Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Wikifan12345's personal attacks on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009

There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue.

Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion.

Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews."

Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. Factsontheground (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and that is just a sample. History of edits at 2009.

• The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an Al-Qaeda cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D

• Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research.

• Even after I posted the source and copied/pasted direct text, he still denies the sources referred to the incidents as acts of terrorism. Then he whipped out the civility card when I called him on it.

Real mature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. Awickert (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Wikipedia works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on.

You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me.

Factsontheground (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference [states http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244371116416]. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish.

Also, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop.

So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". Factsontheground (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. IronDuke 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of WP:NPA. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new apparently

I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.PelleSmith (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution.

I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at Israel and the apartheid analogy with little warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case. It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been suggested more than once that there should be an WP:RFC/U on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345). Based on the history at ANI, and his block log, and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Uh?

• A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal.

• B) None of these users except for FOTG are involved in the List of terrorist incidents, 2009 except for R2 who came much later.

• C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above.

• D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where here I just discovered that today..

• I also submitted an ANI on FOTG with similar complaints regarding his approach to the article. To say this ANI is genuinely about behavior is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

I suggest a speedy close and returning back to the content dispute at the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute? If you truly believe that version I strongly suggest mentorship at the very least because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore intolerable. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) Awickert (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more uninvolved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as unaware. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural deductive reasoning that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal mentorship

I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to find support for your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to WP:NPA and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; someone has to do something!) Awickert (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for Julia Set so that it's less hopeless. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR without other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part. Repetitive arguments which usually amount to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting. Complete disruption and a total time drain.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly constructive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan's thoughts here read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, more correct: here -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a bandwagon. Take me away I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan wrote: Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.". Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, FOTG is manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. He unilaterally warred out almost every incident about Israel and Jews, even those that were clearly of terrorist-nature. And when I restored what I perceived to be vandalism or premature deletion, and ask that he provide a thorough reasoning for his wholesale deletion, he accused me of being troll, pov warrior, etc...etc...etc. This is consistent with his behavior in other articles. So fishing for diffs that users might interpret the wrong way if they aren't fully aware of the discussion is suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan: no one is to be accused of anti-Semitism freely. You wrote the offensife line. Go away. (To be clear: why do editors and even admins here always end up: second chance? After ten?) -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality. I'm sorry if that's "out of line." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "manically obsessed" (with whatever). That's a disqualification beforehand. Then do not start reasoning afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if Wikifan wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship, the piling-on, especially by editors who have diametrically opposed POVs to Wikifan's, should stop now. IronDuke 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense IronDuke but this does not in any way sound like someone who "wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship." And then there is the fact that a fair amount of the commentators above also don't believe mentorship is going to solve the problem. Wikifan's own attitude only makes one wonder if they aren't correct.PelleSmith (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with that post. I don't see how users who are active in on-going disputes (such as Pelle and R2), some of the disputes which have ended up pouring into noticeboards (OR noticeboard, edit-warring noticeboard, etiquette, etc...submitted by both Pelle and myself) should be allowed such a strong voice. I am very open to some kind of mentorship, but from my POV I'd say users like FOTG are in much dire need of assistance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"nothing inherently wrong" with your post??? You still don't get it. Your posts are wrong. Just stop insulting editors, and from there you may talk. Maybe other too -- but stop it yourself. Not a "strong voice", insulting is what I say. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing an editors edits is not insulting. It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. You aren't recognizing or even remotely addressing the actions of FOTG, for good reason perhaps.

No, criticizing is not insulting. Stating "manic obsession" is insulting, and personal only, and not relevant to the article at all. Drop it. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming from someone who believes that the Israel-Palestinian articles on wikipedia are dominated by a cabal of "organised, agendised Hasbara." FOTG has a manic obsession and whether or not you misconstrue that as "insulting" is of no importance. He has major issues and it is seen in his mindless reverting of everything remotely Israel. He follows me to articles I work on and reverts my edits, and then harasses me on those articles. So please, who is the victim here? I'm trying to be as cordial as I can be but FOTG has been given a free pass for far to long. And then posting an ANI to save face, well...that's not unique for wiipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No one can speak from experience about your behavior unless they have witnessed it. Isn't it odd that while many such editors think this behavior is a problem no one has come here to say that they are wrong and that you have been behaving as a reasonable Wikipedian? The closest thing to support from a third party here has been "be fair and look at the other guy's behavior too," or "OK already Wikifan says he's willing to accept mentorship." Despite this you continually act like the real problem is with the supposed "cabal" of editors whose are only related to each other because of their negative interactions with you. Meanwhile people become less and less inclined to believe you will be able to change your ways at all. Keep it up.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, I lodged an edit-war report against you when you started owning CAIR (and ownership that has been confirmed by other users). I also posted a noticeboard incident requesting a fact-check on how you continually edited-out all my additions with "original research" when the content was thoroughly cited. I don't see why I should have to sit here and be lectured by editors who have a compromising history. I'm open to mentorship, but dismiss all of this bandwagoning as pure harassment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And your numerous disruptive reports at various noticeboards resulted in what exactly? Must be a cabal at work.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OR inquire was never responded because you hijacked it, and the edit-warring ANI should have succeeded but as several users confirmed, its lack of response can be sourced from the personal feelings of the over-seeing admin. This ANI is the poster child for disruption. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, can I ask you, just for the next few posts, not to focus at all on other editors, but only on yourself? Is there anything you feel you have done inappropriately in the course of editing Wikipedia, either in terms of the way you handle content, or the way you interact with others? Where do you feel you could have done better? Which issues do you feel a mentor could usefully help you with? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, like every user on Wikipedia. A mentor could help me navigate through Wikipedia bureaucracy, as many editors are very skilled at doing. Avoiding blocks, relying on civil POV-pushing, moving content disputes to ANIs, etc..etc. SlimVirgin, remember when you edit-warred at 1948 Palestinian exodus, removed all my additions, and threatened to send me to ArbComb if I don't heed to your demands? Then I was blocked for a week after I unknowingly reversed your reverts when you submitted an edit-war report. That was a carefully crafted strategy and I've watched many users do it to each other, and it's rather depressing. But to answer your question with all sincerity, I would hope a mentor could help me cite policy in-talk more competently. Maybe carve a slightly better tactful approach to discussion, even in the midst of heated and hostile debate. Normal stuff I guess. It's difficult to assess myself under the current circumstances and what I consider to be an extremely bad faith ANI. If this were closed, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussion mentorship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship won't work if you won't take responsibility for anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread increasingly illustrates why 1RR probably won't work, and why a WP:RFC/U is needed (that structure would discussion room to breathe, without Wikifan responding to every comment by attacking somebody (generally the author)). Rd232 ^talk 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't noticed this ANI has nothing to do with edit-warring, so hats to ya. Second, this bandwagon, a bandwagon started by a certified-troll as demonstrated in his approach @ the pertinent article and wikihounding - started the ANI. I'm more than open to mentorship etc. but you are asking for blood in a bad-faith and unfair circumstances. If you dismiss my assessments of this forum as "attacking" well okay. Also, for accuracies sake, the title should be changed to, "Reasons why Wikifan needs to go." Otherwise, the current charter is, for the most part, largely false.

Cliffnotes: FOTG made a dubious claim of personal attacks, but sifting through the discussion you will find just the opposite. Anyways, commence banishment! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If y'all need a totally uninvolved, experienced user for a mentorship, I'd be happy to help out. I only stumbled upon this conversation because I can't sleep and have no prior dealings with Israel related articles or any of the editors involved here. I do have experience dealing with conflict in my own areas of interest. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on WP long enough to act as a mentor. However, if Wikifan needs an open ear he should know that he can call on me to provide a comment at any time and I will do my best to be as helpful as possible.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

More Uninvolved Admins

While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at Council on American-Islamic Relations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. IronDuke 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A general comment

At the risk of straying from the immediate problem, I would like to point out that the kind of vicious conflicts we see here are inherent in the way the Wikipedia is edited and the way the Five Pillars are interpreted in conflict areas. This is a clear case of narrative war, with each side incapable of seeing neutrality as defined by the other side. In the Middle East, there is no neutral point of view.

What is more, the word "terrorism" is editorial wherever it appears. That a reliable source refers to an incident as terrorism does not make it so. Reliable sources have POVs just like everyone else.

Because of the way NPOV and RS are applied in Middle East articles, conflict of this type is inevitable. The warring parties are not to blame. The system is to blame.

To avoid these conflicts, then, requires a radical rethinking of how to apply the five pillars in conflict situations. I suggested such an approach in User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, and would love to see a serious attempt to experiment with the ideas proposed there. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All due respect Ravpapa, when the same user is having the same problems over and over it no longer is just "the system". Now Wikifan will likely say I am only here because of content disputes with him, but I do not plan on arguing for his banning. But a bit of history should be made clear. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534#User:Wikifan12345, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33#User:Wikifan12345_and_User:Brewcrewer, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Wikifan12345, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Some_wikihounding_going_on. Above he pretty much says he would like a mentor to teach him how to wikilaywer more effectively, I think that would be a disaster. What he needs is to keep from writing anything about others motives or beliefs. It really is that simple, if he does not keep trying to call others "manically obsessed with Jews" or "antisemites" or other such insults he would not be here over and over. I have no idea about FOTG, I didnt look at the talkpage in question. But WF needs to do one of 2 things at this point. Either stop making such allegations to other users, or provide some actual evidence of racist editing. One of the two editors should be blocked, either for editing in an antisemitic manner or for making repeated false accusations of antisemitism. But wikifan cannot be allowed to continue saying these things without proving them. nableezy - 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All due respect Nableezy, it is pretty obvious that most if not all the editors speaking up against Wikifan are very active pro-Palestinian editors. Ravpapa has a very good point about the system not working well when you have a content/narrative war like in IP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have content/narrative disagreements/wars with a lot of people, but it doesn't lead to ANI. There is a pattern of consistent personal attacks and bad faith assumptions peppering most of Wikifan's talk page commentary, and an inability to acknowledge its problematic. People shouldn't be asked to overlook that because there's a raging ethnic conflict in the background. Tiamut^talk 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Without talking about Wikifan specifically, it's pretty obvious that in this kind of dispute most of the people pushing for sanctions are those on the other side of the content/narrative war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually what's pretty obvious is that even those who share Wikifan's views can't defend his behaviour; and can only defend him by attacking the motives of others and generally deflect away from the issue of Wikifan's behaviour. Rd232 ^talk 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But this thread is "about Wikifan specifically" and not about some general IP narrative war (which I take no part in personally btw). So why are people incapable of speaking specifically in defense of Wikifan's behavior as opposed to simply trying to deflect the discussion? To reiterate Tiamut's point, major disagreements, some of which are very deep and very old, are an everyday reality here at Wikipedia but they usually don't end up at AN/I. When they do there is almost always a behavior problem that goes beyond content disputes -- whether the problem is with the person being grilled or conversely with the person abusing the noticeboards (or both). Either way, a discussion here signals something beyond a content dispute.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't take part in IP but you didn't arrive here clean of prejudice, did you? Anyway, Ravpapa made a general comment (see section header) and I was addressing that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, this ANI was posted by a textbook troll who warred out every incident he didn't like and when I called him on it, he went on and on and on about how I'm an agent of Zion. Seriously? Now FOTG has been hounding me at BBC and Human Rights Watch, and a couple other articles warring out all my edits with little reasoning. And now an ANI? No editor has recognized this. I said FOTG was manically obsessed with Jews and Israel several times - I meant it and it wasn't an attack but simply an accurate assessment of his editing approach. He removed 9+ incidents exclusively about Jews, reverted anyone who dared touch his edits, and then started a nice long dispute about how we should re-define what is a terrorist incident to exclude Israel. Yes I'm obviously partial here but he came off extremely combative and very, very offensive. I posted an ANI but it was assessed as a content dispute and not a behavioral problem. It's not like FOTG has been the nicest editor to ever exist. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't get to decide what is or isn't attack. Calling someone manically possessed is a comment on the editor, not the editing. If they have a problem with it, you have offended them. Of course, "textbook troll" is much more clean-cut. Like before, I'm not saying that FOTG's hands are clean either, but you are certainly digging yourself into a pit. If you can leave diffs below (I made a space), perhaps this can go ahead with more sanity, and we can stop being "unaware" and start dealing with the full issue. Awickert (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay? Have you read through the talk discussion and looked the page history? He raided the article, maliciously axed out almost everything Jewish/Israel, warred any further attempts to add similar incidents, created long disputes that had little to no relevance, and accused me of being a member of the pro-Israel lobby, POV-pusher, troll, etc. He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive. If I were to go into Islam and remove every mention of "Mohamed," I'd expect a similar, or perhaps even violent reaction. So I sincerely apologize if I was out of line and will make an effort to be more tactful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comments were not meant as a defense or excuse for Wikifan. People need to take responsibility for their actions. I was only pointing out that where there is a leaky pipe, there is wood rot. You can cut out and replace the wood, but if you want to really stop the rot, you need to fix the pipe. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think Wikipedia should recognize that regular sources are not so reliable when it comes to this conflict. So, one can impose a restriction on the type of sources that can be admitted. E.g. one could decide that only peer reviewed academic articles written by historians can be used as a source. Count Iblis (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins please comment

Uninvolved admins please comment on what sanctions may be appropriate.

OK, I've had enough. It's not enough that no-one is willing to defend Wikifan's behaviour, which encompasses comments such as "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Now Wikifan's continuing attempt to derail this ANI discussion by attacking others and doing everything except discussing his own behaviour (eg insisting that this discussion I hatted is constructive) demonstrates such a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour that it makes me believe that a substantial sanction is required. I find it hard to believe that mentoring will be successful. I find it hard to believe that 1RR (which somebody proposed) will achieve anything either. Frankly, I'm rapidly reaching the view that Wikipedia - certainly on topics where Wikifan cannot play well with others - is simply better off without this particular 14-year old (User:Wikifan12345/About). Disclosure: I've had previous run-ins with Wikifan and we also have opposing views. Rd232 ^talk 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We have to try mentorship or 1RR (or a combination) first. If that fails then we can raise that here again. If a 1RR or 0RR is imposed, then Wikifan will know that the only way he can edit wikipedia is by cooporating with other editors. If Wikifan insults someone, then he'll only hurt himself. So, there is no need to make a lot of fuss about that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism. So I guess that settles it? This certainly isn't an attempt to remove an editor you are currently in a content dispute with at not 1, but 2 articles. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, I only reverted one edit to the BBC article by you a few days ago. I checked your recents edits to get an idea of the nature of the dispute and I saw an edit to the BBC article which had been vanadalized by an anon (not you). I also saw that your edit was problematic and I reverted that too because it gave far too much weight to a minor argument about Hamas.

Now, I don't care much about the wiki articles on Israel/Palestine anymore (I was involved there until 2 years ago), because they are not reliable anyway. So, I was not going to revert other edits by you that I found problematic. But I found to be BBC case to be different because I think the wiki article on BBC has more value than the Israeli/Palestinian articles. I stuck to one revert which more or less reverted to the consensus reached on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

CountIblis: The WP:NPA policy clearly states that nobody should have to put up with being insulted and vilified on Wikipedia. Wikifan12345's continual attacks against me have not only derailed discussions that I've been involved with, they have soured my whole experience of Wikipedia. So, no, Wikifan12345 _is_ hurting other people than himself as he continues his campaign of harassment. And, no, 1RR or mentorship is not nearly enough, particularly as he fails to admit he has done anything wrong and seems to think that being mentored is just an opportunity to improve his wikilawyering skills. Factsontheground (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs

I would like to invite Wikifan and FOTG to place various annotated diffs that they find problematic in an orderly manner below. Having the two involved editors line up their complaints seems like the most straightforward way to comprehensively deal with the issue. Having the diffs lined up will also make it easier for uninvolved editors to comment comprehensively. Awickert (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so we are supposed to sift through the bloated talk discussion and post questionable diffs like this is a courtroom? This is must be a trap. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is a way for us to actually come to a decision instead of being "unaware" or not seeing the big picture. This is me giving you the benefit of the doubt that there are things that FOTG did that were out of line before, that caused your uncivil reaction. Or, we can go the RfC route where the posting of diffs is formalized. Your choice. But for now, if the involved editors are not willing to put the work in to present their case, I don't see why anyone else should waste their time here. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Okay I've just seen this before and competing editors end up enumerating every diff to demonstrate cause of action. Diff's themselves can take issues out of context. I'm not on trial here Awickert, and as I've said the motivations for this ANI were bad and the context was abhorrent. I won't be on wikipedia for the next 3-5 days for travel-reasons but I'll try to sneak in intermittently. thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks on User:Factsontheground by User:Wikifan12345 -- can an uninvolved admin please comment on this or take action

• [1] "all of his reverts revolved around Israel and Jews."..."The fact the FOTG edits were blatant vandalism and now he gets to dictate the rubric of terrorism is truly disturbing."

• [2] FOTG's wild deletion of every Jew/Israel incident under false summaries, and then refusing to concede after I copied and pasted the references that explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. It was a gross abuse of editing privileges and to target all things Jewish is doubly offensive.

• [3] This is all totally irrelevant is avoiding the true fact that FOTG viciously and obsessively edited out ALL incidents on Israel and Jews with the same basic summary, 5 of which have proven to be false. The fact that he totally wiped out incidents because a source was dead instead of simply finding a new one proves this has little to do with terrorism and everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel.

• [4] It is offensive that you targeted strictly Jewish-related incidents.

• [5] Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV

• [6] Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.

• [7] FOTG aim was to remove everything Israel and Jewish, he doesn't give less of a #$#$@ about the terrorist rubric. Don't be an apologist for such a hateful user.

• [8] What FOTG has does defies logic

• [9] The discussion began because an obvious vandal decided to remove cited information and force a dispute.

• [10] So edit-warring out everything Jewish and Israel is totally cool and does not warrant administrator intervention. I guess antisemitism is protected then, sweet.

• [11] It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users.

• [12] Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality

• [13] It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda.

another one on this noticeboard - "certified troll" [14] untwirl(talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• [15] He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive.

Both blocked for a week

I invite uninvolved admin review, but I have just blocked both Wikifan12345 and Factsontheground for 1 week. The specific issues are:

• Mutual stalking and harrassment on multiple wiki pages
• Disruption on ANI
• Both accounts are single purpose accounts
• Miscellaneous incivility

I do not propose to include diffs; the thread above and the article talk pages referenced stand full of examples.

I would like to request independent review on 2 separate points:

1. Is the current block of each party appropriate.
2. Is the indefinite block penalty for disruptive SPAs appropriate, i.e. should we community ban these two at this point.

Thanks for any comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Factsontheground is asking for a block review. Uninvolved admin should take a look at this and his request... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why parity was applied to the sanctions here. I don't see parity in the community's complaints and levels of frustration with these two users. I also believe that someone other than Georgewilliamherbert should have done the blocking. George forshadowed FOTG's COI complaint himself during this very discussion. Don't get me wrong sanctions should have been applied to both of them (perhaps not blocks of equal lengths of time), but they should have been applied by someone else.PelleSmith (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not supposed to gain advantage in a content dispute by admin actions - I am opposed to one of Factsontheground's policy positions on the one article this is focused around, but I have left multiple behavioral warnings for Wikifan12345. I commented on the policy dispute as an uninvolved admin and have not taken any admin or content actions on the article, and won't now.

Having been tangled up in trying to unwrap a multiparty dispute does not disqualify one from blocking party or parties to that dispute... Often, admins have to get somewhat involved to try and untangle incidents. That doesn't mean that we can't issue warnings or block once we start to get involved. If it is a content issue, or someone we have a personal disagreement with, we should stand aside for more uninvolved admins, but neither of those is in play here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Following up PelleSmith's note about my comment above ( [16] ) more specifically - yes, I stood back from the behavioral issues over the weekend, because I had been involved in a content issue on a page with these two users. But there's a difference between "attempting to find a policy resolution for a content issue" and "trying to change content / edit a page with content specific point of view". Admins involved in the first don't have to recuse from admin enforcement - admins involved in the second have at least the apparent conflict of interest between neutrality and their content issues. I have not ever edited the article in question or related articles, and in the underlying issue (Israeli - Palestinean on-wiki conflicts) I remain an equal opportunity policy enforcer.

It's fair to ask about this - And I'm open to input if other admins strongly object - but I do not believe that I violated policy. Wikifan12345 is behaviorally a worse offender here and at least marginally worse on the article page. Both sides are clearly harrassing each other way in excess of policy, now. Factsontheground has been better at staying lower profile and more civil but has also poked in and provoked some responses; we have a more active interpretation of baiting behavior than we used to, and I believe that some of his actions fall under that.

Perhaps there's less than perfect symmetry to the provocations; if anyone wants to discuss reductions from the equal blocks, and believes that one side is significantly less at fault, feel free to propose it here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear I am not saying you violated policy. I simply think after making the comment I linked to above you should have stepped back. It also looks like your block only accounts for their incivility towards one another on the talk page of the entry you involved yourself in and not the volumes of text about Wikifan produced once discussion started. You could have blocked them both prior to this discussion for been incivil to one another on the talk page and spared us all this discussion. But now that we've spent days discussing Wikifan's history of problems, and several editors are calling for much harsher remedies this doesn't seem like a very appropriate solution anymore. That's just my opinion.PelleSmith (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As another user who has had problems with Wikifan, I would note that a fair number of administrators who have problems with him were once 'uninvolved administrators'. For example, Rd232 replied on Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei as an uninvolved admin and another uninvolved mediator was chased off by Wikifan. As with most of Wikifan's editing, the article went through an RfC, noticeboards, a third opinion, and an informal mediation. The result was a deadlock with Wikifan dissenting. How many uninvolved administrators does it take, and what happens when there simply aren't any left? Why does he have a problem with so many editors, let alone administrators?

In the interest of disclosure, I have interacted with Wikifan before, so my opinion may be completely tarnished.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• My one interaction with Wikifan [17] indicated that he had problems at working collegially. I'd say that his block should be longer than FOTGs here purely for the volume and quantity of incivility, but others may disagree (and no doubt will). I would suggest unblocking FOTG at this point; however I am not going to do it myself as I am going on holiday now and it wouldn't be the best idea to reverse another admin's block and then run away. Black Kite 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i have avoided adding my two cents here, but seeing the repeated personal attacks by wikifan on this noticeboard (with no provocation or response in kind by fotg) forced my hand. when i saw that he called fotg a "certified troll" and no one batted an eye, i looked at the article talk page in question. not only did i not see more incivility by wikifan, i noted that fotg backed out of that conversation early on. unless the blocking admin provides diffs of fotg's offenses, i agree that he should be unblocked.
as for wikifan, his baiting, personal attacks, and tendentious wikilawyering were unacceptable. as a shining example, view this diff posted while this ani was in progress,where he responds to seanhoyland with drama-inducing hyperbole: "Whether you think the standard for terrorism is pioneer UAVs blowin up Taliban hideouts in West Pakistan or Jew Nazis blowin up Palestinians fetus's is of little relevance." sean wisely ignored it, but this editor should probably be topic banned at least if he cant keep his emotions under control. untwirl(talk) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikifan12345 at or near the threshold for a community ban at this point? Does anyone feel that he or she would be productive in other areas with a topic ban on Israeli / Palestinean topics? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At or near? Well beyond, IMHO. However, a topicban from I/P issues would, given Wikifan's ...narrow... focus, essentially be a community ban anyway. That being said, it would give him a chance to redeem himself. I think we'd be on a hiding to nothing there, and the community would best be served by giving him a permanent invitation to the world, but people around here tend to prefer endless last chances. I guess basically a topicban would show whether this is a problem with Wikifan, or a problem with Wikifan+I/P. → ROUX ₪ 19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support a 6 month topic ban from Israel/Palestine related articles. I think Wikifan might be more amenable to collaboration on articles not so close to heart. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the diffs presented in this dispute, it's clear this was a conflict over a well-known point (for the fun of it, I typed in WP:TERRORIST, & guess what I found!) that spiraled out of control. I can understand why FOTG was removing the word, & why Wikifan was insisting on restoring it -- but "terrorist" is one of those words that should only be used in very clear situations: as part of a quotation, or only where all parties concerned have agreed on a clear definition of the word. But to do this all parties have to talk to each other, not at each other or past each other. If you can't talk to someone you disagree with (& is otherwise an editor in good standing) about an issue, then walk away from that issue for a while; if you can't walk away either, then you're taking those first steps towards getting banned from Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Although I agree with much of the foregoing, the policing and sanctions for breach of WP:CIVIL by individuals is inconsistent at best and unenforceable at worst. You sysops' inability to arrive at the same conclusion on two very similar cases (see below) perpetuates the perceived problems in the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345

I propose that we enact the following, note on Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions and enforce as a community ban:

User:Wikifan12345 is prohibited from editing any article or article talk page related to Israel, the Palestinean territories, or nearby Arab countries, broadly construed, for the remainder of the 2009 calendar year. If violations occur any administrator may block immediately for a month, with escalating blocks for repeat offenses.

• Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Community sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per my comments above and with a caveat. Namely that this will amount to a de facto community ban given his specific focus, but hopefully this will give him a chance to change. The caveat being if the same behaviour continues at non-I/P articles, this topicban be immediately changed to a permanent community ban that can be revisited in one year by appeal to ArbCom or its designate (if the Appeal Committee thing takes off). → ROUX ₪ 03:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question Would it be possible to amend the language to say something like "related to Israeli political interests broadly construed" or something else of that nature. I ask this because my own run-ins with this editor were at two entries related to the Council for American-Islamic Relations which I am not sure are directly covered by the above language. To Wikifan these entries do relate to the problem area of editing since he (and others) consider CAIR to be part of the "Anti-Israel lobby of the United States". If people think the existing language would cover entries such as these then that works for me. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Anything related to Israel, includes Israeli political interests (and if they existed, Anti-Israeli articles). Ncmvocalist (talk)`
    • Thanks for the answer and for inserting "broadly construed". This seems like a fair remedy at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Kevin (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support This proposal, unfortunately, does not surprise me at all. Wikifan seems quite prone to make inappropriate slights about Arabs and accuse others of anti-semitism to support his points (e.g. [18], [19],[20]). Add the information from his recent Wikiquette alert and it's quite clear this area of Wikipedia would be better off without Wikifan's involvement. -- tariqabjotu 06:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Wikifan12345 has sometimes behaved clumsily, no doubt. However, note that there are editors with an anti-Israel agenda who try to insert the most outrageous tendentious things into articles. They are very careful to stay clear of the bounds of WP's silly civility rules but beaver away tirelessly with apparently limitless time on their hands. Then when an editor blows up at them they immediately run to an admin asking for sanctions to be imposed. Please keep this in mind also. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know there are people who edit in this area with an agenda, but that's really not the issue at hand here. Wikifan is, regardless, responsible for his actions, but in basically all of the situations mentioned here, he wasn't even provoked. -- tariqabjotu 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Wikifan has much to learn about following the spirit and letter of WP policy, which he is much more likely to on less difficult subjects less close to his heart. If nothing else, it'll give him a chance to live up to his username. Rd232 ^talk 08:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I've held my tongue (actually finger I guess) for too long. It's not really his edits that I'm particularly worried about, but the very uncivil talk page interactions he undertakes and his general behavior on Wikipedia, despite numerous warnings. I think only a topic ban could finally settle this issue which is constantly(and annoyingly) surfacing on this noticeboard. Maybe after its expiration, he will change his attitude here. However, I prefer the topic ban to be limited to I-P issues versus anything that has to do with Israel (he might be able to contribute positively there). --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be helpful, shifting focus from I/P to Israel. In fact it would probably be better if he stayed away from political topics altogether, at least for a while, but that's up to him. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alternative. I have read over the debate. Wikifan blew up pretty quickly. IMO editing Wikipedia is a privilege that anyone should be able to have, but if one can't treat others with respect and instead causes drama, granting that privilege is counterproductive to the primary task of creating an encyclopedia. I would support a topic ban, not of a year, but indefinitely, until Wikifan decides to behave civilly. I would then support any re-ban if after declaring he will behave civilly, Wikifan behaves in an obviously uncivil way. Awickert (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  If Wikifan shows that he can't play well with others on other topics, the topic ban should just become a general indef ban. The topic ban is his chance to learn and if it seems that he's learned, then it's fair he gets another chance. A simple declaration under duress is worth little. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  If you're saying that if he plays well with others, his year-long topic ban may be reviewed and removed, then it is close enough to what I'm thinking that I will support. As for the "simple declaration": yes, I am the optimist, but I understand. Awickert (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - battleground mentality. PhilKnight (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - prying yet another warrior from the battlefield of the I-P topic area can only be a good thing. Let's see if he can find an area of interest to devote legitimate editing to. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - everybody does realize that any uninvolved admin can impose this sanction, per WP:ARBPIA, right? This straw poll really is not needed. As somebody who has had heated arguments with Wikifan I wont comment on the proposal, but this (the poll) seems like a waste of time. nableezy - 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Nableezy, there's a possibility the scope of this ban is slightly wider than a WP:ARBPIA topic ban, however I think you're probably right. Regardless, the result is essentially the same. After this ban is enacted, I'll put a note in the WP:ARBPIA log . PhilKnight (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, Nableezy isn't quite right. The difference is this. When an individual admin imposes a sanction under ARBPIA, appeals can go to either an individual admin, AE or ArbCom. For the sanction imposed here, appeals can only go to the community (either here or WP:AN), or ArbCom (though they'd be expected to bring it back here anyway, in light of the fact this sanction was not imposed under the ArbCom remedy, despite its existence). Effectively, this sanction should be logged at WP:RESTRICT - not at ARBPIA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see. Thanks for the clarification. But an admin could impose the same restriction, but the appeal process would be different, right? nableezy - 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. To clarify, even if it's the same sanction, this one would run concurrently to the one imposed under ARBPIA. That is, even if the appeal was accepted by the imposing admin who used ARBPIA, another appeal would need to be heard by the community before the effect of the restriction can be lifted. Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• As much as anything else that happens here, thanks :) nableezy - 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Having decided that his behavior so far was unacceptable, we need to give Wikifan a chance to collaborate in an acceptable way. If you impose a topic ban right away for the rest of the year, then when it has expired, he won't have learned how to behave correctly (keep in mind that Wikifan is just 14 years old...). I think it would be far better to appoint a mentor who will watch over Wikifan's edits. Every time he violates, even in a very mild way, basic decency rules, he'll get strong warning. If the mentor concluced that Wikifan is not learning from these warnings, then a topic ban would be appropriate. Count Iblis (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All we know is that he claims to be 14, but age should not be a factor here regardless. He was blocked for personal attacks and harassment soon after joining the project and once again about half a year later. I'm sure he's had numerous warnings along the road as well. He either knows the rules and is defying them, knows the rules and can't help himself, or sincerely has no idea he's doing anything wrong, in which case there is little hope. People who sincerely believe he can be reformed should work with him during his ban as informal mentors. That way, if they are right, he wont take his second chance for granted.PelleSmith (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, would you like to be his mentor? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to AGF about the claimed age? If not, then the fact that he is so young is grounds for more optimism about him than some of the martyrs such as Malcolm Shosha and Jayjg he has recorded on his page. They were adults and should have known better. He is still at an age where people are learning about how to behave in society. Of course, one fo the first actions of a mentor will need to be to try to get him to understand why they, (let alone Tundrabuggy,) were not hard done by. If there is a mentor found then I think that the issue of a topic ban should be left in their hands. I would see learnign how to post to IP articles in a constructive way as part of what his being in mentorship would be about. Selective supervised posting to a small number of pages might be part of that.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Malcolm Schoscha and Jayjg were in fact "hard done by". Gwen Gale was gunning for Malcolm with a vengeance and would not stop, despite admonitions from senior admins, until she could do the victory dance on his skull. The weak-willed Arbcom caved to a slur&innuendo campaign (on Wikipedia Review) against Jayjg. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a temporary topic ban and a formal mentorship during this time to help him develop?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, with disclaimer – I've been in a conflict dispute with this user; specifically, over the article 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza. He seemed to adopt a battleground mentality in discussion, and was fiercely defensive of the content he was trying to insert. He had an obvious intention to push a view, and the article has been problematic ever since. This behavior is apparently part of a pattern. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ban sounds reasonable. For those saying "no, wait, let's mentor", this suggestion doesn't make much sense. If someone wants to mentor, sure, they can go right ahead, but this needs to be done concurrent with a topic ban, not instead of a topic ban. We're primarily a project to write an encyclopedia, not a project to teach children to write an encyclopedia. Teaching is nice but content comes first. Friday (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As usual, Friday is the hammer hitting the nail on the head. → ROUX ₪ 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment per nableezy. Is this really a vote? Very peculiar here how so many editors with opposing views of WF125 have showed up to annihilate him. Was this discussion published somewhere or canvassing done to verify his destruction? --85.250.122.62 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a cabal! Or perhaps he has been disruptive to a larger segment of the community for an extended period of time across multiple noticeboards?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly suffers from a battleground mentality; it would be better all round if he was given an involuntary "leave of absence" from this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note - This discussion has reached the mandated 48 hr time period, any uninvolved admin can now review and close, taking both the comments here and the transcluded section below into account, etc. We aren't mandated to close immediately after 48 hrs or anything, if people feel more discussion will help feel free to leave it open for now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

(Something went wrong when I posted this below, it now appears on wikifans talk page, but not here, so I'm posting this again here.)

Why not let Wikifan edit the articles on Israel/Palestine on one day of the week only? This will cause him to make edits that he thinks will stick without him being around to "protect" his edits. So, edit warring, being uncivil etc. etc. would be pointless and counterproductive. The days he can post on would be some fixed day chosen by wikifan, say, Saturday and the times are fixed in a 24 hour interval. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Creative. And then he would be able to sandbox all he wanted in his userspace, right? I'm not sure what he'd think of it though. Awickert (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment section from Talk:Wikifan12345

This section is set up to allow Wikifan12345 to comment on the ANI discussion while blocked, per his request, and is transcluded from a subsection of his user talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I made this for you.

WTF

I editing rarely so did notice your predicament until right now. How did a sock puppet get to you? --Shuki (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sol Goldstone filed the last successful AE that ended in a timed topic ban and he/she ended up being a sockpuppet though I was unaware until months later. I'm quite certain Jim Sukwutput is not a sock puppet. Like Cptnono said I was "asking for trouble." I'm just glad my last contribution to the area of conflict was a self-revert. A timely edit. Thanks for the message Shuki. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Just popped in to see what's going on and saw this. Time off might not be such a bad thing. Everyone needs a break. In the meantime, edit productively in other subject areas. I’ve always thought highly of you as an editor. Would be a shame to lose such a valuable contributor. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the two up above. You got screwed even though you were asking for trouble. I still think that second revert was borderline but hopefully strict enforcement on you will set a precedent (oh wait, it isn't since Supreme Deliciousness is still editing). But I have already sent you an email so you know that I think it doesn't matter. I don't support Israel in all things but I know that they will win off Wikipedia and that is what matters. Maybe they shouldn't but they will. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And I have requested an enforced break for myself. I simply am bored of this. After seeing a good game, having some drinks, or even getting some pussy I find myself coming on here and yelling at Arabs. It isn't healthy. Screw it. They don't need us. They will still be stuck and I personally get a kick out of it.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Suits low resolution logo cropped.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Suits low resolution logo cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider

Please consider the impression given by comments such as this: Wikipedia does not have a country of its own. If you mean that it is a big shift "where you are", then say that. Kevin McE (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from the source, not my voice. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Bazonka's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sudan-Iran relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gabriel Cadis

The article Gabriel Cadis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A murder victim is not inherently notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. See WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gabriel Cadis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gabriel Cadis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cadis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Red link in AfD link (your comment in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cadis)

Purging the page almost always corrects the problem of the AfD red link in the template. See WP:PURGE for various purging techniques. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

ITN

based on Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Nigeria_attacks, you could mark it ads "ready"(Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)).

Norwegian C-130 Hercules plane crash

Well, you wanted to wait for more info about the accident. Now we have it: all 5 senior military officials on board were killed, plane hit Sweden's highest mountain and exploded into small pieces. Nanobear (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.48 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Administrators' noticeboard. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Adam Yauch

I see you have twice added an ethnic category to this article on a recently dead person. As WP:BLP also applies to the recently dead, you would have to be sure to conform to WP:BLPCAT when adding such categories to this article. This entails finding good references that Yauch self-identified with this ethnicity, then attaining a consensus at article talk that this was worth adding to the article. Let me know if you need any help. --John (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

All right I will address this in talk. I was not the only one who restored the tag. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Piven ‎

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Josh Groban

Funny that you should mention Josh Groban. He has quite an interesting "interfaith" background in that not only was his father Jewish, but his maternal grandmother had a Jewish father (and a non-Jewish mother). And they all ended up Christian. Anyway, while I don't want to get involved in these discussions myself, I will say that there are sources where Piven says he is Jewish, i.e. this, and that John uses the term "ethnic categories" on the talk page of Jeremy Piven, even though BLPcat does not cover ethnicity, and in fact, the proposal to add ethnicity to BLPcat was not passed through. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It was just an example. I am quite disturbed John is going around and removing these categories unilaterally when they have been in place for quite some time unchallenged. I don't considered myself qualified as someone experienced in BLP disputes, and I don't want to be reverting John's edits at this point. What do you suggest? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You really can't do much other than continue to provide opposition. Certainly with Piven, you have a source where he says that he is Jewish, and John's claim that BLPcat has anything to do with ethnicity categories is totally false. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Talk:Adam_Yauch.
Message added 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Brendon is here 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) move

Hi, I saw that you put a lot of work into the South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) article so I wanted to get your input on moving the bulk of the content that focuses on the Murle-Nuer conflict to a clearer title. At the moment it is a hodge-bodge of several conflicts that are distinct even if they are related by geography. If you're still interested in this topic, could we get your opinion on the talk page? Thanks! Keitsist (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Acaida logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Acaida logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:294808 arotechlogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:294808 arotechlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria

User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 21:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer several of those questions: the ban phrasing clearly says until the end of 2009. It is temporary and the idea is that working on other topics you'll learn to respect WP policy (WP:NPA more than WP:CIVIL, but the spirit and meaning of other policies such as WP:CONSENSUS too) and fellow editors - as I wrote in my endorsement. Your response (continuing to attack one editor, and missing such key points) does little to inspire confidence. Incidentally, you ask "Are there not more appropriate and honest boards..." - yes and no. WP/ANI does this all the time. But a WP:RFC/U provides a better basis for a structured discussion of a user's behaviour, but when FOTG started one (I'd suggested it too), it failed to get an endorsement within 48 hours (possibly a stupid rule, but there it is), partly I guess because he didn't announce it here, or possibly because by then this ANI thread had evolved beyond that. Rd232 ^talk 05:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

DanaUllman

• Courtesy link to recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour very well, where he'll accept something one moment, then bring it up as if evidence hadn't been provided to refute it shortly thereafter.

On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections:

From http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html [Edited slightly to restore lost formatting; Emphasis mine.]

“ Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes

Andrew Vickers1, Claire Smith2

1Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2Weston Education Centre, King’s College, London, UK

Contact address: Andrew Vickers, Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10021, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org. (Editorial group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group.)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2009 (Status in this issue: Withdrawn)

Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4

This version first published online: 8 July 2009 in Issue 3, 2009.

Last assessed as up-to-date: 19 May 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained)

This record should be cited as: Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009 as the authors are currently unable to update it.

”

It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 183 FCs served} 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments:

We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. DanaUllman^Talk 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And then today he posts:

In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD001957_standard.pdf -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. DanaUllman^Talk 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists.

DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Further examples, perhaps requiring more quoting, can be found on Talk:Homeopathy, of him refusing to get a point, or trying to twist words into a concession that he can do whatever he wants.

Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c:_Part_i is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999:

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: [21].

Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour.

I would ask that he be community indef banned. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all Homeopathy-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review Talk:Homeopathy and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary action and note. Under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, I am imposing a two-week ban from the homeopathy topic area across all namespaces, broadly construed, including userspace and user talk pages. This should not be construed to prohibit Dana Ullman from responding to conduct reports and complaints regarding him. Additionally, I have advised Shoemaker's Holiday about short-term repeated complaints about the same issue (the last ANI closed barely a week ago) and about his failure to inform Dana Ullman of either thread. The apparent battlefield mentality on both sides is highly disruptive to the project. The topic ban is meant to be a temporary measure, thus its short duration. If Dana Ullman cannot accept the problematic nature of his approach and/or is unwilling to focus on other areas where he does not get carried away, I regretfully endorse a community ban. I would consider this his last chance to reconsider and reflect on his conduct. I do not expect endless last chances to be extended, as we have seen so many other times (including for this editor). If necessary, I will utilize the discretionary sanctions to impose the maximum one year block in order to prevent further disruption to the wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• As far as my current understanding goes, this is a substantially different situation from the previous one involving the word "retraction". Take the following with a grain of salt because I am simply repeating what came out in the discussion on the homeopathy talk page and have not tried to confirm it independently (I'm a bit handicapped by traveling): The old case was about the authors of a study later saying that the study was probably wrong. Whether they used the word "retract" or not, that's clearly a valid reason not to use the study. The present case is about a study that appeared in the "Cochrane library". Apparently this is a repository for up-to-date, high-quality medical studies. If the authors are unable to publish a new version of their study every X years, then it is removed from the library. This is what happened here. The authors "withdrew" the study because they cannot keep up with the literature. This is something that would not have happened if the study had simply been published in a prestigious journal of the normal kind. Note the wording "Status in this issue: Withdrawn" etc.

The lead of Homeopathy currently claims that (not: almost all of) the few positive findings of effects beyond placebo have not been replicated. If I understand things correctly that's not technically true because the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. In my opinion the relevant language in the lead is still OK. That's because I am generally fine with little white lies in the lead, so long as they are explained further down. But here Dana's opponents insist on both leaving the lead as it is and not even mentioning the caveat in the body. That's at least borderline disingenuous, and it seems odd to take Dana's ineffective attempts to get the situation changed as a reason for a ban.

If you want to ban Dana because he is an undiplomatic, ineffective advocate of homeopathy who, instead of causing the changes to the article that he desires, merely brings out the worst in his opponents, then by all means do so. But don't pretend it's for a different reason that makes no sense. Hans Adler 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)To be explicit, my imposition of the ban is simply based on recurring patterns. It is not based on any particular argument about content violations or related concerns. The plain fact of the matter is that DanaUllman's current mode of interaction, including misrepresentation and statements ignoring ignoring valid discussion points (popularly referred to as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), is the same scheme of conduct that lead to previous sanctions. I am saddened that he is returning to these old patterns, as his expertise and topic knowledge could be valuable. However, in order for that value to be realized, he needs to accept the impact of his conduct and make a serious course correction. --Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Vassyana could be more specific. Please tell us what we should avoid in the discussion - exactly. Which behavior is disruptive so we can avoid it. Give us 2 diffs. There is a content dispute in Homeopathy -Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be straightforward advocacy which is discouraged by our basic conflict of interest and discussion rules. The following sections are similarly informative, with DanaUllman being obtuse (requiring another editor to puzzle out what exactly he was referring to) and appearing to represent his concerns misleadingly as a new point (the Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum and indeed prior to his ban DanaUlmman was involved in those discussions including about the very points he recently raised again). I know from observation that he is capable is expressing his points directly in a forthright fashion without such vague references and maquillage. Another sign that time has not changed the situation is his continual misuse of the phrase "NPOV" (such as referring to "NPOV sources"). If my point is unclear, there is no such thing as a "NPOV source". NPOV is an article measure based on the predominance of information in reliable sources, not some subjective/personal measure of objectivity or neutrality. With DanaUllman returning after such a harsh arbitration sanction, I would expect that he would take special care to familiarize himself with the expectations of our principles and practices, and especially to avoid the same patterns of conduct that lead to a ban from Wikipedia. Instead, he immediately soapboxed and engaged in tendentious debate. I hope this helps clarify why I have imposed the temporary topic ban while the community discusses how to move forward. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Replying a bit more directly to the subject of your concern, it is not that difficult to avoid problematic behavior. Do not engage in general (forum-like) discussion and advocacy on Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent the content of reliable sources or the statements of other editors. Do not beat dead horses or mislead editors regarding the nature of discussions (such as whether they are novel or revisited). Be forthright in discussions and do not belabor discussion with vague points coupled with strong assertions of specific evidence. Follow these simple points and you will avoid the pitfalls that DanaUllman has experienced at this project. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana: 1. The diff you gave shows that Dana referred to his point of view on BBC Horizon but very soon he moved to another subject and did not edit the article. Nothing else.I saw nothing else which could be problematic. Instead Ullman offered many reliable sources to discuss. 2. Lets give to Ullman some tiny credit.[[22]]

"The Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum" is incorrect. Just few days ago or so when Dana Ullman he was proposing to add a comment from the Lancet supporting the efficasy of OSCILL., the editors -they want him now banned, they were saying that the Cochrane review on OSC was a better source . Few hours later they discovered that it was withdrawn. That created confusion since it is still appearing in the Cochrane Library website.

You imposed the ban when we were discussing another issue : whether or not several papers and info from exceptional reliable sources (which express different views on the Homeopathy effectiveness and meta analyses) should be included in the article as you already have seen in the talk page.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not say to exclude the minority view especially in an article on the specific minority view (which according to the policy must be described in detail).4 editors dispute the neutrality of the article and you chose to ban Ullman ban upon request. The editors asked they same question : Is appropriate to exclude minority views on Homeopathy since they are published in many decent RS? Some editors say yes. You agree with this ? Is it appropriate to take a side in a content dispute and ban an editor? --JeanandJane (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have the agree to disagree on the impact and nature of DanaUllman's talk page contributions, as we obviously have very distinct perceptions of the circumstances. Moving on, if you review the history of talk page discussions in the homeopathy topic area, you will find that the Cochrane Collaboration material (including the findings in particular that DanaUllman is asserting) has been discussed on many occasions. Part of my concern is this is the same material DanaUllman was discussing (in the same tone and fashion) in the weeks leading up to the arbitration case where a full ban was imposed on him for homeopathy advocacy. Regardless, the topic ban of DanaUllman is short-term and considered a temporary measure. Discussion may lead to other uninvolved editors supporting stronger restrictions, a set of alternate editing restrictions, a full ban, or even no sanctions at all. Let us give a chance for other uninvolved admins to review the situation and comment. I'll gladly follow whatever consensus emerges. --Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rightfully have said and still assert (and Shoemaker’s quote helps to verify!) that the findings of Linde 1997 study were NOT retracted. Shoemaker even quotes directly in Linde’s 1999 article that the new evidence “weakens” his previous findings, but he clearly doesn’t “retract” his results…he simply found that they were less strong. The quote that Shoemaker provides is: “The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis.” The fact that Shoemaker asserts that this quote proves the Linde “retracted” his previous findings is evidence of poor scholarship or purposeful antagonism to the subject that clouds his normally rational mind.

Further evidence of Linde’s viewpoint on this subject was his strong critique of the Shang review of research.

Shoemaker is also upset that I did not see the link that he provided that “proved” that this article was withdrawn. http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html -- However (!), to me, this article is not available without subscription. I could NOT make certain that this article was “withdrawn” with certainty, and further, I provided solid evidence that the 2006 article was still posted at the Cochrane site…and further, that this article was also posted in 2009, issue #2.

Since my return to wikipedia, I have not done a single “edit” of an article. I have only participated in Talk pages…and obviously, my bringing up studies in major medical journals and other RS sources is disconcerting to him. Although I know that we can all sympathize with him and his POV, we all need to make an effort toward NPOV.

The other people here who are recommending sanctions against me are the usual suspects…people who are extremely active on the homeopathy article who have a long history of blocking many even mildly positive facts or information on homeopathy. Then, there are some wiki editors who are claimly to be “uninvolved” but it just so happens that they are seemingly “new” wiki editors, despite many obvious editing contributions to complex wikipedia issues (is someone a sock here?): [[23]]

I have been shown to be a civilized editor. I have been shown to provide important contributions to this discussion; however, just because I seem to provide RS references and facts that differ from Shoemaker, he makes the above complaint.

I believe strongly that my recent “topic ban” has been unfairly bestowed upon me, and instead, I urge Admins to evaluate those editors in the homeopathy article who are showing clear antagonism and bias to the subject and are blocking NPOV information in it. DanaUllman^Talk 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban of any length, re-applied as needed. My recent experiences with him give me no confidence at all that he can be neutral about his pet subject. He'll go on indefinitely, wasting the time of other editors, if he's allowed to do so. Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban from Homeopathy and related pages. Homeopathy had stabilised and was improving, but Dana has turned it into a battlefield, promoting his own work, or trying to get wikipedia articles to agree with his published work. Doesn't seem to have learned anything from his block. Verbal chat 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse ban Clearly doesn't understand WP:BATTLE. Having him edit these pahes is detrimental to the construction of an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all of this antimosity against me despite the fact that I have not edited a single article, have a history of being a civil editor, and have a history of referencing high-impact medical and scientific journals. I have no intent to have wikipedia repeat anything that I've written elsewhere, even various peer-review articles and book chapters. I only have a desire to submit information that seems accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. It seems that most of the above people who want me banned have content issues with me or are friends of those who do... It is not my intention to battle (at all). My intent is to collaborate...I hope that some admins look at my recent short contributions to the Talk pages and see for yourself (and please see context too). Humbly... DanaUllman^Talk 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please do something. After a year's ban, Mr. Ullman started right back up with the identical issues (the efficacy of oscillococcinum and the 20/20 episode) that he left off with in 2008. He is unequivocally engaging in advocacy, for which he was blocked for a year by arbcom. It is clear by his statement directly above that he sees nothing at all wrong with this. Sources that he presents invariably have to be double and triple checked to be sure they say what he says they do, which they usually don't. Furthermore, dormant user (User:JeanandJane) and a new user (User:Dbrisinda), both pro-homeopathy SPAs, jumped in immediately to support Mr. Ullman and make his suggested edits to the main article. Edit warring, gross source misrepresentation, talk page filibustering, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have ensued. The situation before his re-arrival was one of incremental and agreeable collaboration. The final straw, for me, is continuing to argue for the inclusion of a withdrawn paper, after it has been made clear that a withdrawn journal article is unusable. Topic ban him, indef him, whatever, just keep him far away from anything related to homeopathy, please. Skinwalker (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose ban. He should be given another chance to stop has disrption, because he doesn't seem to be editing in total bad faith. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - this user has long since passed his use-by date. His pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing is well established. He's here to further a particular agenda, not the encyclopedia. It's time for the community to flush him once and for all. Crafty (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban We are not here to give people chances, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Someone does not need to act in "total" bad faith to be disruptive. We don't need people who turn this place into a battleground. Chillum 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef community ban, in case it wasn't clear from my TLDR post above. This seems way out of proportion. Arguing with Dana is frustrating and his presence at the homeopathy talk page seems unlikely to improve the article. But as in the case of Dr.Jhingaadey (just look at the groundless agitation at User talk:Avathaar) some people are going nuclear because of a perceived danger from Dana that I simply can't see. I believe any perceived disruption comes from the reactions to Dana at least as much as from what he says. It's not unreasonable to ban such an editor per putting the encylopedia above everything else. I believe the German Wikipedia might do it like this. But here? I am not currently aware of any other topic than homeopathy where a community ban would even be considered for this behaviour. Hans Adler 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem here is limited to the subject of homoeopathy, and probably results from Dana's advocacy and his frequent COI issues there. His failure to acknowledge COI issues may also contribute to the problem. For example here, where I had drawn attention to the fact that advocating insertion of references to "Oscillococcinum" on homeopathy so that it supported an article he has written (and which had recently been republished in several places on the web) about swine flu gave him a clear COI. He responded "why does it matter what I've written off-wikipedia, and have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?" He just doesn't seem to understand the issue here. Note also that in the diff I've linked to he also implies that he hasn't cited or linked to his own articles ("have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?") despite having done so (albeit having acknowledged that it was his own website) only a week before on the same talk page; in the past he has at least once pasted material from his own site directly into an article (see this diff and this article - incidentally the reference cited in that diff appeared to mention neither William Court Gully nor George Woodyatt Hastings, despite having been cited to support a passage about their alleged antagonism). A topic ban may be appropriate. There's probably no reason for a Wikipedia-wide ban (I assume that's what is meant by "community ban"); however, since all (or almost all) of his edits have been in some way connected to homoeopathy a topic ban may amount to the same thing. Brunton (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a topic ban on homeopathy would serve the same purpose of stopping the disruption (mind you, only under the same conditions as Vassayana's two-week topic ban above). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• opposeIt is quite surprising that a well known writer who has served as an instructor in homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco, and as member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons as the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference, and has been consulted by Harvard Medical School's Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness, he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals to be treated like that in this forum. This does not look good on wikipedia. Even if I understand all the editor's concerns about pseudoscience and I agree with them ( some times ) this animosity cannot be justified. Maybe his style is passionate, maybe he made some mistakes in terms of style in the past but I think skeptics and Wikipedia could use him to improve the Homeopathy article. I don't think we are enemies here even if we disagree some times. I m confident that a civilized solution will be found. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• His credentials outside Wikipedia are irrelevant they would be relevant if he used his expertise to improve the articles in wikipedia according to policies and guidelines, which he is not doing. And they are relevant when evaluating if he is violating the WP:COI conflic of interest guideline which seems to be the case here. The reasons for the ban are his continued disruptive behaviour in-wiki, and his refusal to correct it. "He is an expert in Real Life" is not a reason for not issuing a ban unless ignoring this reason worsens the quality of articles. If he behaves in Wikipedia in unacceptable ways then he can fully expect to be banned from it. I remember that User:ScienceApologist was banned (temporaly) in spite of being an expert, and so was User:Peter Damian, and Dana was already banned by one year by Arbcom, and I'm sure that there are other examples. And I don't think that those bans made Wikipedia look bad at all, quite the contrary, it showed that we treat all users equaly. And please don't understate the disruption that he has caused in the talk pages of homeopathy-related articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brunton writes about my “frequent” COI, where he correctly sited the ONE time I referenced my own site AND where he referenced my acknowledgement of this and my assertion that it is not RS, along with my note that this link was to a personal email from Professor Ennis that provided some direct insight into the veracity of a discussion at hand. Brunton also expressed concern that my Talk contributions sometimes included some of the same references to research in which I provided in articles that I have written. In due respect, I did not reference or link my articles. Is he actually suggesting that a wiki editor who writes about a subject in a non-wiki source creates a COI if he or she writes about this subject on wiki, even when he doesn’t reference his own work? It seems that someone is either extending the definition of COI or simply selectively enforcing it.

By the way, I originally chose to edit under my real name because I seek to maintain high ethics in my life and being transparent seems to be one important way to maintain this standard. While I could have easily used a fake name and thereby allowing myself a lot more ability to refer to my work, this is neither my style nor ethics. If I were really trying to be an “advocate,” I would have done this. Instead, I want to be a resource to people who are working on this article.

User:Verbal asserts that my references and discussions the Cochrane Report and to a Lancet “News and Notes” article are “advocacy.”[24]. User:Brunton then chose to question if the Lancet’s News and Notes was “peer-reviewed” [25], as though something written by their editors or editorial staff of this prestigious journal was suddenly not reliable because it had something positive to say about homeopathy.

What is remarkable is how offensive some editors can be to me personally and to my references to high quality research (as determined by reliable sources), and yet, no wiki editors or admins do any degree of admonishment of them. I can only imagine what would happen if I referred to an editor here as “delusional” as User:NRen2k5 did here [26] or what User:Friday did when he created a section entitled Talk:Homeopathy#It.27s_probably_best_to_ignore_Dana_Ullman.

Because so many antagonists to homeopathy edit the article on wikipedia, it is not surprising when normally recognized reliable sources of meta-analyses are ignored when these sources report positive results from homeopathic treatment. There are many examples to give, but the Cochrane Report on the homeopathic treatment of adverse effects from conventional cancer treatment is ignored in the article [27] My apologies for providing a “content” issue here, but my point here is that wikipedia needs more balance in many of its articles because they are dominated by just one side of the issue, while there needs to be a better effort at balance.

It is surprising how many editors who have sought to reference good research meta-analyses that have positive results for homeopathy have been sanctioned, banned, harassed, or simply overwhelmed by the larger number of antagonists to the field. I would hope that wikipedia would seek to protect some “experts” in order to create a real encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is known to misrepresent sources. Evidence of this appears on the arbitration page, but we can give

For instance, in Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed change on replication of trials, Ullman uses a note, which is not included on the journal's webpage or pubmed; a study's inclusion in a meta-analysis, and various other things to suggest that we throw out all large-scale metanalyses and work showing that homeopathy doesn't work, and replace it with his hand-picked set of studies, raising the weakest results to the status of "high-quality replicated studies". Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker all the meta analysis are not definitive and are kind of controversial. Look at the talk page Linde's criticism to The Lancet about Shang meta analysis. Adler above says that the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. Maybe he meant that? I don't know about the other papers. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Dana has misrepresented sources, and also misrepresented the consensus of other editors at the talk pages, and he got that three-month topic ban when was caught red-handed misrepresenting the comment of another editor during the Homeopathy arbitration case, as seen here (at the end of the section). This is not a content problem but a behaviour problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For recent (i.e. since his return from the 1 year ban) examples of this sort of thing, see for example this diff, in which he claims that when he cited his own website "several people defended this action": the "action" in question is in the section of the talk page headed "Rephrase please" - there is no sign there of anyone defending it. Or this diff, in which he writes "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments": scrolling back up the talk page to the relevant section (headed "Updating Info on Replication of studies") reveals that the issue was brought up not by "the wiki community" but by Dana Ullman himself. These may be comparatively trivial examples, but they would appear to indicate a continuing pattern of behaviour. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana - What you are trying to do with Wikipedia is essentially to synthesize a secondary source here, from a number of primary sources. You have been constantly treading on the grey line dividing normal summarization and reporting and paraphrasing legitimate secondary and primary sources, and WP:SYNTH (and in the process, WP:BATTLE, and other related policies).

You are, for all intents and purposes, too close to the topic to be doing what you've been doing here.

If you go out and write overview secondary source / tertiary source articles in reliable publications, those can be cited in Wikipedia. Trying to write that material directly in here - what you've been striving to do (directly with pre-Arbcom-block, and indirectly with talk page discussion since) - is not acceptable behavior.

Fighting the secondary sources battle in Wikipedia is all about what WP:SYNTH and WP:BATTLE show is entirely what Wikipedia is not here for.

If you will not work to understand that, in good faith, then you need to leave the project. In this case, your being an expert (and as experts are, particularly opinionated) is leading to significant mis-use of the Wikipedia project. This type of debate is not what we're here for. Please accept that, or leave of your own accord. You will do your field much better work if you write these synthesizing opinions and reviews and overviews elsewhere and let others include those (presumably, as you're clearly an expert) reliable secondary sources here once you've published elsewere.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please clarify what do you mean? I agree though synthesis is not in our rules. For instance The lead which is not written by Dana Ullman says "Homeopathy 's efficacy is not supported by the collective weight of the scientific and clinical studies". Since meta analyses have been controversial and inconclusive with the results conflicting somehow each other ( according to our reliable sources ) this could be considered a synthesis and thus should be avoided? I m trying to understand what we should not do. Thanks --JeanandJane (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of controversial topics, we have to say something. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE work to support WP:NPOV - we report the general community biggest consensus as our main focus, and present major alternative viewpoints commensurate with their weight in the field.

We can't avoid doing some judgement to determine what is the consensus neutral point, and how much weight, but in the case of Homeopathy (and many related fringe science/medicine topics) we have determined that the "mainstream view" is the consensus neutral point and that the proponents view, fairly reported, is the alternative. An article focused on alternatives like this should probably aim for something like 50:50 balance (the article topic is the fringe / alternative topic, after all) in terms of page space, though that will vary by topic greatly.

Dana Ullman's work, done in an external reliable venue, could then be presented neutrally and straightforwardly in the sections describing the pro-homeopathic research studies in more depth.

Done directly here, however, it's WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and bad for Wikipedia.

We are not denying that he's a major figure in the field - our point is, him being a major figure and being here does not shift the point of neutrality, even though he can both argue in more focused detail and depth than the average editor.

He can write synthetic overviews, in external reliable sources, and we can include them (he should not - WP:COI and WP:RS prohibit that - but others could). He can perhaps provide better, more balanced specific sources for the pro-homeopathy arguments. There are lots of things we can do here.

But what we and he can't do here is use Wikipedia as the venue to synthesize new material that's original research - whether that's new primary research or new secondary source overviews and reporting. You make secondary sources out there - in reliable venues which we can verifyably find and cite. And then, we can include them.

Synthesize here bad. Synthesize elsewhere in RS, then report on what RS said elsewhere, good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As an introduction : I was looking to determine if Homeopathy is a fringe belief and I could not find a reliable source which states it. In the contrary, I found a reliable source BBC which states "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief." No skeptic argued against this during the conversation. If somebody has a major reliable source which states that Homeopathy is fringe - besides the skeptics organizations, please let me know.

Homeopathy is a highly controversial topic according to our reliable sources. The mainstream scientists have not reached a strong consensus about its efficacy, if we believe again in our reliable sources: World Health Organization is attacked by the Lancet for supporting Homeopathy 's efficacy. The American Medical Association states that "The efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven.". The early meta analyses are positive but not fully conclusive and definite, some others negative and positive and the recent Lancet meta analyses are negative but its results strongly criticized by other mainstream sources (with letters published in the Lancet and papers at the J Clin Epidemiol.

Meanwhile very notable Homeopaths have published their criticism for the latest meta analyses. Currently excluded from the article!

The main problem is that some of the sources have been excluded and the article reports that the mainstream consensus is that Homeopathy is unsupported by the collective weight ...... which is as you see above at least inaccurate according to the our RS.

I believe that Ullman tries to convince the other editors to use all the RS about Homeopathy's efficacy and not only the negative ones. And also to include the minority view in the article which is currently excluded for instance Fisher's article/J Clin Epidemiol.paper.

I did not see any synthesis from his part but maybe I have to look more for this. If you have seen something please provide a diff so I can also read it.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note and reminder

If anyone was in doubt the Homeopathy Wars are now in full blood again after a period of relative calm. Note also that the article remains under Arbcom sanction. If there are admins out there who have rhinoceros-thick hides and want to help sort things out, please do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

Ok, I am seriously tired of this and I think I will stop editing here. One editor, Ratel accused me of being a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marbehraglaim, for what I think less than sincere reasons. Bad enough, but now another editor Noloop is now stalking me. He first came to the sockpuppet investigation, strange enough that he found it. But then he also showed up at this deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch_(2nd_nomination). Bad enough that he is following me, but he is also constantly adding a comment that I am an accused sockpuppet to the deletion discussion. Note that none of the other alleged sockpuppets accounts has shown up at this deletion discussion, so there is absolutely no reason to harass me that way. Pantherskin (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, not enough that I have to deal with a stalker, now Ratel has left this nice message on my talk page [28], calling me a sick puppy and accussing me of harassing him. And this message on the talk page Roald Dahl, [29] accusing me to be identical to an alleged mentally disturbed stalker and to be a psychopath. And to be sure, he makes it clear that checkuser cannot prove my innocence, so there is not even a way for me to clear my name from this kind of smearing. Pantherskin (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to drop him a note on his talk page about this thread. --Tom (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Funny that this case is now opened. I have just finished writing to an admin (unnamed for now) about the fact that I am being stalked by a user and have been for about a year. Here's some of the text of the email:

The involved editor is User:Collect (see his RfC to learn what sort of person he is). Collect is a clever person, a sophisticated user of wikipedia, who knows how to play all the rules to his advantage. He is expert at creating sockpuppet accounts using different IPs. When not opposing me as himself, which he has done on numerous pages, always following me to the pages in question, he otherwise appears as a new single purpose account to oppose me vehemently and with a sophisticated use of terminology and knowledge of policy that immediately makes it plain that he is not a new user. I'll give just two examples of many:

Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) fighting me on the page: Roald Dahl
Scramblecase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who opposed me on the page IC/PBS

Given that checkuser will not work on this sort of IP-morphing, obsessed, mentally-disturbed user, what am I to do? I think this is about as bad as the editing experience in wikipedia can get.

I'm sure this will eventually be brought to an end when some admin finally takes an interest. It's just a pity that I cannot find the time to smack this cockroach the way he deserves. ► RATEL ◄ 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Ratel, there is no conceivably way that calling other editors cockroaches will help things. Regardless of the sockpuppet situation, I think it would be reasonable to consider a block to prevent your further violation of NPA--there are at least 5 instances in the material above. DGG (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just following WP:SPADE here, DGG. I have honestly been stalked by this user for a very long time, with almost daily subtle harassment. It's a miracle I'm not using 4-letter words. I don't think wikipedia is set up to handle this sort of situation, frankly. ► RATEL ◄ 04:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that this mysterious stalker exists, how does that gives you the right to attack and accuse uninvolved editors? Attacking Maybe you should consider that not every editor that opposes your edits is identical with this mysterious stalker (again assuming that this stalker exists). I know for myself that I am not, but I guess in your book there is no way to prove that, because as you said he is an "IP-morphing, obsessed, mentally-disturbed user". Pantherskin (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • I'd endorse such a block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

One shouldn't wonder about new previously uninvolved editors showing up if one or someone else posts an RFC on an article. The fact that previously uninvolved editors showed up at the article was taken by Ratel as evidence for them being sockpuppets, and is now taken as evidence that they are identical with this mysterious stalker. For the record, I edited previously as an IP, but then registered. That is NOT sockpuppetry, and as the contributions history clearly shows I never pretended to be a different editor nor did I voted twice, nor did I continue to edit from my IP adress after I registered. Pantherskin (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Ratel has made repeated claims of stalking and sockpuppetry on me. As an example of his civility, I proffer, [30] " I regard this as either insanity or a deliberate attempt to intimidate me. I think mentoring or a slap on the wrists will do little to cure this person of his/her ailments", [31] "Think you're being stalked? Not a nice feeling, is it?" with a comment of "pot / kettle", how he regards admins at [32] "My "gleeful goal" (read: hard work) to balance hagiographies notwithstanding, I shall seek another admin to give oversight. I would appreciate it if you would bow out of this now, since I have assured you I shall not proceed to edit the page without admin input to possibly controversial material" and [33] "Does not apply. I am not "repeatedly" seeking other opinions, simply one other opinion, since I believe you have an animus towards me based on your association with Collect and based on your mistaken understanding of my motives" , attitudes towards others [34] "== Bullying comment: potent Personal Attack by Flowanda == Are you making a personal attack on me here by suggest I may be bullying this user (himself an assertive lawyer, by the way he uses legal language and keep disclosing the contents of court documents)? " ,,, his behaviour at SPI at [35], yet another SPI for him at [36] "The abovementioned suspected socks all chimed in on a RfC at Talk:Roald Dahl and at a related debate at WP:CCN almost simultaneously and in sequence, all with the same arguments, and they have no substantial history outside this issue other than the puppet master, Marbehraglaim" .

[37] has Ratel at WQA -- "The stalking by you continues, Collect. Even Gwen Gale has noted your pursuit of me, so take care. To Bwilkins, the other editor has called me "spiteful", claimed I am defaming the subject with no basis, claimed I threaten people because I posted a NPA warning to his talk page, sneers at perfectly valid edits (such as using [sic]), mentions me pejoratively rather than the edits or how to improve the page in every comment he makes .... yet this is "fine"? So that's the last time I'll come here for help ... totally bloody useless. You people are farking up wikipedia. I hope you are proud." Though Ratel never gave one iota of evidence for his claims, as "Indeed, the removal of a warning template from your own talkpage is tacit acceptance of the warning. None of the diff's appeared to be anywhere close to being contrary to WP:NPA in the least. Posts like "You don't like it, tough" sounds like some WP:OWNership issues, and "you don't have a clue" are indeed contrary to WP:NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)" demonstrates.

For icing on the cake [38] "Despite all the hot air from 2 editors here —both of whom have admitted to being SPAs, one of whom is involved in a content dispute with me (where I am right and he is wrong, as shall soon become obvious), and the other of whom I maintain (despite the predictably unsuccessful checkuser) is a sock of Collect (himself now the subject of an extensive RfC)— no real evidence as to my awfulness has been presented. On the other hand, I can point to the absurdity of accepting that the sock Scramblecase is a new editor (pah-leeeeze! I've seen many new editors arrive on the scene and not one has shown Scramblecase's knowledge of rules, formatting of responses, and aggressiveness), and having been Collect's interlocutor for a few weeks I can recognize the same style and diction a mile away." One more SPI worked on by Ratel -- and he is batting zero for a very good reason <g>. [39] contains such gemns as "fellated" "brown nose" "obsequious lickspittle" "weasely wikilawyer" "I believe he has an anxiety spectrum disorder, in the OCD range, that underlies his constant edit warring, so wikipedia is really just a place for him to act out, a form of therapy. So shame on the editors above who endorsed Collect because he's rightwing like you are, even when you know he's bad for wikipedia, and shame on the admins below who are playing the "hear no evil, see no evil" card. Shame on you. Something MUST be done about deranged editors like Collect, for the good of the project, or eventually the project will be swamped with every obsessive, obstructive, quarrelsome, querulous, no-life nutcase living in his parents' basement." and so on. In short, I think Ratel does commit the sins ascribed to him above. Collect (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See also [40], [41], [42] "Please note that Scramblecase — see contribs — is an obvious SPA started up specifically to make this attack on me here. I am currently in a tense confrontation with a highly tendentious editor with a long history of obsessive edit warring on the Drudge Report Talk page, and (s)he has decided to expand the attack on me by stalking and starting up this distracting rearguard action. Checkuser probably won't help because this is a sophisticated user who knows how to use proxies and/or the local library's computers to make this attack. Suggestion: ignore or block this SPA. Thanks." [43] "Oh good, then by all means look into it. Collect caused a source document in Britannica to be changed during a dispute. The change was enacted by an editor at Britannica called Canterbury, and I mentioned that on the Talk page while complaining about the lack of ethics involved in changing source documents. I also wrote to Britannica (Canterbury) urging them not to accept Collect's edit and directing them to the relevant talk page. They then wisely reverted. That sums it up. I have not outed Collect, I have not broken any rules, but I'll wager he has." abnd so on. More if needed, but I trust the issues are now quite clear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Collect, Scramblecase and Pantherskin appear  Unrelated by checkuser; there is no evidence of trickery and they appear to live hundreds of miles apart. Some kind of sophisticated trickery can not be absolutely ruled out but seems unlikely based on the available evidence. Thatcher 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely? Since I have made personal information available to several admins (including Lar and others), and I have had a consistent presence online now for 27 years, I regard the claims of sockpuppetry as vile in the extreme. I believe this is now up to 4 checkusers made on me as a matter of fact. Collect (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Ratel saying Collect has a mental illness, Collect says Ratel has a mental illness. My comments about the way Ratel is conducted the dispute here seems to apply more widely. The subthread below seems to indicate similar. I propose a 48 hr block on Collect, Ratel, Noloop, & Smashville and Pantherskin, in the hope of preventing more of this; the question of who if anyone is in the right would seem to belong elsewhere.

Dear anonymous, I have never made any comment at all concerning Ratel personally in any such vein, and would appreciate that such a charge not be leveled at me. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pantherskin is very clearly a troll. I'm starting to wonder how these sorts of things can ever really be dealt with by admins. In order to have a clear sense of Pantherskin's operations, you have to have built up a history with him, so that there is an awareness of the context in which things occurred. It is hard to document this kind of thing in a "report." Unlike User:Webhamster, who just routinely tells everybody to "fuck off" and "go fuck yourself", Pantherskin's problem behavior is hard to document in a handful of convenient diffs. He just slightly distorts everything, and aims 90% of his edits at personalities rather than article content. I can't speak for User:Ratel, but if I responded to all of Pantherskin's distortions here, I would get sucked into a drama that could consume vast amounts of time I'd rather spend editing. The only way to really know what's going on is to follow the story, which means reading a hundred or so diffs of Pantherskin's comments, and what admin in his right mind wants to do that? Noloop (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of assuming good-faith Noloop? I bet that will help.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So quite clearly Noloop is unable to stop the personal attacks on me as he continues to attack me as a troll. In fact he even confirms past attacks and makes dubious claims about my "operations" and my "problem behavior", and is not even able to provide one diff or one single piece of evidence for his accusations. Pantherskin (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop

Someone needs to stop Noloop, so today he called me gnat that needs to be swat here [44]. He also keeps adding his harassment to the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch (2nd nomination), calling me an accussed sockpuppet. Pantherskin (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, repeatedly deleting an editor's comments from a discussion page is very gnat-like. You've done this so many times it violates 3RR and you've done that in two different articles. Since the page you linked to is an "accused sockpuppet" page, why exactly do you object to saying you are "an accussed sockpuppet"? (Would you like me to accuss you a little?) Noloop (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How exactly was pointing out that he had been accused of being a sockpuppet relevant to the deletion discussion? --Smashville^talk 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Which discussion? On the Anti-americanism article, it is relevant because two of the accused socks were editing the page. On the nom. for deletion, two of the other editors smell very socky. One is an anon IP that hadn't edited in 4 months prior to the nom., and the other is now flagged as having zero edits outside that subject. When there's a bad smell, people should know a likely source. You're free to disagree, but you're not free to delete someone's comments from discussion. Noloop (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone try to explain to Pantherskin about it on his talk page? Not from what I've seen.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-americanism, I have explained this above. That you call registering an account sockpuppeting only shows your bad faith (as if the swat the gnat threat did not show it in abundance...). Regarding the deletion discussion, yes, I am free to delete your harassing comments and you are not free to follow me to pages where I edit and harass me there by smearing my name. If there is a bad smell so it be, but without any evidence you just cannot go around and smear other editors. Pantherskin (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia. Noloop continues with his attacks on me, calling me a troll [45]. Pantherskin (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Noloop. Being accused of something is not the same as being proven of it. But based on your rule system I accuse you of being a sockpuppet. Now that's said I can now smear your name over any page you have made any comments on. That is the way you see it isn't it? --WebHamster 22:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand WP:DRAMAOUT. Noloop (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How? And frankly, I don't give a(2-year old present) about your accusations about me. Or anyone else.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the same idea as WP:GETALIFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 22:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I do hope that you are not stating that I get a life.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health

A previously uninvolved admin, please, to take a look at Clayton College of Natural Health. Please see its recent history and also the recent history (only visible via the history tab) of User talk:Shannon Rose. My own opinion on this matter is fairly clear, but I also have a rather clear opinion about the value of the kind of stuff that this College is teaching (even when it's taught well), and have made the mistake of expressing this opinion; fearing that I might be taken for an edit warrior myself, I'm not reaching for my own cluebat er sorry I mean my own submit button. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the frivolous and clearly wrong SPI filed by Shannon Rose against three editors in good standing, where no evidence was even presented against one of the editors (me). They have also repeatedly placed inappropriate warnings on talk pages of involved editors, and provided no policy rational for their blanking of large sections of relevant and well sourced text. Editing suggests a connection with the college, giving a WP:COI, and a strong WP:POV. Verbal chat 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Rose (talk · contribs)

This user is repeatedly removing well sourced and pertinent information from the article, despite many warnings and a consensus against their edits on the article talk page. They have recently come off a block, but a new block should probably be considered to stop further disruption of this article, as warnings and discussion have had no effect. They have also engaged in personal attacks, accused other good faith editors of "slander", and filed frivolous SPI reports against long-standing editors (see above). Verbal chat 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that ShannonRose is alone in her current campaign to expunge one particular sentence from Clayton College of Natural Health. Everyone else who has looked at the article recently seems to find the sentence reasonable. I think that protection of the page would be a more fitting way to cool the edit war than blocking the user. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As there is only one user edit warring against consensus, locking the page down is unfair to all other editors who wish to improve the project. I have reported Shanno Rose to WP:AN3 for breaking WP:3RR as well as continued edit warring. Notice they have expanded their accusations of bad faith and sockpuppetry to even more editors. Verbal chat 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for 48 hours based solely on the 3RR/edit warring on the article. I haven't time to dig further into this thread or the circumstances at this time, but based on their block log a longer period may be in order. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a warning against legal threats and intimidation. Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added another appeal for Shannon to stop the gross incivility and disruption. Please read this section. Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:AvatarMN just won't let go

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

---

Resolved

 – If it happens again, report to WP:AIV or to me. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(*sigh*) I tried to end this on my own, but this guy won't drop it. As you can see from this thread on my talk page User talk:Beeblebrox#Reverting talk I repeatedly explained myself as clearly as I could, and told this user they could pursue the matter in any way they chose and not have to worry about me intervening again. The thread ends with him calling me a sociopath [46]. I warned him on his talk page for violating WP:NPA, and his response was to call me a sociopath again [47]. Since I gave him an "only warning" I'm bringing this here. If an admin (or anyone else) would like to try and explain why that is not acceptable it would be appreciated, I have had it with this guy and don't wish to talk to him anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to talk to him. then just stop talking to him. Yes he shouldn't have called you a sociopath, but really an only warning?Theresa Knott | token threats 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would you prefer a "soft" approach on personal attacks? I don't believe consensus supports that, and I know I don't. I've done enough vandal fighting that I've been the subject of a number of personal attacks now, including that I am a pedophile, I think I'm Jesus, I have no life, and now I'm a sociopath. Put yourself at the receiving end of some of those and see if you want to mollycoddle such users. Anyhoo, I probably never would have noticed, but Twinkle automatically added his talk page to my watchlist when I left the warning. (I'll be taking it back off now). Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't have attacked you, and you've given an only warning. If that line were crossed again by the user I think most admins would block. I think that could go to WP:AIV, as with any continued disruption after a only/final warning, and really I see no utility in continuing this ANI thread. You've vented, so let's not let this get out of hand and cause further undue drama. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted some more eyes on this so he understands it's not just me saying not to make personal attacks. That seems to have happened now, so as long as I never hear from him again about this I'm more than happy to consider the matter closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this. You warned me not to post on your talk page again, not on mine. I don't see how it's any different for you to conclude from my behavior that I'm too tenacious, but I can't collate from your own statements that you're a word that means uncaring and without empathy; things you yourself said you were. I don't think it's fair for one person demand they get the last word, so just to satisfy my ego that you don't get to tell me to not say anything more, I put something on my own talk page. I don't know why you looked for it, and I had every intention of ending it there. So now I bow out. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User activites and Veiled threats.

Resolved

 – Editor blocked for 24 hours by User:Orangemike. –xeno^talk 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem editor. User:Shimon Yanowitz has engaged in edit wars and personal attacks. In edition he seems to be making a few out of hand remarks about what happens if "we work against him" [[48]]. I suggest a cool down block until he realizes why we don't allow original research and learns how to productively communicate with our community.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I agree with Hell In A Bucket's assessment, and even with King ♣'s labeling of this user's actions as "a threat".

However, blocks are NEVER meant to solely enforce a "cool down time"; but rather, to stop a chain of disruption already in progress, and where the offending user(s) has/have not cooled themselves down. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I miss Kurt. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I myself wouldn't suggest a block at this point. I think the user is moving dangerously close to blockable territory, but he's not there yet. As I mentioned on the user's talkpage, he's acting very owney about the page, as well. He makes frequent reference to his own academic qualifications, specifically told Hell he wouldn't accept him editing the page unless he measured up, and left canvassed warnings to every editor who opposed his addition of unsourced analysis to the page.

Problem editor, definitely worth watching, if only for the /popcorn, but not yet blockable.

On a side note, apparently there's a sysop up there with a sig very similar to mine (which I wasn't aware of when I redesigned mine). I'll be changing it now. King ♣ Talk 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There we go. --King ÖÖmie III 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I had similar difficulties with this user last year on the now deleted Psychophysical_Paradox article, as well as it's AfD. I generally gave the editor the benefit of the doubt, as I didn't want to bite the n00bs. -Verdatum (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That AFD is scary. Attacking EVERY SINGLE delete vote? And not just the votes, the voters, calling every single one a fool (just like what happened here). He needs to be informed that that kind of interaction is unacceptable. I can't believe he wasn't sternly warned (or even banned) for his performance on that page.

He seems to be unable to differentiate between "subject of importance" and "subject meeting Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines". I'm thinking that's the real problem here, along with the superiority complex (apparently all users without PHDs should be barred from editing articles created by someone who does). --King ÖÖmie III 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one of the editors he attacked actually has a Ph.D. MuZemike 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking loosely, I tend to agree more or less with Kingoomieiii's assessment of the immediate situation. The AfD link is helpful to understanding, as well, but not something I find actionable this far after the fact. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I meant I can't believe he wasn't warned at the time. --King ÖÖmie III 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor is continuing the same path of behavior as yesterday minus the personal attacks. He has changed the verbage to Warped reality but again has no sources to back it up. This is becoming quite out of hand, you'd think that a PHD would have more sense to actually read the rules but I feel like we're beating our headz against the wall here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, he feels that his academic resume exempts him from WP:V and WP:N. It's possible he even considers himself a Reliable Source. Everything he says just drips with ego.

We're far past the bud-nipping stage, but something has to be done. I have no problem with academia and experts editing Wiki. But when they start asserting that they are the only relevant opinion in a sea of ignorance... --King ÖÖmie III 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He's violated 3rr 2xs in 2 days. [[49]].Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He's not engaging in talk, just reverting. Despite at least six different editors asking him to go to the talkpage. A short block may be needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been biting my tongue on this topic. The user seems to want to do good, but continually isn't. After numerous warnings, and continuous blatant reverts, I think a block is needed as well. I, as well as a few others, may be coming quite close to breaking 3RR because of this users insubordination. I feel a cooling off period (i.e. a block) is needed. --HELLØ ŦHERE 14:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

COmment, "However, blocks are NEVER meant to solely enforce a "cool down time"; but rather, to stop a chain of disruption already in progress, and where the offending user(s) has/have not cooled themselves down. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)" I never knew that but it does do precisly the opposite and ussually only angers however blocks are to prevent disruptive behavior and we can all agree this is very disrupting. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't actually violated 3RR (by the rules of the 3RR board he needs 4 reverts) but he is disruptive and refusing to talk on the article's talkpage. Although the page is fully locked so maybe he may get the message now. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was blocked once and it was told to me as a "cool down time". Ha ha. But, either way, the entire film page has now been blocked due to our edit warring with this one user. I must say, to be honest, we all are probably to blame as we let it escalate, but the several of us have been working as one collaborative force, as opposed to this user who has been continuously going against us. And actually, looking at their edit history, they did break the rule. Three times "warping" was put in, then "Retroactive continuity" was put in twice. --HELLØ ŦHERE 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

{{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_(film)&action=history]] I count 4 today..... and 3 yesterday, i would also quote the template "Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." as my reasoning for doing this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For a 3RR report you need the first version, then three reverts, a talkpage discussion, a 3RR warning then a fourth revert, taking the total to five. And you need to not have 3RR yourself. Moot as he's now blocked. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I protected the page rather than block him is because he continually claimed that the phrase he was replacing was also unsourced and people simply reverted him rather than addressing that issue by providing a source. The protection is only 3 days. Discussion on the talk page is the way to go. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we tried the talk page and his talk page but the following source covers that arguement [[50]] also the link I included with the original talk page under Alternate Reality covered that term too. But it is for now as you say a moot point so I'll drop it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

24 hours is good. I'll keep a close watch, as this is exactly the kind of editor that really Grinds My Gears. --King ÖÖmie III 14:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since he's been blocked for 24 hours nyway I removed the protection on the article. I urge the editors involved to get their sources watertight before he returns. That should put an end to the matter. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors failing to abide by AFD consensus at Public image of Barack Obama

Closing this. The dispute isn't really being actively resolved here. Don't edit war and don't disrupt the editing process by refusing compromise. The portion of this that is a content dispute may be continued on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A consensus was made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama that information regarding Obama's teleprompted usage should be included in the appropriate sub-article about Barack Obama. I discussed it on the talk page and editors refuse to even discuss the matter and claim that there is no consensus on the page to include the material. I believe discussions at AFD have precedence and show the widespread consensus of the community. The mob and ownership tactics of the band of Obama article protectors is a serious problem that should be addressed, especially when they're willing to edit against the community's consensus. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Before reverting you, I even did a simple CTRL-F search at the AFD. There were 67 instances of the word "delete" (with a space after it), 22 of the word "keep" (with a space after it), and 19 of the word "merge" or "merger" (the latter of which usually recommended discussing a possible merger). How you divine that you have consensus behind your controversial additions from that AFD is quite baffling. UnitAnode 22:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC) That is not an effective way to measure consensus, please read the AFD. A large amount of delete votes favor the inclusion of the material in some form, not a "merge." The insertion of a paragraph is in no way a "merge." --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) What is the specific complaint requiring administrator action? Protonk (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Looks like a pure content dispute. The ABF of 'mob and ownership tactics' could probably use some admin addressing though. → ROUX ₪ 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Well, I know I didn't file this, but WSS has been edit-warring at the mentioned page, and is now wildly misrepresenting what the AFD contains. I just went through it comment by comment, and of the 67 deletes, only a few even tangentially mentioned merging. Is this kind of misrepresentation allowed? UnitAnode 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Could you please provide diffs of the editwarring? → ROUX ₪ 23:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC) The ownership issues of the page, and the ignorance of community consensus by a small band of editors. I believe warnings, blocks and article bans seem to be a good solution to this problem, and maybe page protections. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I'll leave it to some uninvolved administrators to decide where the fault lies in this case. I've posted all I have to say on this matter. UnitAnode 22:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC) William, please provide diffs and contextualised quotes showing a) the ownership issues, b) ignorance of the, c) community consensus you claim, and optionally d) your understanding of the ArbCom sanctions currently imposed on all Obama-related articles. → ROUX ₪ 23:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC) This looks like a content dispute on an article under probation. All parties are invited to stop edit warring about it immediately. From the talk page I gather the focus of the dispute surrounds a particular paragraph detailing "teleprompter" criticism. Work together to weave that into the prose of the article if possible. If folks continue to edit war or be obstructionist, I'll block people as need be. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC) The history of the article shows his edit-warring, as well as his making false claims in his edit summaries. He tried this (and edit-warred then, as well) towards the beginning of July. If anyone needs topic-banned here, it's WSS. UnitAnode 23:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Just so you know, consensus is that it doesn't belong in the article at all. No one is being "obstructionist" in any way. WSS is simply engaging in blatantly tendentious editing. UnitAnode 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Nowhere did I say he was in the right. If this issue dies down with no further reverts then that's good. If he continues to edit war or if other participants continue to make the talk pages unpleasant (more so) places to be, then there will be trouble. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I will provide diffs, but Unitanode reflects the basic problem with the Obama articles and the SPA accounts that make it impossible for anybody to edit. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC) In my view, the incredible bad-faith present in the above post alone, combined with the wild misrepresentations of what the AFD consensus was, as well as the incredibly misleading edit summaries, and the "right up to 3RR" edit-warring should lead to an immediate block. Anyone who has taken even the briefest of looks at my edit history knows I'm not an SPA. In fact, in the last two weeks, I've made only 1 edit to the aforementioned article. WSS's accusations of bad-faith need to end right now. UnitAnode 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I've not taken a close look at the AfD, but the closing statement as written by MBisanz reads: "The result was delete. The consensus indicates the synthesis, POV-fork and NOT#NEWS issues render the article unsuitable for inclusion." I don't see any mention there of a merge, nor of any specific merge target, nor do I think that a vague consensus to merge to "some article" at a closed, archived discussion should override more recent and more local consensus at an article's talk page, regardless of whether such a consensus could be inferred from the closed AfD; if there's something to indicate the contrary, involving more users who commented on the AfD might be helpful -- speaking of which, I'll drop a note to the closing admin, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Closing admin here; I closed it per the discussion at the time. That discussion isn't set in stone, and short of re-creating the article (which requires DRV), anything else more current at the talk page would easily override any discussion at AFD. MBisanz talk 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC) As someone who has done some adminly stuff with the Obama articles but also !voted in the AfD, this strikes me as a content dispute. There are some "bad faith" issues here but nothing which rises to the level of a blockable offense in my view. For what it's worth, I weighed in pretty heavily in favor of deletion in the AfD but also noted "Probably something about the teleprompter situation could be mentioned there if this continues to be an issue in the months ahead" - presumably an example of the kind of comment William S. Saturn has in mind. I meant that very much as written though, with emphasis on the "probably" and "if this continues to be an issue." I actually don't know whether I would support some mention of the teleprompter stuff in the Public image of Barack Obama article, but I certainly would not want my comment in the AfD to be read as definite support for that, and I certainly don't think the AfD resulted in any consensus either way on whether inclusion of the teleprompter material was desirable or not. So again, we have a content dispute. It should be worked out on the article talk page in my view, and probably this thread should be marked resolved fairly soon.. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Subsection for evidence closing per arbcom restrictions The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I am archiving my contribution here because another editor with whom I am forbidden from interacting, and who I had though was precluded from involvement in Obama-related matters, is accusing me of bad faith by way of commenting on my post. Rather than risking violating Arbcom sanctions myself by remaining, I am withdrawing and will likely avoid commenting further as long as they are here. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (after many edit conflicts) WBS's edits, accusations, and conduct on the Obama pages, and again in this report are all either very misguided, or suspicious. Accusing Unitanode of being an SPA, along with the ownership and bias accusations, demands for blocks and topic bans, etc., suggest a tendentiousness of a sort we have seen before. Previous edit warring on the same text, in the same article[51][52][53] Edit warring neutrality notices in that article.[54][55] (editor made accusations of bad faith, bias, etc., at that time) Editor previously warned about consensus, edit warring,[56] and Obama article probation.[57] Renewed edit warring on same text / article[58][59][60] Accusations made elsewhere[61] Whether AN/I is a safe haven to make wild accusations like the above is up to the administrators here. They are impermissible in Obama articles and talk pages per article probation and general editing principles. On the merits of the complaint, whatever happened at AfD, there is no consensus on the page in question to include the material, and a consensus reached in an AfD at one time is not generally enforceable across article space today. I agree with Protonk, if everyone goes home I see no need for any action. So if an admin is watching, please cut the drama short, warn the editor that no further nonsense will be tolerated, and close this thread. If the original poster continues edit warring or makes accusations of bad faith again on the Obama pages they need to stop. That's all there is here. Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I've been getting a few, too -- curse of being the bottom section on AN/I! I hope you don't mind if I split this into a subsection, but I won't worry if someone reverts that. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)This thread needs less back and forth between Unitanode and WSS and more evidence in the form of diffs. I'm aware that WSS was edit warring on Public image of Barack Obama but I have no interest in blocking him after the fact for it (and little interest in protecting the page). If someone can show evidence suggesting that WSS has done much more than edit warring or that folks on the other side of the dispute have breached our guidelines or the article probation guidelines or that the feud continues, then some administrator action can be taken. If none of that happens or if this thread becomes a place to recapitulate the Obama-drama on those talk pages, then I'll collapse the thread and end the discussion. Is this clear? Protonk (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Seems luna and wikidemon beat me to the punch. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I also posted evidence, and am a little miffed that the fact that I simply answered the wild accusations WSS was making against me is equated in your initial post of this section with what WSS is doing here. UnitAnode 23:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC) It's sad when somebody who has written 6 GA articles has almost every single edit they make to a topic reverted, and is then accused of bad faith when they attempt to fix a major wikipedia problem. I will provide diffs, but this only scratches the surface. This good faith edit is rollbacked, A sourced section is removed in an edit war (eventually the editor gives up), and this. Plus, just look at the talk page of Talk:Public image of Barack Obama, how is one even supposed to gain consensus, when editors refuse to discuss the matter and resort to personal attacks, and ask other editors to just end the discussion? A mob of editors should not be allowed to own an article and make it impossible for anyone else to edit. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Is WSS just allowed carte blanch to insult those who oppose his viewpoint? I mean, in this thread alone, he's done it over and over and over. UnitAnode 00:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The evidence is overwhelming. The content is ridiculously well sourced, including an entire article on the subject in the New York Times. There are simply editors here who don't like it and who have no regard for our core policy of neutral point of view. Notable criticisms and controversies about Obama are not allowed. We must wallow in ignorance like sheep. I'm under a topic ban for daring to try and address the problem. Also, there are abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't toe the line. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC) To whom it may concern: Is the above typically insulting comment by CoM also a violation of his Obama topic ban? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I'll ask again: are these kind of blatantly bad-faith attacks allowed? UnitAnode 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The bad faith attacks of the censors and POV pushers need to stop. The NPOV policy is a core policy and it makes clear that notable viewpoints should be included even when they aren't in the majority. The mob rule needs to end. I encourage you to help put a stop to it. If the New York Times isn't a reliable source, you're welcome to explain that policy change. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I'm done with this, and unwatching this page. This issue will either be dealt with or not. UnitAnode 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, by all means close your eyes. They are going to continue to come after any editor who dares to challenge the censorship and POV pushing. This is an encyclopedia not a DNC website. Yet these editors come after every editor who threatens to include notable content that they don't like with aggressive tactics and blocks and bans. They have admin friends and there are no checks and balances on it. As the Arbcom hearing proved, even the highest levels of Wiki-bureaucracy can't be bothered to enforce our core policies. I don't dare list all the editors I've personally witnessed be hounded off Wikipedia, but that this disgraceful practice is allowed to continue is unacceptable. The very first sentence of the NPOV policy states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. My topic ban is clear too, it applies to Obama articles and talk pages, but that will not stop those who want to get rid of me from hounding, stalking, and harassing me. Until admins and arbcom begin addressing these violations, instead of going into a frothy fury every time one editor calls another editor an "idiot", this grotesque abuse will continue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC) If you hadn't arrived here with an anti-Obama agenda, things might have gone differently for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC) COM, aren't you not allowed to comment on Obama articles or discussions per ArbCom? I think this is clearly an Obama discussion. Please strike your comments and move along or I will find me a ArbCom member and have them block you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I know in the past month, Ferrylodge decided to disappear from the project. And two great editors that could add significantly to the articles: Happyme22 and Wasted Time R, refuse to even look at the pages because of the "protectors." This is a serious concern for wikipedia that needs to be addressed. We can't have a band of editors running others from the project and disregarding NPOV. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC) You've got a point. For example, CoM and his brethren did a good job of running me off the Obama pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC) @Neutralhomer, according to the probation statement, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. It says he is not topic-banned to comment about Obama on his talk page or noticeboards. So he did not violate it. However, you can ask or request amendment. I'm getting tired of seeing his obsession with the new US president. There are many good subjects that would need his attention in Wikipedia like cake and architecture. And Baseball Bug's obsession with CoM is also always an accompanied set to watch.--Caspian blue 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I have asked for a clarification on the ruling. Am waiting on an ArbCom member to get back to me. I think this is an end run around his restriction and should probably be looked into. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC) To CB: I am not particularly interested in CoM, in fact I find him very uninteresting (to recite his own words to me), but he keeps turning up, on pages that I watch routinely, yapping about Obama. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC) If you're not interested why do you keep stalking me around Wikipedia despite my repeated requests to leave me alone? You followed me to JulianColton's page, to Protonk's page, to Ched's page, and many others. Only recently did you stop posting your harassing nonsense on my talk page all of which was unrelated to article work. I'm here to collaborate on content contributions and to improve the encyclopedia not to play with disruptive and harassing characters that lack self-control. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) No, you're here to criticize liberals. Editors who come here with a political agenda typically eventually find themselves where you have found yourself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Caspian blue, with all due respect, this is about much more than the U.S. president. It's about censorship, it's about stalking, harassment, intimidation, disruptions, and other abuse that is dished out to editors with minority viewpoints. I've tried to abide by my editing restrictions, despite their inappropriateness, but it hasn't stopped the harassment and stalking I've received. Editors monitor my contributions and make all sorts of allegations. On occasion they stick or have enough to encourage even more abuse. I'm not going to remain silent in the face of this hounding of editors. I try not to mention specific editor names who are subject to this harassment because I worry it would only make them more of a target, but a few are mentioned above and these are all content contributors. It's time to put a stop to the abuse and violations of our core policies. If something is covered substantially in reliable sources it isn't a question of whether we should include, but where and how to do so appropriately. The abusive behavior must stop before we lose more good editors to the disruptive trolls and their admin friends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) And I would say there is plenty to criticize Obama about. It's just that someone who comes in with an anti-Obama agenda [62] isn't the one to do it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom request

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

---

I've filed a new Arbcom remedy request concerning some issues arising in the above hatted discussion, here. I could use a little help notifying the other people and threads this affects. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, CoM's entry into that discussion, with its attack on unnamed editors who don't believe in NPOV, is a clear violation of his topic ban, and I have accordingly blocked him for 48 hours. Should Arbcom conclude it's not a violation, don't wait for me to wake up before unblocking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight has responded by making several personal attacks [63]. Elsewhere he has described his topic ban as inappropriate and censorship. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

With personal attacks being flung about, I think a move up in the block should be made from 48 hours to 72. Just an opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be very brief in my caution: no increases to the duration should be made. If there continue to be personal attacks, then the page will be protected - again, I emphasise, no changes should be made to the block duration, at least at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To me and from your post on his talk page, it seems like you don't want to upset him anymore. As Bugs put it below, tough toenails. Flinging personal attacks around should not go unpunished. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nmvocalist, CoM has made a second series of personal attacks. [64] He should be given the chance to refactor these comments; otherwise his talk page should probably be locked. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Here is what ChildofMIdnight has written in part:

“ Haha. The usual stalkers and trolls are showing up to go after me. It's open season. Neutral Homer and WMC's (Connolley) partner in crime Mathsci. Have you seen that nightmare arbcom proceeding they are involved in? Actually there are a couple I think. What are the chances arbcom actually does something about these abusers?
Anyway, thanks Bongo, but really I think the good people should stay away from these pigs in the mud. I like y'all too much to have you deal with these swamp creatures. ”

This seems to be highly disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Matter now moot after John Vandenberg's conditional unblock. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Like he will hurl personal attacks now...he has received what he wanted on a silver platter, an unblock. An hour's worth of personal attacks meant nothing. Completely pathetic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Die4Dixie's attacks on another user.

--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See Die4Dixie (talk · contribs)'s comments here and here. Di4Dixie either needs a civility check, or a psychologist. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Are you now, or have you ever been..." Seems like a pretty tactless question and the line of inquiry behind it ought to stop. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Question was answered by the rant he left on my page. I´m satisfied and we can move on.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What rant? All I see is a reasoned response to your personal attacks, and your continued attacks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As the user in question, I would add that I find Dixie's accusations and the possible paranoia that spawned them troubling. Apparently he/she believes that they can openly insinuate and impugn the motives of other editors - going so far as to assume that because I edit articles with relation to Che Guevara, that I must secretly be a hired communist agent sent by the now defunct Soviet Union to rally the Proletarian masses on Wikipedia for the coming world takeover (oops did I just disclose the plan?). To top it off Dixie then believes that he/she has the right to interrogate me and make flippant accusations that I am "safe for now" in my supposed role as a "Communist/Maoist" insurgent within academia (Dixie's obviously never roamed the halls of the Sociology department, some of who would make me look like Milton Friedman). I'm not sure what should be done (if anything), but I would like Dixie to focus on editing articles, and not his/her own personal Wiki ‘red scare’.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

{ec}Sorry, failure to indent correctly (actually I think you may have snuck a comment in above me. Is this any clearer?Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4DixieWhatever happened to assuming good faith? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, this was not reasonable or appropriate. Polite inquiries into other people's political or social affiliations are not abusive by nature - this was over the line, an acusation and impeachment couched in polite wording. Do not do that again. We require all editors to assume good faith about each other's participation, edit in a manner which is collegial and respectful to others' participation, and not launch personal attacks on other editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I won´t ask again, but we can agree to disagree politely about your view on the situation. Please review the reporter´s recent comments and the rant left on my talkpage. I don´t want any sanction, but it seems a little Pot, kettle black, and my question was nothing like the comments these users have left.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you're looking for some communists to harass, Dixie, how about The Smurfs? Their leader ever wears red... HalfShadow 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Then there's all those Republican states, colloquially known as "red" states. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that Die4Dixie's question was an inappropriate and weasely attack, though politely-worded. The response was more pointedly angry, but I'd be angry if such accusatory material were posted on my talk page. Die4Dixie also appears to be making accusations about another user's character and fitness to edit here, with conclusions made from their anger. I haven't reviewed the situation and therefore don't know on what basis Die4Dixie questioned Redthoreau's edits, but place to deal with another editor in that way is a RfC or 3rd opinion. Sneaky comments and smug assumptions are WP:ABF. Awickert (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's question was a politely framed inquiry as to whether a particular editor who was editing communism-related articles was in fact a believer / adherent to communism. Wikipedians are not required to disclose their beliefs (or genders, or background, or nationality, occupation, age, etc), and suggestions that their editing is influenced by such factors are discouraged. So asking someone if they voted for Obama is also a little impolite. They can volunteer it, but they aren't expected to. Being a communist is not necessarily a scandalous thing, but in many countries it is more controversial than being a mainstream party member. The accusation here against D4D is that it was not a real question, but instead a dig or a politely worded accusation. He insists it wasn't. Are we in the business of deciding D4D's intention wasn't what he says it was? That just doesn't seem helpful. Let's just note that Redthoreau took exception to the question (although RTO was not the editor who filed this report.. D4D has already said he did not mean to offend. Maybe he can also say that he won't ask Redthoreau if he/she's a communist again? Maybe even an apology for having that misimpression? I don't see much more to it than that. Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would mostly agree with that. The part at the end about subverting Wikipedia seemed a little too snarky. But I'm happy to see the issue dropped if the two editors are OK with things. Awickert (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, for the record, I did not personally report this incident, and would be more than glad to go back to editing articles without continuing interrogations from our resident political inquisitor. I am willing to move on, and hope that Dixie will heed others advice and refrain from similar actions in the future.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. I am sorry if he was offended.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently now I'm a fellow traveler. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC):And now this. Die4Dixie's attacks continue. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's implication that WTWAG is a homosexual communist, after this thread on his accusations and comments was opened, shows that he isn't about to stop. Were he simply contrarian, we could point to the value of having a functional, vocal opposition, but what we have here is a Birther describing everyone who he feels disagrees as unpatriotic, unAmerican, and a communist. His attempts to win disputes through bullying tactics, insults, and intimidation show what kind of person he is, and it's not the kind that's ever going to fit into this project. ThuranX (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP user adding large amounts of dubious and unsourced material to actor BLPs and related film articles

There's a user, who apparently edits only from IP addresses geolocating to Lima, Peru, adding a ton of unsourced, dubious information to actress and actress-related articles. The information typically involves roles the actress didn't get, but supposedly auditioned for, was "considered" for, etc, etc. Some of the information is obviously wrong (the first edit that caught my attention had Kim Basinger auditioning for a film two years after its release); some is conspicuously dubious (Meryl Streep and Alyssa Milano competing for the same role); some more subtly dubious (Legally Blonde originally envisioned as a "dark" comedy vehicle fo Uma Thurman); but much of it is superficially plausible as individual items, but visibly problematic when dozens of names have been added to the article. Today the editor has inserted an unsourced and implausible claim into the Daryl Hannah article ("narrowly missing on" in the lead in Coal Miner's Daughter [65]). Some randomly chosen exsmples of the IP's work include this unlikely list of roles rejected by Melanie Griffith [66]; Molly Ringwald up for Uma Thurman's role in Pulp Fiction [67]; and the deeply weird suggestion that David Lynch tried to cast Cher, Meryl Streep, and Goldie Hawn in Blue Velvet before having to settle for Isabella Rossellini [68].

Is there any way to track down these edits that's more efficient than trolling through film-related articles checking to see which IP addresses are associated with Lima? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (originally posted at WP:BLPN, reposted here per responses there)

We have no geographical IP search tool - The hard way you described is pretty much it. Do you have a list of IPs (those 3, any others?)? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are probably dozens of them. In Jennifer Jason Leigh alone, there's User:190.43.185.217, User:200.106.73.1, User:190.43.34.105, 190.232.79.250 , and 190.232.33.220. From Taxi Driver, there's User:190.81.73.39, and I've now run my limit of "Geolocates" for one day. I believe 190.232.79.235 is another, given this edit [69]. In Melanie Griffith, probably 190.43.98.113 and 190.43.122.230. In Kim Basinger, I spot 190.43.191.239.. The user's also got an interest in SNL, and given the huge number of related articles there, checking the anon editors wil be a nightmare. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible to write a tool that would return a list of IP addresses (and, perhaps, the time of the most recent edit) from a specified range of IP addresses that have made at least one edit (from there you could use special:contributions to see all of the edits from each IP address). The edits above are from at least 3 different ranges of IP addresses (click the "WHOIS" link from the contributions page to see the ranges, for example 200.106.39.228 is from the range 200.106.36/22 which means about 1000 addresses from 200.106.36.00 through 200.106.39.255). If you really want to chase down these spurious edits you might ask if someone has such a tool or has an interest in writing one at Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to the incident at hand - is this still happening today? I will rangeblock appropriate small ranges if it's ongoing today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Katsumasahiro2

Previous thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Troublesome Pair

Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs) was originally blocked for 24 hours over edit warring on Kira Takenouchi‎ by repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced material in violation of WP:BLP. During the coarse of time, I opened a sockpuppet case do to similarities with another editor Kxings (talk · contribs). Kxings (talk · contribs) has since been confirmed as an obvious sock of Kxing (talk · contribs) who was indefinitely blocked over a year ago for spamming via repeated recreations of Kira Takenouchi‎ and Yaoi house. (Note: Kxings is also the creator of the current Takenouchi‎ article.) Katsumasahiro immediately made a legal threat over the sockpuppety case[70] just prior to his 24 hour block for edit warring. A checkuser confirms that the Katsumasahiro and Kxings use the same ISP and are from the same geographic area. Earlier today Katsumasahiro2 (talk · contribs) was created and is a clear sock of Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs). The account was added to the sockpuppet case and Versageek (talk · contribs) blocked the IP as a result. Now the account is making multiple unblock requests as well as being very uncivil. --Farix (Talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have strong doubts that this user will contribute to the project in a constructive manner if unblocked, however if anyone wants to lift or modify my block, feel free. --Versageek 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Katsumasahiro accounts should be indeffed as disruptive. I find it hard to believe that he/she just happened to forget their password all of a sudden. The incivility, the ranting at the AFD page and all makes it obvious this person will not be a net advantage to the project. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I declined his unblock, and asked him to address the numerous problems noted from his first account, which need to be addressed before he can be unblocked. Even if we assume his is truthful about forgetting his password, his general problematic behavior spread across two accounts must be addressed. --Jayron32 02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He is now seeking someone to "override" the block since he claims we are the ones being "rude".[71] --Farix (Talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the level of insults and personal attacks he has hurled, unprovoked, against other people, I find such claims about others being rude to be laughable. --Jayron32 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Katsumasahiro2 is now using their user talk page as a sandbox initial addition. I'm a little concerned this (or the actual content of the makeshift sandbox) may breach WP:BLP - second opinions? --Malkinann (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, just realized he's not actually blocked; he's only just been caught by the autoblock on his prior account, see his block log and talk page. It seems plainly clear that, given that an Autoblock only lasts for a short time, that his claim to being ignorant of a prior password seems like a false premise given that he conveniently only forgot the password when the account got blocked. Would someone care to ACTUALLY make the real block on his account. I think also we may need a CU to look into this, as there appears to be some sort of shenanigans going on... --Jayron32 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I already specified that the IP was blocked. In fact, here is the block log.[72] --Farix (Talk) 03:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that there are some serious WP:BLP issues with the "sandbox" as the sources don't support the claims being made. --Farix (Talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably there's nothing to stop this editor logging out and requesting a new password for their Katsumasahiro account. If they are managing to edit as Katsumasahiro2 then they are presumably able to get to the "Email new password" button for Katsumasahiro or am I missing something? If the answer is yes then the 2nd account should be indeffed with a pointer to that page. Right now they are effectively block evading by chatting on their 2nd talk page, even if is it currently constructive. Seems like a no brainer to lock down this second pointless account if only to keep all the discussion in one place. Mfield (Oi!) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a theory: while the original block on Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs) has expired...the block on Kxings (talk · contribs) is indefinite...and is probably the one he's getting caught in. --Smashville^talk 14:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What is actually happening with this case? It appears Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours, a block that has now expired. Katsumasahiro2 (talk · contribs) has said he didn't have email activated on the first account and can't remember his password. He claims still to be blocked at Katsumasahiro2 (unable to edit anything but his own user page). Has a Checkuser found anything conclusive? I gather that he and Kxing may be related. At any rate, something should be done about this. Could the autoblock be lifted, the first account indeffed, and the current account be dealt with on its own merits/problems? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If Katsumasahiro is being caught in Kxings' autoblock, that makes it very clear that he is a sockpuppet. I would take very serious issue with Kxings being unblocked so that he could edit under a user name. --Smashville^talk 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If he is, right. But is there any way to determine whether that's actually the case? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't a template appear for an autoblocked user? Granted, he should be indefinitely blocked for the legal threat, but I had already blocked him for 24 hours before I saw it... --Smashville^talk 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked him if he gets a template message. He has said he can't edit the sandbox. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which means he's autoblocked. For some reason, he doesn't want to move to step 3. I have a hunch why. --Smashville^talk 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, which is why I'd like to get to the bottom of it, because in the meantime he's editing a once-deleted and soon to be re-deleted article in his user space, and generally being a bit of a pain. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that he wasn't blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but is clearly getting that message...apparently, he's still at it. --Smashville^talk 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already pointed to the IP block above, which I got when he posted the initial unblock request.[73] Aren't you guys paying attention? --Farix (Talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well then, if that's the case, and given that the user is thus far refusing to complete the Clearing an autoblock instructions but is continuing to edit his page, what's the next step? Remove his ability to edit his new page as well? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the content on the user talk page which breaches the biographies of living persons policy, explaining it in terms of protecting Kira Takenouchi. Hopefully Katsumasahiro will understand. --Malkinann (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking hounding and harassment

I've been at the receiving end and seen other editors receive very abusive treatment when they try to edit articles to include minority viewpoints consistent with our wp:NPOV policy. The policy states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet those attempting to include minority viewpoints are often hounded and stalked. I understand that user talk pages are important means of communication, but if someone is told they're not welcome and their comments aren't related to article content why is the behavior allowed to continue? Also, I've seen and experienced these same "editors" following me to other talk pages and commenting in threads I'm involved in. Is this kind of taunting and harassment acceptable? The violation of our core NPOV policy seems bad enough, but after watching some major content contributors leave because of this, I'm very concerned that these methods are used to promote censorship and bias in our article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, you might actually get some help if you were a slightly bit more specific. General statements about how things are going aren't going to result in much. Can you provide some examples? Also, WP:UNDUE is probably the policy you're more concerned about than WP:NPOV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of an "editor" who has been asked dozens of times to leave me alone and yet continues to stalk, harass, and taunt me. I have never seen them contribute to an article, so I don't see how any of their comments could relate to content contributing or collegial collaboration. [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], and there's also more discussion of me on their talk page. I've tried to ignore it, but it hasn't stopped. I'd just like them to leave me alone and to do their ummm... whatever you want to call it away from editors who don't welcome this activity. I haven't looked closely at all these diffs, they're just a recent sampling, but I don't think any of the discussions involved them at all so their comments were wholly unwelcome and not constructive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What does all this about Baseball Bugs (and have you notified him of this) have to do with NPOV? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, since we won't actually name the editor in question, I'll let him know that he is being discussed. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Without having seen this, I'd left a note on Bugs' talk page asking that editor to avoid commenting on or interacting with ChildofMidnight (which Bugs had said would happen in the past). Rather than this turning into another endless Obama thread that produces nothing other than acrimony, can ChildofMidnight and Baseball Bugs both agree to not interact with (or comment on) one another? It should not be that hard. ChildofMidnight already sounds amenable to that, and as I said Bugs was at one point. I think that addresses the core issue, so let's see what the two editors have to say about that proposal before going any further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case, regardless of what you feel about the politics at the heart of the dispute, these comments are over-the-line in terms of WP:NPA and Bugs needs to stop this sort of thing. Calling someone names like "POV-pusher" is probably not very helpful in terms of resolving any dispute, and clearly violates the letter and spirit of WP:NPA. I think he needs to step back and stop making these sorts of comments at Wikipedia. Furthermore, it would help if Bugs and CoM agreed to stop interacting with each other across any articles if possible. Of importance here is a recent ArbCom case as well, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. --Jayron32 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me. I should point out that I went to BB's talk page to notify them, but Protonk beat me to it. BB has also been asked to cease this behavior by numerous admins. I prefer to edit content than to chase down diffs. But if I need to I will try to come up with some. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (ec multiples)

ChildofMidnight, are you amenable to the solution put forward above, i.e. that you just completely avoid each other, assuming Baseball Bugs agrees to and abides by it as well? That seems to me the best way forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fantastic to me. If there's a discussion that actually invovles us both like an Arbcom issue or something fine. But he can keep to his section and I'll keep to mine. Otherwise I don't see any need to interact at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One point of clarification to Jayron, none of his comments are on articles or article related, or in discussion involving him. Since I'm optimistic that at some point Arbcom will end their improper censoring of me, I don't want to be limited on what articles I can work on. I don't follow BB anywhere, but it's possible we'd be working on an article at the same time. In that case I think avoiding discussing each other directly would be fine. I already have enough people after me trying to chase me off wikipedia and off articles. I don't want to have to keep track of where he may or may not be. Like I said, I won't comment to or about him. No problem. That's the status quo for me at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Bugs has been clearly pushing your buttons. You've also been pushing his buttons and other people's buttons (your comments to ProtonK on his talk page on Aug 2, before Bugs chimed in; elsewhere). You and Bugs pushing each others buttons is actually staying remarkably restrained overall for how many times each of you did something to each other.

I agree that this is not constructive or civil. We have a tendency to let "experienced users" who get grumpy to poke each other for a while, if nobody complains then we assume everyone's thick skinned and can handle it. I think that's probably a mistake - even if you aren't personally insulted, it does bring down the level of conversation and drive away third parties, and the odds that someone will eventually become actually upset and it be a real problem are high.

Without ascribing any root cause / fault - if Bugs can not follow any of your comments, if you can not leave comments folllowing his, or like those you left for ProtonK on the 2nd, and you and Bugs stay separated for a while it would probably be for the best. The voluntary mutual topic ban Bigtimeinpeace proposed seems like a great idea to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I need to clarify this stattement after reading GWH's comment. I absolutely have not pushed BBs buttons. I avoid that editor like the plague. Your comment is a gross distortion and unless you have diffs to back it up I suggest you strike it.

My comments to Protonk related to his allegations against me which he didn't back off even when they were proved wrong. That behavior, in violation of AGF, was totally unacceptable and I let him know that. I haven't pursued the matter further and had you not brought it up I wouldn't have either. I see it as done and over. As you know from personal experience GWH, when there is behavior that I find disruptive and of serious harm to Wikipedia I address it. My comments to other editors and admins don't have anything to do with the stalking, harassing, and hounding of editors with minority viewpoints that promotes censorship, and you're conflating the two is disruptive and somewhat outrageous. I don't pursue those I disagree with on articles and I try to stay focused on article content and to leave personal opinions out of it. Despite the smears against me I am quite moderate, I avoid discussing my personal politics except in a discrete and humorous way, and I think it's important that various viewpoints are represented consistent with our core policy as cited above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• CoM, I don't "engage" in any action against you, I just don't like your actions on some subjects. Like the Obama thread above. YOu are on restriction from Obama articles and talk pages but you knowingly post at an ANI thread about Obama doing an end run around your restrictions. That is bad faith editing. Then when you are called on it, Baseball Bugs or I have been mean to you or some crap. Act right, follow the rules, do something other than getting in people's business, follow your restrictions and maybe...just maybe...people wouldn't be on your case about everything. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If CoM would apologize for this [81] then he would need never hear from me again, even when I catch him violating his topic ban the next time, and the next time, etc. He's driven me away from political pages; he's tried to box me in in various ways; he constantly makes accusations against me (and many others); but I'll be damned if I'm going to let him dictate my efforts here any further. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs you link to that thread often, though I'm not sure why it still bothers you so much since it was literally five months ago (I'm also not sure exactly what aspect of it bothers you since there is so much stuff there). Can't you just let it go at this point, and do you really think an apology will actually be forthcoming, or that requiring someone to apologize on-Wiki before moving forward is helpful? I'm genuinely having trouble understanding what you want here. You and C of M do not get along in the slightest and are seemingly never going to agree on much of anything surrounding this tiff. Why not just back away, which C of M says he will do, and avoid one another, which is what you said you were going to do a month ago? The dispute between the two of you wastes other editors' time and accomplishes literall nothing, so can't we just squash the beef (mmmmmm....squash beef....) right here and now? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Twice now I've turned him in for topic ban violations, and both time the experts agreed with me. He calls my reporting "stalking and harassment". For example, he accused me of "stalking" him to the Gates page. That is not true. I went to the Gates page to learn more about the subject, and there he was, violating his topic ban. I turned him in for it, and he didn't like it. Tough toenails. He's on a topic ban, and should know better. As someone else said earlier, he is constantly trying to push the envelope of that ban. The thing is, thanks to him and his brethren, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama articles, months ago. I want nothing to do with him. But he keeps popping up. With his complaint here, he's basically saying I don't have the right to report it when he breaks his topic ban. He has no right to dictate that. But here's the deal: He is basically saying he wants me to go away for good. I'm telling him how he can accomplish that. If he apologizes for that slap in my face back on March 8/9, he'll never hear from me again, unless he initiates a conversation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out, though, that it's not just due to narcissism on my part that I keep going back to that link. It's to point out that his political agenda, what I call his POV-pushing, has been there from the beginning, and nothing has changed. Then, as now, he accuses wikipedia of being a cheerleader for Obama. He impugns the integrity of many editors, not just me. He has demonstrated that he has not a clue what NPOV means. I worked on both political poles - Obama and Palin - at times when they were under siege by POV-pushers. I actually got compliments from Republican-leaning editors for defending the Palin page. What I got for defending the Obama page is stuff like what CoM said back in March - a beat he continues to drum here, against everyone who dares to stand up to his behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Until 1 January 2010, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are topicbanned from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties.

I support this, obviously, as I wrote it. Your turn. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I observe him breaking his Obama topic ban, I am not allowed to report it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Either it will be noticed and dealt with by users less ...attached... to the situation, or you may email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to let them know. In any case, the onwiki disruption is getting silly, so it's best for the two of you to retire to separate corners and stay there. → ROUX ₪ 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How about it if instead of reporting in on-wiki, you e-mailed an administrator? It's likely that someone else would catch it - and really you should just ignore his edit trail - but if something comes up you could always ask an admin to investigate. That would avoid on-wiki drama but make sure that someone looked into the situation.

Roux's proposal is fine with me, although it might not be a bad idea to simply make it indefinite rather than giving an end date, and to make it an informal arrangement which the two parties agree to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite, sure, but informal seems like a bad idea. CoM has already nibbled at the edges of his current topicban, so a clear and unambiguous statement--no comments on or about each other anywhere on en.wikipedia.org--is the best way to go. Simple and effective, with the usual escalating blocks for either editor even pushing at the edges. No commenting. Period. End of drama. → ROUX ₪ 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Endpointed or not, if I happen to see what looks like an Obama topic ban violation, and if there's no issue about my sending an e-mail to an admin about it, then it's fine. And if I have reason to defend him (which I have done before, and which I did in a section farther down), then I would also use e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And to formalize it, presumably amend the arbcom ruling page on this matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

However, he has impugned other editors besides me. Can the arbcom ruling also be amended that he is to refrain from accusing wikipedians of being cheerleaders for Obama, regardless of where he might say it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is fine, so long as both parties agree to it. I will state that hearing from CoM above that NH and Tarc act the same way with respect to CoM gives me pause. What we don't want is to establish a network of mutual editor bans where the real problem may not be negative pairwise interaction. If this is indeed the best solution at the lowest level, let's do it. If it isn't, then we should avoid it. To BB specifically, if you agree to this, I don't think you should worry about watching over CoM's vis a vis his topic ban. If he has really violated it in a specific area, someone else will notice and say something. Protonk (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)See, the problem is that his accusation is false. I'm NOT "watching over" CoM regarding his topic ban. The two times I turned him in for possible topic ban, I did not "stalk" him as he claims, I just happened to see it. He came to the table here months ago with the preconceived WND-like agenda that wikipedia is controlled by liberals and that that problem must be "corrected". He sees himself as some kind of knight crusading against this alleged problem, as the pronouncement on his own user page proclaims. Thanks in part to his behavior, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama pages months ago, and I don't watch his page either. But he does not have the right to dictate what pages to watch. What I watch or don't watch is my choice, not his. But if the consensus is that I only use e-mail to report possible violations, and to pretend on-wiki that he doesn't exist, I can do that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it's within your power to refuse to agree to a mutual editor ban. I'm just saying that should you agree to it, you probably shouldn't comment about CoM's edits at all. Protonk (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It's obvious he's never going to apologize for his offensive comments to me (and a host of others, but that's another story), so I'll have to settle for a "CoM on-wiki topic ban", and if I happen to see other rules violations that no one else has reported yet, I assure you I will not hesitate to report them myself, off-wiki as per the recommendation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • IRC useful channels is a wonderful place to handle on-wiki things, off-wiki - as I've recently learned. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I've heard of it, and it doesn't sound like something I would want to get involved with. The next times CoM violates his topic ban or breaks other rules, I'll notify a trusted admin via e-mail and let him take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I do sometimes think, given CoM's ever-widening circle of targeted editors, that he has a secret wish to actually get perma-banned here. Then he and his WND buddies could do the "Told Ya So" dance together. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: I will pretend that CoM does not exist, for as long as he remains active on wikipedia, provided that he is required to cease and desist from using inflammatory terms including but not limited to "troll", "vandal", "stalker", "harasser", "censor", "abuser", "POV-pusher" and so on, against any and all established users. That would be on any and all pages. Then I will likewise refrain from any such labeling against any and all users. If someone is feeling abused or harassed or whatever, there are proper channels which are permissible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that counterproposal (the part about avoiding certain words) would be agreed to, unfortunately. The usage of inflammatory terms is a serious issue, but I don't think a voluntary restriction is going to work (in the end further dispute resolution may be required). However a voluntary restriction can clearly work in terms of you and C of M avoiding one another, and it seems you both agreed to that above, but I'm not sure if you're withdrawing that and saying you need something more now. Rather than insisting on this counter-proposal, can we just stick to something that can actually be accomplished and end this thread knowing that both of you agree not to engage with the other? As said you can contact admins about any issues you see. I don't want this ANI thread to end with no useful outcome. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the bright light of day, it occurred to me that it's easy for him to comply, because the only time he ever mentions my name is when I've called him out for rules violations and other bad behavior. So it's a one-sided deal, and unless there's some commitment on his part to improve his own behavior, we're done here. But I will do better to try to avoid him. Unless he changes his approach, he is headed slowly but surely for banishment (which is probably what he secretly wants), and there will be a parade of others to facilitate that; I won't be needed for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand the logic of the last comment. If you're not interacting with each other you're not interacting with each other, period. You would not be calling him out for rules violations (at least on-wiki) so he would not be able to complain about you doing that, so the behavior you dislike would stop. How is it a one-sided deal? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that you are indeed harassing him, Bugs. You are quite aware that your interactions with him are inflammatory and continue to do so anyways. Stop causing drama and leave him alone and there won't be any problems, as far as you are concerned. Jtrainor (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To explain my proposal in a little more detail. There are clear problems with some of CoM's behaviour and have been since basically his first edit. There are also problems with Baseball Bugs' behaviour, particularly with regards to CoM--there are unavoidable similarities here with AllStarEcho/Bluemarine. These problems need to be addressed. Unfortunately, when it's Bugs calling out CoM, the discussion quite neatly swings to being about him (Bugs) and not addressing the problems with CoM's behaviour. In much the same way that ASE's topicban regarding Bluemarine will allow those less attached to the situation to see problematic behaviour without any drama sauce on top, the mutual topicban (and I urge admins to impose it rather than ask for a mutual agreement; the latter is easy to game and far too nebulous. An imposed restriction is unambiguous) is intended to remove the drama caused by Bugs commenting about CoM, permanently, which will allow more clarity when viewing the separate actions of both Baseball Bugs and CoM, and provide more opportunity to find solutions. In other words, the solution proposed quite deliberately avoided dealing with any of the larger issues; the goal is to blow some of the smoke away and let us see whether there is indeed a fire burning and what is feeding it.

Imposing this topicban will very simply remove a source of drama while clarifying what, if any, the actual underlying issues are. Should those underlying issues be resolved--and one way to resolve some of them is ongoing at ArbCom as we speak, via ArbCom clarifying CoM's topicban parameters--I see no reason why this restriction on both users cannot be lifted at some date in the future. → ROUX ₪ 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just implement the restriction as proposed by Roux. I could, and would, do this under terms of the Obama article probation. ChildofMidnight is amenable to this arrangement, and Baseball Bugs seemed to agree but then pulled back. Regardless the issue is clearly Obama related and admins have a bit more leeway in that area.

But I'd rather get a stronger consensus for an imposed "go to your separate corners" for these two editors. The basic proposal would basically be Roux's above, modified to make the time frame indefinite, with slight wording changes and a note about enforcement:

Until further notice, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are restricted from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue.

I'd like a few other comments on this as I said (and really I'm looking for uninvolved people here ideally), but I'm willing to implement this myself (if someone else wants to that's fine as well), inform the two parties in question, and log it here. Thoughts? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Being that this is basically a community sanction, it should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, if not in both places. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just do it. It's a totally one-sided deal, because CoM doesn't have to do anything. It's easy to comply with something you're not doing. He's driven me away from the Obama articles, and if I see him editing anything else, I'll have to stay away from that page too. He better stay away from the baseball articles, though, or there will be hell to pay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing that's irksome is that I have to give something up, and he doesn't. I report him for topic-ban violations, and I get punished for it. So here's another idea. He's topic-banned from Obama articles for some stretch of time, I'm not sure how long. I'm effectively prevented from reporting his violations of that topic ban or other rules, since I shouldn't be watching his contribs list, and if I randomly go to an article that he's doing something with (as with the Gates article), then I have to stay away from that article or risk a block. So just extend the no-contact ban to the point where his topic-ban ends. Because at that point, there'll be no reason for any crossover whatsoever, and both of our banishments will be over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Bugs. You can edit any articles you please. Just don't talk to or about CoM. And obviously stay off his talkpage. If you see him infringing his topicban, email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. The point of this is not to punish you, it is to remove some stuff that is obscuring the real issues at play, if any. → ROUX ₪ 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. I cannot edit any article he's working on; it's not practically possible. And you won't be getting any e-mails from me. You can deal with him yourself. I report him for possible topic-ban violations twice, one of which bought him a block that stuck, and the other block was overturned simply because the admin didn't word it quite right, and this is the thanks I get for it. Similar to the thanks I got for defending wikipedia against his ilk back in March. No. You can have him. He's all yours. Have fun! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, that is your choice. But please understand that this proposal is like applying an ice pack to a sprained ankle; it's there to reduce the swelling, and after that's gone the doctor can see if any further damage has been caused--and fix it if there is any. There is nothing more to it than that. → ROUX ₪ 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

may I have leave to comment, please? I have a relevant opinion which, alas, I cannot safely express here without leave to do so despite being the target of the alleged Arbcom violation under discussion, thanks to a Cache-22 arising from a similar stay-away order. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever difference that is likely to make...--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe CoM is right about his claims of censorship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and put this into effect. Bugs (somewhat reluctantly) and previously ChildofMidnight are both agreeing to this, but I think we can also think of this as a community-imposed restriction and/or a restriction stemming from the Obama article probation, wherein admins have broader authority to implement measures like these. If there are concerns with how this was implemented I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action, deriving my ability to do so from this. But there also seems to be consensus from other editors and from the two parties in question, so I don't really think we have a problem.

I'll leave leave notes on both editors' talk pages announcing the conclusion here, and log the action in a couple of places. Perhaps the thread can stay open for a little while longer to make sure there are no major objections, but after awhile I suggest this be marked resolved and we all move on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Vick

Resolved

 – No ANI issue here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I worked today to put references and clean up the Michael Vick page to a respectable information outlet. Another user who is obviously watching the page failed to discuss my work on the talk page and instead reverted everything. I included references in the page that were not there before and I also removed content that was blatantly stated twice (in the lead and down below) so that the article would look more encyclopedic. Rather than just reverting the work and thus creating an editing war, I am coming to this board for some help. I realize Michael Vick's page will require some work to fix, but how should this be approached? Thank you for your help.keystoneridin! (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You should review our manual of style and discuss this on the article talk page. It is routine for large articles to have relatively long summarizing introductions, as that article had before you removed much of the introduction section.

You added one reference, a link to thesmokinggun.com, which is often not the best of references but in this case contained the actual (primary source) indictment. You should also look at our reliable sources policy - we prefer secondary sources (such as news coverage or history books) to primary sources (actual source documents) in most cases, as secondary sources have already done useful synthesis which we do not want done directly on Wikipedia. You should also discuss that on the article talk page.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I appreciate it.keystoneridin! (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of user pages

User:Otterathome has come to several users' attention due to his behaviour surrounding his user pages. First, on July 14, he redirected his user page to the Autofellatio article, supposedly in protest over the lack of application of WP:NOTCENSORED to the article, because he wanted to add more images to the article over consensus. Since Otterathome refused to undo the redirect, this ultimately resulted in his user page being protected, and it remains so.

Subsequently, Otterathome turned his attention to his user talk page, which he decorated with flashing rainbow graphics that obscure the left hand navigation links. Since July 22, several users have been asking Otterathome to remove these graphics which, among other things, make it impossible for some users to click the links they cover. He has consistently refused to address these issues, and a short time ago has added further graphics along the bottom of the window with the comment "I hope you all like the new changes, and am flattered you take have taken such an interest in to such a low profile wikipedian. And I thank you for all your patience unlike the admin who protected my user page." Clearly this, like the previous nonsense with his user page, is all about making a point. I'm not sure how he has done all this, possibly by modifying his css or whatever, but it seems impossible to remove them, and he continues to refuse to do anything about it. Clearly something needs to be done at this point: a block? A page deletion? I don't know what. Suggestions? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently they're not impossible to remove: I just accidentally removed them while leaving him a note about this thread; we'll see how long it lasts. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

2 seconds. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I made the changes so there aren't any links that are obscured. And why don't you WP:AGF? I like the rainbow graphics and they were on my user page long before people started complaining about anything on my user or talk page.--Otterathome (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what I'm talking about? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you like a picture showing you how to click the left-side links on my user page?--Otterathome (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Otterathome is being deliberately disruptive, by his own admission, to make a point about Bjweeks protecting his userpage for the exact same issue. Remove the Jefferson Airplane decoration, block, and lock the talkpage until he agrees unequivocally via email that he will neither restore the images nor engage in any similar edits, broadly construed, until the heat death of the universe. Why waste our time? → ROUX ₪ 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Roux, once again, has it right. I've removed "trippin' the light fantastic". Using your talkpage disruptively to deliberately make a point is totally unacceptable. You could give someone a seizure with that inane graphic. →javért ^stargaze 07:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh so now it's seizure-worthy? If even look at the talk page history I have been addressing your concerns, but you just come up with new reasons to say it's not good enough.--Otterathome (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Airplane? At least it's not those stupid Grateful Dead dancing bears! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• As a side note, the links work perfectly fine in my Firefox, which is the latest version. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue really is that Otterathome has been directed to WP:UP and the guideline has been thoroughly explained to him, and multiple users have asked him multiple times to remove these decorations from his talk page for multiple reasons. We do not own our userpages, and the community has made itself clear: it does not want that content there. Otterathome ignored the issue for 2 weeks, declined to address the points raised, and simply reiterated that he likes them and sees no reason to remove them. Then, when another user told him the decorations would be removed if he didn't do it himself, he responded by simply moving the images around with the sarcastic comment "I hope you all like the new changes" and a reference to the admin who protected his userpage. This is obviously disruptive behaviour which all appears to have begun because he refused to accept consensus at Autofellatio, as noted above. I can't imagine how many person hours have been wasted by how many editors dealing with these utterly silly issues. It's a shame, because he appears to have otherwise useful edits, but he seems to be heading for an entirely preventable block. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't "supporting" his graphics usage. Just pointing out that the links work for me, even with the graphics. I agree that with an overwhelming consensus by people here and at his talk page, he should have removed them himself. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Improper block

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

---

Focus of dispute, or action in dispute

User talk:ChildofMidnight#August 2009

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

• SarekOfVulcan (notice)
• ChildofMidnight (notice)

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

SarekOfVulcan blocked ChildofMidnight with this block message. The action cited does not appear to be prohibited by the topic ban in force against ChildofMidnight (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama_articles#ChildofMidnight topic banned, which does not refer to WP space).

Bongomatic 06:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Comments by uninvolved users

• One, I don't think this is the place for this. Two, good block. CoM knowingly and blantantly violated his restrictions and posted on a clearly Obama related post, said he was under restriction, and got blocked for it. Good block...should have been longer in my opinion, especially with the personal attacks being throw around on his talk page. (1, 2, 3). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with that assessment. I saw that comment from him and wondered what he was doing in that discussion but I was on my way out so I didn't follow it up.--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why is this template being used here? Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Because the editnotice says to, presumably. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the instructions state to use this template for "Any other request involving a complaint against a user or a matter in dispute". Bongomatic
• The personal attacks against the blocking admin, current admins, and past admins by ChildofMidnight were a nice a touch. As this is under discussion at Arb, I alsi think it should play out there, not here. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• As this entire issue is currently in front of ArbCom, would it not make more sense to wait for a decision by them before bringing out the pillory? → ROUX ₪ 07:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I really could agree with you on that.--Caspian blue 07:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Terrible block should be reversed with an apology log.--Caspian blue 07:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't this surprise me. Caspian, you can find nothing wrong with CoM...sometimes I think, and I honestly believe this, you are one in the same. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • • (ec 4) I already explained you that he did not violate the topic ban according to the ArCom probation since he is not topic banned to comment about Obama on noticeboards or his talk page. However, you're focusing on his blowing off the steam for the absurd block. If you can point out such the specific remedy, please show me. And drop the insulting sockpuppet accusation.--Caspian blue 07:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not helpful Homer, particularly the vague insinuation of socking, which is more than a little hard to believe. Please don't personalize the issues here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I second that - please do not begin bickering here; undoubtedly, there are problems with the block, but it is not completely unjustified either. I request civility and calm in the meantime while this discussion continues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I am 100 percent certain that CB is NOT CoM. CB and I have clashed from time to time, but we can talk. He's OK. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
          • If you Bugs thinks CB is not CoM, then that is good enough for me. Gotta take my "fishy meter" into the shop I guess. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• I don't know that this block was the best course of action, but it's probably within the technical remit of the ArbCom restrictions. There are a couple of requests for clarification about the Obama case live right now, and in general the restrictions have been perceived differently by different parties, which is a pretty serious problem. Wizardman, who wrote the proposed decision, recently said that C of M commenting on these matters on ANI "is technically not a violation of the restriction." I found that surprising but I'll take my cue from the Arbs on that. While that would suggest the block is improper, C of M is also enjoined from interacting with or commenting on Wikidemon or Scjessey. In an earlier thread on this page (now hatted) C of M seemed to be clearly directing comments at the former without naming the editor directly (e.g. "there are abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't toe the line"). A block for that and similar statements was probably not unreasonable, though it might well end up doing more harm than good. If an Arb or clerk wants to reverse the block then that sounds good to me, and if not then it's probably okay for it to stand and probably not worth reversing unless a strong consensus develops against it, or Sarek does the reversing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There were 26 comments in the thread when CoM wrote his. One of those was Wikidemon's, and CoM's comment neither replied to or referenced it. The wording of the interaction ban is not clear, but the wording "including replying or reverting of each other’s actions" suggests (but obviously does not definitively prove) that this comment would not be contemplated. Bongomatic 07:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the link handy and I'm going offline now, but this issue was specifically clarified by the ArbCom awhile back. Namely, Wikidemon and ChildofMidnight are not only required to avoid interaction, but also not to comment negatively on the other in any way. C of M made a blanket statement which was clearly being applied to several editors in regard to a specific article issue ("There are simply editors here who don't like it and who have no regard for our core policy of neutral point of view. Notable criticisms and controversies about Obama are not allowed. We must wallow in ignorance like sheep. I'm under a topic ban for daring to try and address the problem. Also, there are abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't toe the line"). This comes from the above closed section "Subsection for evidence," where the first comment is from Wikidemon, and where C of M clearly seems to be responding at least partially to that comment. Yes, he did not "name names," but anyone familiar with the history here would see C of M's comments as problematic, particularly since he is revisiting the exact same issues for which he was sanctioned in the first place. Whether a technical violation of his ArbCom conditions or not, it is clearly a problem, and blocking was not completely unreasonable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support the statement made above by Bigtimepeace. As there's general confusion on the restrictions, it's hard to say that the block is 100% wrong. I also encourage CoM to stay cool and not resort to attacks when upset. Walk away from the keys and punch a pillow or something instead. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The block purports to relate to the content restriction. An ArbComm member specifically stated that post on AN/I don't fall under it. Confusion based on administrator's not being fully informed (even if in good faith) should not result in blocking contrary to ArbComm rulings. Bongomatic 07:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, then do keep in mind it is within ArbComs remit to handle blocks. As noted by BigTime an Arb or clerk could unblock if that's their view. Or of course the blocking admin could make that adjustment, but I don't believe this is a clear case of an improper block, and this thread is doing nothing but spread the wildfire. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The personal attacks continue to fly. I think that needs to be addressed before the block is considered for removal. Because at current, I think the block could be redone for personal attacks (which there has been many) instead of ArbCom violations. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Without reading it (I don't watch his page anymore), I would say that it's par for the course, i.e. it's been the same thing every time he gets blocked, i.e. it's "everyone else's fault". Many editors rant and rave when blocked. Typically when indef'd, especially, where the rants are usually left alone unless they really go too far or too long. Less common, though certainly not unknown, it happens for short-term blocks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• So just change the block from one about Obama restrictions to one about all of the personal attacks left on his talk page tonight. Done and closed. Regardless of the Obama issues, CoM is a serial violator of WP:NPA, yet his block log shows not a single block for the, dare I guess, fifty plus, personal attacks he's made in the last 3 months. I see 1 block for of incivility.. maybe that was a personal attack. No diff in the edit summary to know for sure. To be clear, I don't particularly agree with the block for its current reason as I don't really see a vio of the Arbcom restrictions. What I do see is the personal attacks so that's my 14 cents.. change the block to one for the attacks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 07:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• I have unblocked CoM.[82] The recent comments made me pause, so I hope that they will try to be more calm, otherwise I will reblock. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So a good hour's worth of personal attacks are just swept under the rug. Damned lumpy rug it is. Bad unblock....we should have waited for ArbCom. He is your problem now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by closing administrator

I am considering a close now to prevent further drama. As there is some confusion with the Arb restriction itself, I generally support the view made by Bigtimepeace. An Arb or Arb clerk should consider the unblock request as it's within their remit to do so and it's their decision that the block is based on. There's no evidence that the blocking admin went about their action improperly, thus I think if Arb truly has an opinion on this, then they should handle the request in this case. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Unblocked by an Arb member. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended, after initial archive content (I started this comment before the discussion was closed, but saved it afterward, so I'm moving it down here.)

Response by SarekOfVulcan

I don't know if I can actually be coherent this late/early, but I'll give it a try. To clarify -- it was not that CoM was posting in an Obama-related discussion that caused me to block. It was the attacks in that Obama-related discussion that convinced me the block was neccessary.

• 00:46
  • "There are simply editors here who don't like it and who have no regard for our core policy of neutral point of view."
• 00:48
  • "Also, there are abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't tow the line."
• 00:55
  • "The bad faith attacks of the censors and POV pushers need to stop.... The mob rule needs to end."
• 01:07
  • "They are going to continue to come after any editor who dares to challenge the censorship and POV pushing. This an encyclopedia not a DNC website. These editors come after every editor who threatens to include notable content that they don't like with aggressive tactics and blocks and bans. They have admin friends and there are no checks and balances on it. As the Arbcom hearing proved, even the highest levels of Wiki-bureaucracy can't be bothered to enforce our core policies.... Until admins and arbcom begin addressing these violations, instead of going into a frothy [fury] when one editor calls another editor an idiot, this abuse will continue."

If he had just posted to the effect of "I believe that since the NYT did a story devoted to this subject, it is indeed notable enough to merit its own article", I wouldn't have seen that as blockable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't think Sarek is far from the mark here. CoM seems to have made it a point to be noisily disputatious and to conflate the various conduct discussions he has been involved in with content disputes of (apparently) world-historical proportions. He has produced no small number of animated complaints (pre-block, as I don't really care about post block venting) about the nature of Obama articles and hasn't hesitated to make known his opinions about other editors working in the topic area. These aren't necessarily damning attitudes for an editor, but for an editor whose behavior has forced the community to resort to the last measure in dispute resolution just to be rid of him in a topic area, they are unacceptable. Like any organization, wikipedia falls broadly under the 90/10 rule, 90% of the disruption is often caused by 10% of the editors. We may and should establish clearly that we won't stand for this. Protonk (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly not an arbcom restriction as has been pointed out to you by the author of the decision. That you and Protonk continue to try to distort it in such a way to defend the indefensible is troubling. You failed to discuss the matter, failed to give any warning, acted against clear consensus in the discussion, and failed to correct your mistake. It is clearly you Sarek who is disruptive and abusive. I have also submitted diffs of your refactoring of other editor's comments on your take page and edit warring over them even after you were reverted. Your abusive behavior, like Connolley's, probably needs to be addressed by Arbcom. Protonk I'm not so sure about, but there are troubling signs in his recent actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• This should be archived. Sarek made an abusive block without any discussion and against the consensus from those who actually participated in the thread. He refused to correct his mistake even after the Arbcom who wrote the decision made clear that this was "not a violation of the restriction."
• Sarek's failure to apologize and his continuing to argue that he was in the right is a clear indication that he just doesn't get it. Clearly there are problem editors who pursue and harass those they disagree with, but lending them support and acting improperly in this way does enormous harm to Wikipedia's integrity and collegiality. Let's stop pretending this kind of abuse is acceptable. Citing my outrage as evidence against me only serves to demonstrate desperation and dishonesty from those lacking integrity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Needing mediation per television schedules...

I don't the correct forum to report this but I have to tell you this because of what had just happened. I'm sorry if this is not the correct one.

Hammersoft has been removing television schedules from several TV channel articles because the schedules clearly violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However, Jon2guevarra reverted some of his edits (those pertaining to Philippine TV stations) for no reason. And he did this despite the notes left to him on his talk page. It looks like all ways to communicate with this user has "fallen onto deaf ears," so to speak.

What can be done on Jon2guevarra? Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• For mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation. For advise on addressing editor behaviour, or how best to handle content disputes, see dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jza84 (2)

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. --Smashville^talk 15:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been archived, although it is unresolved. Can someone please have a look. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor moved a page in June. You accused him of doing it "craftily" and he responded back 4 days ago...granted a little snarkily, but your post to him was equally snarky. You've never made any further attempt to discuss with him. You've made more posts about it to ANI than you have to Jza. Considering it was one isolated snarky response to a bad faith comment made almost a week ago in response to an action made 2 months ago...there is absolutely nothing to see here. ANI is not the tattling board. --Smashville^talk 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So an admin threatening to block someone over a content dispute is acceptable? Saying they will block you is not just a 'snarky' response at all. Why should there be any further attempt to talk to an editor who is threatening you? Quantpole (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One edit two months ago is not a "content dispute". And the only interaction between the two was almost a week ago. Nothing further has come from it. There is no action to be taken here. --Smashville^talk 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Punjabi people and User:Information-Line

The above user has constantly made disruptive POV edits to the punjabi people article, made numerous reverts despite edits being explained, taken part in constant edit warring with other editors, and clearly has a bias and wants to push a pov which said user knows to violate the NPOV rules and make blatantly false edits, such as here [83] and here [84], which user has repeatedly reverted here [85], here [86], and here [87], the only obvious reason being that he belongs to the minority Sikh Punjabi community and user feels the need to inflate numbers, user has been warned on numerous occasions here [88], here [89] and here [90] but has instead decided to be confrontational here [91] and here [92]. Khokhar (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet again he seems to show anger towards my culture and people,see how he says minority Sikh punjabi community,but the thing is 25 million Punjabis are Sikh and all Sikhs are Punjabi.But that is not the matter you may see the article i have vandalised it before but that was to see if he reverted my edits and not pk5abi who is repeatedly spreading Islamic bias throughout wikipedia with the help of (talk) backing him up,ony recently you will see i reverted vandalism and later (talk) reverted it back but before going to this noticeboard attempted to re-do his mistake. He has had several warnings on his page about hatred for other Religions and cultures and i think he should be banned from ediiting.I did say harsh comments on his talk page but he had provoked me ,I am sorry and will now be showing a neutral viewpoint but i recommend you keep a close eye on Cocker (talk) My Regards to you ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ Information-Line^talk 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this should be moved to the vandalism forum? Khokhar (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving here from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts, the above user has continued to make disruptive edits of the exact same nature even after the above comments.. and user was blocked for 48 hours for the same disruptive and 'vandal' edits in another article [93] but now another user Sikh-history, who is very active on User:Information-Line personal talk pages and was requested to intervene by said user here [94] and had already made 'threats' on the other user's talk pages (mentioned in previous link) here [95] before starting to make disruptive edits on an article I have been maintaining, about the clan called Khokhar, clearly to aid User:Information-Line and be a nuisance.

Khokhar (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

just check what Khokharhas contributed to he is aided by User:Pk5abi they go around deleted referenced material and Khokhar is always there to back him up ,if you take a look at Khokhars discussion page you will see he was been warned on several occasions about inciting hatred for other faiths, as far as sikh history goes i asked him to see the articles as i do not have the skills to maintain such vandalism that Khokhar is creating. Information-Line 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Also you will see now he has brought this to this noticeboard he has refrained from vandalising the Punjabi People page you may go back and see his vandalism Information-Line 15:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'racism' or 'religious intolerence' on my user page accept for the derogatory remarks which were added by User:Information-Line here [96], which were removed by an adminstrator.Khokhar (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think both of you are approaching this wrong. I have had disputes with User:Information-Line in the past, but we have resolved them amicably, after initial heated exchanges. What I suggest is WP:Mediation, rather than escalating this like this. Both of you, please Assume Good Faith.Regards--Sikh-History 14:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Behaviour like this on the Khokhar, page does not help. I suggest that you both desist. I notice [[Khokhar]] you deleted valid references from that page that I made. I suggest you do not do that again, or it will be me taking action against you. I have said all along WP:Assume Good Faith, something which seems to be lacking from both parties. Thanks--Sikh-History 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sikh-history has now started to actively make disruptive edits and constant reverts (3rr) [97], [98], [99] to the Khokhar article, which should be considered vandalism as each of my edit was expalined and a section was also created explaining this in the articles talk page [100], which Sikh-history has completely ignored, instead adding content to my talk page [101], [102] which is irrelevnt for the reaons above. Khokhar (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

KhokharI ask you again to WP:Assume Good Faith, something you have not done. You have deleted the following valid references:

• http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/personalities/Bhai%20Roop%20chand/BRcj.htm

• Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan

• Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Panjab Castes - page 313.

This is not good behaviour. It will get you banned like Information-Line. I have tried to make the article follow a chronological order, but for some reason you insist on some order to with alleged numbers and population for which you have no citation. Please stop. I have issued 3 warnings on your page for this sort of behaviour. Please be resonable and Assume Good Faith. I have also noticed a considerable amount of WP:Canvassing on your talk page. Please familiarise yourself with this sort of behaviour.--Sikh-History 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)--Sikh-History 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Sikh-history if you had bothered to look and read the edit reasons or even the articles talk page, something you have constantly refused to do yet insist on assuming 'good faith', you would notice that

A. Both references are used to include the Tarkhan clan, yet neither mentions it, also as I have explained on the articles talk page [103] that adding nationalistic religious sites does not meet the npov standard for wikipedia.

B. The article is set according to relevence of material in terms of majority as we are talking about people here and any historical facts are set as such in the appropriate section.

It is strange that you have 'all of a sudden' indulged yourself in the Khokhar article and refused to reply or consider edit descriptions....The full online version of H.A Rose's Punjab castes can be found here [104].

Khokhar (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Sikh-history was reported for edit warring/ violating 3rr in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring section here [105] Khokhar (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there are a number os issues here. One of WP:Synthesis, one of not WP:Assuming Good Faith, one of WP: Canvassing, one of WP:Article Ownership and lastly of WP:Gaming the System. All will be dealt with in due course rest assured. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above 'practices' were clearly present in your recent actions, and they have all been documented and highlited in this very section. Have a nice day. Khokhar (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, please view that you have been reported here for breaking the WP:3RR. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD has most discussions concealed

Resolved

 – Several people jumped in to try to get it fixed. Not sure who should get credit, but the issue was fixed by one of them. :) TexasAndroid (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Following the following edit [106], all the rest of the AFDs lower in the list are presently unviewable. The archiving of speedily deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuttee made the next 49 AFDs disappear into the "archived, click to show" box. Could someone take a look and fix it? Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever fixed it. Was it the archive box somehow not being closed correctly, or a quirk in my browser? I would like to know in case it happens again. Edison (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was just a {{collapse top}} without matching {{collapse bottom}}, caused by CambridgeBayWeather closing by putting {{Afd top}} at both top and bottom. Algebraist 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Provisional Irish Republican Army and User:O Fenian

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.

Dispute resolution is thataway--Jayron32 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Section of interest: Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#New_discussion
User: O Fenian (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

[107]

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Can I get some eyes on this please? I give up as it's completely clear the editor has no plans to actually read what I'm saying in the linked to discussion. The article was protected today by me after I responded to an edit war report at AN3. Instead of blocks I fully protected, but User:O Fenian has been trying to get the article edited to his preferred version rather than work to resolve the content dispute which he is part of. The claim he disputes is sourced, but as noted in his protected edit request, he has many issues with it. Rather than trying to collaborate to have his issues addressed, he seems to just want the sourced text removed rather than clarified to take into account his points. The other User:Mooretwin has been offering possible solutions, but O Fenian has issue which each draft and has offered no compromised drafting. User:Vintagekits stepped in to insult me, but offered no valuable input to resolve the dispute. I would like for someone to pop over as I won't be on much tonight, and hopefully encourage seeking positive results, as it seems I'm failing. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also he seems to have added a straw poll of sorts to seek consensus to revert to his preferred version, and leaves a note that would-be naysayers should be ignored as their argument holds no weight. As I noted above, the text he disputes is sourced, though it could use expansion and clarification. However instead of trying to work towards wording that would address this he simply wants it removed. Thus if the dispute isn't resolved now it will only heat up once protection is over. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Further:

• I need to get a fucking grip ([108])
• I'm incompetent, disruptive and a jobsworth ([109])
• I've also been warned for distorting facts, ie stating the truth that the other editor made two attempts to draft a proposal ([110])
• Also as noted below, I'm a so-called admin whose actions are a joke ([111])
• This edit implies this dispute could go on forever without some intervention.

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

The actions of this so-called administrator are a joke. An earlier edit protected request was declined with the reasoning "Please formulate the exact change" (and a summary of "request not specific enough"). My request was both exact and specific, and due to his reply being underneath Mooretwin's post that means he was looking at Mooretwin's post, not the edit request.

After investigating the content further, I found the information was actually incomplete and inaccurate. I made a second edit request, which included the additional information showing that the information in the article was wrong. This was declined, allegedly for the same reason as the first one, ignoring that my first request had never been assessed by anyone, and ignoring the additional information. No attempt was made to assess the merits of the information and realise that the removal of incorrect information is beneficial, just a "sod you, it's not being changed" attitude.

It beggars belief that administrators are prepared to maintain incorrect information in articles despite this being pointed out, and despite the protection policy allowing for the incorrect information to be removed. Why should the reader be subjected to reading incorrect information because nobody can be bothered to remove the offending information? O Fenian (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As explained to you on the talk page, the text is sourced and you should work to address your concerns. Also as noted protected edit requests are done when there's consensus for it (the box says so specifically). You do not have consensus, rather you're working against it. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The text in the article is not sourced, as you would know if you had read what I've said on the talk page. O Fenian (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The O'Brien source is indeed there. I understand you have issue with it, so as I've said all along work together to fix it. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing two different things. There is a footnote to a page in O'Brien's book (which I have in front on me right now), but it does not source what is in the article. "Having a footnote" does not equal "sourced". If you wish to maintain O'Brien sources what is in the article, perhaps you'd like to quote from the book yourself the sentences in question? If you cannot, please retract your claim that the text is sourced. O Fenian (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You said here that the text doesn't reflect what the source says, and here compromised wording was offered, which you rejected both times. You didn't try to actually draft the wording to reflect what the source says, rather you want it removed outright. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look here (second green section) you will see that until a few hours ago I believed that the information was sourced to Lost Lives (which I do not have), but on seeing it was sourced to O'Brien (which I do have) I checked the information myself. Last night I assumed good faith that the sentence in another article was accurately cited, and considered the IPs (who has a history of disruption on that article) edits to be distorting the source. So please stop this distorting of facts. Are you prepared to retract your claim that the information is sourced, or not? O Fenian (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also I take issue with the claim I have offered no alternate draft. I have made clear on the talk page that if figures are to be included, they should be complete figures not ones that only go up to 1986 and exclude certain areas (which is what the current figures are). So I do not see how I can be expected to propose to reword the current wording when I am saying complete figures going past 1986 are needed? O Fenian (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If the text said that they're up to 1986 and excluded certain areas that would have been a compromise and still within the inclusion guidelines. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So you do not think a better compromise (the one I suggested!) would be to include complete figures? O Fenian (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Complete figures would be nice, but if they're not available then you can only provide what's available. Thus with what's available the compromise would be to clarify in the article that the figures are up to 1986 and exclude certain areas. A compromise wouldn't be removal of the lot. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the IRA's campaign, in particular the first few years, giving a partial figure would mislead the reader. I have no objections to such a figure going in the relevant place in the article (ie, when it deals with 1986), but its inclusion in the lead is misleading. O Fenian (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you say this sooner? I don't care either way, I just wanted some sort of actual collaboration. Thus, work with the other editor to sort out a wording and placement you're both happy with so that we can resolve this and unprotect the article. If you can confirm you will actively work for consensus with the other editor rather than fight me the whole way, then I would say this ANI issue is resolved for now. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to work collabaratively with anyone when people insist on having misleading, incorrect and/or incomplete information in the lead, and when legitimate edit requests based on new information are turned down and the reader continues to be misled. Should policy not be upholded for the benefit of the reader, who should not be misled? I said right at the start that I welcomed a discussion about how the information should be incorporated into the article, but I do not see why the reader should continue to be misled while that discussion is taking place? Would anyone like to give a really good reason why? O Fenian (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you please confirm whether or not you will actively work with the other editor on compromised text based on the only figures currently available so we can move on please? Nja²⁴⁷ 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Other editors insist on having misleading, incorrect and/or incomplete information in the lead, and I'm the problem? The editor who doesn't want the number of people injured by the IRA to be underestimated? O Fenian (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this edit "implies this dispute could go on forever without some intervention" (nice collection of diffs, I note you've not included any of your own misconduct, like the many untruths you persist in repeating), it does nothing of the sort. The dispute cannot be resolved unless the power to stall by another editor is removed. So why should the reader suffer while another editor stalls? I have asked this question or a similar one many times, and not one person has answered it to my satisfaction. O Fenian (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This so called admin wants a bit of drama, by refusing to have misleading information removed from the article. As has been pointed out a number of times to this admin, the sourced text is incorrect but they just keep ignoring this. They said there is no consensus! The editor O Fenian proposed an edit, provided a rational and gave a detailed overview of the problems with the current wording then looked for consensus, and this admin calls it “a straw poll of sorts.” This admin is here arguing and is an active participant. They were asked a question “Are you prepared to retract your claim that the information is sourced, or not?” and refused to answer! Now with that type of carry on, that have some neck bring a complaint here. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults, and the edit history will show I've never edited the article. My only agenda is to resolve the dispute that lead to protection to begin with. Aside from the 1st admin who denied the request, another admin User:Thatcher also commented on the page saying to get consensus. But whatever, no one seems to care and I'm tired of dealing with this shit for tonight. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved users

Remarks by closing administrator

I'm closing this thread without further comment. This appears to be a clear content dispute, and there is no need for admin action. While one of the disputants is an admin, I can find nowhere where the admin in question is involved in the editing of the article, and this is starting to look like forum shopping. Please take up dispute resolution if desired, but WP:ANI is not the complaints department, and there is no need to keep this pointless discussion open any longer. --Jayron32 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

ip 70.72.130.56

Resolved

this ip [112] comes on every couple of days to vandalize various articles. it has now been given 2 final warnings and should probably be blocked. thanks. untwirl(talk) 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Stale warning. We block to prevent vandalism, not to punish. In the future, though, you can report vandals to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The response time is much quicker. hmwitht 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible IP stalker

I want someone to check out 76.66.199.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Taking a look at this users edits, it appears that this user is stalking my contributions, and is selectively editing my areas, whether its articles, talk pages, or other namespaces, this user is there.

Here is a chronology:

• At 20:57, 26 July 2009, I remove a large portion of content on The Biggest Loser (season 8). At 22:34, 26 July 2009, IP restores content without an edit summary.
• On 01:31, 27 July 2009, I report two users to ANI. At 22:32, 27 July 2009, IP expresses opinion in the discussion.
• On April 30, 2009 - May 1, 2009, I was in a discussion with another editor about the content of Archie Bunker. At 15:46, 5 August 2009, IP inserts "Test wikibreak" to the same talk page, but at 15:47, 5 August 2009, IP removed the text.
• On 04:28, 7 August 2009, I propose a name reformatting at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and on 14:59, 7 August 2009, I make a further comment. On 16:23, 7 August 2009, IP expresses opinion in discussion.

These are all of the users edits in which I feel is stalking, and in fact all of its edits in my areas.

Previously, on 00:28, 21 April 2009, 72.188.57.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a post to my talk page informing me that it had been looking through my edits for "for a few months now". Whether this information is needed, I don't know, but a checkuser might need to check if these IP's are the same user.

Given the timing and areas this user is editing, I strongly feel that this IP address is stalking me on-wiki. Since this user is apparently stalking me, should this user be or not be notified of this discussion? Administrators, please look into this. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

4 edits? While it is obvious the anon checks your contribution history, I think 4 edits in 12 days hardly qualifies as "stalking". Except for the revert, the edits don't seem to be made to annoy or harass you, so I can't possibly see how you could be bothered by this.--Atlan (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all of the users edits, except [113] which is a page blanking of the users own talk page. Since that's the case, I definitely believe this user is stalking me. Do you think I should or shouldn't notify the user of this thread? I haven't done so. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread. Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So you find this objectionable behavior? 4 edits on the same page as your edits? 1 of them is a revert, 2 only tangientially involve you and the other one is just a comment on the same page as yours. OMG let's call the cops.--Atlan (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

AFDs

The following related AFDs are only being edited by what appears to be people offically connected to or fans of the subjects.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (2nd nomination)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Pawlak
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becki Kregoski

Any participation from uninvolved users would be greatly appreciated.--Otterathome (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope this isn't canvassing because that is discouraged. The closing administrator should carefully consider the notability of the article and decide. AFD is not a vote. If the closing administrator is closing solely by vote, whether the vote follows policy or not, this is not desirable. User F203 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins are rarely that bold, as shown in the previous AfD of one of the articles. This isn't canvassing as I am simply asking for participation from anyone who wants to, and why we need more users involved.--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the future, I suggest you take the advice at WP:AFD (Step II) and attempt to add the AfDs to deletion sorting lists. That will help you generate more interest from a wider group of editors in a faster time, instead of only attracting people who would have the articles on their watchlists. -- Atama^chat 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Skimming the AfDs and seeing no disruption, I think that no admin action is required and that this notice was posted to the wrong forum. As suggested, please use deletion sorting going forward; you may list these AfDs as long as they are open. Flatscan (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Need admin to check articles

Could an administrator check the following articles created by Audiomixxer1123:

• The Voice Within (The Silver Movement)
• The Silver Movement
• The Silver Movement (Discography)

against the articles that were deleted via afd, I am suspecting they may be reposts of the deleted pages, however as I can't view deleted pages I cannot be certain that they are/are not. Thanks. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty close to the same, as far as I can see. Running out the door... Tan | 39 18:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Khokhar and WP:OWN by Khokhar

Hi I have tried to make Good Faith additions to this article from verifiable sources. See here:

• [114]
• [115]
• [116]
• [117]

The sources I have used are:

• about Bhai Roop Chand Khokhar
• Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan About Bhai Roop Chand Khokhar]
• Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Panjab Castes - page 313. - cite Khkhar as a Tarkhan Gotra

He deleted them.

There also seems to be some WP:CANVASS Going on against Indian Administrators and Editors as in Here:

• calling Indians names
• again calling names
• accusations of being Islamaphobic

He has WP:GAME the system here:

• by reporting me, when he actually reverted my edits

before I could repost him

• here

Also there maybe an issue of WP:NPOV because the article is titled Khokhar and the user is a Khokhar, hence again, WP:OWN.

Thanks --Sikh-History 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place for this, the conflict of interest noticeboard seems more appropriate. -- Atama^chat 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tenant23, again

Resolved

 – Blocked without access to talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody once again review the contributions of Tenant23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This is one of the most insulting editors I've run across in months. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I say block away, at a minimum, per [118], [119], and harassment and YouTubeish drabber on Wikipedia:Sandbox. MuZemike 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was going to be a 24 hour block before 98.248.32.178 gave him a warning. Now it's indef. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

S/he's now issued a couple of death threats on my and his talk page. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused how to proceed (Copyright/Possible OTRS)

The images here are listed as released under CC by (I presume) the photographer - however they are listed as copyright over at the Miss universe site as is all of the content - to confuse the matter, the permissions of the photo were uploaded with an OTRS notice but with no ticket number.. I never deal with images or the OTRS system and I am a bit stumped how to proceed in determining a) if they are subject to OTRS, why and if the copyright/licensing is correct. More experienced heads/advice would be appreciated. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me check OTRS and see what I find. Tiptoety ^talk 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The miss universe website reserves all rights, in direct conflict w/ the CC license. If tiptoety doesn't find anything on OTRS, we should probably delete these under F9. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any tickets archived in the OTRS system that are related to those images, and seeing as the person who added the OTRS tag (the same person as the uploader) MASWJ (talk · contribs) does not appear to have OTRS access, I would say they are copyvios. Tiptoety ^talk 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

that's good enough for me. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the photos linked above and left a note on the users talk page. If you see more photos from this user that might not be free, just post here or leave a personalized note on his talk page. Don't template bomb them (not saying anyone has, just a gentle suggestion for the future). What I deleted probably represented a fair amount of work on their part, so they may be upset. We'll see how this develops. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned user editing mobster articles?

I've just blocked 76.111.54.219 (talk · contribs · block log), an open proxy rapidly reverting a banned user on a load of mobster articles. The so-called banned user, 72.74.225.180 (talk · contribs · block log) still has a lot of outstanding edits, and it also looks like this little war has been going on for some time. See also 208.83.212.19 (talk · contribs). Can anyone shed any light on this? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There was some recent activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley that might be related to this... wouldn't explain everything, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

False information and sock puppetry

Resolved

 – See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midan. MuZemike 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Enigmaman has blocked 217.255.51.23 (talk · contribs) for repeated vandalism [120]. However, I have good reasons to think the same Wikipedian uses several accounts, including Midan (talk · contribs) (see this diff and his talk page he has blanked), and probably Veelmeet (talk · contribs), Cocoamazon (talk · contribs), 217.255.51.22 (talk · contribs), 217.255.50.24 (talk · contribs), 217.255.50.141 (talk · contribs), 77.182.29.197 (talk · contribs) in violation of WP:SOCK. If you see their talk page and their changes, you'll see they made the same changes, contribute on the same articles and regularly added false informations (notably on the lists releated to the number-one hits in Spain) in order to promote Shakira, despite the comments I've left on their talk page. I'm tired of reverting all these changes. So, please, do what is required in this case. Thank you. PS: Sorry for my English, it's not my native language !. Europe22 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

New editor using Wikipedia for promotion/webhosting

Resolved

 – Account indefinitely blocked as a promotional username, a violation of the username policy. MuZemike 23:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A new editor Thetracyshieldsshow (talk · contribs) came along and created an article about a non-notable person (Tracy shields, whose name is the same as the account name) twice, once after it had already been deleted as an unremarkable person. After the article was killed off tice, they then proceeded to create a subpage [121]. This appears to be an improper use of Wikipedia, to promote this non-notable person and to act as a webhost. The prose of the "piece" reads more like a church sermon by a somewhat deranged person... I don't want to speedy this as recreation of deleted content by myself as I've already speedied one of her articles, so hoping someone here will know what to do. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Pub849sp

Would somebody review the spat of page moves by new user Pub849sp (talk · contribs)? I can't make heads or tails of what they are attempting. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like edit-warring over the names of Chinese counties. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Phoenix of9

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

Tendentious disregard of consensus and disruption of consensus-building process in Homosexuality and Talk:Homosexuality

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

• Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs) (notified)
• Scheinwerfermann (talk · contribs) (posting editor, no notification needed)
• Rivertorch (talk · contribs) (notified)
• MishMich (talk · contribs) (notified)
• Dhilvert (talk · contribs) (notified)
• Haiduc (talk · contribs) (notified)

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

The behaviour of Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs) has been strongly and persistently uncivil, uncoöperative, tendentious, and combative at Homosexuality and its talk page. Following the very productive, drama-free, week-long development of a new lead for the article, in which Phoenix of9 himself participated, consensus developed to install the new lead in the article. Shortly thereafter, Phoenix of9 reverted the lead. This reversion was undone with a polite edit summary pointing at the talk page. (all such reversions of Phoenix' insertion of a lead unsupported by consensus have been accompanied by polite, courteous edit summaries: [122][123][124][125]. Nevertheless, Phoenix has repeatedly defied consensus confirmed on the talk page, and continued to insert his own text which is not supported by consensus, with inappropriately belligerent MPOV edit summaries [126][127][128].

All other participants in the ongoing talk page discussion are coöperatively, calmly, civilly discussing how to optimise the lead, all attempts to bring Phoenix into that effort have been polite and courteous, and several participating editors have commented on Phoenix' unhelpful behaviour and tactfully pointed out factual problems with Phoenix' assertions ([129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138], etc.).

He's been offered a friendly cup of tea, and he's been counselled on his talk page [139][140]. Despite these efforts at outreach, his tone remains strident, insistent, dismissive, judgmental, and unilateral: [141][142][143][144][145][146][147], with a persistent theme of combative insistence that he is objectively right.

I do not primarily see this as a content dispute; we have here a group of editors working consistently and collaboratively for the betterment of an article, and one editor seems intent on spoiling that effort by persistent tendentious behaviour. He may very well have some valid points about how the lead can be further improved, but he is actively sabotaging discussion and consensus-building by his absolute insistence on having his way and refusal to participate in discussion (other than to reiterate that he is right and everyone else is wrong, "stupid", a waste of time, etc.). It's very disturbing to see this kind of willful, deliberate disruption of what had been a really nice example of how to collaborate effectively and efficiently to improve an article about a complicated, delicate subject (full disclosure: I was awarded a barnstar by one of the other participants for my role in facilitating the coöperative effort on the lead).

Were it not for this tendentious disruption, it seems (by talk-page consensus) that most of the participants involved agree the remaining minor issues with the lead would be quickly and coöperatively optimised, without drama. As it stands, we are being held hostage by a single editor who seems intent on disregarding consensus. By the looks of his talk page, it appears he has something of a history of edit wars and uncivil behaviour, for which he's been cautioned and warned repeatedly. What can be done effectively to bring this editor in line with community standards of behaviour and coöperation? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Yes, Phoenix is fiery and provocative. Yes, I just reverted him because it was necessary. Yes, has me personally in his sights. So what? Let´s not make a mountain out of a molehill. I am concerned that such an ANI process will further polarize things. Let´s all settle down, everything is workable. --Haiduc (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes made by Phoenix seem to be a bit too ambitious (i.e., making changes spanning the entire text of the lead section), but this may have been precipitated by the just-prior change of the lead following a long discussion on the talk page. Reviewing the history of changes, Phoenix has adjusted his text to account for criticisms of his version (e.g., the and/or squabble). The best way forward would probably be for Phoenix (and others) to introduce rewrites as a sequence of well-isolated changes, so that any controversial material can be identified, and reverted or discussed, as necessary.

Incidentally, is this the right place to be having this discussion? --Dhilvert (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The changes were discussed - why didn't he say something then? He seems to have waded in scornfully and dismissively rejecting what had been arrived at. Not much more to say than that - this does seem a bit heavy handed, it should be talked through on the talk page (with a moratorium on editing the lead until the problems are sorted). Mish (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix's tone indeed left something to be desired; I guess I'm just inclined to ignore tone. The fact that I have the facility in English to occasionally state things precisely and unoffensively doesn't mean that everyone does. More to the point, it should not be considered surprising that moving the lead text from the discussion page to the article would raise new objections (even following an apparent consensus). Phoenix has had his edits reverted by two editors now. Perhaps he'll get the idea and be a bit less ambitious in his changes. --Dhilvert (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Remarks by closing editor

Alleged incivility and soapboxing by Keepscases

Moved from AN Viridae^Talk 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy-pasted RfA thread

1. Oppose User scrubbed offensive userboxes, including "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" directed at religious folks, in hopes of passing this RfA. Keepscases (talk)

...

1. I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale. Shappy ^talk 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Flimsy? You're not even taking a stand one way or the other, so you may want to dismount that giant equus caballus of yours. Keepscases (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   He has just yet to make up his mind. He is stating that in order to convince him to oppose he will need a more solid argument.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Like Gordon said, I'm Takin' My Time reviewing this candidate, making sure I have a good all-around perspective in them. Better than automatically opposing someone for their beliefs. Shappy ^talk 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   If you think anyone's being opposed for his beliefs, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Keepscases (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   No, it's obvious that you've used RFA as your soapbox against atheism. Perhaps you should try and review the candidate's contributions and their article work to give you a better idea of what kind of an admin they would be instead of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Shappy ^talk 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Oh? Surely, then, you can provide an example of a time when I've taken issue with atheism itself, as opposed to elitist and confrontational attitudes that make someone of any religious persuasion (or lack thereof) look awful. I'll wait. Keepscases (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedder, you go as far as to bar good-faith users of WikiProject Atheism from becoming administrators due to a few users carrying a certain userbox. While not a bias against atheism per se, it shows that you have an unacceptable predisposition against good-faith users who are interested in the subject of atheism. Shappy ^talk 02:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   The group in question proudly displays that userbox on its page to this day. I do not trust anyone who is associated with such a hateful group; the religious preferences of such a person are irrelevant. Keepscases (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   When you see a candidate using an atheism userbox you instantly infer that they are going to act inappropriately and cannot be trusted. Please please please explain in detail why this is. I do not like these userboxes, but boxes do not make the candidate. You are going out of your way to check if the candidate has at one point in time had an atheism related userbox. Can you also please explain why this is? I do not wish to sound mean, but I am utterly puzzled. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Sure--because I simply can't fathom how any responsible, respectful, and thoughtful individual--the sort of person I want to see promoted to administrator--would ever display such a userbox, or associate with a group who did. For anyone who paints me as anti-atheist--find me any other userbox, religious or otherwise, that is so intentionally disrespectful towards other Wikipedia users, and I will enthusiastically oppose its proponents with the same vigor you've all come to know and love me for. Keepscases (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   You are attacking a specific subset of editors with a specific belief. I can't see how that isn't worse than displaying a few pixels on one's userpage. Triplestop x3 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   I only agree with you if by "belief" you mean "belief that being condescending and confrontational towards other users is a 'cool' thing to do". Keepscases (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I'm not trying to stop you doing so; I knew before this argument. I just gave you advice on other ways to review RFA candidates. You've also been told by many editors that your stereotypes are just as, if not more offensive that said userboxes. Shappy ^talk 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   (ec) No, by belief I mean atheism. Hate/smugness between people of different groups happens everywhere. And I don't see you opposing based on this "condescending and confrontational" from any other belief than atheism. Again, Rfa is not your soapbox. Triplestop x3 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alan16&oldid=306328221#Oppose and #Neutral.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. Are you proposing a ban? Malinaccier (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am helping to expose what this particular user is doing, to a larger audience than WT:RFA. I do not find that such behavior is consistent with building an encyclopedia, therefore the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and should consequently be banned, or at least blocked.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A link is sufficient. I recommend removing the text as it's distracting and will likely lead to more admins ignoring this than paying attention. Also, may I recommend Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases makes the comments above that Anyone associated with Atheism is a member of a "hateful group". He states that anyone who is an atheist, and not ashamed of it is a "condescending and confrontational" person. It can be read from other comments that Atheism is not a 'belief' to be respected like a religion is. How much of this Dominionism-based disruption and bad faith are we expected to endure here? By his logic, I should oppose every single RfA candidate who displays, or has ever displayed a userbox identifying membership in a faith in an irreverent, or humorous, or even sarcastic, manner. That will certainly reduce the number of candidates if it catches on. ThuranX (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, why is this here? No, I didn't move the comments asking why was it at ANI but I think the point was clear nonetheless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. He's been here almost two years. So why should his very recent behavior in two RFAs be justification for a complete ban as opposed to a discussion at WPT:RFA about limiting his discussion at RFAs? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As of about four days ago (due to toolserver replag), 54.90% of this user's edits were in the Wikipedia namespace, with eight of the top ten edited pages in that namespace being related to RfA and all of the edits in Wikipedia talk namespace being related to RfA.[148]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the minor issue of what the right venue for discussion is, a ban from RfA would sound like the appropriate measure to me. Looking at his contributions, I have a feeling he's been running a very long, very successful troll, knowing that Wikipedia has a high proportion of atheists and that tempers run high on RfAs. The trolling could be motivated by actual hatred for atheists, or he could just be doing it for, as they say, the lulz. But one thing that is clear is that these opposes do not contribute to the discussion at RfA, they undermine it. rspεεr (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If only you were as concerned about the reasons why administrator hopefuls might think disrespectful and confrontational attitudes are acceptable, as you are with the user who thinks such attitudes aren't compatible with adminship. When people like you claim that it's the jerks who are being persecuted and suggest that it's me who's the hateful one, I feel like I'm in Bizarro World. Keepscases (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed long copy-paste Badger Drink (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be at ANI if it is a ban discussion.....Malinaccier (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? I think ban discussions are more appropriate here than at the shitstorm that is ANI. See previous discussion on this here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199#Use of this page. –xeno^talk 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not this is Incivility and soapboxing, the user has a right to express his opinion. However, there are some points that are for sure:

1. Keepscases's comments do not address individual candidates, the point of RfA
2. Keepscases's comments have incited much conflict
3. Keepscases asks many "unique" questions on RfA [149]
4. The user has done nothing but do this lately

Triplestop x3 16:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Begin random lurker's opinion...) I have no dog in this fight, and no opinion one way or the other on what should be done. However, I think it's important to point out that the issue Keepscases seems to have is not with Atheists per se, but rather with the userbox that says "Keep your imaginary friends to yourself". The reason he brought it up at the RFA is that the candidate seems to have recently removed it from his userpage, which would appear on the surface to be an attempt to "cover up" something that would potentially have a negative impact on the RFA (as opposed to removing it because one no longer agrees with the sentiment expressed). Could he have argued his point more tactfully? Sure...but I think it's important to note that the disagreement seems to have its source in how the userbox was phrased rather than the actual sentiment behind it. Dgcopter (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's seems this discussion supports your theory. He should just file an MfD and get the box deleted if he hates it so much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not an advocate of censorship. I think users should be able to create and display any userboxes they wish, but any user who thinks posting a disrespectful userbox is a good idea is an unsuitable candidate. Keepscases (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm increduluous that people are actually proposing to ban me. I'm not doing anything wrong. Your beef should be with people who insist my long-standing, very sincere opinions are not valid...most of whom blatantly misrepresent said opinions to try and undermine my credibility. I just now supported an atheist who appears to have no connections to publicly-displayed elitism and hatefulness, and I have done so in the past. Keepscases (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not excuse your long history of disruption. Triplestop x3 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All I do is post my vote, guy, but don't expect me to stay quiet if people want to argue I don't have the right. Keepscases (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The right to do what? What you're doing is basically the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Even if all you were doing was fighting against a userbox (in which case you wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Tedder), RfA is not the venue to fight against a userbox. rspεεr (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't fight against any userbox, I oppose candidates who think it's a good idea to display it. I do not think any such user should represent Wikipedia in any position of power, "no big deal" be damned. I don't disrupt anything. All I do is cast my vote and then defend myself against people who attack me for it. Keepscases (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen edits alone to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan16, seventeen edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedder, ten edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gordonrox24 2. These are just from the past couple weeks; the pattern has been evident for a long, long time. How many "keepscases oppose" threads are we gonna start? When someone generates as much mass drama as he does, it's clear whether they are a net positive or a net negative to the project, regardless of motivation. Highly support a topic ban from RfA or related threads. Tan | 39 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(ECx7)Really? You are surprised that few other editors are voicing support for your bigotry? You're actively discriminating against a large, and growing, group of people, based on their beliefs. This is exactly the same as discriminating against the Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, seventh day Adventists, southern baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, protestants or any other christian group which proselytizes. I don't see you doing that; I see the opposite. Why should we keep around someone whose attitude is 'anyone who isn't a christian shouldn't be an admin, especially people who think really differently than I do about something which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's you who should be banned, for completely misrepresenting my beliefs and actions. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. I defy you to show me one edit in which I say there is. Keepscases (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban Besides the issue of having almost all of your edits to RfA religion based, you also repeatedly make inane edits such as these [150] [151]. This is 100% unproductive and does nothing but incite conflict. Triplestop x3 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, because the idea of actually making a potential administrator think about something new/unexpected, and give voters a little insight into his or her personality/demeanor, is grounds for a ban. Tell me, exactly what conflict did the edits you mention bring about? Keepscases (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

they didnt yet bring conflict but they were definitely a little silly and not really relevent to his duties as an admin. usually the questions show how they would interpret policy and improve Wikipedia nad not how they would cast a movie about Wikipedia!! Smith Jones 00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Right as always, SJ! Let's slay these misconceptions about a Wikipedia movie! Skinwalker (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you go through my questions, you'll find plenty of instances in which candidates were sincerely appreciative for the opportunity to answer them and/or they were helpful in voters' decision-making. The one candidate chose not to answer my movie question, and you know what? Everything was fine. There was no drama. Keepscases (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)::Thats a fair point, and I agree wthat you dont deserve to be sanctioned because of THAT (I dont know about the other things too much) but i can see how that might be constured as being part of a pattern of mocking behavior. you have to see this from evryones perspective since this a community-oriented and circumobular project which sometimes things that you thing are WP:FUNNY are actually being seen as violating WP:CIVIL due to too much sarcasm or Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now supporting a full ban Keepscases was already blocked indefinitely for asking blatant, inane questions and was warned. See here [152] for examples. And he still continues to this day. I don't know what is going on, does he not get it or is he deliberately trying to troll? He clearly still hasn't got a clue and given his attack against Thurnax, it isn't likely he will get one anytime soon. Given that his edits to articles are all minor changes, and his inane posts at the Help Desk recently, I don't see that this user will turn around and go do something productive if he is banned from RfA alone. Triplestop x3 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Per below Triplestop x3 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what "attack against Thurnax" are you referring to? He accused me of something I've never done. As for my "inane posts at the Help Desk", I posted there looking to learn something. That is inappropriate why? Keepscases (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a no brainer to me.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, as the things I'm being accused of are easily disproven. Keepscases (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How are they disproven? Can you explain, please?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been explaining throughout these discussions. The main accusations against me seem to be that I am prejudiced against atheists and that I cause drama. Neither are true. Keepscases (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I supposed I'm a bit biased (seeing as I was an active participant in the argument at Alan16's RFA), but I don't see Keepscases as a positive contributor. Shappy ^talk 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, we've given him/her way too many chances. Like Kmweber and DougsTech, people who troll RFA should be topic banned. Shappy ^talk 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside views will be the judge of that.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. RfA is just like any other topic area. If an otherwise productive editor is unable to participate positively in one topic area, we can and should remove them. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) See 'vote' below. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, it may actually be worth your time looking at the section below.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I trust whoever closes this to be mindful of both discussion and vote, but thanks for the heads up. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this thread wasn't an official topic-ban thread. For there to be a discrete community-sanctioned ban, we need an obvious consensus, not the willy-nilly discussion above. However, you obviously may participate as you see fit. Tan | 39 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Keepscases topic ban from RfA

Might as well officially figure out if this has community support.

Proposal: Keepscases (talk · contribs · logs) is topic-banned from WP:RFA-related pages.

Support

1. Support as nominator. My comment above and a quick look at Keepscases contribution history, along with the above thread, should be sufficient. Tan | 39 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Comparing this to DougsTech: While DougsTech's opposes are not very constructive, they at least don't cause problems, and after all, he is entitled to his opinion. Though I find opposing based on atheist userboxes to be groundless, Keepscases does have a right to his opinion (an not unreasonable argument could be made that they are inflammatory), but asking such questions bites the candidates and does adversely affect the RfA. (Sorry this was poorly worded, with so many negatives.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Definitely. All that is done here is disruptive. Shappy ^talk 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as above. Textbook case of WP:POINT. rspεεr (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Support giving Keepscases a change to be productive outside rfa. Triplestop x3 01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Enough. This is not because he is attacking atheism, it is because he has done nearly nothing aside from this constant disruption. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support I haven't been involved in the discussion, but I've seen enough. Jeni ^(talk) 01:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Suppport Even though I think that some people in this discussion have had a knee-jerk reaction against "anti-atheism", when in my opinion the template isn't pro-atheism, it's anti-faith. But RfA is not the place to bring up that argument. Banning the editor from an area where they are causing routine disruption is both appropriate and fair, it allows them to edit constructively elsewhere if they choose to and also to start or participate in an MfD of the userbox they dislike so much. -- Atama^chat 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong Support, although repetition of such behavior after being blocked for it deserves a stronger remedy (that is, I prefer the proposal below to this one). Keepscases' disruptive behavior at WP:RFA has gone on for far too long.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Support based on the diffs provided by Mythdon down below in the This is distracting to the above, and premature. collapsed discussion. TIMMEH! - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Did my providing of diffs make your investigation easy? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    It certainly helped. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Good! I hope it's helping the other users. I'm glad I took the time to provide that much evidence. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Agree that behavior at RfA thus far has been disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Kindly provide one edit of mine you believe was "disruptive" and not merely a statement of my opinion and/or a defense/clarification resulting from an attack on me. Keepscases (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

12. Support Well, I certainly support it, to the surprise of no one who's seen my comments at the related RfAs. Please understand that merely displaying a userbox that simply and politely states that one is a member of the Athiest Wikigroup is enough to disqualify an admin candidate in his view. Why? Because there are apparently some other atheist userboxes he doesn't like. But rather than try and delete them, he seeks to ban any and all self-declaring atheists from adminship, per WP:POINT. Anyone who self-declares as a non-believer therefore becomes non-admissible. It's prejudice. It's intolerance. I look south from our border and see this kind of religious fundamentalism ruining a country I used to have respect for: I don't want it infecting this project. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    May I just add that WP:NPA expressly prohibits "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I would never, *never* "seek to ban any and all self-declaring atheists from adminship". Your contempt of me based on things I would never do is becoming tiresome. Keepscases (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

13. If the user can't be indefinitely blocked, then a topic ban should certainly be done. This disruption can not be tolerated, and it is much worse than DougsTech ever was. I support a topic ban, though I would prefer an indefinite block. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    All I do is vote. Why do you fault me for the disruption? I have a right to believe that offensive userboxes show a candidate has no business representing Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

14. Support, as Tan is predictably on the money here. Alternative option, allow Keepscases to vote and ask questions, but only by proxy of a crat (who will then obviously recuse from closing or voting themselevs) who must approve of the question/vote rationale in order to vet it for drama-inducement. In six months, revisit topicban to see if Keepscases can be trusted to edit on their own at RfA without creating drama. → ROUX ₪ 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think that will work. Having somebody vote for the user will not be a good idea. I think the user should learn on their own. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

15. Support Per my above, for the sake of transparency. Also, note Tan's important comment below. The alternative to this is that the community go through this rigmarole each and every time Keepscases feels like disrupting an RfA. We eventually learned our lesson w/ Kurt and RfA was better off for it. This is analogous. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Keepscases' votes have always struck me as single-minded and POINTy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as I am not doing anything wrong. I have nothing against atheism, no matter how many users try to paint me as such, and I have the right to vote in RfA's and the right to defend myself against attackers. I propose discussions on how to discourage others from badgering me about my votes. Keepscases (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   You said above that the accusations against you are "easily disproven". It would be helpful to your case to see some evidence of this.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Strongly Oppose Full disclosure, I haven't edited in about 9 months, but I still do a lot of reading on various policy and process pages, and I'm finding it impossible not to step in here, so here I am. First of all, let's put to bed the notion that this user is voting based on candidates' religious beliefs. This all stems from a higly inflammitory and inappropriate userbox displayed by the athiesm wikiproject. Frankly, I'd be shocked if anyone here thought this box, which blatenly insults anyone who believes in any form of higher being, was appropriate for display anywhere. The idea that an oppose based on a user endorsing such divisive and insulting content is worthy of a ban is silly, even if you don't agree with Keepscases views or methods of voicing them. If a Cristian RFA hopeful displayed a userbox that stated "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is doomed to burn in hell for the rest of eternity", I'd expect an oppose or two. Bleeding Blue 01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) To Neutral per discussion below. Bleeding Blue 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   What someone puts on their userpage doesn't need to have anything to do with their article contributions etc.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   More to the point, Keepscases has opposed people simply for being members of WikiProject Atheism, even if they never displayed one of the userboxes that are supposedly the sole problem. rspεεr (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   More to the point, that is what I was just saying. What someone's personal views are should not be as significant at an RfA as their relevant contributions to the project.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I say if you have have a problem with the userbox itself, nominate it for deletion via the Mfd process but the userbox itself shouldn't be used support or oppose anyone. Creating drama around it, even more so. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Opposed to shotgun witch trials on general principles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   In favor of block. - Changing to support. Block discussion closed. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Note to Bleeding Blue, regarding your oppose above - I couldn't care less if Keepscases likes, dislikes, hates, agrees with, !votes per, or otherwise has proclaimed jihad against atheist admins. My proposal for the topic ban had absolutely nothing to do with this. It is for the years of ongoing drama in RfA. Tan | 39 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A block of sorts would probably be better right now than a topic ban.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but all the drama I'm aware of is the stuff related to that box, and a few irreverent questions. (Admittedly, if something more serious happened some time ago, I'm probably unaware and am willing to reconsider based on that.) I've also seen valid !votes and discussion on other RFAs, so I think a full ban is harsh, even if I don't particularly endorse some of his/her actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleeding Blue (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you don't have a full awareness of the situation, you might want to rethink jumping in with a strong oppose, especially with a strawman argument that it is about atheism. It is not. You might want to take a stroll through Keepscases contributions, and note the trends. Most of the drama you will find has nothing to do with atheism. Tan | 39 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stay down here for now, I'm finding it confusing to respond in two different sections. I'm aware of the Tedder !vote, that seemed to start this whole ball rolling. I didn't and don't think it's valid to oppose based on the actions/views of a WikiProject you associate yourself with. If you all think that !vote alone is worthy of a full topic ban, that's fine, but in my mostly useless opinion, that's a little on the harsh side. I do, however, think that opposing someone who actively displays the box is as valid as an oppose on edit count or namespace distribution. While it indeed says nothing about the editor's ability to contribute, that's very little of what adminship is about. It's more about conflict resolution and cooperation, which that box is severly harmful to. As for the claims of continuing drama, if there are other issues, again, please point them out, and I'll consider them. I can only respond to the issues you raise directly in support of this ban. Bleeding Blue 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at User talk:Keepscases, you'll see a lot of drama kicked up about Keepscases' actions on RfA. Note that not all of their edits have brought negative attention; among many generic "thanks for voting" responses there are a few mentions of appreciation (and I have to admit that I agree that this was hilarious) but far more people who were upset by Keepscases' strange opposition votes and questions for RfA candidates. They included an oppose for a person who had a picture with a cigarette on their userpage, a question about notification if the candidate died after being an administrator, whether or not they edit under the influence of hallucinogens, etc. This userbox crusade is the latest in a very long history of strange behavior at RfAs. -- Atama^chat 02:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, I've had a look at that. It seems to me that this user has a habit of posing unusual questions at RFAs, that seems to account for most of the queries. S/he's certainly been warned about it plenty and if it's becoming overly disruptive to the process, something certainly needs to be done. My oppose was mostly based on my perception that this stemmed from the userbox issue, as most (if not all) of the recent discussion has arisen from and been about that, and I think that usage of divisive messages on your user page is a valid concern in an RFA. The pattern of behavior re:RFAs has been consistent and odd, but it seems like we're trying to elevate it to the level of "Power Hunger" and "Too many admins", if you catch my drift. The questions s/he asks are optional and it seems , according to one particular post on her talk, that there is consensus to remove "stupid" questions. That seems like a fairer solution to the problem to me. Bleeding Blue 02:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If we say that stupid questions are to be removed, do we need a full-out discussion each RfA of which ones to remove? Who decides this? Why should resources be taken up to determine this? This has already been proposed many times and shot down each time because doing it on an ad hoc basis would be too difficult to determine. It is akin to addressing the symptom of a disease. Here, we address the root of the problem - he simply cannot participate anymore. Questions are not the only disruption; it is also in his supports, opposes, and subsequent megabyte-long discussions that ensue. If you don't want to take the time to investigate the issue, I respect that. However, you should rethink your "strong oppose" vote with a strawman argument (sorry to repeat that, there's no other way to put it) and instead either don't vote, or state something to the effect that you are opposing without taking the time to investigate the situation. Tan | 39 03:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)I believe that both of your accusations against me and/or my vote are unfair. My 'strawman' argument was in response to how every prior discussion about the athiesm thing has gone prior to this thread, and was made prior to the focus changing to his/her unusual questions at RFAs. Each prior discussion at indifidual RFAs has boiled down to slinging the 'anti-athiest' tag around, and Keepscases' futile attempts at making it understood by everyone that he has a problem with that box, and not the beliefs it represents. It's unfortunate that he opposed one user for simply belonging to the wikiproject. In my opinion, it would have been valid to ask the user what his opinion of the box was, as a member of the project, and whether he thinks it's appropriate to display there. But, judging by the standards that have been set in this discussion, that would have been dismissed as another disruptive silly question and no doubt included in that exhaustive list of diffs provided earlier.

As for the idea that I didn't look into this issue, the only reason I'm here is because I silently witnessed all of the prior discussions unfold at WP:RFA and felt s/he was being unfairly attacked for bringing up a valid concern. I was of the (apparently misguided) impression that you all were more concerned by that than some silly hypothetical questions at RFAs, and so didn't directly address them. If my vote is improper, it will be properly discouted when the time comes. Bleeding Blue 03:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't as if a 'crat is going to close this with some defined outcome. This is a community-sactioned ban proposal. I made no purposeful accusation of you. You state above, "Admittedly, if something more serious happened some time ago, I'm probably unaware and am willing to reconsider based on that." I have no other interpretation of this other than "I haven't investigated the situation in full". If you meant something different, I apologize. I made a proposal based on over a year of past disruption. I am familiar with that disruption, and intended the participants to also familiarize themselves with the evidence at hand in the user's contributions, as I stated in the #1 support of the ban. Your strong opposal was based on this statement: "The idea that an oppose based on a user endorsing such divisive and insulting content is worthy of a ban is silly". The ban was not at all proposed because of this. Thus, by definition, your argument became a strawman argument. I don't mean this as an insult, it's just the way it is. All in all, I don't mean to belittle you or strongarm you into changing your mind. What I do want you to do is ensure that your participation here is based on sound reasoning - for your own integrity. If you prefer to leave things as-is, I will comment no further on this. Tan | 39 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my vote above, but I'd like to make a few things clear, mostly to indeed preserve my integrity.

I was under the impresson that Keepscases alleged "Incivilty and Soapboxing" (ie the title of this discussion) was the primary issue here. As I stated earlier, I was aware of these RFA questions because a simple glance at the user's talk page makes it impossible to miss the issue. But, at least to me and judging by the nature of most of the comments I found there, it was a minor concern compared to the userbox voting. Hence my "more serious" qualifier in my original statement.

As far as integrity goes, I'm here partially because it bothers me that a hopeful admin posting divisive, attacking, hurtful, etc messages on their user page is so readily dismissed by the community as unimportant. The very nature of adminship is dealing with other users, often in heated situations. If we're all failing to see a problem with posting hateful language on a page that's supposed to represent a user charged with conflict resolution, I'm not sure what else I can say. I'd actually like to preserve my own integrity by standing by my position that these kinds of things are perfectly appropriate to discuss at an RFA. I refuse to believe that this isn't the relevant issue, because it's blatently obvious that this was the issue that caused this action, that inspired it's title, and that had been discussed several times in the past couple of weeks. If this was purely a "silly questions" problem, the timing is curious at least.

As far as the MfD dismissal I keep hearing repeated...okay, so the template gets deleted. That doesn't change the fact that users that used to have that box on their page were ready and willing to post such a message. It doesn't stop them from reposting it in a different form. I don't suppose we're going to XfD every user page that posts such messages? If I post a racist, sexist, anti-religious or otherwise bigoted message on my user page, I fully expect it to be brought up if I should run for adminship someday.

Finally, I'm mostly retracting my original !vote because I respect some of the editors that have arrived here, and if they are of the opinion that Keepscases behavior is truly detrimental to the RFA process, I'll respect it as a less experienced editor and trust their judgment in that area. I hope you'll in turn respect the opinions I've laid out here. Bleeding Blue 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It saddens me that you changed your vote. Unlike most here, you did and still do seem to grasp what this is about. Keepscases (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed an indefinite block here. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is distracting to the above, and premature. –xenotalk 03:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed indefinite block and evidence I am proposing an indefinite block on Keepscases. It seems to me that a topic ban from RfA will not legitimately solve this. I know I supported a topic ban of DougsTech from RfA, but I think now that this kind of disruption is warranted for an indefinite block, as I don't think topic bans are harsh enough for these kind of users. I think that a topic ban will not make the user learn lessons as much as an indefinite block from Wikipedia. An indefinite block will more likely achieve a lesson learned, than a mere topic ban. Here is a list of diffs that convince me that this user shall not be editing Wikipedia, much less RfA: 20:58, 9 March 2009 22:22, 10 March 2009 21:24, 12 March 2009 19:30, 16 March 2009 19:23, 17 March 2009 22:21, 1 April 2009 16:45, 8 April 2009 18:59, 10 April 2009 17:25, 15 April 2009 22:02, 5 May 2009 15:37, 13 May 2009 18:09, 28 May 2009 18:54, 28 May 2009 16:12, 31 May 2009 16:14, 31 May 2009 22:56, 11 June 2009 18:11, 18 June 2009 14:44, 19 June 2009 03:08, 21 June 2009 14:49, 23 June 2009 21:41, 24 June 2009 17:10, 14 July 2009 15:25, 15 July 2009 22:50, 25 July 2009 01:39, 6 August 2009 18:22, 6 August 2009 23:49, 7 August 2009 And I don't even need to provide my reasons for each diff, except in short that this user makes up nonsense reasons for supporting and opposing candidates and asking nonsense questions that don't help the RfA in any way. This user needs to be blocked. If I was an administrator, I would block the user myself. --Mythdon talk • contribs 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Keepscases would probably Oppose your RfA because your deleted userpage shows that you're trying to hide something. -- Atamachat 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Support Strong Support.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Oppose I think the topic ban is better. I see one of three results as likely from such a ban. The first possibility is that Keepscases moves elsewhere on Wikipedia and is productive. The second is that being unable to disrupt RfA any longer, Keepscases leaves Wikipedia. The last is that Keepscases acts disruptive somewhere else, in which case they are blocked from the entire site. So we either have a positive result, a neutral result, and a result that ends up eventually doing what you're proposing anyway. -- Atamachat 02:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose The topic ban is debatable. I don't think anything this user has done warrants action of this magnitude. Bleeding Blue 02:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Ridiculous, and counter-productive to do this while another proposal was fresh. I have no issue with Keepscases's participation in any arena outside of RfA. Tan | 39 02:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose per Tan39. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Topic ban should suffice and its outcome should be made before attempting another proposal. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Discussion If keepscases remains unproductive after his topic ban an indef block could be applied Triplestop x3 02:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Some other editor should "officially" SNOW close this. No one is gonna indef block Keepscases right now, and we should all concentrate on the above topic ban proposal. Tan | 39 03:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Page move edit warring and sinifying names

Pub849sp (talk · contribs) has been performing numerous page moves of Xinjiang-related articles, changing native placenames to Chinese versions of those names:

• Aksai → Akesai
• Hoboksar → Hebukesai'er
• Qinggil → Qinghe
• Burqin → Bu'erqin
• Kumul → Hami
• Barkol → Balikun

I asked him several times [153][154][155][156] to start a discussion at an appropriate article talkpage or naming convention guideline page to seek consensus for widespread changes such as this, but he has ignored these messages and just keeps moving on to new articles and moving them. It is reaching a point where these changes are disruptive, and he is creating a lot of work for people to clean up; given that he refuses to start a discussion on either of the talkpages I directed him to, would a block be appropriate? (I'm reporting this here rather than the edit warring noticeboard since it pertains to pagemoves rather than edits, and is across numerous articles. The issue here is not the content disagreement, the issue is the user's insistence on continuing to make controversial edits without starting a discussion.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)