFDs (including breaking some links). I think people can guess which blocked-evading user this may be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is pretty clear. I'm not in the mood for encouraging this guy again by giving him what he wants. Could a checkuser put a stop to the nonsense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding my comments on my talkpage - yeah, it is howitzer time! If it is obvious who the original account is, I don't think we need a CU to confirm. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user edited a sockpuppet investigation that has been closed and archived, and s/he admitted in another edit to being a block-evading sockpuppet. Would someone check my block, maybe fix the template I used on the talk page (there's probably a better one), and reopen the sockpuppetry case if appropriate? I don't have time to do anymore now. LadyofShalott13:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current 211.28.47.151 Ip’s contributions limited to reverts of various editors [187][188][189] and deletion of academic info without any justification [190][191]. Following this IPs and its all reincarnations is tiresome especially then IP refuses to engaged in discussions [192][193] etc.
Basically, IP's (203.56.87.254) all current "contributions" limited for eliminating Lithuanian names [194] (identical practice which was done by previous two IPs)
Don't know what to make of it: a whole slew of (mostly) SPAs have been creating new pages with edit summaries that end with "(Nonsense movies?)". Some of the entries are dubious, but none look like out-and-out vandalism. It's just... weird.
A sampling of the user names that have come up in the unpatrolled new page log:
And, erm, I just discovered the tagging function. In the software. What does the tagging. To include things like "(Nonsense movies?)" Move along, move along, nothing to see here except me missing the obvious. 9Nak (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied one, prodded another, AfDd a third. This one looks as though it might be OK (though it is currently an unreferenced BLP and needs sources), and my knowledge doesn't stretch to working out whether this one is notable, redundant or anything else - needs someone who's familiar with the subject. Black Kite15:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
01:19, 7 April 2009: "2 IP users came and fucked it all up and demanded everyone specify every little problem that is wrong"
21:29, 6 April 2009: "I had to deal with some idiot IP address who wouldn't stop deleting/moving around and fucking up the article with fluff and irrelevant facts, ultimately forcing myself to leave. "
22:28, 6 April 2009: "I make one edit, it's reverted, replaced with b.s and/or fluff, then dozens of more edits make it impossible to insert the original sentence save from reverting back to my (or whoever else) version."
I have done my best to ignore this, but now Wikifan12345 (talk·contribs) has further followed my edits to Freedom House. He had not edited the article in two years and then showed up to revert my edits:
This concerns me because as he acknowledged it could be considered "hounding". I edit a very small subset of articles. I edit this article, and he then suddenly show up on the page reverting my edits, specifically after I asked him not to and while there is a mediation ongoing at Mohamed ElBaradei.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stuck
Resolved
Done See here. Ronnotel (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
