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:Mathsci

{{hat|Closed; referred to [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Race_and_Intelligence|ArbCom]] [[User:Rvcx|Rvcx]] ([[User talk:Rvcx|talk]]) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)}} Not so fast, the community has not finished dealing with this, and we don't have to stop all discussion just because someone has asked for a case. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying very hard not to get sucked into silly edit- and flame-wars with User:Mathsci, but even the very first comment that disagree with him brought forth an immediate barrage of personal attacks. A WQA alert eventually got a non-apology apology, but personal attacks and blatantly offensive edit summaries have continued, and he seems hell-bent on edit-warring to write whatever he wants regardless of input from other editors. There's no question he's made some terrific contributions, but this kind of behavior can't be tolerated. May I suggest a one-day block to help him cool off and reconsider his approach? Rvcx (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am simply calloused and scarred from exposure to Climate Change Probation related pages, but I am struggling to see these personal attacks you complain of and can only think that your understanding of the phrase "knee jerk" involves some activity I would rather not be familiar with. I am seeing someone who is explaining how WP uses its sources, the need for comment to be sustained by reliable third party references, that quoting something accurately cannot be libelous, and that personal appraisal of an original source is not permissible. However that latter is clearly in the domain of content dispute, which is beyond the remit of this board. Unless you can specify what part of Mathsci's comment contravene WP:NPA, I very much doubt you will get much traction here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing feedback on whether the cited sources support the statements in WP articles because I'm an "amateur" (used many times, of course never for Mathsci himself), accusing people of "making remarks off the tops of your head without any lengthy attempt to look at the sources" (despite repeated reminders that I have actually read the sources) and commenting "like a teenager playing a video game", demanding that I "get some grip on reality (unless of course you want ArbCom to be involved)", yet more allegations that I "hasn't read the sources- just knee jerk reaction", and the reversion of an edit supported by others on the grounds that "if you want to move towardss your 300th content edit do it elsewhere" seem a lot more like attacks directed at me (requiring very childish arguing over who has more "expertise" on the subject) than discussion of the content at hand. I don't deny Matsci's points about how primary and secondary sources should be used; I simply have not been able to verify the original phrasing of the text in secondary sources, and the primary sources suggest there's a good reason for that... Rvcx (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My review of the comments leads me to believe that although probably within the realms of a WQA referral - can you provide a link? - Mathsci was contrasting the findings of the third party sources with your own appraisals and, notwithstanding that you may or may not be an expert in the field, that would tend to be in the realm of Wikipedia:Original research and therefore not allowable (beyond the fact that Mathsci apparently believes your conclusions contrast to that of the reliable sources). I should note that I am not an expert at anything much than me, but a review of Mathsci's later comments - with the spelling mistakes and grammar - makes me believe that they were a little frustrated and might not have expressed themselves as respectfully as they might have. I would like to see Mathsci's comments upon this. Presently, I feel that this is a content dispute that has veered away from the preferred norms of interaction. Perhaps if Mathsci reviews the matter there might be some kind words exchanged about past comments and everyone can get on with the discussion? I will gently request that he takes a look at this section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LHvU for letting me know about this and your truly horrible wikipun :)

• Rvcx's edits did not match the secondary source used [1]; he attempted to analyse the Jensen article himself
• There was no original research, just a summary of what appears in the secondary sources, a lot of which had been used for History of the race and intelligence controversy. Having produced 80,000 bytes of content with over 80 references, I can't really pretend not to be slightly familiar with the subject, often described as one of the most controversial papers in the history of psychology. A number of other people - from memory these include Slrubenstein, Maunus, Professor marginalia and RegentsPark - confirmed what I said.
• I did apologize for any misunderstanding twice here [2] (see in particular the final two statements). Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• 11 hours after your backhanded apology, you reverted an edit with the inappropriate edit summary "Rvcx (talk) no thanks - if you want to move towards your 300th content edit do it elsewhere". (You reverted Rvcx's edit 2 hours after it was made, despite the fact that he noted it on the talk page and appeared to receive acceptance from Professor marginalia, among others, prior to your revert). Your apology appears to lack any sincerity, and it appears 2 hours was not enough to read the discussion that was underway on the talk page. About an hour later, you were reverted on the basis that there was consensus on the talk page that Rvcx's edit was fine, but you edit-warred by reverting yet again here, failing to discuss your content reversion on the talk page. What is so difficult to understand about the fact you need to discuss reversions you make on the talk page and make appropriate edit summaries that don't go against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Are experienced administrators failing to teach you how to appropriately deal with perceived or actual POV pushing, or is it a matter of being stubborn? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And now Mathsci has reverted three times despite an apparent consensus and without a single comment on the talk page where the (minor) change was discussed. Rvcx (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally I see a potential sign of improvement - he's begun discussing his concerns on the talk page here; hopefully the edits in that discussion and in edit-summaries now comply with the relevant policies and preferred norms of interaction, even during perceived or actual difficult situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No such luck; "howlers" right out of the gate. Honestly, there has never been any indication that Mathsci has anything but disdain for third-party input. Rvcx (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Rvcx is editing too fast and not checking secondary sources. Here is what the secondary source says; [3]:

But he felt that 'the technique for rasing intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological sciences than in psychology or eduaction'; eugenic reform rather than compensatory educationheld out the solution to the problem of the nation's intelligence.

I paraphrased this in two distinct ways, the first (diff 1) with the words "in" and "than" missing, and the second (diff 2 and 3) slightly closer to Wooldridge.

• He felt that the solution lay eugenic reform rather compensatory education surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".
• He felt that the solution to this problem was through eugenic reform rather than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".

I did leave a message on the talk page [4] but Rvcx must have been editing too fast to read them, His version tht he and Captain Occam have edit-warred back into the article reads:

• He felt that eugenic reform would prevent this more effectively than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".

This is not what the secondary source says. Indeed as the secondary sources say, Jensen's paper starts off with "Compensatory education has been tried and it has apparently failed". There are no comparatives. Anyway since there are two versions I have only reverted twice. On the talk page, Rvcx discusses what the quote means in the primary sources. He says, it means "changing people's biology", [5] but of course it doesn't mean that all. As the secondary source states, "biological sciences" means eugenics: population control, which in these cases - as several of the secondary sources also say - means either birth control or sterilization. Certainly that is what is in the rest of the summary. Our task is just to paraphrase Wooldridge, the secondary source. This kind of error, apparent with the mention of "Changing people's biology" in interpreting the primary source, shows exactly why we use secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that when this issue was brought up at the BLP noticeboard, Jimbo Wales became involved in the discussion, and left this comment about it. His comment is about a slightly different piece of content than the one that Mathsci is edit warring over currently, but the same principle clearly applies. According to Jimbo Wales, we can’t claim that Jensen has advocated something unless Jensen has specifically stated that he advocates it—“we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.” In the case of eugenics, even though some of Jensen’s critics have claimed in secondary sources that Jensen has advocated this, all that Jensen himself has stated is that eugenics is more likely to raise the IQs of low-IQ people than compensatory education is. Mathsci is not only edit warring to try and change the article against consensus; he is repeatedly inserting material that according to Jimbo Wales is probably a BLP violation.

And this is in addition to his repeated personal attacks, which have been near-constant for the past several months. I can provide diffs of some of the more egregious examples from before Rvcx became involved in this dispute, if anyone needs them. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I decided against getting involved in the WQA thread, but now that this has been taken to AN/I, I figured I should offer my opinion about it as someone who’s been the target of numerous personal attacks from Mathsci in the past. In general, the attitude I’ve observed from him is that no criticism of his behavior is ever appropriate because he’s a “user in good standing”. For an example of this, see his exchange with Keegan here. His attitude appears to be that “good standing” is a status that becomes irrevocable once it is earned, and grants immunity from any censure or negative consequences in response to policy violations.

I would certainly hope that isn’t how Wikipedia works. For a user to remain in good standing should be contingent on their staying civil, and not engaging in disruptive behavior, and I don’t think Mathsci can reasonably expect to stay in good standing after his behavior towards Rvcx and David.Kane during the past week, as well as his behavior towards me, Varoon Arya and Ludwigs2 over the previous several months. Assuming it’s the case that Mathsci’s history of contributions does not excuse him from having to abide by policies such as WP:NPA, I think it would be beneficial for an administrator to give him a hard dose of reality about this, and that it would help avoid similar problems from Mathsci in the future if an admin could make him aware that he does not have free reign to ignore WP policy without any fear of negative consequences. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with LHVU. This matter is related to the endless disputes about Race and intelligence. User:David.Kane made a post on WP:BLPN essentially arguing that academic sources have made libelous claims about Arthur Jensen, and has been supported in this position by User:Off2riorob and User:Rvcx. Mathsci has pointed out that there is substantial scholarly coverage of Jensen's positions and has explained the substance of this coverage and given citations and links to where it appears. Off2riorob and Rvcx do not appear to have followed up on these citations/links, and Mathsci is expressing frustration that other editors are not doing their reading. I find Mathsci's reaction entirely understandable; sadly, Wikipedia editors cannot be graded down when they show that they don't have command of the sources. In any event, nothing that Mathsci has said in the diffs provided is uncivil, and bringing the matter to ANI borders on the vexatious. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For more background (not related to Rvcx) see this. In short, several SPA editors have been using WP:CPUSH to promote their views across a wide range of race and intelligence articles. Mathsci is about the only obstacle preventing SPAs and other enthusiastic editors from having free reign. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not consistent with what happened. Off2riorob and Rvcx followed up on the only citation necessary to validate a BLP violation, the writing of the subject. The violation has recently been corrected as a result of this. Mathsci made efforts for several months to maintain his virulent anti-Jensen material. His behaviour towards other editors during this time was appalling. mikemikev (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think the content dispute here is that significant. It's crazy that such a protracted discussion was needed to change just a few words to ensure the text is verified by sources (both primary and secondary—let's not get into a lengthy debate here, but suffice it to say I think both are relevant). I have no particular interest in views across that article space.

What is significant is Mathsci's stubborn and confrontational attitude, and his assumption that he is entitled to insult and ignore everyone who disagrees with him, even over the smallest details, on the basis of his "score" in terms of number of edits. I didn't think that was the way Wikipedia was supposed to work. Rvcx (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My view, after reviewing what is written since I logged out, is that there is a content dispute relating to the subject, that Mathsci has used terminology that is not optimum, and those instances are being pursued in an effort to limit Mathsci's input in the dispute. The latter is not going to work, so I suggest that the point of contention is taken to dispute resolution; RfC or WP:3O would be my suggestion. To the parties I would comment, Mathsci might consider choosing their words a bit more carefully, and Rvcx, Off2riorob and others should separate the content dispute from the civility issues and find a way to get consensus on the content matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems like LHvU is trying to taint other editors with MathSci's bad behavior. I have been incredibly careful to separate civility issues from content issues; thus the attempt to discuss civility here and at WQA and focus entirely on content at BLPN and the article talk pages. It is consistently MathSci who employs ad-hominem in content disputes and tries to deflect civility complaints with arguments over content. It is consistently MathSci who argues that other editors have no right to provide input, purely on the basis of who they are. It is MathSci who laces every comment with "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and they should fuck off" attacks, on multiple occasions actually threatening to escalate to ArbCom purely because an editor had the temerity to suggest that he could be in the wrong. I don't think any one comment is particularly egregious, but the overall message, sense of entitlement, and pattern of personal intimidation are both clear and intentional. At some point administrators should intervene to let him know that such an attitude is not acceptable, regardless of how many "content edits" he has made. Rvcx (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus: 1) If you are going to make claims about me, then you ought to have the courtesy of making a direct link to the material. Here is the BLPN section in which I raised the issue about Arthur Jensen. 2) The first two uninvolved editors (talk and Rvcx) to comment agreed with me. Jimbo Wales was also supportive. And MathSci has given up on defending the specific edit that we had a problem with, that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." And the reason that he has given up defending it is that Jensen did no such thing. Now, we all make mistakes. If MathSci would just admit that this claim does not belong in Wikipedia, we could all move on. But, as is his usual practice, he engages in a blizzard of irrelevant citations and ad hominem attacks. This issue in this thread is whether or not such attacks belong on Wikipedia and, if not, what ought to be done about MathSci's behavior. Do you really believe that MathSci's behavior here and elsewhere is not "uncivil?" David.Kane (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some editors in this thread seem unconvinced that MathSci's behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps they are right. But they should look at the history of MathSci's behavior as discussed in previous ANI threads: [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Note that other examples are available. My point is not to claim that MathSci is always wrong (or always right) in these debates. My point, counter Johnuniq, is that complaints about MathSci's behavior are not specific to his edits of Race and Intelligence related articles. His behavior is consistent, as best I can tell, across the range of his interactions at Wikipedia. Rvcx's experience with MathSci is completely typical. Is this what experienced admins want to see at Wikipedia? If so, I have little doubt that MathSci will continue to give it to us good and hard. David.Kane (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just take a look at the diffs shall we? The first two diffs refer to: A.K.Nole (talk · contribs). It was determined by a member of ArbCom that this user was wikihounding me and continued to so under a new account: they have been iinstructed by that member of ArbCom to deists. Next diff from 2008 ends as follows: I would like to add that this matter is resolved, as far as I am concerned. It was unfortunate that Mathsci and I got off to a bad start but the situation has calmed down and I'm sure we'll be able to co-operate in a constructive way in the future. I most certainly do not want to see Mathsci blocked, he has made many constructive edits and is valuable to Wikipedia. He has offered his apologies and I've offered mine for our heated exchange and I believe that no more needs to be said about it. I wish to thank the other users and administrators involved in this discussions for constructive and meaningful comments that helped to diffuse the situation. JdeJ (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC) The fourth diff was about Ethnic groups of Europe where a Suomi editor was removing good edits by Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) which are still in the article. Normal nationalist issues there. The fifth diff is by Danko Georgiev, MD, who was blocked for a week for attempting to out me as Alan Weinstein, then head of department in Berkeley,and actualy a friend of mine. So you get a γ- for accuracy but an α+ for misrepresentation and attempted harrassment. Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Note as an uninvolved editor, I have made a temporary change to stop the edit-war short of protection and blocks. See my comments at the talk and come to a consensus that does not violate policy. Enough is enough - if anyone involved wants to continue edit-warring about this matter, they proceed at their own risk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about it and there is no ongoing edit war as you claim. So I have restored Rvcx's version, despite its very mild inaccuracy, which I don't really care that much about. However I do care about secondary sources as they represent one of the pillars of wikipedia editing policy and I hope other editors will continue to respect and abide by those policies. I'm sorry for spoiling the fun for the peanut gallery. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think others can assess for themselves whether there is an ongoing edit-war from just looking at your reversions [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. That is, the same person usually doesn't make 3 identical reverts on the same page within 24 hours if that person doesn't "feel very strongly" about something, nor do they wait until the third revert before even bothering to discuss their issue(s). Some people take a long time to learn, but I suppose it would be better late than never. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if this instance of edit warring ends up being resolved here, I hope there can also be a solution to the problem of Mathsci’s repeated personal attacks. This problem has been going on for as long as I’ve been interacting consistently with Mathsci, which is for around four months, and unless an admin does something about it I doubt it’ll be changing anytime soon. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, by now all these AN/I discussions have become part of "History of the race and intelligence controversy" as well. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be an end to the personal attacks on Mathsci, as well. Some of Mathsci's comments do appear to be personal attacks, but so do most of the edits of the people complaining. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment At the moment it does seem to be a team of editors picking on me all over wikipedia. It includesd the familiar WP:SPAs: David.Kane, Mikemikev, Captain Ocaam and Varoon Arya. I edit Bach Organ Music. I'm editing Orgelbüchlein at the moment. I have the two main English languages source books by Russel Stinson and by Peter Williams (both edition). I also have also have severaal version of the scores. Previously I created Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes and Canonic Variations. Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) has followed me to this article and has started questioning the sources and the standard orthography. However, in all Bach editions there is now a standard spelling which I am adhering to. Breitkopf used a different convention in the nineteenth century, but adopted a different convention along with all other publishers of urtext editions from 1969. I have both of the German Breitkopf editions. In his edit summaries Varoon Arya has started questioning all those sources: the scores, the definitive book by Peter Williams, The Organ Music of J.S. Bach, Cambridge University Press and The Orgelbüchlein by Russell Stinson, Oxford University Press, the only book wholly devoted to the subject. [17][18] I am preparing a long table with 164 entries and he inserted apostrophes of the 19C version, which has now been dropped, probably beacuse of adherence to the autograph, now available in facsimile. Why is he leaving such sneering comments, why isc heasting doubt on the sources and why has he followed me to this article? I think this a concerted attempt by a team of 3 or 4 users to wikihound me. Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: even if that’s true, I think when you look at some of the worse examples of this from Mathsci, they’re of a different caliber than anything that’s coming from the people who are annoyed at him. Here’s a small sampling of some of the worse examples of this from Mathsci. There are a lot more than this that I could provide, but I think these are probably sufficient to demonstrate the point I’m making.

<= The onslaught continues here [19]. I think Varron Arya is trying to provoke an edit war. Fortunately the German 1991 Breitkopf edition is in exact agreement with the two books in its spelling and use of apostrophes.Mathsci (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

[20] In response to a detailed explanation from Varoon Arya of why Mathsci’s preferred version of an article violated NPOV, Mathsci writes “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.” (This was Mathsci’s entire response to VA.) He considered this a sufficient rebuttal to Varoon Arya’s points to revert any efforts to address the NPOV concerns that VA was raising. I don’t think any of the rest of us consider snide comments like this a sufficient response to policy-based arguments that Mathsci makes.

[21] “BTW if you revert my edits you are very likely to be blocked for a considerable period of time, possibly by ArbCom.” I don’t think any of the rest of us have threatened Mathsci with blocks to try and scare him out of reverting our edits. He’s also done the same thing in some of his edit summaries, such as this one: “you'll be blocked if you repeat this POV-pushing”.

[22] “From the blog previously linked to his user page, Captain Occam has an extreme point of view in real life, which also extends to forms of holocaust denial.” I think this is probably the worst example, both because it’s false, defamatory and completely unsupported by anything in my blog or elsewhere; and also because I’m of Ashkenazi (European) Jewish ancestry and had relatives who died in the holocaust. The fact that I’m of Ashkenazi ancestry is mentioned in one of the userboxes on my userpage, which I know Mathsci has looked at, because at several points he’s brought up information he found at external sites that I’ve linked to there. I think he could have known both that this comment was false, and also how offensive I’d find it. And obviously, none of the rest of us have made these sorts of defamatory personal claims about him. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, could you back that up with diffs? Honestly, "most" of the edits from people complaining are personal attacks? I don't see a single instance on BLPN or the race/intelligence talk pages where I've made a personal attack against Mathsci. This thread contains links to dozens of diffs where Mathsci has. The attempt to paint everyone with the same brush in an attempt to exonerate Mathsci's uncivil and domineering behavior is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. When are you people going to realize that Mathsci - no matter how much support he has from certain editors and admins - is an inveterate troll who uses intimidation, harassment, political gamesmanship, and other emotional tactics to try to dictate wikipedia content. He is simply not worth the trouble he causes. It's truculent ciphers like Mathsci that make editing wikipedia an excruciating experience.

So long as you all allow Mathsci to turn every page he touches into a full-scale cockfight, Wikipedia will not be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and it won't be a pleasant place to edit at all, at least not for anyone who doesn't kiss Mathsci's a$$.

No point in belaboring this issue, so I'll leave it at that. do with it what you will. --Ludwigs2 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you come here after this invitation from [23] Captain Occam (talk · contribs)? He has a habit of requesting "help" from other editors, either here, on other noticeboards or articles he's trying push his point of view on. Mathsci (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Because a polite "this may be of relevance to you" is far worse than soliciting allies with personal attacks. Rvcx (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Mathsci; all Occam did was point out that you are (once again) engaging in bad behavior. If I had noticed on my own I would have made the same comment. I do not need help or invitations from other editors to recognize how badly you pervert the principles of Wikipedia. I am, in fact, shocked that other editors seem to think your behavior is acceptable. but that is between them and their own consciences. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwig2, yes your characterization of Mathsci's techniques are fairly correct. That said, they are also tactics being used by you and many of the SPA accounts that Mathsci mentions. The main difference between his edits and the others using similar tactics is that his edits are generally solid, whereas the edits of others are symptomatic of pov pushing. His behavior is not excused by the higher quality of his edits, and neither are the edits and behavior of the SPA editors excused by Mathsci's behavior. At the heart of the matter is the ability to edit wikipedia using well sourced secondary sources with a neutral point of view. Shining a spotlight on his behavior without discussing the underlying context and editing problems is a perfect example of tolling behavior. A.Prock (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, are you accusing me of being an SPA account? Are you accusing me of trolling? Or are you simply diverting attention from the complaint about Mathsci's behavior? I'm sorry, but given the number of people that have had problems with Mathsci, it's a bit ridiculous to argue that all of them were at fault. The pattern is Mathsci himself; if you want to start threads about other editors (including me) then feel free. Rvcx (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

@ A.Prock: AProck - I've never had a squabble with you (or even thought badly of you). In fact, I can count the people I've had squabbles with on Wikipedia on one hand - everyone else on Wikipedia I communicate with well and cooperate with carefully and thoughtfully. My problem with Mathsci is that despite (or perhaps because of) his obvious skills as an editor, he treats other editors in a rude and supercilious fashion, one that I (personally) refuse to put up with. If he were to interact with me in a civil and restrained manner, then I would have the highest opinion of him, and we'd get along well. Because he insists on treating me like vermin, however, I find myself consistently having to clip his wings. I have no use for people who think they are God's gift to Wikipedia, and I have no compunctions about telling them what I think about their bad behavior.

No one gets trouble from me unless they bring the fight to my door, but I have little tolerance for bullies. Mathsci has a long track record of bad behavior, and he has brought the fight to my door more than once. Until he cleans up his act he should not expect me to be gentle or silent in my disapproval. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mathsci's behavior does cross into the realm of inexcusable on occasion. If you read the WP:CPUSH essay, you'll see that Mathsci's uncivil reactions are one of the typical outcomes for editors working on articles where WP:CPUSH is ongoing. A big part of the problem here is that there is an attempt to move the discussion away from content and editing issues to personal civility issues. This is a big reason why there are so many problems dealing with the WP:CPUSH problems. For uninvolved editors, civility issues are a lot easier to identify, pursue and discuss than content issues. A.Prock (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Aprock. The problem here is your attempt to move the discussion away from civility issues (which is what this complaint is about) to content disputes (for which this is not the right venue). Mathsci's behavior cannot be dismissed as an understandable reaction to manipulative POV-pushers—he has consistently treated every editor who disagrees with him in the same uncivil way from the very start. It would great if a good writer and researcher were also good at working with other editors, but unfortunately that's not the case here. Pretending there is not a problem with Mathsci hasn't worked so far and unless something is done about him the problems will continue in the future. Rvcx (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• We're never going to resolve this dispute at AN/I or via RfCs: I think only ArbCom can deal with this situation. Long-term POV pushing by single-purpose accounts has turned the whole area of race and intelligence into an intractable battleground. I'd like to see all SPAs in this area topic banned. Fences&Windows 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree entirely. The continued attacks on Mathsci here and elsewhere are a distraction and a blot on the project -- no one should be subject to such vitriol simply because they're trying to uphold core Wikipedia standards. The SPA activity needs to be curtailed, and these accounts blocked from editing, or, at the very least, put under severe editing restrictions regarding both the "race and intelligence" subject area and attacks and complaints about Mathsci. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fences and Beyond My Ken: 1) This complaint against MathSci was bought by Rvcx. Would you describe him as engaging in "vitriol" or as an "SPA"? 2) Am I one of the editors who you seek to block? The only reason that I engaged in this thread is because Akhilleus mentioned by name in a misleading fashion. David.Kane (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all a smoke screen. If we step back and look at the bigger picture, Mathsci may be involved in a few minor incidents from time to time, but he is not the problem on race related articles. Rather it is civil POV pushing, tag teaming, edit warring SPAs who are creating an atmosphere conducive for incidents. The solution to this problem already exists, topic ban POV pushing SPAs, and repeated threads on ANI will reduce or cease altogether. Unfortunately there has not been enough political will to implement this solution, though almost everyone, including the SPAs themselves, have acknowledged the existence of POV pushing SPA editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda: Given your rampant sock-puppetry in the past, you are probably doing MathSci more harm than good by chiming in here. I, at least, have never "acknowledged the existence of POV pushing SPA editing." David.Kane (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy excuse to divert from the main problem and I have heard it countless times whenever editors try to discredit any edits I make. From my experience, it doesn't work very often which is why I am still quite active on Wikipedia. If a suggestion is good for this encyclopedia, it really shouldn't matter, and it usually doesn't matter who it is coming from. There might be a tendency to focus only on the negative, but there are some positives, I've been editing Wikipedia for five years now and I have experienced many of these controversies before. During that unfortunate period, Mathsci did participate in getting me blocked. But from my time on Wikipedia, I have encountered Mathsci's edits in a diverse range of articles. Most are uncontroversial and of good quality, so I am confident that Mathsci is not a POV pushing SPA, and that when this particular flare-up is over, he will move on to work on other articles. Overall he is a net plus to the encyclopedia. I cannot say the same for the band of SPAs currently holding a number of race related articles hostage. Captain Occam, Mikemikev, Bpesta have all acknowledged in one way or another that they are SPAs. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(convenience break)

I find it incredibly discouraging to see that even in the face of conduct from Mathsci of the sort that Rvcx and I have linked to above, behavior which has no equivalent from any of the users complaining about Mathsci in this thread, Beyond my Ken and Fences & Windows both believe that the solution is to punish everyone but Mathsci. It really seems like what Ludwigs2 described might be the case: that there are certain administrators who will support Mathsci regardless of what he does, and that since Mathsci is aware of this fact, he knows that he has free reign to violate any policies here without any fear of negative consequences.

Aren’t either of the admins who are saying this aware that at this point, no more than half of the users currently complaining about Mathsci’s behavior are SPAs? The only users currently making these complaints who could arguably fit that definition are me, David.Kane and Mikemikev. Rvcx, Ncmvocalist, and Ludwigs2 clearly aren’t SPAs, and the first two became involved in the article only as a result of it being brought up at the BLP noticeboard. The current conflict between them and Mathsci is the result of them trying to remove material that (as I explained above) according to Jimbo Wales is a BLP violation, and Mathsci edit warring to reinsert it. Following Jimbo Wales’ instructions about how to comply with BLP policy is not POV-pushing, and the editors who initiated this complaint because of how Mathsci reacted when they tried to do this aren’t SPAs. In this situation, do you seriously think the problem is just with “POV-pushing SPAs”? If David.Kane and I weren’t involved in these articles, and it were only Rvcx and Ncmvocalist trying to remove the BLP violations, is there any evidence that Mathsci would be treating them any differently from how he currently is?

I really hope I can get through to you about what’s actually going on here, although I don’t have all that much hope about it. My understanding of the current situation is that Mathsci knows he can ignore whatever policies that he wants here, because he expects admins like the two of you to support him regardless of what evidence or arguments are presented against him. And judging by what I’ve seen thus far, it looks like he might be right that this is the case. If he is, then we may as well abandon all pretense of users being judged objectively on the basis of their behavior—apparently, the only thing that really matters is who the admins personally like or dislike. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam canvassing [24], and forum shopping [25]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If they were no POV pushing SPAs, would many of these incidents exist. The history of these articles suggests not. This dispute has been running for eight months, Mathsci was not initially involved and during the mediation he did not participate for 2-3 months. During Mathsci's absence there was still name-calling, incivility, edit warring and blocks. It is evident that the real problem is the existence of SPAs rather than Mathsci's edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 may not be an SPA, but Mathsci was, for some time, the only remaining editor complaining about his (sorry, I can't think of a word which is both accurate and not a personal attack, ummm, let me think), "mediation" on Race and intelligence. He has a personal interest in Mathsci's being discredited, as it's the only way that his "mediation" might not be considered a reason for a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The characterisation of the personal behaviour on Wikipedia of Mathsci by Ludwigs2, although strongly expressed, has much truth in it. Apart from that, the edits by Mathsci and his supporters to the article History of the race and intelligence controversy‎ seem to me and to several other people to be tendentious and slanted. Attempts to place a NPOV flag on that article have been repulsed. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

There is zero truth in Ludwigs2's unfortunate characterization of Mathsci as an "inveterate troll", a few paragraphs above. Mathsci doesn't make "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors" (see WP:TROLL). On the contrary, a deep care for the encyclopedia seems to be what motivates Mathsci (and, admittedly, sometimes make him lash out in crude hyperbole). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Captain Occam canvassing [26], and forum shopping [27]."

Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to look into what's actually going on before making these sorts of accusations about me? I contacted Black Kite because he specifically asked me to contact him if there's more edit warring on these articles. As for Ludwigs2, I contacted him because during the four months that I've been interacting with Mathsci, he's the only person who's been the subject of more personal attacks from Mathsci than I have, and in a thread about Mathsci's personal attacks it seemed like it would be appropriate to have Ludwig's input.

If you look through the three AN/I threads in which Mathsci tried to get Ludwigs2 banned because of his actions as mediator, the first two of which were started by other users and hijacked by Mathsci, you'll see that Ludwig was begging Mathsci to raise his content disputes within the mediation itself, and Mathsci repeatedly refused. Mathsci's complaints in all three of these threads were almost exclusively either personal attacks on Ludwig, or content disputes over the article that he was attempting to resolve via administrative action against the user he disagreed with without attempting any form of dispute resolution with them, even when the user he disagreed with was specifically requesting this. This last thing is something he's done several times with me and David.Kane also.

Arthur Rubin and Beyond My Ken, are you going to make any attempt to address the points I've made about the attitude you're expressing here? Or are you going to continue expressing what appears to be blind support for Mathsci, while refusing to acknowledge any of the evidence that's being presented that his behavior really is his own fault, and not someone else's? --Captain Occam (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm not going to make an attempt to address the points you've made. I agree that Mathsci can be abrasive, but, as he's not violating any of the Pillars, the good of the encyclopedia should be considered. Mathsci has made more constructive contributions than all the people who have complained about him, combined.

For those who consider this contrary to my view of Betacommand, so be it. His bots may have made more constructive edits than his detractors, but they also made more nonconstructive edits than his detractors made constructive edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the diffs that I and others have posted are sufficient to demonstrate that Mathsci is violating the fourth of the five pillars: “Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner”. Mathsci isn’t avoiding personal attacks, he isn’t avoiding edit wars, and he isn’t assuming good faith about just about any of the users that he disagrees with. I agree that he’s made a lot of constructive contributions also, but I don’t think that should grant him carte blanche permission to ignore policies such as WP:Civility and WP:NPA, which seems to be both his own attitude and the attitude of several of the admins who’ve commented here. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the many posts I have read of yours over the past months are more than sufficient to show that you are a civil POV-pushing single purpose account whose contributions are not conducive to improving an encyclopedia writen from a neutral point of view. As such, your comments get from me exactly as much consideration as they deserve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what Ludwigs2 and I are talking about. I guess it’s good that you aren’t afraid to state it publicly: that as an administrator, your decisions in cases like this one will be based on your personal opinions of the editors in question, and will disregard any evidence that’s presented if you don’t like the users posting it. Is there anyone else who feels this way? If there are any other admins who’ve decided ahead of time that they aren’t interested in handling situations like this one objectively, I think it’s useful for those of us who are the targets of Mathsci’s personal attacks to know about that. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, will never be an administrator, and as far as I know have never presented myself as an administrator. Were I an administrator, you would have been blocked long before now. My judgment is that you are a net negative for the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Sluzzelin: Actually, Sluz Mathsci has made a protracted, deliberate, and intensive effort to disrupt the ability of me and numerous other editors to edit wikipedia, from simple name-calling and derogative slurs to non-communicative reverts to active efforts to get us blocked, banned, or otherwise prohibited from editing. You may agree with his ends (which is fine by me if you do) but his means fully satisfy the definition given in TROLL. That may make him a moral troll in your eyes - an interesting category that bears some consideration - but troll he is, beyond any but the most remote shadow of doubt. That he is inveterate is obvious by inspection, since he has done it consistently for months (likely years), and shows neither remorse nor any inclination to stop. Deal with it.

I will credit Mathsci with being intelligent, dedicated, and interested in improving the encyclopedia. He can be all that and still be a detriment to the project, because his attitude is so poisonous that it makes working anywhere in his vicinity nauseating. I can tell you this from harsh experience: most of the people Mathsci complains about (whom I largely disagree with) respond to reasoned discussion; Mathsci (whom I largely agree with) does not. Attempting to engage Mathsci in reasoned discussion will produce nothing except a string of insults and mildly paranoid complaints. He has good days where he will talk things out for a while, but as soon as it becomes clear that he is not going to get precisely what he wanted at the start he turns to ANI or other administrative venues to try to enforce his preferred outcome. His mere presence makes any possibility of properly communicative consensus impossible, because as soon as any consensus he doesn't like starts to emerge he will disrupt the consensus with accusations, insults, calls for administrative action, and any other disruptive technique he can wangle to prevent consensus from being reached. If you can think of any behavior that is more against the principles of Wikipedia I'd love to hear it, because I sure as hell can't. --Ludwigs2 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone please topic ban the SPAs already

Or is it necessary to go to Arbcom every time that a topic ban of a POV pusher is needed? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal. Clearly the normal processes of editing on these pages have broken down, and all parties are now convinced that they, and they alone, are in the right amid competing and increasingly acrimonious demands for retribution and justice. Justice is something that this board is never going to be able to supply, and so the problem comes back time after time. When this sort of train-wreck happens, I suggest to the community that everyone, but everyone, be barred from the page for a period of say three months. That is, nobody who has edited this page or its talk page in the past may edit either for a period of three months from the date of their last edit (enforced by a block of commensurate length if violated). This isn't intended to be "fair" or "right", because that's not we can or should aim to do here. Instead, that's what the orderly construction of the encyclopedia demands. The encyclopedia does not, and never will, require these particular people to be editing this particular article at this particular time. There are thousands of people who might be able to make a better job of it, and they can have the chance. 94.196.217.26 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: The above is the second edit of this IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's necessary to go to ArbCom. Or at least see if consensus can be built on this board for banning someone. Even if I thought someone should be banned (and I'm not saying that, because I haven't looked deeply into the matter), I wouldn't do it unilaterally, because I have no desire to be dragged through the wikilawyering that would inevitably ensue. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

While it does appear to be necessary to go to ArbCom, the community should really take a close look at this. What we have here is a situation where several accounts are collaborating, on-wiki and sometimes off-wiki, to edit as well as create as set of articles that appear to push what may well be a minority or fringe point of view about race. Perhaps these accounts are well meaning but the reality is that wikipedia's articles on race are likely to reflect their views because of the sheer number of accounts and because of their unusually long persistence. We shouldn't want this situation to persist and should immediately, and consensually, topic ban these editors from all articles in the category race. A community ban rather than an ArbCom case is what is really needed here. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So admins here are going to let Mathsci get away with this? I am disgusted by Mathsci's poisonous defamation, and by those who support him. The constant counter argument is 'SPA', which appears to be nothing more than a mindless term of abuse. mikemikev (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a fairly precise term of art, and totally appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"precise"? Let's take an example. Am I an SPA? David.Kane (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Although you do make edits to topics around a liberal arts college in WIlliamstown to a certain extent, most of your efforts are on race-related articles and from a very particular point of view. It is the fact that you keep inventing new ways to WP:CPUSH that makes your edits particularly problematic. Very few of them seem to be geared to improving the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. Even some of your edits related to Wiliiams College have been problematic. The now deleted article on EphBlog currently in you user space [28] until yesterday was a vindictive attack page, violating almost every aspect of WP:BLP. Unnotable individuals were maligned: the statements about them came up within the first 30 items in a google search on their names. Professor marginalia blanked most of the BLP violations. The article EphBlog was deleted by administrators not once, but twice. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So, I guess that we could do a separate ban proposal for each SPA? To tell the good from the bad? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The current group of SPAs does not have a homogeneous editing history, they differ in their extremity of SPA editing. The most extreme is Captain Occam, who despite being an editor since 2006, with over 2000 edits, has edited less than 100 unique pages and only edited about 32 unique articles. Captain Occam is the "ringleader" and the other SPAs have congregated around him. Some are Captain Occam's verified meatpuppets and other are potentially unverified meatpuppets. Some editors were not initially SPAs, having only a made a handful of edits prior to the eruption of this dispute, but have recently morphed into SPAs by significantly increased their edit count on race related articles. While these editors are not homogeneous in their editing history, their approach to race related articles is homogeneous in that they are all, civil POV pushing,( with the exception of Mikemikev, who tends to use words like idiot and nitwits all too frequently). As I have mentioned previously on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy, there are few pure SPAs, but we have a new breed of SPAs who take great care to avoid obvious policy violations. But their net effect is what is worrying as they have successfully managed to drag a dispute from as far back as October 2009, which is about 9 calendar months. It is possible that a prolonged dispute is in fact a more potent form of advocacy then actual article content, because such disputes are spread over several noticeboards. Nine months is a lot of time, and non-SPA editors involved in this dispute could have used this time more constructively in other areas of Wikipedia. It is probably a good time to put an end to this. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see David Kane's objection, though: If the problem is SPAs, and he's not an SPA, then clearly there is no problem! QED! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of the SPAs. The field of race and intelligence is littered with fake science and erroneous conclusions, and is a massive target for those of a particular interest. These SPAs have defeated each attempt to curb their enthusiasm using their ability to overwhelm any normal person's ability to unravel their arguments. An admin needs to step in and see the obvious: enough is enough; the SPAs need to edit their own websites for a while because it is just creepy to focus that much energy on converting the race and intelligence articles on Wikipedia to promote your point of view. Mathsci is the only obstacle preventing these SPAs from using Wikipedia to "prove" certain conclusions regarding one of the least understood human features (intelligence in general, and race and intelligence in particular). This have been raised in several places, notably here. No, David Kane is not technically an SPA, but yes his actions are indistinguishable from an SPA at this stage and he needs to take a break from this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I an SPA? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

{{hab}}

I'm placing the requests in separate sections (I'm not up-to-date with the drama, so I'm missing a few people). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

[[::User:Varoon Arya|Varoon Arya]] (talk · contribs) says that he isn't going to edit the topic anymore[29].

[[::User:Distributivejustice|Distributivejustice]] (talk · contribs) retired back in May 2010. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

[[::User:TechnoFaye|TechnoFaye]] (talk · contribs) edited almost exclusively R&I topics from November 2009 to April 2010. He seems to have moved to greener pastures. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: You are correct that filing an ArbCom request doesn't necessarily override a community discussion, but I think that, in this case, it has basically sucked the air out of the room. With the possibility of an ArbCom case hanging like a sword of Damocles, it's unlikely that you're going to get a lot of action on these requests. Besides, I don't really think that we were on the cusp of a community decision which the filing of the ArbCom request cut off. This issue (SPAs/Race and intelligence) has come up a number of times recently on AN/I, and it has yet to really get significant traction outside of a number of people with firm opinions (myself included) -- more's the pity, since, to my mind, that lack of interest doesn't speak well at all for the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to topic ban Mikemikev from Race and Intelligence topics

[[::User:Mikemikev|Mikemikev]] (talk · contribs) created his account in 2007 and made 29 edits until December 2009. Since then he has made 380+ edits, almost every single one inside the R&I topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

comment I tend to agree with this proposal as I have not seen Mikemikev as a positive contributor to the articles, but rather as somewhat of a troll more concerned with blocking progress and dragging out discussions endlessly than with improving articles in a collaborative spirit. If a less severe measure is required it might be to impose a 0rr for Mike on race and intelligence related topics. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

comment I agree that Mikemikev should behave more politely. But, Maunus, surely you agree that the vitriol that MathSci regularly shares with us is at least as objectionable? Indeed, from my interactions, Mikemikev is just as polite as those with whom he is dealing. In interactions with well-behaved editors, he is well-behaved (independent of whether or not he agrees with them). In interactions with MathSci, he behaves as MathSci behaves. Needless to say, I wish that everyone would behave better! But any 0rr sanction that is applied to Mikemikev for "troll"-like behavior should apply to all editors who exhibit that behavior. David.Kane (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Matsci adds and improves content. But yes I also support 0RR for Mathsci.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here relevant to the topic under discussion

If ever there was a page that needed a prescription for medical marijuana, this article is it. Arbcom seems to be taking an interest - why don't we drop this and let them deal with it? --Ludwigs2 05:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I think, rather, that it's you that needs to chill out a little. "Christ on a stick", "I'll get an admin if you don't do what I say", "medical marijuana". These are hardly the level-headed responses one expects from a person who held themselves out as a mediator. It's been explained, both here and on the ArbCom page, that those two seperate processes are not incompatible and may run simultaneously. The choice has been made to continue exploring community bans here -- if you have something pertinent and relevant to say, by all means contribute, but your semi-hysterical interjections are really not terribly helpful, and do not at all reflect well on you or your cause. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) When I'm a mediator, I act like a mediator; otherwise I deal with people on the level on which they operate (what can I say, I'm a complicated guy...). Judging by your behavior, you seem to believe that attacking newbies and engaging in witch-hunts is constructive and civil behavior, and I treat you as a person who believes such ridiculous things ought to be treated. fair enough? or am I misreading your behavior? --Ludwigs2 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC) P.s., and by the way: what in heaven's name is the 'cause' you think I have? as far as I know I'm just responding to a mess of crapulence. The fact that you have an agenda does not mean that everyone you encounter does as well. I'm just tired of all this, and doing my best to put a plug in it in what limited ways I can. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Please, do not be disingenuous. Despite your presentation of yourself as unbiased in this scuffle, it's quite clear from the totality of your noticeboard comments on this subject where your sympathies lie. A modicum of intellectual honesty, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) My only 'sympathy' here, Ken, isn't a sympathy at all, but rather a pronounced antipathy to bullies. Please note that you have never asked my opinions on content, never (to my knowledge) engaged me in content discussion, never (so far as I can tell) even looked at the article in question. You are a third-party editor with second-hand knowledge raising a ruckus about an issue that you haven't taken the time to understand; I'd call you disingenuous right back, but the term is too sophisticated to apply to what you're doing. --Ludwigs2 02:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) There is no need to ask you your opinion on this matter, Ludwigs2, because it is apparent to anyone who has read your many posts on this subject. The cluebat should have hit you when you realized only people on one side of the issue consider you to be impartial. This is not the first topic in which your disingenuity has been notable - your behavior on the Ghost issue [30][31] was similarly infected with falseness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I don't really give a flying f@ck how people on either side of the issue misconstrue my opinions. You're entitled to try to cast me as a partisan if you really think that will help your cause, and I'm entitled to cast you as a complete idiot for doing so - which is pretty much what brings us to where we are... The problem we're having here, Ken, is that I am always as fair as I can be within the limits of my understanding, and fairness is so alien to your mindset that you can only interpret it as opposition. and that's just plain sad... Now, if you want to continue this spitball fight, let's take it to my talk page, where I can give you a thorough and unrestrained piece of my mind. I don't see any need to waste any more space in ANI on this trivial bitchiness. --Ludwigs2 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Ludwigs2, I prefer to deal with observable facts and the reasonable and rational analysis of them, and I am unwilling to dive into the fetid pool of shrill hyperbole you seem fond of swimming in whenever anyone disagrees with you. So, as a result, you have the last word! Please make good use of it - you might want to attempt to rehabilitate whatever scraps of your self-styled reputation for "neutrality" are left, but it's your choice ... I'm not going where you've gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to topic ban Bpesta22 from Race and Intelligence topics

[[::User:Bpesta22|Bpesta22]] (talk · contribs) created his account in May March 2010. He has since made 149 edits, every single edit inside the R&I topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that he's a professor who's published research on race and intelligence in the journal 'Intelligence', and was drafted here to satisfy the 'expert needed' tag. mikemikev (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Has he confirmed his identity with OTRS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether his identity is confirmed. Almost all of his edits have been on the talk pages, and I would have to say that all even more of them were at the invitation of the "mediator". If he were reminded of Wikipedia policies, he could be a constructive editor, even on topics where his views are, shall we say, "other than mainstream". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I asked about confirming his identity is that it seemed as if some special pleading was going on: this guy's an expert, treat him differently. Well, maybe so (not that experts don't have to follow policy as well), but the first step then is to confirm he's actually an expert, and which expert, since this is not a subject in which biases among even experts are unknown. Without some confirmation of identity, he could be a dog, for all we know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Christ on a stick, BPesta can prove his expertise (or lack thereof) by the quality of references and breadth of scholarly knowledge he provides. the GOOD FAITH ASSUMPTION here is that he is a new wikipedia editor who is applying whatever specialized knowledge he has. Get off his back and let him edit!

If you guys have an unquenchable urge to piss on someone, try it with me - I've been around long enough to give it no mind, and it seems to be a popular pass-time in your crowd regardless. Just don't make me ask an admin to step in and enforce BITE (which I will do if you keep trying to jump on an editor with as few edits as Pesta). --Ludwigs2 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Any editor who claims to be someone specific in real life must have that claim verified through OTRS if they wish to "pull rank" regarding, for instance, articles about them. I see no reason that such a necessity should be different for someone claiming to be an expert on a specific subject, if they or others desire for them to be treated differently from other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Except at no place that I'm aware of did BPesta make the claim that he should be listened to because he was an expert. That was mostly TechnoFaye in some of her rantier moments. So again, unless he starts asserting that he should have some special editing privileges due to his supposed expertise, leave him alone. Hell, Mathsci frequently spouts off about how people should listen to what he says because of his skills, and he's only a mathematician - Pesta has said or done nothing comparable. Maybe we should be talking about banning Mathsci, instead, if misrepresentation of expertise is the issue... --Ludwigs2 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The special pleading came from mikemikev at the top of this very thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, so it's mike and faye. I still think you should back off with bpesta. he's a newbie, he seems to be earnest, he seems to have scholarly skills, he seems to be calm and reasonable (particularly noting the abuse he's taken). if he'd started anywhere on wikipedia except in the middle of this con-flagellation event you'd be welcoming him with open arms as a real asset to the encyclopedia - don't drive him away in your mutual efforts to hump the hell out of Occam and Mike. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

His first edit was in March 2010. I didn't check when his account was created. Concur that every edit was inside the R&I topic, but still oppose a topic ban. Would consider an article-space ban if still necessary after the "ringleaders" are restricted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Bpesta has done nothing to deserve a topic ban. He is a bonafide expert in the topic area and came here by invitation. He has done nothing but contribute valuable knowledge in the talkpage discussions.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem here is not so much Bpesta, but rather the manner in which he came to Wikipedia. Bpesta is meatpuppet of Captain Occam as they appear to have met off-wiki, maybe on a blog somewhere, though Captain Occam did disclose this. The problem is Captain Occam introduced Bpesta as neutral expert in the field of Race and intelligence. It turns out that Bpesta isn't exactly neutral and isn't exactly and expert. Aparently Bpesta has some major conflict of interest issues regarding race and intelligence research. He also appears to be more active as a blogger, as he claims he has blogging about race and intelligence for more than 20 year, than he is a researcher. Captain Occam attempted to sway the dispute in his favor by misleading the community about the opinions and credentials of a so-called expert. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you’re referring to this. Please don’t misrepresent what I’ve said about this, which is what you’re currently doing. There are two important points here:

1: I had been interacting with Bpesta22 for less than three days when I suggested that he become involved in these articles. This was not an example of me asking one of my friends to become involved here for the purpose of helping me (which is what meatpuppetry is); this was an example of me (by pure luck) happening across someone who would satisfy the article’s need of attention from an expert, and deciding to take the opportunity to provide a service for the article that it was tagged as needing.

2: I did not know what Bpesta22’s opinion was about race and intelligence until after bringing this up with him.

Nothing I have done with regard to Bpesta22 is in any way different from what would be the completely normal course of action for any editor seeking to satisfy the article’s need of an expert, and I’ve made this very clear in all of my comments about this. For you to continue assuming bad faith in this context, and misrepresenting what I’ve said about it in order to support your assertion of bad faith, reflects very poorly on you. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Which blog was it? aprock (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol, my own wiki thread. I admit to having no interest in being a member of the Wiki community. Most of my contribution to the race/iq article has been in the discussion section, though I did draft parts of the "spearman's hypothesis" and "reaction time" sections. I don't think I need to defend my vita here-- it is what it is.

I was invited here by CO, but there was nothing nefarious about it. We "met" on scienceblogs as I was involved in a very long and emotional debate on Greg Laden's blog. If anyone wants to read what happened just google my name and Laden's (warning, there are about a dozen different blogs on the topic, so try to read the older ones first).

I am time limited so a ban here might be a good thing-- if I continue, my interest is only to add to the discussion section and not to do any editing of the articles. However, to the extent you accept my expertise in this area, I have never seen a neutral article on this topic in any internet source with authority. I was hoping Wiki might be different.

Finally, as time goes on, more and more old scientists will have grown up on the internet and might see value in helping Wiki accurately characterize their fields. If that's true, many might have a more negative reaction to the treatment one gets here than I do. -Bpesta22 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

lol - well, yeah... wikipedia currently is 'scholarship-lite'; less-filling, and it can't always claim to leave a good taste in the mouth. but it is what it is. maybe in 10 years or so the wild-west mentality will have settled out a bit and tha danged thing will start to work the way it's supposed to. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see Bpesta's involvement as anything other than exemplary contributions from a subject-matter expert. He's seldom (if ever?) made arguments purely from expertise or authority, instead using his familiarity with the literature to provide references and background for discussion. The very notion that any editors here are happy dismissing someone with knowledge of a subject and such a light touch in editing suggests major cultural problems at Wikipedia that bear examination. Rvcx (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree. Many of his references were apparently to his own work (or at least, a real person with a very similar name), and there is definite dispute as to whether those works are "mainstream". However, although not good, I don't see anything worthy of a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to topic ban David.Kane from Race and Intelligence topics

[[::User:David.Kane|David.Kane]] (talk · contribs) created his account in June 2006 and made 600+ edits (approx) to assorted articles. In October 2009 he edited a R&I article for the first time. Since then he has made 1300+ edits and 99% of them are inside the R&I topic (Ashkenazi intelligence, Bell curve, Snyderman and Rothman (study), etc). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not contributing to Race and Intelligence related articles during my first three years on Wikipedia! I will try to make up for this laziness in the future. David.Kane (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides the race/IQ related articles, aren't virtually all your other prior edits directly related to your college and your blog devoted to it? In other words, single purpose editing in articles that you had a very intense personal involvement in? Professor marginalia (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Professor marginalia: No. Although many of the edits were done under the names of colleagues I was working with, I am the primary force behind three articles that have nothing to do with my blog: Elimination of fraternities at Williams College, Robert Gaudino and Rubin Causal Model. It is fair to say that I have three major interests on Wikipedia: issues related to race and intelligence, issues related to Williams College and issues related to Donald Rubin's approach to statistical inference. Apologies if these interests are not wide-ranging enough for your tastes. David.Kane (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you've mischaracterized my question and given a slippery answer. Two of the three articles you've listed to demonstrate you weren't single purpose editing articles related to your college are in fact related to your college. The edit history of the third shows you've made 11 out of approx 350 of the edits-and strangely, when I googled the Rubin Causal Model to see if it too was related to the college I found quite a few discussions applying the model to an analysis of race differences written by someone sharing your name. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• oppose: My experience of David Kane is as an intelligent and cooperative editor. It might be beneficial to impose a 0RR on R&I related topics to avoid the slight tendency to tagteam editwars. I think the same 0RR rule should be extended to Mathsci.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, I think it will be quite difficult to make a case for a topic ban against David.Kane. This is because on the surface, he is one of the politest editors one will encounter. Despite this, I consider him very much part of the problem. A topic ban should be considered, not as a means of punishment but because his contributions have contributed to edit wars and much of the hostility surrounding this dispute. David.Kane was given the task of re-writing the race and intelligence article during the mediation. I took no position on who wrote the article, stating that anyone could write it as long as they stuck to what the disputing parties agreed on. David.Kane wrote an article that was heavily biased towards the hereditarian view point and mostly considered what only one side of the dispute had agreed on. When he was done there was major escalation in the revision history of the article which was the beginning of the post-mediation dispute. DK is probably a very good example of a civil POV pusher because he uses the appearance of politeness and cooperativeness to give the impression of neutrality, when in fact when one looks at his contributions, they tend to be biased. DK once suggested that he would like the race and intelligence article to one day be a featured article. Nothing wrong with wanting any article to be a featured article, but I found it quite absurd and premature to make such a suggestion considering that the article is still quite unstable. Maybe even callous since DKs edits are pro-hereditarian and the subject matter involves controversial subjects such as eugenics. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I've only been watching this situation for a few days, but this editor seems to be overly aggressive with reverts, reverting material added from secondary sources without having even checked those sources. He also seems to misuse policies, especially BLP to justify these reverts. While the material added does refer to a living person, the sources are reliable. Other scholars work, published and vetted by reliable publishers, is in no way libelous and does not expose Wikipedia to any legal threat. Analysis of the subject's work, both positive and negative, is pertinent to the article. I am typically pro-enforcement of BLP issues, but the only reason I could see for excluding a reliable source here would be if there were a known personal (not academic) feud between the source and the subject. Yworo (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I like to think that reasonable editors can, in good faith, disagree about the appropriate application of BLP and that such disagreements should not lead to topic bans. An concrete example of a BLP-related revert that I have made in this article is here. Note the comment from Jimbo Wales:

Sorry to come in late here, but I want to agree with Off2riorob on the philosophical point here. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a concise statement, beautifully put. Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain. I read enough of the discussion which follows to think that is almost certainly has not been met, but I applaud that people do seem to agree that in order to claim that Jenson "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Wales applauded my initial revert. Now, obviously, just because Jimbo Wales believes X does not mean that X is true or that X should be Wikipedia policy. But is Yworo really suggesting that doing something that Wales thinks is a good idea is grounds enough for a topic ban? (If the exact rules for BLP were made more clear in how we should deal with this tricky case, then I would follow those rules. But, as that discussion shows, the rules are not clear. In fact, I have since made an effort to figure out what the rules are and/or should be. See here and here.) Summary: A good faith attempt to abide by WP:BLP (and using criteria that several non-involved editors have agreed with) is a poor reason for a topic ban. David.Kane (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd happily agree in this case, if and only if the discussion went on before the reverts. The matter is not as critical as unsourced personal libel and immediate reversion is completely unnecessary and disruptive. Yworo (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP makes it fairly clear that reverts before discussion are allowed, if not encouraged, in the case of potential BLP violations. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Emphasis mine.) Again, reasonable editors may disagree in good faith about whether, in any particular case, a revert should occur before or after discussion. But do you really think that me (and Jimbo Wales) having a different opinion from you is grounds enough to ban me? David.Kane (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that your pattern of activity, which combines rapid reverts with civil point of view pushing, is good for Wikipedia. That is, I believe it is disruptive to the topic. So, yes, it is grounds enough (for me) for a topic ban. I don't believe anyone has suggested Wikipedia-wide banning, and I wouldn't support it if someone did. I'd love to see you contribute in other areas for a while. Yworo (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Have you examined the history of my edits? (I think you should before presuming to support a proposal to ban me.) Once you do, you will see than 99% of my "rapid reverts" are in cases of BLP violations, where rapid reverts are not only allowed, they are encourage. In other disputes, I rarely, if ever, engage in rapid reverts. 2) What POV do you think I am pushing? 3) Any fair reading of the history of the Race and Intelligence article will show that it was just as problematic before my arrival as it has been since then. David.Kane (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation, yes. I simply think that the views of other academics of Jensen's work are indeed relevant, even if they have understood Jensen in a different light than you do. Even if they may misrepresent his views, I believe these views of his work should be included in the article unless the misrepresentation is intentional and intended to harm. The publishers of this material had every opportunity to ask for rewrites or omissions if their legal team thought there was an issue. How a person is perceived is simply part of life, and in this case it's not even how the individual but rather his writings are perceived. To me, this is actually almost outside the purview of BLP, which I understand to be intended to protect individuals against personal attacks against their character, not negative views of their academic work. I believe you have positive intent, but are simply taking things too far. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your position that mistaken descriptions of Jensen's views should be allowed "unless the misrepresentation is intentional and intended to harm" is perfectly reasonable, but that is not consistent with current policy as described at WP:BLP. Even if the misrepresentation is unintentional and not intended to harm, policy still demands that we remove it immediately and, afterwards, seek discussion at the appropriate Talk page. As best I can tell, your complaint is not with my actions but with WP:BLP. And, perhaps, WP:BLP should be modified to align more with your views. Once it is, I will act in accordance with it. I just don't see why you would seek to topic ban a fellow editor because you disagree, not with him directly but with WP:BLP. David.Kane (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been explained but you refuse to accept it: the BLP doesn't expect, require, or allow editors to judge whether or not every claim about a scientific study that happens to have been authored by a BLP is absolutely, unequivocally, definitively "true" in every conceivable sense of the word to your complete and total satisfaction. The BLP policy is fine. Just fine. Your failure to understand how to apply it is the trouble spot. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Jimbo Wales agreed with the revert that I made, perhaps he also suffers from a "failure to understand how to apply" WP:BLP. Perhaps he should be topic banned as well? David.Kane (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not by a country mile did he do any such thing. You've overplayed this card. Ad nauseum. And then some. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wales wrote: "we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics." This is my position too. Which part of Wales comment is unclear to you? David.Kane (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the part where it doesn't say what you've omitted when quoting his comment here because it doesn't support your case. The part where he said, "Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain." This equivocal and preliminary feedback was not the Universal Golden Ticket you seem to think it is. For many reasons that don't warrant belaboring here the discussion didn't end there and Jimmy Wales was absent from the discussions that followed after. His preliminary remarks make sense given the relatively simplistic, somewhat myopic formulation of the issue as it was initially presented. But regardless if you could be ultimately judged "correct" in your reverts at the end of the day, you have never had any such endorsement from Jimmy Wales. Stop trying to pretend you were given some magic Golden Ticket to revert at will because it's preventing you from listening to any other constructive feedback on this. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: For the good of wikipedia, I support this topic ban. As also for mikemikev above. I need to examine the history of the other editor listed above but, because of travel commitments, will be unable to do so until early next week (when, if this is still open, I'll be happy to comment). --RegentsPark (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Request: RegentsPark's Support above is clearly misplaced in the middle of the already existing discussion between me and Yworo. It belongs either at the bottom or top of this section. I moved it to the bottom but, alas, DustFormsWords (talk) reverted that change for reasons that are unclear to me. Could someone fix this? David.Kane (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved 00:12 post by User:RegentsPark into date/time order. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support That much interest in defending Jensen and promoting one side of the race and intelligence issue is not helpful for the encyclopedia. People who actually research the brain are not in the slightest bit interested in this topic because science is a million miles from understanding intelligence in anything more than a general what-happens-when-we-poke-it kind of manner. However, there are plenty of people who want to push a certain POV and their enthusiasm conflicts with WP:NPOV. Jimbo cannot be expected to sort through the details of every issue and, while Jimbo's guidance offered above is perfectly correct in general and the principle should be carefully followed regarding the wording used, in the case of Jensen there are multiple scholarly and secondary sources which can be used to clarify Jensen's attitude, and this editor's insistence on reverting all such expressions is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I first noticed this user when he created Between-group differences in IQ, clearly a WP:coatrack carefully weighted to provide support for scientific racism. This user and his team are quite single-minded in their desire to have Wikipedia say that certain races have genetically lower intelligence. This is not only incorrect, but it is a POV that is motivated by something other than building an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support In race-related articles, David.Kane is trying to change wikipedia so that it makes a minority point of view look as if it has been accepted by mainstream science. Standard textbooks do not support this view; indeed for example IQ and Human Intelligence, an undergraduate textbook by the psychometrics expert Nicholas Mackintosh, gives the standard arguments why the hereditarian viewpoint has not been accepted. This kind of editing verges on "activism" and is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose for 5 reasons. During the past 2 weeks, it appears David.Kane has been on good behavior, and we cannot prove his actions would change. I looked at his contribs: 10 edits to articles (in 5 days) is NOT a danger to slanting WP text. As for article content, I don't mind if an editor always edits to one side of a debate, as long as the articles remain NPOV-neutral. Considering the subject of race/IQ, it is unlikely that any editor could sustain a bias against all other editors: it is like saying he is a danger to "proving Einstein wrong" (there is no danger). Meanwhile, David.Kane is named as a party in WP:Arbitration (case: Case#Race_and_Intelligence), so his absense might influence the outcome. For those 5 reasons, he should NOT be topic-banned from Race/IQ. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• OK, so we make an exception to allow his participation in the Arbcom case (anyways, arbcom pages are under the control of arbcom and its clerks, and they can allow anyone to edit a case page independently of any ban). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support needs to edit outside this area for a while to gain experiance and perspective. Has clearly become a problem and is not helping the project at the moment. Verbal chat 13:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: The related ArbCom case seems likely to go forward. Given that fact, is it possible that I would be topic banned beforehand? (I don't fully understand the relationship between ANI and ArbCom.) I find some of the claims above to be quite tendentious but hesitate to engage with them in more detail, given that Jimbo Wales (and others below) have told all of us to "take a rest, please." So, unless there is a chance that I will be banned, I will be following Wales' advice and not participating in this thread any further. David.Kane (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Community-imposed sanctions and ArbCom-imposed sanctions are two seperate things. If the community imposed a sanction before ArbCom rules, ArbCom would normally recognize that. If their sanction was more stringent, it would prevail, but the lifting of the ArbCom sanction would still leave the community sanction in place, and it would have to be lifted by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So, if my preference is to not be topic banned before the ArbCom process starts (I would have much fewer problems with a topic ban that occurred as part of a global package of changes resulting from ArbCom) would you advise me to either a) Address the arguments made by those voicing "Support" above or b) Listen to Jimbo Wales and "take a rest?" I am not experienced enough to know which is the best course of action to avoid a topic ban. David.Kane (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you feel the outcome will be. If a topic ban seems inevitable, then there's little reason to put energy into rebuttals, but if it's a close thing, will you feel badly if you didn't put up a fight? That's your call. My take is that once things have come to this pass, counter-arguments are not very effective at reversing the opinions of people that have already !voted, so I suppose your strategy should be to inhibit any kind of bandwagon effect by providing arguments in your defense which will discourage others who may be on the fence from coming in against you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: There are better ways to resolve content disputes than trying to dispense with your opponents. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Given your view on this, I'm not surprised that you are opposing. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• so, you object to the fact that I told DK to be calm, reasonable, and level-headed in spite of the treatment he's getting here? That seems to reaffirm what I said to him: that the main goal is to harass him into doing something dumb and emotional that he can get blocked for (see wp:BAIT). why else would you not want me to tell him to remain calm? yeesh. --Ludwigs2 16:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, as you very well know, because Enric Naval had already raised his objections on your talk page [32], he's objecting to this, from your post that he linked to: David, don't let this get to you. This is all bluster designed to make you feel paranoid, more than an actual threat. Standard hazing from the pseudoscientists; don't sweat it too much.      Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• So why is he objecting to my telling David not to let it get to him? In fact, if this effort were not mostly 'bluster designed to make him [DK] feel paranoid', then both you and Eric would be calmly trying to work out a proper solution to the problem you perceive, and this entire thread would be a quarter of its length and eminently civil. but instead, you both are doing your best to inflame tempers, and are succeeding in causing consternation left and right. So in fact it is bluster designed to make him feel paranoid, and he should be aware of that, and everyone with a lick of common sense and compassion will hope that he does manage not to let it get to him. In fact (and I probably shouldn't say this, but I'm feeling smug), my main goal here has been to get you guys to bluster at me for a while so he has some breathing space. I think that has pretty much been a success, so please continue. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it’s important to step back from this proposal about David.Kane, and think about what it’s actually based on. A topic ban is being proposed because several people think he’s been adding information to the articles that isn’t neutral, and removing information from them based on a misapplication of BLP policy. In other words, this is a content dispute. That on its own doesn’t invalidate this proposal, but what does is the fact that none of the users supporting it have made any attempt at dispute resolution with him. In fact, the person posting this proposal (Eric Naval) has not, to my knowledge, discussed this dispute with David.Kane in any way except to say that he thinks David should be banned for it.

Believe it or not, I’ve had some content disputes with David.Kane also, and he can confirm this. He and I were able to discuss the disputes in a reasonable manner, and the rest of the community was supportive about it, and I’m confident that at this point our disputes have been resolved. Based on my own experience with this, I’m also confident that any of you could resolve your own content disputes with David.Kane in a similar manner, but none of you have even made an attempt at this. Have we really reached the point now where whenever someone disagrees with changes made by another editor, suggesting a topic ban for them is the first response? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane's disruptive blanking: Jensen and his writings on "American Negroes"

• David.Kane (talk · contribs)
• History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mainstream Science on Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruptive blanking:

• Adrian Wooldridge (Cambridge University Press) [33] (summary of Wooldridge's precis of book)
• William H. Tucker (University of Illinois Press) [34]
• Michael Byrd and and Linda Clayton (Routledge)[35]
• Joan Freeman (Springer Verlag) [36][37]
• Donald T. Campbell, [38], [39]

Forum shopping on WP:BLPN [40], [41], [42]

Typical example

• Jensen quote blanked by David.Kane: "well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve [the] lot" of blacks
• Actual long Jensen quote: "As a social policy, avoidance of the issue could be harmful to everyone in the long run, especially to future generations of Negroes, who could suffer the most from well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve their lot."

David.Kane is an editor who mostly edits race-related articles where he engages in WP:CPUSH. This editor has somehow decided that Arthur Jensen wrote no articles mentioning African Americans and their learning problems. This is manifestly untrue and is reported in multiple secondary sources (history books, commentaries, academic papers and books) as well as in Jensen's original articles and books. Now, for whatever reason, he has decided that if there there is a statement in a secondary source about Jensen that he doesn't like, he can just remove it as a BLP violation. This he seems to regard as his passport for removing all content where Jensen makes remarks about African Americans: Jensen referred to African Americans as "Negroes" or "American Negroes" in articles and papers in the late 60s and early 70s. So far David.Kane has challenged material written by Donald T. Campbell, and William H. Tucker, on the grounds that they were written maliciously and misrepresented Jensen. However, the material is repeated in many secondary sources. William H. Tucker is still alive so allegations of this kind on wikipedia amount to some form of libel. Now he has removed text on the same subject by Joan Freeman, an English psychologist specialising in gifted education. Researchers in this particular area are extremely pro IQ-tests and in general have welcomed Jensen's work. So the idea that Joan Freeman is writing maliciosly in a Springer Verlag text book is highly unreasonable. It is another example of David.Kane trying to remove all connection between Jensen and his documented statements on American Negroes. Similarly he has removed a section in the lede of History of the race and intelligence controversy which was a simple extract of what was is still in the main text taken from the book of Adrian Wooldridge, historian and managemant editor of The Economist. Similarly he removed a passage cited in a textbook of Michael Byrd and Linda Clayton (also cited in Tucker). I have no idea why David.Kane is doing this. Does he really seriously expect other wikipedians to believe that all these authors, many still living, are deliberately misrepresenting Jensen? In no cases so far have David.Kane's objections been in any way justified. He is using this as another method of WP:CPUSH to waste other editors' time, as pointed out to him by other users on the talk of the History article (notably Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)).

A few weeks ago he decided that all material of this kind was fine, leaving "Kudos!" messages about the content. Now he is attempting to remove the very same factual statements, appearing in multiple secondary sources, on the tenuous and usually unsupportable grounds that they are BLP violations. David.Kane is a single purpose user who is edit warring on History of the race and intelligence controversy to remove any mention of the documented fact that Jensen discussed possible policies involving African Americans.

It is absurd that he suggests that the En[glish academic Joan Freeman could be writing malicious falsehoods in a book published by Springer Verlag. That really is going one step too far and is clearly an unreasonable excuse for removing properly referenced content. On the basis of his edits today, he will continue to remove any statements that don't suit him, claiming that they are BLP violations. That will exclude him from the 3RR rule. However it now makes it tremendously difficult in those circumstances to use any secondary sources, no matter how realiable or how eminent the author, when writing about Jensen. This does not seem reasonable and seems to be a misuse of WP editing policies. He has removed material four or more times in 24 hours, which normally would result in a block for breaking the 3RR rule. Please could administrators look at the way he is trying to misinterpret wikipedia editing policy to cause disruption. I have no idea what his motives are. Apart from occasionally editing articles related to Williams College, he only edits race-related articles and usually from the hereditaraian point of view, that is, the recorded fact that African Americans score lower on average on IQ tests than White Americans has an inherent genetic cause connected with their race. Usually David.Kane is supported by editors that include Captain Occam, Mikemikev and Varoon Arya. Distributivejustice was another supporter but he retired as an editor (around about the time Ludwigs2 was blocked by BozMo). Many of these users almost exclusively edit race-related articles from the same point of view as David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder along the same lines as Mathsci here: these claims are made by otherwise reputable, reliable sources and therefore are acceptable, at least as being their authors' interpretation of what Jensen said. Specifically because it seems there may be issues as to where (and maybe whether) Jensen said exactly those things, it would be prudent not to put them in Wikipedia's voice, but to attribute them to their various authors. However, the fact that the same comments can be found in different sources lends strong credence to the fact that Jensen actually said those things. As long as proper attribution is maintained, I don't see that there is a problem to include them; indeed, I can see where Mathsci can contend that excluding them on the basis that these several authors are "misrepresenting Jensen's words" can be construed as a BLP violation of those otherwise reputable researchers. So, let's just make sure the comments on Jensen are properly attributed to their authors and let it go at that. I fail to see a BLP violation there at all.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:37, 31 Ma]]y 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake. It's about time, however, that something was done to reign in single-purpose POV pushers on these articles. Perhaps a long-duration topic ban for David Kane and Occam is appropriate, at this point? Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

More disruptive blanking and misrepresentation by David.Kane who has undisclosed WP:COI

• Allan Ornstein (1982) [43][44]

David.Kane's blanking is continuing. He has also claimed that the new material, properly credited to a professor of adminsitrative administration, is another BLP violation. Thats frivolous assertion seems to be false. He also claims that new 1982 source added by me just yesterday has alereadt been discussed. He wrote this in his second edit summary, but it is untrue. In fact David.Kane appears to have an undisclosed and very serious conflict of interest here. In 2009 he created an article which since has been deleted and its content userfied at User:David.Kane/EphBlog. During the AfD, David.Kane admitted that he was the person of the same name who had started the blog when queried about WP:COI by User:Blueboar. Now on this blog in February 2010 David.Kane made the following statement [45] about African Americans in elite colleges in the US:

Looking at the 6 year data from the Diversity Initiatives, you are three times more likely to fail to graduate from Williams if you are black then if you are white. Does Williams have an obligation to tell this to admitted students?

I suspect that this is not so much as race issue as an academic rating issue. I bet that US students with AR 1 have a 98% graduation rate while US students with AR 4 or below are at 80% or worse. If so, shouldn’t Williams be honest about that discrepancy? Would those students be better off at a different, less competitive school?

This is a very extreme statement. These views conflict with David.Kane's claim to be neutral and "agnostic". It indicates a WP:COI. Already this was the case when he volunteered as a "neutral third party" to write the draft of the modified version of Race and intelligence in March 2010 during the last stages of mediation. His continuing tendentious and disruptive blanking of material from reliable secondary sources on History of the race and intelligence controversy is certainly not designed to improve this encylopedia. Another plausible explanation, differing from the many constantly changing reasons offered so far, is that David.kane is removing this material from wikipedia for very strong personal reasons connected with not having his heated arguments on ephblog undercut by wikipedia.

David.Kane has now been disrupting the writing of this article by spuriously blanking the same material from completely different reliable academic sources multiple times. It's time he was blocked for edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

His tag team member Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring in the same way, blanking material from reliable secondary sources without explanation at all, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This, by the way, is typical behaviour for the single puprose account. Just disruption with no desire whatsoever to build a reliable encyclopedia. Instead of content to wikipedia, these two users are tendentiously removing without any justification.[46][47] I have which has written most of the 82,000 bytes of content of History of the race and intelligence controversy. All these SPAs do is tendetniously and dsiruptively remove content that conflicts with their extreme personal points of view. In this case Occam should not have edit warred (for which he blocked three times) but discussed what was wrong with the sourced material on the talk page of the article. Apparently he doesn't feel the need to do that. Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is creepy. Following DK around to find that he's concerned with why people drop out of college. This is a content dispute, deal with it. 94.196.104.45 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "creepy" about this. D.K admitted to being the author of the blog in question. That's not "following DK around." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the very definition of ad hominem, and a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest. MathSci is effectively labeling David.Kane a racist on the basis of this blog entry and arguing that such a viewpoint renders him incapable of editing on Wikipedia. The premise is absurd, and the logic that any private political stance could invalidate an editor's contributions is simply wrong on more levels than I could list. Rvcx (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

-

Having and voicing an opinion isn't a COI. While I agree with Mathsci that assing criticisms of Jensen is never a BLP issue when sourced to reliable sources this is just a waste of time taking the focus from the real problems at the Race and Intelligence related pages. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. Is it just me or don't there look to be more serious WP:BLP concerns on this User:David.Kane/EphBlog page that should be dealt with before worrying about solidly, reliably published claims about a highly public, prominent figure like Arthur Jensen? BLP violations sourced to what David.Kane appears to have written himself and self-published in blog exposé? What in the heck  ??? That page warrants a serious scrubbing, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) followup-I've blanked most of it for now. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a fairly crude attack page [48] written wholly by David.Kane. It was not properly userfied when transferred to his user space: if for example I search google now for "Robert Shvern", whom David.Kane singled out for mention in the article, David.Kane's user space article still comes up 30th in the google list. Was David.Kane willfully violating WP:BLP publicly to disgrace the boyfriend of an unnamed female student from Williams College because of some student prank? Does he really imagine that articles like that are part of the purpose of this encyclopedia? Mathsci (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tag team content blanking - without checking secondary sources

• Mikemikev (talk · contribs)

Here is the latest bout of edit warring in action, where this tag team continues to blank sourced content indiscriminately taken from a reliable secondary source without any cogent reasons:

1. David.Kane [49]
2. Captain Occam [50]
3. Mikemikev [51]
4. Mikemikev [52]
5. Mikemikev [53]

There has been more forum shopping at WP:BLPN here, where so far no support has emerged for the tag team's claim of BLP violations. There are a lot of reliable secondary sources which contain the same material and they have existed for years. What is slightly disturbing is that these editors are removing actual factual content about Jensen's theory of Level I and Level II theories of learning which he did actually apply to explain the low IQ scores of African Americans. If David.Kane, Captain Occam or Mikemikev have some doubt about this, they should presumably explain themselves, because account of the theory are repeated in countless psychology textbooks. Are they trying to WP:CENSOR wikipedia because this material doesn't suit [[their point of view? Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Captain Occam, if you do not want editors to discuss your blog, then you also should not discuss your blog on Wikipedia. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Since you have blanked my comments concerning your blog controversy, it is only fair that you blank your own accusations since I was responding to them. If you choose not too, then consider restoring my comments or else I might do so. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, my accusations are directed at Mathsci, not at you. Why do my accusations against Mathsci make it necessary that you have the right to respond?

If Mathsci wants to dispute what I’ve said about him, then he’s welcome to do so, but since this has nothing to do with you I find it very strange that you’d have this attitude. This issue has also already been discussed at length here, and nearly all of the editors who commented there agreed that Mathsci’s claim about this wasn’t acceptable. There is no controversy over these claims from Mathsci, and never has been; there’s only a single user (you) who seems compelled to express support for Mathsci’s personal attacks based on things people have written outside Wikipedia, apparently because you’ve made similar personal attacks against me in the past. For you to keep trying to justify this aspect of Mathsci’s behavior amounts to a personal attack of your own, so I advise against it. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• [54]

Another revert by Captain Occam at break-neck speed, this time of material from a peer-reviewed article of Yehudi Webster, a professor of sociology. I didnt even have time to proof read the content. Another writer of vicious calumnies no doubt: Captain Occam has an incredible ability to judge such texts all on his very own. He determined that Yehudi Webster was obviously biased in probably less than 2 or 3 minutes. Yehudi Webster is an African American. It surely can't be true that all African American academics are biased and can't be trusted to write neutrally about Jensen or other aspects of race and intelligence or its history. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• [55] David.Kane blanking content yet again. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Victor Chmara (talk · contribs)

Another single purpose account whose edits are mainly on race-related articles form the same point of view as David.Kane, Captain Occam, Varron Arya and Mikemikev has joined the tag team. He is inserting own WP:OR and blanking sourced content, without making any attempt to locate secondary sources. He is deciding with Captain Occam witout leaving any opportunity for other editors to comment. This appears disruptive to be edit-warring. Expanding Europe#PRehistoric history was peaceful tranquility compared to the mayhem these editors are causing, by attacking the article simultaneously. Mathsci (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom request should cover this as well. Rvcx (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop this

All editors involved in this topic:

Please be advised that continuing to edit war in any form while this is up for an Arbcom case will not be tolerated.

Anyone not already under a 1RR restriction in Race and Intelligence issues should consider yourself under one now. This applies to all editors who have been involved there and in the prior ANI discussions.

Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I second Georgewilliamherbert here: everybody take a rest, please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen. Yworo (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen from me too. Let Arbcom take its course. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

Ghostofnemo and SYNTH

Ghostofnemo has been disruptive at Peter James Bethune. We have previously been on noticeboards for other issues. Although his previous methods are questionable, his clear violation of WP:SYNTH is too much.

Bethune's trial is currently wrapping up in Japan. He recently made statements that distanced himself from the founder of Sea Shepherd. Ghostofnemo is now attempting to insert information on potential mistreatment as the reasoning behind this. I don't know why the subject made the statement and none of the sources have said why. Please see this edit.[56] Is adding a line and source discussing Amnesty International being critical of interrogation methods in Japan without mentioning Bethune appropriate after a line discussing his Bethune quote?

Instead of edit warring, can an administrator explain to GoN if his reverting to insert such material is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The line in question is a fair paraphrase of one source being quoted, so it is not SYNTH. The line in question is relevant to the article, which is about the trial of a suspect who has been held for a long period prior to his trial in Japan. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted him so it appears that this is no longer an edit warring/against guideline incident needing admin attention issue. Should I move this to the OR noticeboard?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to have an administrator look at the pattern of deletions of referenced material going on at this article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nemo, that line is synth. Yes, it's a correct paraphrase from the BBC story, BUT the BBC story doesn't say one word about Peter James Bethune. It's addition into Peter Bethune's article is implying that it's happening to Mr. Bethune.

It's synth , Cptnono is right to remove it. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365765488&oldid=365765129 Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's synth. Forget about Amnesty International. You can't pick and mix things from RS and construct a Frankenstein monster to tell the story you want to tell. The sources need to talking about the subject of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AI says this is an issue in Japan. The BBC says it's an issue in Japan. I have WP:RS that say he was blocked from meeting with an attorney until after he confessed. The editors here, with no sources whatsoever, are denying this is an issue and deleted WP:RS referenced material that is NPOV, because they personally feel it's not appropriate! This skews the story so that it appears Bethune is receiving a fair trial, even though his attorney has been denied access to the trial! It's very POV to delete this material, and it's also POV to censor material about Japan's legal system and criticism of it. Here are my sources:

Not allowed to meet lawyer: http://www.3news.co.nz/Sea-Shepherd-group-ready-to-defend-Bethune/tabid/1160/articleID/147145/Default.aspx

and, more explicitly: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921

Met with consular staff four times, but no mention of meeting with lawyer: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/nz-govt-attacked-for-bethunes-detention-20100406-roub.html

Lawyer barred from court: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html

NZ govt says Bethune "was to meet with attorney last night" instead of "met with attorney last night":http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz+embassy+officials+meet+peter+bethune Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, here's the quote from the AI article: "Amnesty International has now called on Japan's new government to immediately implement reforms of the police interrogation system to avoid such miscarriages of justice. Suspects can be held for up to 23 days before they are charged in what the campaign group says is a brutal system that has no place in modern Japan. The conviction rate is more than 99%, often based on confessions. Amnesty International says some are extracted from suspects under duress." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And it says: ""The detainee has absolutely no access to his defence lawyers, has no idea how long the interrogation session would go," said Rajiv Narayan of Amnesty International." Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As explained to you on the talk page: If you want the article to say "he was mistreated" or "he had an unfair trial" then you need to find an RS that says so. Not an RS that alludes to something you don't like + something else. A clear "he was mistreated". So far, every source I have seen contradicts it but if you find one we can go from there. Until then you need to stop being disruptive. You have had multiple editors explain SYNTH and WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT .Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, yes, it is an issue in Japan and in many other countries. There are many very interesting and complicated issues with Japanese society that anyone can discover in reliable sources or better still by going there to have a look for themselves. None of the issues are relevant unless the source itself specifically relates the issue to Peter James Bethune. The source has to do it, not you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is right here: "Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson says the Japanese are not letting Bethune see his legal team. He says Japanese authorities are entitled to interrogate a prisoner without representation, for up to three weeks. Bethune has however met with New Zealand Embassy staff in Tokyo since his arrival in Japan." from http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's from the reference that was cited with the removed lines. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And just a reminder, the stories discussing Bethune and his lawyer not being there for one of the hearings say things like "A lawyer representing New Zealander Peter Bethune thinks the anti-whaling activist could get a fair trial in Tokyo." and "He said he knew what had happened in the court 'because the hearing was pretty much all scripted, scripted in the sense that both the prosecution and the defence gave their opening statement but that opening statement was based word for word on a written statement that was provided to the judge days ago' ."[57] So he might have had an unfair trial but nothing says it while other sources could be read the exact opposite. There isn't a scandal here but GoN has been creating one for over a month now. Enough is enough.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the fair trial, here is what his lawyer actually said: "Despite earlier suggestions the trial was just a show, Harris said he thought Bethune could get a fair trial. "All indications and reports are that the lead judge and other two judges are fair-minded judges," he said." http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I question the competence of his attorney, 1 for not making his interrogation without legal counsel an issue, and 2 for his attitude towards being excluded from the trial (yeah, no big deal). A man on trial, and his lawyer is not there in court with him!!!!! It boggles the mind what his strategy is, unless they are intentionally trying to get Bethune the longest sentence possible to create a martyr for their cause.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The linked WAtoday article is misleading. Harris is not the only one lawyer for Bethune. He is one of the lawyers for Bethune. There must have been the other lawyer/lawyers in the court. But the number of the seats for the lawyers were restricted. So Harris tried to see the trial from one of the seats for the public. But the number of those seats were also restricted, and he couldn't draw a winning number. That's what the articles says. Oda Mari (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Which article says Bethune's other lawyers were seated in court? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See how annoying it is when sources are not presented? And just a heads up if this is still being looked at. GoN made the edit against overwhelming consensus.[58] Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is from my talk page. Where is the OR here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#June_2010 Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet another deletion of relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365981031&oldid=365974855 Help! This is ridiculous! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This starting to turn into two content disputes on ANI unfortunately. What it comes down to is multiple editors seeing SYNTH and misleading the reader while GoN sees it as POV based deletions. In the face of so many editors explaining to him why there are concerns GoN is bombarding the talk page and editing against more than one guideline. I know he is frustrated and feels passionately about this but he just needs to stop. I have asked him to wait and see what the expected flood of sources say next week with the conclusion of the court proceedings. Any controversial allusions to mistreatment or an unfair trial should wait until then.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've asked you and the other editors not to deleted relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV material from the article. Why is it that my "by the book" edits can be deleted based on the unsourced hearsay of other editors? Shouldn't they be required to find evidence that my sources are in error before deleting my edits? Why do I get a warning that I'll be banned on my talk page for making apparently good edits, but none of those making questionable deletions is being warned about it? It looks like WP:BULLY to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And another thing... why is it that my relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV edits can be immediately deleted without discussion? And why is the information completely deleted (down the "memory hole") instead of being improved? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My sources are the news media, so that should be a sign these points are relevant to the article. I am not writing this stuff or presenting OR, contrary to the accusations being made. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we're not getting any official guidance here about how to handle this, I guess my next step is to treat these deletions as vandalism, put notices on the offenders talk pages, and revert their deletions. If I have to risk getting banned to get a verdict on this, so be it. I think the edits will hold up. The alternative seems to be tolerating being effectively banned already since my edits are immediately deleted, so I don't have much to lose. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Neutralhomer

I don't know what route to take with this, but I am again getting harrassed by user:neutralhomer. I posted a link to a photograph on my website (standard site, no advertising, I get no revenue, just a picture host) showing proof of evidence in an article. I disagree with his assertion that is it not a reliable source. (He state's conflict of interest, however I dispute that! How is a photograph evidence not reliable? It's a good faith source). I removed the link for the time being, however.

Anyways that is not the intended purpose of this post. He has requested that I do not post on his wall, so I can't notify him directly of this matter, and hope someone else here can.

He is now clearly following my every move on here, and based on other users talk pages, he's done/doing it to other users here as well who question his motives and what could be considered WP:Harrassment. Examples of a couple of other user talk pages [| here], [| here], and [| here]. His tactics include unnecessary flagging, incorrect flagging [| here.] reporting removal of unverified information as vandalisim, which had been determined to not be. He's been flagged by other users in the past as well. When the OP is questioned about his removal of unverified information, he refuses to go into arbitration. I had to flag him for edit warring, something that appears to have been done before. Based on comments left on my [talk page] by other users, I am not alone in this matter.

The user "requests" that I do not post on his wall, but feels it is ok for himself to do so on my wall. I believe this qualifies as WP:Harrassment as well as WP:Hounding , based on what I stated, and the comments clearly posted on the other three walls. What are the correct steps to take to get this overzealous member to back down? He's making several people's lives on Wikipedia a nightmare because of actions. Necrat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT.

He is correct that that picture is not an appropriate reference for the information you're using it for. Also, pointing to an entire article history is not generally considered suitable evidence for "incorrect tagging".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I tag the one line that I am referring to? Also that's not the bigger problem here. It's the borderline bullying over other members as well, and what I would consider to be WikiStalking. I have removed the link to the picture in the article he questioned. Is this acceptable to use? [| Link ]

I think you mean WP:DIFF. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wasn't told of this thread. No worries, found it searching for another ANI thread. I told Necrat that a website owned by him wasn't a reliable source since it was added by him. Just like I can't source an article with my website, it is COI, since I own the site. I think it could be possible for others to source it (since they are not owners, I will leave that to an admin to decide). I directed Necrat (politely, regardless of our past) to the FCC website where I believe they keep a list of transmitter brands the station using on the main application, which in this case would be here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks really shouldn't be banning other editors from their user talk pages unless there's serious harassment. I see that now Necrat has reciprocated by asking Neutralhomer not to post on his talk page either. User talk pages are there for a purpose - communication.   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be honest, I do that for things I just don't want to deal with and areas where I feel I am being roped into a pissing match. I just say "begone". Though it is very rare I have to as I do try to get along with most everyone on Wikipedia. This has been a big pissing match gang-up between 4 users and me and I had better things to do like get an article to Good Article status (and I did) then deal with a pissing match. I just felt telling them to "begone" was easier than continous fighting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are more than just those examples. If I listed more, he would say "there are 5 users". Neutralhomer, you have rejected any fair and good communications, and by not communicating, you invoke what you call a "pissing match" between members. Telling users to "begone" instead of entering into a communication with them, and as seen as evidence from previous disputes, there have been other problems with you and this matter. I did so reciprocal to his post about not wanting any communication on his wall, thus not wanting to have open discussions about his 'decision's and his continual administrator like flagging without discussion, which is not in the scope of Wikipedia. Necrat (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT

Sorry, I couldn't make hide nor hare of that, but I will try and respond anyway. First off, I am not an admin, I don't act like an admin. Any editor (you, me, anyone) can issue warnings. I have an application that makes that a little easier, you can use it too, go to WP:TWINKLE. I tried right off to talk with you but after some edit warring, I just reverted and was done with it. You and others tried to force me into mediation and when I didn't go, I was accused of be "unreasonable" and "unresponsive". There wasn't anything to discuss in mediation. You had no references on the WABC article and admittedly, neither did I...but what you were adding was original research and when confronted with that, you kinda went off. That is when I just asked you not to post on my talk page and moved on. I had and have better things to do then get in pissing matches (for reference, a "pissing match" is a southern term for arguement) for people over silly shit. Plus I had bigger fish to fry (like a Good Article nomination) and was working on that (got my GA :)). If you want to be cordial and talk like civilized human beings, I will gladly allow you to post on my talk page, but if you are going to try and force me into mediation again and treat me like I am a "kid" (I am 29), then we have nothing to talk about. The ball is in your court. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You DO act like an admin. Look at the user talk pages I linked, they have said the exact same thing, and have all had seperate interactions with you. I am not going to get into a debate with you, but I did provide valid resources (direct online articles from a well established company, that basically counters the information you posted), and when I modified the article, I put a directive to the fact, referenced on a direct link posted below. You continually accuse of not having sources, when I did provide them to you, you screamed vandalisim and refused to discuss the matter. Your exact line was "unless it is in a local newspaper, such as the times, it is not a reputable source". I hope the admins can see how difficult you are to work with here and take appopriate steps. I am at my wits end with you, this is the kind of thing that was driving me off of Wikipedia. I am not going to comment any more until a Admin steps in here. Necrat (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT

Promise?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Necrat obviously didn't read the last two sentences of my previous post. So much for the olive branch. OK folks, I will be offwiki dealing with WP:REALLIFE for the next hour and a half. Please do not be offended if I don't not respond in that time period, I will respond when I get back. When in doubt, check the Status on my userpage. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm one of the users mentioned above and my talk page is linked. Summarizing my interest here, which is discussed in more detail on my talk page: I have not really interacted with Neutralhomer in articlespace or noticed him prior to a couple weeks ago. I originally noticed Neutralhomer when on 19 May 2010 he made the comment "I feel it is vandalism to push is "abortion is bad" position". This was part of an edit-war he was involved in (diffs) where he reverted a clear correction of an error as vandalism - not once, but 3 times. From there, I noticed that he was in an edit-warring dispute with Necrat (see 17-19 May 2010). Necrat was removed the unsourced statement that WABC (AM) was HD2 while Neutralhomer repeatedly reverted (providing no sources), marking one of these edits as vandalism. Neutralhomer was adding fighting to retain unsourced material, even going so far as to call the removal of that unsourced material vandalism. Further, our own page on HD2 says that it is an FM channel (at the risk of having Neutralhomer change it). From there I could see that Neutralhomer was a highly disruptive editor (a vested troublemaker) and I was surprised that he had such a pretty user page with so many barnstars. Someone like this can cause a lot of collateral damage by making newcomers think this kind of conduct is acceptable. Looking at Neutralhomer's block log (too many blocks to count), I was glad to see that he hadn't exactly gone unnoticed. In his archive is a discussion of his last block on 22 April 2010 (User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive6#Consequences). DragonflySixtyseven blocks him for marking non-vandalism as vandalism; Bwilkins declines the unblock request, and Muzemike imposed conditions prior to unblocking, noting that Neutralhomer has been "having significant problems understanding what vandalism is and what it isn't and how Twinkle factors in on that. This isn't an isolated case, either; this has been going on for the past 3-4 years from looking at the numerous other ANI discussions regarding this". As a neutral party, I expressed my concern about Neutralhomer's behavior to him first directly (calling him unreasonable) - his response feigned complete ignorance of the issues so I notified the admins involved prior, but none really seemed interested in relooking at Neutralhomer. I was actually surprised that he was willing to discuss as much as he has, but he still refuses to admit any problems and considers me to be a wikistalker for raising the issues. Overall after talking with him he didn't seem entirely unreasonable, but the fact that this has gone on for so long without seemingly any improvement makes me think that a longer-term sanction is necessary. He needs to be put on probation whereby future harassment (non-vandalism marked as vandalism) and edit-warring are not tolerated. II | (t - c) 05:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It looks like NeutralHomer has a long history of mislabeling edits as vandalism and of misusing Twinkle. Hasn't he been asked to stop using that tool?   Will Beback  talk  06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Just when you think you can escape, they suck you back in. OK, I was previously asked to remove TWINKLE and had to ask for it back at a later date. Perhaps I need some freshening up on what is and isn't vandalism since so many seem to think I have a problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am going offline, per WP:BEDTIME and WP:REALLIFE. So don't be offended if I don't respond to anything until about 4 or 5pm EST (yup, I am a nightowl). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • When you're back, please clarify the status of previous concerns. I see you've been unblocked a couple of times as a result of making promises. Do any of those concern Twinkle or mislabelling vandalism?   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I am back, just working on other things at the moment. At present, I don't think I am under any restrictions via TWINKLE or labeling vandalism. I could be wrong though, can't remember my own name half the time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Nobody likes dealing with ANI threads about them, but since you are a frequent participant in threads about others I'm sure it won't be an imposition. You have a very long block log, including several indefinite blocks that were lifted due to assurances of better behavior. If the problematic behaviors are recurring then it's an issue of concern. If you're too busy to do so I'll myself.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
        • What I was working on has come to a dead halt....so what do you need to know? Yes, I have one of the longer block logs on Wikipedia. No, I am not proud of it. Yes, I have improved since my last indef as I have had some good tutors to keep me in line and still check in on me once-in-awhile. Perhaps I don't completely understand what is and isn't vandalism, but I always felt it was the call of the individual. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps not. What else can I answer for you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see this has come up before, and many promises have been made:[59][60]

Diffs about Neutralhomer

Twinkle is not a necessity in performing the actions you have mentioned. Moreover, you leave out that you've had Twinkle removed a total of three times in the past. JPG-GR (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Actually wasn't aware how many times it was, but I admit I have used it poorly in the past. Hence why I am asking everyone to watch my edits. Also, while true no one needs TWINKLE, HUGGLE, or any program to do any warning, it does make things sooo much easier and quicker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 22:46[61] AGF? You've lost it three times and had questionable reverts just two weeks ago. I don't see why this time will be different than the previous times you had it, especially a month later with evidence of questionable reverts since then. There is only so far that AGF can go, either way (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ...and I admitted I lost it due to bad decisions and asked for a second chance. ... NeutralHomer • Talk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:55[62] ...I have removed Twinkle from your monobook. I am sorry to have to do this, but using automated tools to tag good edits as vandalism is basically the definition of abuse; and given your previous history of using the tool I don't feel there is any alternative but to remove it. Black Kite 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[63] I know in the past I have misused the tool, but I ask that I be allowed again with a promise that I will not misuse it again ... NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 02:40 [64] No, but it wasn't vandalism. You need to be more careful if you're going to use automated tools. JPG-GR (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Considering it was my first mistake out of some 100 edits with it, that isn't bad.....ain't good either, so I will keep an eye on it. Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • January 5, 2009 @ 18:51[65] Yeah, I think NH has failed to see the point, in that he agreed a few months ago to use twinkle only for "blatant vandalism as defined here". Original research or not, this is not vandalism, let alone blatant vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC) OK, let me make sure I understand. Removing it once and saying it is OR is OK, but removing it again and citing vandalism isn't? I don't want TWINKLE, I will remove the damned thing myself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:10[66] As I said, if you want me to use the ol' Undo button, I will. I make a decision if something is vandalism, to me, both felt like vandalism. I didn't mark Beta for vandalism, but Piano non troppo and I had this discussion previous on another page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Just use the 'rollback' rather than 'rollback vandal' option in Twinkle, and put something in the edit summary. Don't hand a hostage to fortune as they say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC) That can be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Great! So is this a compromise for all? Neutralhomer can keep Twinkle, and won't mark edits as vandalism when it's a dispute/WP:NOTVAND. Is everyone reasonably happy now? (yes, I'm butting in) tedder (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I am happy with it. See, I don't mind comprimising. I will use the vandalism button for only blindingly clear vandalism (like putting cuss words on a page or blanking) and leave the rollback button and AGF button for everything else. I can be comprimised with, ya know. Ya just gotta ask. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[67]

As recently as October 2009 there was a promise to not use Twinkle for anything but obvious vandalism. That seems to be only the most recent of several such promises, which have all been broken. So promises don't seem to to the way to resolve this issue. Maybe the answer is to not use Twinkle and to not label anything as vandalism? Twinkle isn't necessary, and neither is calling bad editing "vandalism". Would that be acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Only took six hours. OK, so you want me to let blantant vandals get away with vandalism because of something from 2009? I seen the edits on the WABC page as vandalism, still do, and marked them as such after standard conversation just wasn't getting anywhere. So, you want people to just go all willy-nilly with pages and add whatever they want? Sure, do it on your own time. Before and after the WABC page incident, I have used the TWINKLE application correctly and in cases I felt it wasn't necessary, I used the undo button. So, "no", I don't think that would be acceptable, as that punishes me and allows others to get off scott free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edits you've reverted and labeled as vandalism recently weren't vandalism. This is the exact issue that has come up in 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007. I'm an admin yet I use the rollback button sparingly. I try to use the "undo" feature instead and to leave a neutral edit summary, like "rv unexplained deletion by anon". Just describe the edit - "rv cuss words", "rv original research", "rv unsourced addition". There's really no need to use the "V" word. Is that acceptable - to drop the "vandal" accusations in edit summaries?   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can drop the "vandalism" edit summaries and use the undo button more often. That can by done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you can do it. But will you do it?   Will Beback  talk  09:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So that answers his slapping "the vandalisim tag on everything" concern, but what about the other conerns brought up here, such as the wikistalking, and failure to communicate rationally with other editors, entering into edit warring with them? I'd like to see those issues addressed as well. That's a big problem, in my eyes. It violates the civility policy here as well. There is clearly a long history with him, which seems problematic to me and clearly other (more than 4) editors. Necrat (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT

To Will: Yes, I will. To Necrat: For someone who doesn't want to be involved, you seem...well...involved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I will be offline for WP:SLEEP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent block of GiacomoReturned

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

---

Speaking as one of the few admins who has actually had a block of Giano expire rather than being reversed, I think AGK's block combined with the subsequent actions and going away was at the very best unhelpful. His actions immediately prior to the block were mild by any standards, and it is unclear that the block serves a purpose of preventing further drama. I do not wish to spark a wheel war by unblocking unilaterally, but would like to gather a consensus to unblock him forthwith. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:LessHeard vanU has decided to unblock him, I guess this thread is moot. Stifle (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why was the guy blocked? I didn't see any foul language used on his part. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that he was blocked for refusing to retract a reference to another editor as "odious" and restoring it when removed. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• As noted, I have unblocked GiacomoReturned. I have provided my rationale to AGK at his talkpage. As regards WP:WHEEL, it is my understanding that an admin may undo another admins action (within reason) and it is a revert of that action that is a wheelwar. (If I am wrong, then I likely shouldn't have the bauble anyhoo.) If a consensus arises that GR should be blocked for his earlier comments, then obviously the block may be re-instated without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  Only if an admin repeats an action that has been opposed does a wheel-war exist, but I feared that unblocking Giano would cause one to kick off, and I am also signing out shortly. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  Support, involved users should stay away from their tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Giano has been making comments like this for the last day or so. If you don't view "odious" as a personal attack, I'm sure you will admit that it is at least not altogether civil. If the community is hesitant to block him, that's a pity in my view; the question now, though, is what is going to be done about the long-term pattern of abusive and disruptive behaviour we have here? It is surely counterproductive to let it continue unfettered. (That's my statement, and in everyone's interests in my not provoking an extended pile-on against myself, I will not comment further on this issue here.) ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am here. All Administrators should be open to recall if you have not the continued support of the community you have no mandate to use the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that unblock rationale was kinda weak LHvU but... as I keep trying to tell folks, there is always an admin willing to undo the civility block of an experienced editor, they don't stick, hence most personal attacks are allowed to slide here, it's so boring. I think you should have talked to AGK about it first. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  AGK did what so many admins do after a silly block - stopped editing. Requiring discussion is all very well, but easily and often gamed. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• AGK had not edited since commenting on his own block, which was his previous edit. I did review his edits thoroughly to check whether there was any pre-block discussion on the sanction, so I was pretty certain he was not onsite. I did post my extended rationale as soon as I had actioned the unblock, and invited him to comment. I am not sure I could have done much more. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You could have done much less, too. Only sayin', though. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• ...but I am, more or Less!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's important that we have pre-block discussion with Giacomo because he might not be aware of WP:CIVIL at this point.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have my thoughts on the block at [68]. Was AGK right to make the block over this? No, that particular edit was rather tame and mild. But Giano's general conduct is not acceptable. You can't spend your life picking a fight and then be surprised when someone finally hits back. I don't know what the solution to the problem is - it seems that we have two extremes desired by the crowd - pin a medal on Giano vs block Giano. --B (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do either. Giano is... Giano. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On first review, I agree that Giano's behavior wasn't excessive enough to justify a block; Unlike Gwen, I feel that we can effectively make civility or personal attack blocks on longtime contributors, but I think that they need to be well supported by facts in evidence. I didn't see that here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh forget it, water off a duck's back. In fact, AKK was led onto it by the soliciting and comlaining (note nice polite words)Treasury Tag here [69]. Trasury Tag is very good at leading admins into making bad blocks, it's a real talent.  Giacomo  23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is inappropriate soliciting to report a personal attack to an administrator, then yes, I solicited the block and I am proud of having done so. If, on the other hand, it is actually normal Wikipedian behaviour to inform admins of civility issues etc., which I think it is, then your "nice polite words" of soliciting and comlaining (eh?) are nevertheless false. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• The weakest case for an unblock EVER. Next we will be hearing how LHvU is a totally neutral observer. It's funny how no neutral admin said a word for over 2 hours, yet around 100 admins must have been aware of the block within 10 minutes. I was not surprised to see Giano blocked for having been in the past 48 hours, the model of incivility toward Treasury Tag (has anyone got around warning/blocking him for being a 'bully' yet? I didn't fucking think so, because it's Grade A bullshit). And then giving an admin the finger, by restoring the latest comment, in a blatant 'come on then, if you think you're hard enough' move, let to him getting what he asked for. I was equally unsurprised to see the outcome of the block. Foolish AGK. He doesn't know that you can never block Giano EVER. It's futile. Fucking Groundhog Day and then some. Still, at least now we have some interesting case law for what is and isn't a personal attack, it's any word you can't find in a Wikipedia policy page. Pure brilliant. No consensus to block. More Pure Gold. Part of the discussion which led to the block - i.e. 'don't restore that comment'. Even more Pure Gold. MickMacNee (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

With exception to the comment about LHvU (whose involvement with Giano I am not aware of), I would agree with much of what you said, Mick. AGK 11:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have previously unblocked Giano (see here) and may therefore be considered to be involved, but my actions are in order to stop the escalation of a drama. I have always maintained that I am willing to block GiacomoReturned where there is a good consensus for sanction of a violation of policy; most of these blocks are ill considered because instead of being a deterrent (because blocks are not punitive, they have to stop further disruption) they are more likely to create disruption. The only blocks that have stuck as regards Giano are those which were part of an ArbCom probation, and were placed by Arbs. This is not because Giano is special, but because so many sanctions previously were ill formed and hasty. It is because of blocks like the one last imposed that there is this problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not the case that an administrator needs a community license to apply a short block for a personal attack. Not the case at all. AGK 12:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If Giano is now only blockable per arbcom sanction, that is news to me. I guess TT has no right to having the ongoing attacks on him being stopped. I guess that just doesn't count as 'disruption', certainly not the kind that needs stopping. A 16 hour block after a proper warning, was the model of a well-formed, unhasty, block. And now your only justification to unblock seems to be the usual, 'its pointless blocking Giano' defence. If you want the disruption of an arbcom case to examine why the hell Giano is, for all intents and purposes, unblockable, then please, let's have it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You summed it up perfectly, MickMacNee. AGK 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Where does one sign up for a "Giano license to repeatedly insult other editors without any consequences" and an "automatic instant unblock by an admirer?" Edison (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Giano points out multiple instances of questionable, likely harrassing, rollbacks by an admin and gets blocked for using the word "odious". Then the whole discussion descends into a drama fest of the Special Admin Clique and their lap dogs attacking Giano and wondering why, for the umpteenth time, why he always gets unblocked. Wikipedia has truly become a 1980s Soviet Bloc government! Maybe the real problem here isn't that Giano uses colorful language but that a lot of admins here are blatantly corrupt and out of touch with the spirit of Wikipedia. Fantastimus (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is this user's first edit, so he presumably needs blocking as a sock. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Prodego's got that done. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• My involvement in the discussion leading to the block was to warn Giano for precisely the same behaviour I blocked him for. Are you genuinely suggesting that when I saw he ignored my warning and then when he re-added uncivil comments of his that I had removed, I was unable to use those sysop tools I was given and block him for making personal attacks? Sorry, but when did we start doing things this way? AGK 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question for Stifle: What subsequent actions are you referring to? And in what way was my actual block improper? Very interested in your thinking here. AGK 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • A discussion first would have been helpful. Giano's conduct, while incivil, was still relatively moderate in my opinion. The fact that you went offline shortly after blocking with the effect that you were in a position to discuss the block, especially when it was bound to be controversial was the subsequent action in question. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • And don't get me wrong, I find the situation whereby Giano is essentially immune to several conduct policies and guidelines that apply to other editors, and there is nearly always someone available to unblock him whenever he gets blocked, quite unsatisfactory; in this particular situation I find myself coming down on his side because, as Georgewilliamherbert mentioned on your talk page, Giano wasn't particularly hostile on this occasion. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    • My point has been, and still is, that Giano's comments were blockable relative to how we expect a typical editor to behave. As Giano usually has to do a lot worse to get blocked, the thinking has been that 'odious' is "for him" quite tame, and that he thus doesn't deserve blocking. As per usual, Giano gets special treatment; and too many administrators, for reasons that escape my understanding, are willing to oblige.

      I don't know what LHvU meant by "'odious' is used by WP"? This unblock has made it acceptable to call another editor 'odious'. AGK 12:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Puting aside the fact that most people privately agreed with my statement, the block was obviously not going to hold, for the simple reason that saying someone is "odious" is no worse or better than decribing someone as "toxic." Sadly AGK, you allowed yourself to be trapped into a situiation where you morally agreed to block before the offence was committed, without even bothering to check what the offence was. You were led to the edge of the cliff and then pushed. However, as an admin you should have known better than to allow yourself to be so easily led by Treasury Tag; I'm sure it won't happen again. I advise you to be a little more guarded in what you agree to do in future, better to have Trasury Tag screaming at you, than a whole ANI board. That advice also goes for Gwen Gale and SGGH who both should have known better.  Giacomo  12:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• As I said before, your statement may well be true, but labels like 'odious' aren't appropriate on a collaborative project. Your perception is that I blindly followed TreasuryTag; this is not the case. He did bring the edit to my attention, but I was firmly of the opinion that your comments were inappropriate; and though I did not say it, my intention was to block you if you did not remove the insult. As it happens, I am still of the opinion that your comment was both unacceptable and blockable; and though I haven't finished reviewing the voluminous comments concerning this matter, I have not yet read one argument that convinces me that to call another editor odious is not blockable. AGK 12:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody here is screaming at AGK. At best, the opposition to the block is luke warm, and is of the common or garden 'we can't do jack about Giano' variety, rather that the 'there is nothing wrong with calling someone odious' variety. The delicious irony is that the apparent 'usage by Wikipedia' of the word odious, is in to describe those kinds of editors who have behaved so badly, and for such a consistent period, they are likely to never be unblocked. Infact, the policy should probably also mention the word toxic too, being also highly relevant to those types of editors. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Giano law. GR doesn't decide as to whether he gets blocked or not. Such a decesion falls with administrators. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed most of this discussion so I will repeat my position re Giano. He insults large numbers of editors, and is not half as clever or witty about it as he thinks he is. He is a net negative, he ought to be community banned. Dealing with him takes huge amounts of admin time (this thread is Exhibit A) and his insults drive people from the project. He is the Wikipedia equivalent of the soccer player who plays dirty all over the field and then collapses to the ground in seeming agony when another player retaliates (but misses by a good six inches). Count me as one vote yea any time someone wants to have a poll on ending Giano's involvement in WIkipedia. I only regret that some few of my fellow admins go to great lengths to find a plausible reason for an unblock when he is actually called to account.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The usual hypocrisy from the worst of Wikipedia's Admins. They can call people names and behave in the most abusive and uncivil manner but will never be called to account (as we see in the case of the unjust actions taken against Richard which resulted in no redress). But if anyone dares to call those abusing our policies and their positions of authority to account, they will be aggressively sanctioned into silence for daring to speak up. Gross. Has the abuse and harassment against Richard at least been slowed for the time being? Let's hope so. Kudos and thanks to Giano for standing up for an editor being harangued unfairly. Far too many good editors have been lost in this way, it's just unfortunate that there is such urgency to go after the whistleblowers instead of dealing with the problems. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Section break for ease of editing

If administrators can't agree on whether an editor should be blocked or not, then that's an administrators problem. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What does that even mean? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If one blocks a bloke & the other come along & unblocks him, then there's a disagreement about it betweeen the administrators. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Can we get you on Mastermind – special subject "The Bleedin' Obvious"? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And if one blocks, hundreds say nothing for two hours, and then one unblocks, on the basis that it would have led to drama if he hadn't. What's that about? Apart from the obvious elephant in the room of course. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's from administrators having differing views on how to handle an editor. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm not sure that you're helping... ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's merely an observation. Only others can decide if it's helpful. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Only others? So my views don't count? (Hint: they do.) ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fear not, I count you among the others. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you are, TT? DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out, and you are free to provide a reasoned argument against this idea if you want, that comments such as, If one blocks a bloke & the other come along & unblocks him, then there's a disagreement about it betweeen the administrators, are intuitively obvious and in no way advance the discussion. I don't plan on engaging further with this line of discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 14:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant, are you sure that your contributions to this whole matter are helping anyone at all? DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The thinking behind this whole event seems to be "Giano said something inappropriate, but that's fine because it's Giano so the block was wrong"—which itself is counter-intuitive. We're needing to get back to basics because there are some fundamental logical errors here. AGK 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with you there. In particular, this argument about why he shouldn't be blocked seems to me absurd. It says, "Blocking prevents... what? He's going to come back, probably angrier than before, and won't be changing his ways."
Now that's interesting. Because if I was vandalising articles, said that if I was blocked I'd return and vandalise even more articles than before, would the correct response from an admin be A)don't block; or B)block? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AGK, if you were serious about proper enforcement of "civility", you'd start with the admins and sole-co-founders who engage in personal attacks with impunity, not with an editor who has pointed out genuine admin abuses in the past. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to play civility police. My mission isn't to punish every instance of incivility. If you want to know what my aim was, see my comment below. So far as I can tell, Duncan, your thinking is that Giano's personal attacks are excusable because there are others who are worse than him. Do I even need to waste time in outlining why that is wrong? AGK 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been an admin long enough to have known that blocking Giano and then making yourself unavailable for discussion of that block would create far more disruption than it would prevent. Quite what your motives were I do not know. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not being handled at all. I pity any fool that comes across him without foreknowledge of the special Giano laws, and might in their naive idiocy, come to the admin board for redress if/when he decides to target them in one of his pointless conspiracy crusades. I am sure every regular here is now well aware, that the only way you can handle Giano, is by bending over and taking it, sideways, or file an entire arbcom case because the admins corps are collective rabbits caught in his headlights. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Giano law. GR doesn't decide as to whether he gets blocked or not. Such a decesion falls with administrators. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem appears to be a perception that the standard of conduct required for a block of Giano to be justified may differ from that applied to other users, and different standards are considered appropriate by different administrators. The effect is that blocks of Giano are inherently controversial. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's naive at best GoodDay. At best. MickMacNee (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, his fate is in the hands of administrators, as it's always been. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So naive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm reading dialogue from a B conspiracy theory movie here. There is no homogeneous group of administrators that function is a group. Rather, administrators are just like any other cross-section of Wikipedia - some are just trying to do what is right, some have other motivations, etc. Unfortunately, this sort of decentralized and unfocused power structure means that we as a community have a lot of trouble dealing with borderline conduct cases (not borderline in the psychological sense, but meaning conduct that borders on acceptable vs unacceptable). There is no cabal and it's the complete lack of a cabal that allows situations like this to go on. --B (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AGK, I would like to ask you to explain what you were thinking (in a big picture sense) in deciding to block Giano. Looking at the whole situation, the treatment of RAN (including the overturned blocks) looked a lot like harrassment. Richard was being bombarded with templates and XfDs, threatened and blocked, and nothing much was being done - so Giano shined a spotlight on the situation. Whatever else you might think of Giano, his actions had the positive effect of drawing attention to the situation. There are still deletion debates running (several having restarted), a CCI case has been opened, closed and reopened, and some highly questionable actions from Fastily are being considered here at ANI. With all this going one, why did you choose to try to send the message that Giano can be blocked for civillity? No less than three arbitrators have weighed in trying to smooth over the mess and move things forward in the best interests of WP (see Carcharoth's and Newyorkbrad's comments at user talk:TreasuryTag and Risker's comments above), and it seems to me that the message that should be being sent here is about the unacceptability of harrassment... yet the only blocks have been against the harrassed user and the user who forced others to recognise what has been going on. Leaving aside the question of whether your block of Giano could be technically justified under policy, I would like to know why you thought it was a wise action to take, why you thought it was helpful to resolving the bigger mess, and what message do you think your actions have sent to editors watching who are concerned about the relative importance of WP:HARRASS and WP:CIVIL. EdChem (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose of that screed of a question was to get info, it probably should have been made on AGK's talk page or maybe by email. If the purpose was to grandstand in making a point, well, spot on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some revision reading for you... WP:AGF EdChem (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I may comment, the CCI was started by an absolutely neutral user who has been active in CCI for a good while. Accusing him of harassment (if that is what you were doing) is out of order. I make no further comment as regards myself and harassment, since I have already made myself plain. But don't accuse the CCI people of getting personal. They're doing their job. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Can we please drop this whole 'shine a light' idea. It's bull. The interactions had been noted, even at a couple of ANI threads, well before Giano got involved, and based on the fact nobody has ever before defined that as harassment, let alone ludicrously as bullying, and not once has anyone even been blocked for it, everybody moved on having had their various say, as is normal. TT even agreed to disengage from RAN, but as we see, RAN's issues are not TT, it is his various content issues, and a couple of sock stalkers making trouble. Hopefully nobody here is suggesting they were TT btw. Then Giano got involved, and decided the best way to right this wrong was to attack TT all over the project and go on his usual conspiracy/cover-up crusade. And for one aspect of that, for an actionable sign of contept, he rightly got blocked. Everything else is just chaff. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Infact Edchem, your summary made no mention of this interaction between Giano and TT, which further muddies the whole white knight scenario proferred. Giano had a reason to go after TT before he discovered the conspiracy/cover-up, and given that he knows he is pretty much immune from sanction, he of course didn't hold back on the personal button pushing as he went about it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

EdChem's question is relevant, so I would refute the suggestion that it was made in order to grandstand. Giano was drawing attention to an issue of importance. I have already said, privately and publicly, that I agree that the issue deserves investigation and that Giano is right to have brought it up. The issue was receiving attention; as Mick said, there have already been a couple of ANI threads (to say nothing of the multiple direct attempts to foster a resolution). Giano's involvement, however, extended beyond simply bring the issue to light; he was commenting during the threads, in some instances in a way that was unhelpful. Some say that "that's just Giano; let him be". I'm okay with going along with that for a while. But when one of the editors on the "other side" perceives that his conduct is being scrutinised whilst Giano is allowed to make personal attacks, the free-for-all has to end. I like to do things as fairly as possible, and that includes making sure that every party is not persecuted. So when TT pointed to Giano's restoration of the 'odious' reference, I blocked. The point of that was not to play Civility Police. It was to say "fine, that's dealt with; now back to the issues concerning RAN"; it was to refocus attention on the issues that are of real importance. There are some side issues, including that I didn't want to be perceived to be one of Giano's pitbulls (as some administrators have been in the past), and that I wasn't happy with Giano being allowed to make personal attacks because some kind of special license is afforded to him. In these efforts I would have succeeded, if the logic that "Giano can't be blocked for a short time for disruption because he's Giano" did not prevail. AGK 14:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AGK - I appreciate both your response and your formal recognition of the relevance of my inquiry. My concern would be that your expectation that the block would lead everyone to "refocus attention on the issues that are of real importance" was seriously far from being realised. Even had it not been Giano I think it was inevitably going to distract from the central issues, and thus was unwise and unhelpful to addressing thr problems of admin and non-admin harrassment of RAN. It is really sad that the actions of Fastily and TreasuryTag seem to have been forgotten, swallowed up by the froth that I believe was the inevitable result of your block, even if the block were justified. Sometimes paying attention to the bigger issues means letting trivial distractions pass by, and Giano's civility is a distraction from the issues around RAN's treatment. EdChem (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For the two hours the block was in place, Giano was prevented from carrying on his attacks, and the Wikipedia world carried on, including the resolution of the RAN situation, and everywhere else, the world was at peace. Nobody, not one person in that two hour window, used the block to distract from the other issues, and while there was some predictable mock outrage, more railing against tthe conspiracy, nobody who can be considered a neutral party, let alone a neutral admin, really gave a crap about the block. Nobody cared about it, because it was a good block. Then LHvU decided to unilaterally unblock Giano on one of the thinnest and weakest unblock rationales I've ever seen, because, well, you can't block Giano right, and only then, did all hell break loose, for reasons some people think are obvious, and others seem to just want to ignore. There is no way on Earth that AGK is at fault for the ensuing distraction arising from the persistent protection of Giano from being held up to the basic expectations of behaviour. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Really interesting admin (and others) behaviour

A thread which starts with Giano raising valid concerns about poor behaviour by an admin gets derailed into a "bash Giano and anyone who thinks he should be allowed to edit" thread. Good one folks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. Things have morphed into something else. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, please, as a favour to me, consider how helpful your comments are. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

TT, lay off GoodDay, he's not causing anyone any trouble here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is, Giano doesn't actually have an official investigative journalism brief here at Wikipedia. He has a writing-an-encyclopedia brief, just like the rest of us, but the notion that his efforts – no matter what we think of them – to uncover misbehaviour and abuse by admins should exempt him from various behavioural policies, or limit those policies' application to him, doesn't seem appropriate.
You said above that if AGK wanted to enforce civility, he shouldn't block someone who uncovers admin misdemeanours. Wrong. If AGK wanted to enforce civility, he should have blocked an editor or editors who was/were incivil. Which he did.
Investigation and advocacy is all very well, but it's a self-appointed portfolio which shouldn't have any official effect. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually suggested he start with admins and sole-co-founders who are rude, rather than with an editor with a good track record of uncovering bad admins. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. And my point is that his "good track record" is neither here nor there. If he wants to engage in investigative journalism, that's fine, but it doesn't entitle him to special treatment because it is a self-appointed role. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of editors - admins and others - at least as rude as Giano, but they don't get targetted like he does. There is a double standard, but it's not Giano benefitting from it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano's "admins behaving badly" are usually "admins grievously provoked by Giano and reacting with irritation" threads.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The problem is that some rather poor admins and their supporters will keep using Giano's (frankly not very) colourful language as an excuse to divert attention away from themselves. DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps the solution would be for him to use less colourful language and thus not give administrators anything with which to camouflage themselves? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it'd be easier than stopping the bad-faith attempts to divert attention from poor admins. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that most of the people commenting at this point are involved in the underlying dispute over the mass nomination of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s files for deletion, either as parties to the dispute or weighing in on one side of the dispute or another. To be straight up, I'm in one of those camps or the other at this point. Participating in a dispute that does not concern him and having an arguably valid point to make do not give Giano a free pass to be uncivil. Further, reversing other administrators' civility blocks is a bad idea because it vindicates the blocked editor and encourages further incivility -- I have observed this directly a number of times. Nevertheless, this is not a clean situation or a shining example of uncivil behavior, it is a spillover of a dispute from somewhere else. As such I don't think it's terribly productive. Just like this is not the best time to further badger Norton on copyrights, this is not the best time and place to entertain questions of Giano and civility. Wikidemon (talk) - 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But unfortunately, Giano's incivility – and everyone else's, to be fair – inevitably comes about during a dispute. Which means that there is never a "best time and place" to address it. That's no reason not to, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever with that dispute. I simply think Giano needs to find another wiki to edit, based on his history.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so. My point is that this isn't a clean, clear-cut situation, even as disputes go. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

85% of the problem is that this has now become a dispute for the sake of a dispute. Primary problem: Richard uploaded some images that were copyright violations and some others that probably are not copyright violations, but lacked proper crossing of t's and dotting of i's. Secondary problem: the way this was dealt with was with mass deletion and templating, rather than an orderly process of helping him fix the actual problems. The current problem: rather than being part of the solution, Giano simply wanted to have a forum for airing the gripe. Whether Giano uses impolite language or not isn't the point - the point is that an unactionable gripe fest doesn't do any good. --B (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion is 29 pages so far on my computer monitor. Let's keep in mind WP:Waste of Time :) .Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of admins and TreasuryTag behaved badly in abusively harassing a productive editor. Giano drew attention to their misdeeds. For this, Wehwalt thinks Giano should be blocked (and there is no question that those daring to speak up when they see abuse taking place are frequently targeted here). Others think we should focus on ending the harassment and making sure it is not repeated in the future (rather than attempting to silence anyone who dares point out problematic administration). Is there more that needs rehashing or is that a sufficient summary? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If the summary was designed to be entirely one-sided and to throw as much petrol on the fire as possible, then, yes, the summary is sufficient. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You missed out the part where Giano did not 'reveal' anything here, and you missed out Giano's prior interaction with TT. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ably and eagerly led by TT, you're doing it again - wilfully preventing discussion of a bad admin by engaging in your long-standing grudges against Giano (a better content contributor than any of you, from what I've seen). DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  Please avoid guessing at my motivation(s) and intention(s). It helps nobody and is quite hurtful, especially since you're incorrect. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  That's the Kool Aid talking I'm afraid. Nobody here is preventing any admin from being called to account just by pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards that abound when Giano inevitably goes to far and rightly gets blocked for crossing the line. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  Kool Aid talking? You obviously aren't above making personal attacks when it suits you. And you are deliberately hijacking these threads because you support Fastily's abusive behaviour and want it to continue, and attacking Giano and others distracts attention from him. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think Giano attacking others also distracts from it, though! ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  That shows what you know. I happen to not like Fastily very much, due to a past dispute I've long forgotten the details of, but his name sticks with my memory enough for me not to willfully attempt to distract any attempts to scrutinise his record. MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What a shower!

This discussion has become excessively unproductive.
The following discussion has been closed by Georgewilliamherbert. Please do not modify it.
While you are all allowing yourselves to be artfully and very cleverly drawn from the real problem, the harassing of RAN by some of those commenting here. My view remains entirely unchanged and will remain so. At present, it appears that bullying, harassing, intimidating and making another editor's life complete hell are completely to be disregarded, for that is what some are condoning in this thread and earlier threads. Yes, I am aware of the previous thread, which apparently completely absolved (so he says) Treasury tag. Shame on you who allowed him to think that. We have seen Admins illegally rollbacking RANS edits and voting for even his user-page image to be deleted is quite in order. Additionally, while that was going on, it was perfectly acceptable for him to be wrongly blocked (gagged) as a result of soliciting and mischief by his enemy (for mild, innocuous comments made on another project). When that block was deemed on ANI to be very wrong, Admins then did nothing as he was templated mercilessly, for hours on end, and further of his pages nominated for deletion, indeed some admins even joined in the fun. In other words, a gang of rampaging editors and Admins set out to make RAN feel he was worthless shit - or was that to be just a "happy" result of the merry game? Shame I stepped in and spoilt the fun.Oh treasury Tag will cry: "that's not the way it was." Sorry! That is exactly the way it was, yet these same people, those who harassed and those who did nothing (which is the better of the two?) dare to comment here in their mealy mouthed sanctimonious hypocritical way about "Nasty Giano's incivility to me" and "Giano should not be allowed here" "it's not fair on me, for him to be so nasty" I stand by every word, and believe me, if I were not very in control of my temper, I could think of a few more very descriptive adjectives for what I have read here and elsewhere over the last 36 hours. I shall have no more to do wuth thread. I'll leave you to talk about me ad-nauseum, I can stand up for myself. At least that way, you won't be harrassing some other poor sod.  Giacomo  16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And yet, you are still permitted to be here. Guess we stink at martyrizing Giano.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "it appears that bullying, harassing, intimidating and making another editor's life complete hell are completely to be disregarded". If you are talking about your continued and persistent attacks on TT and your continued ranting about 'the conspiracy', which does nothing, not one damn thing, to help RAN, then yes, they are apparently being disregarded. You can keep peddling this White Knight rubbish all you want, nobody is buying it, and I think you'd be pretty upset if they did, taking away as it would your sole role in this pantomime. It's not a shock to see you exiting stage left for like the fifth time, after yet another volley. Nor are they buying your 'I am keeping very cool' act either. You've got something even worse to say to other editors than you have done these last two days? Go for it. You most definitely won't be blocked for it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Nobody is buying it: I'm buying it. Admins do behave badly at times (I won't name any names, for fear of a "civility" block), and it's good that editors like Giano exist to look for those situations. I know he's a pain in the a** to deal with, and that he can be pretty abrasive. Still, he raises valid issues at times, and I commend that. Buddy431 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Once again, he did not 'raise this issue'. It was already known about, and being dealt with. Giano's contribution was, as you correctly characterise pretty much all his contributions lately, to wade in to an issue already being handled calmly and per policy, and be an abrasive pain in the ass. Only this time, he did more than that, in the full knowledge he has special immunity when he goes further into the behavioural territory only he is allowed to inhabit. Or are you one of these people who would have no problem at all being called an odious harassing bully all over the pedia, for nigh on 24 hours, just because Giano happened to think you were one? With little or no sense of irony at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I wouldn't have much problem being called an "odious harassing bully"; I've been called far worst, and sometimes I've deserved it. I realize that not everyone has as thick of skin as I do, so I can understand, even if I don't agree with, the righteous indignation that seems to have been taken to Giano's comments. However, I would never call for a block for that type of comment, and really, I don't think that blocking for that level of an insult is by any means universal here. That's a borderline comment coming from anyone, and I don't think there would be unanimous agreement to block, no matter who it came from. Buddy431 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) (all together now) ODIOUS HARASSING BULLY! Whoa, Buddy, dude, you don't look too good. I'd let you lie down on one of the leather couches in the admins' lounge but better not. Here, have a seat on one of these wooden benches in the sun. (hey you kids, no frying eggs here) Just take it easy, I'll send a water vendor over to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Try "shabby, lacking compassion and understanding, sounding seriously uneducated and behaving like a spoilt child", with a gratuitous dig at your mother's parenting skills thrown in. All directed at me by admins or sole-co-founders, and none of them got the level of crap thrown at them that Giano gets for calling a spade an odious harrassing bully. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And who says those people weren't calling a spade a spade? Who made you and Giano the only people able to spot a spade eh?. And besides, our policy on personal attacks is pretty bloody explicit, nobody here gives a crap whether the insulter thinks the insult is justified or not. And seriously, this whole defence tactic of 'that infraction was not as bad as the incident I was subjected to in 2009/8/7 etc' is seriously OLD NEWS. Change the record already. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Well, Our "policy" on personal attacks is a joke - admins and Jimbo have a free hand to attack whomever they bloody well like, while spouting holier-than-thou claptrap about how much they deplore it whenever someone they don't like replies in kind. You - with your history - are just stirring for the sake of stirring. DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Like I said, change the bloody record. This victim/conspiracy bullshit is just that. You don't have a defence for Giano, not in policy or in morality, the quality of it is bordering on undying devotion frankly. It's nauseating. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And your defence of Fastily and TT is "Giano's rude" - you don't care about their history of harassment and bullying (much more serious than a bit of name-calling), but your apparently complete lack of a sense of proportion prevents you concentrating on what is important. DuncanHill (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) You clearly aren't listening are you? I have no interest, not one, in defending Fastily for anything. And I'll defend TT like I'll defend anyone who is the subject of Giano's regular and unchecked abuse thanks to his privelaged position. The general issue of harassment/bullying of RAN was known about before Giano, and it was dealt with before Giano got involved. And it was dealt with like it has been in the past for other users, with no blocks, because the complaints are simply not actionable in that way, and certainly not in this case. The complaints of targetted harassement, and worse, bullying, while pushing the buttons of the conspiracy theorists, were rightly found to be total bollocks in that regard, based on policy and past precedent. This is normal. If you don't believe me, go and have a chat with Tony The Marine. Maybe Giano wants to start an Rfc to change that, but I very much doubt his pantomime rage extends to actually doing anything like that. No, he is in it for the glory, while using it as another vehicle for his grandstanding against Them, and to throw a few attacks at TT in the process. Running around calling someone a harassing bullying odious editor however, quite rightly, is very much actionable with a preventative block. And if you want to talk about the offence of harassment, let's investigate further how Giano got involved in the first place shall we? Interested? No, I didn't think so. Your defence of Giano on the basis that he brings The Truth, and anyone tackling him is part of The Cover-up, is frankly ludicrous. It's beyond transparent even. It's old, it's really old. It's frankly just predictable. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Who's Tony the Marine? DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC) User:Marine 69-71. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks, what was it I'm supposed to ask him? I read Mick's last post twice and am still not sure. I do know that he's either totally missed the point of what I've been saying, or is deliberately misrepresenting it, but it is a bit like nailing jelly to the wall. DuncanHill (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Tony is the last case where it was claimed at ANI that mass tagging was a form of harassment. That neither you or Giano know anything about its outcome speaks volumes for what the hell you know about this case and The Coverup. Giano doesn't give a monkeys about harassment, he saw an opportunity to mouth off at a user who recently ticked him off, and he went to town on him, in the way that only he is allowed to do. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I don't just know nothing about its outcome, but I'd never heard of the editor in question before. Got a link to the archive? DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Well, maybe we can have a system where people can display on their user pages how 'thick skinned' they are, and just how much venom and abuse they are willing to take before they will do something about it. Rarely though is that going to be to keep calm and seek redress at ANI, even if they could expect even a modicum of uniform standards. And the fact is, many people will probably just leave, rather than take such abuse for simply being a volunteer on a poxy website. God knows what third parties looking at such behaviour being tolerated think, but only the most sadistic must think 'wow, I must get involved in this project!' I'd rather stick with a system that says, here is the line. If you cross it, take the consequences. It's about time the apologists stopped looking at this issue as to how it affects Giano and his victim. And all of this meta-crap is besides the point, we have a user already entrusted to be an admin, who warned Giano it was not acceptable, and got given the finger for his trouble, so he rightly blocked. And his block was unilaterally undone, without a by your leave, and Giano carries on as normal. It's bull. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Lets try and get back to reality for a few seconds. Giano is the one preventing the lynch mob here from harassing an outstanding editor until he kicks back or makes enough mistakes that he can be perma banned, as has been done very recently to another scholarly and highly constructive editor. The editor who initiated this mass attack may have been acting in good faith, but its impossible to assume the same of the attack pack who have piled in after seeing the editor blocked when he tried to defend himself. I still havent seen one of the so called copyright issues turn out to be better than a borderline case, and an editor with almost 100k contributions will almost inevitably have a few of those. Thank God for Giano whos held up a mirror to the harassers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC) If you want to talk reality, then please try and at least be aware of the actual sequence of events. Who knew what, who did what, and who got who to do what first. Giano features in none of those stages as a key player, he is late to the party, and while he might get off on claiming to be the White Knight exposing the coverup here, it's bull. He features as Giano usually features, as a distraction at best, and as a drive by attacker at worst, only as we see, his immunity from blocking for such attacks means that he is wholly unhelpful overall. As far as I can see, his most constructive suggestion was that RAN be given a breather from Xfds for a set period, and arbcom step in and review his work. And quite rightly nobody, not even RAN himself, thought that was a remotely appropriate step. RAN is well aware that his articles need to stand for themselves, and a few mistakes aside, he at least now seem to be learning that blindly swinging at your opponents is not going to make his content issues go away. Thankfully, inspite of Giano's late attempt, his example of such bad practices has not taken hold, because without Giano's cloak of immunity, that is the path that gets any normal editor blocked, no matter what their contributions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Still here Mick? Yackety yack. Still all wicked Giano's fault? yeah right, anything you say Mick. And Wehwalt, don't lets forget, I'm too well brought up to have him called him a "cocksucker", but that would have been fine with you wouldn't it. Go on Wehwalt lets here the usual justification for your own behaviour and views. we all need a few laughs.  Giacomo  19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Yep, it's what I say, and it's what happened. Yackety yack, don't talk back. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Arbitration

I intend to file an arbitration case over this apparent de facto situation which has developed and has yet again played out here, whereby the admin corps as a collective body appears to have become next to powerless at holding Giano up to the behavioural standards that frankly, most definitely do apply to anybody else. I think it's pretty indisputable that in this case, and in many past cases, he is getting a free pass simply because he is Giano and it only ever takes one admin to decide to unilaterally unblock and that will be the status quo, through fear of the dreaded WHEEL, meaning that the majority of admins when a Giano issue comes up, simply ignore it, and those who do take a stand like AGK, might as well be pissing in the wind, despite their status as people supposedly entrusted to be able to tell whether repeatedly restoring personal attacks of the 'you are an odious harassing bully' type is disruption that merits stopping by block, when warnings are met with contempt. If the suggestion is as LHvU profers, that only arbcom can make a block on Giano stick (and in the process, he has simply chosen to downgrade the stated block reason from PA/restoration, to simple routine Giano type CIV abuse that apparently, due to past admin fuckups, is now not enforceable by block, period), and AGK was simply wasting his time blocking because it would have led to drama had he not unblocked (and I think its obvious to everyone that for two hours it stuck, there was no drama, until his unilateral unblock), then let's have that situation examined for its moral and intellectual robustness, and if necessary, formalised properly, so that people who do end up being the target of Giano simply because they are guilty in his court, don't have to waste their time seeking redress from mere mortal admins. As this case will primarily swing on the views of admins as to whether they are doing a competent job handling Giano, or are simply prolonging an ultimately disfunctional and destructive environment where toxicity and impotence flourishes, I'm giving you a heads up, to either say this case would be a brilliant idea, a terrible idea, or otherwise hide your lights under your bushels. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A terrible idea, a complete waste of everyones time. For the record, i agree with Duncan Hill, who wrote: "There are plenty of editors - admins and others - at least as rude as Giano, but they don't get targetted like he does. There is a double standard, but it's not Giano benefitting from it." David D. (Talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, he tends to say that every time. And he would have an opportunity to prove it in an arbitration case, if it is even remotely true. MickMacNee (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were true, it would mean only that he has exhausted the community's patience, which is at least as valid a reason for banishment as the magnitude of incivility in a single instance. However, as I mentioned in the archived section above, this particular instance is not simple or clear-cut. Straws may break camels' backs, but they don't make good cases for adjudication. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe everyone involved in this one is somewhat at fault. A lot of people should have backed down on the button pushing, and asked for someone outside the immediate conflict area to review and comment.

If people truly believe that Giano has exhausted the community patience, then there's a whole community ban process set up, go to AN and file one. I don't think he has; I believe that he's exhausted a number of individual editors patience, and that he continues to be more of our more contentious editors, but he also has over the last couple of years mellowed out a lot.

To those saying "nobody can block Giano and make it stick!" - I say, wrong. If Giano really and truly does step across the line he'll get blocked, it will stick, and there won't be any controversy over it. That's true of anyone - be it Jimbo, Board members, Arbcom members, Admins, or individual users.

Conflating a long term contentious editor issue with specific incident problems which led to questionable blocks is not a good path forwards. I don't think anyone disagrees with the first; even Giano admits that he's provocative. If the sum total of that over the years is enough to ban him so be it - but so far the question has been answered with "no". This specific incident was not that big a deal, and should have been handled in a less confrontational manner. It didn't deserve a block. It's not worth this much ANI time. This incident has been handled in an unseemly manner, and does not justify the ongoing antagonism. You can't weasel in a community ban by yelling loudly and throwing stuff around on ANI to blow a minor incident out of proportion. Go to AN and file a ban if you must; if not, please consider that you all were equally guilty of escalating the situation in ways, and bear plenty of responsibility for the fuss here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal filed at AN. MickMacNee (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is at fault for their own behaviour. No one held a gun to Giano's head and forced him to act as he did. His block log is plenty of indication that he's been at fault many times and that there is no shortage of people to enable him. The real question you need to ask yourself is if another editor did the same things as he did would there be as much drama? If the answer is no, then there clearly is a special rule and/or line for Giano.--Crossmr (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Karunyan continued stalking

Karunyan (talk · contribs) was indef blocked following an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Karunyan Continuing Wikihounding/Trolling After 72 hour block and the revelation that he was using sock pupppets to further his stalking of myself. He has continued using some 20 or more IP and named sock puppets in his unrelenting stalking (see SPI for some confirmed). In the SPI, two range blocks appear to have been instituted, which stopped it for awhile, but not long. When he reemerged last time, I asked one of the admins, User:MuZemike, from that SPI if another range block could be instituted, but apparently a high school is in that range (and likely where this guy is coming from) so the collateral damage was seen as too high[70]. That this guy is still doing this mess more than two months later seems to be a sign of his having some serious issues.

I just discovered today that he used more IP socks to register User:CoIectonian (obvious spoof of User:Collectonian) to create Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giraffedata then populated it with two IP socks[71][72] Presumably it is also in direct response to my complaints about Giraffedata at the Village Pump[73] and User:Seresin's closing that and stating RfC was the best course of action to take[74]

What, if anything, can be done at this point? Can a range block be done, regardless of the damage, or is it basically a matter of just live with it and hope each and every one is blocked quickly? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ping....seriously, he's now hit this twice, and nothing...*sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Worst-case scenario with a range-block would be 256 x 256 IP addresses blocked, which is probably too wide. A more knowledgeable IP wonk, SPI clerk or checkuser could probably cut that down quite a lot, but it may still be too broad. Stick with SPI, the good folk there are a good bet for helping with range-blocks.

My experience with similar socks is that your "live with it and hope..." solution is the one that is easiest applied... sorry, I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear.

There is a forum for dealing with long-term abuse; I've not used it and don't know how effective it would be.

I'd suggest the next step should be to request that Karunyan be community banned. In the past there was little difference between and indef block and a community ban; these days it seems that a community ban allows an editor to be repeatedly reverted on sight, which may serve to discourage them, and also draws attention to them (hastening the "B" and "I" steps in WP:RBI). (I believe that the same does not apply to a merely indef blocked editor - I hope I'm wrong, but don't believe so).

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion above where the issue of indef blocks vs. community bans is mentioned. B discusses changes at WP:3RR and WP:BAN. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LTR seems mostly useful for just documenting behavior. As the one of Bambifan101 has shown, it doesn't really help stop the abuse, just make it easier for folks to see the history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, I think that may have been my thinking when I looked into it.

If you wanted to call for a community ban of Karunyan, I'd certainly be willing to second it... though that still keeps us playing whack-a-sock. But I guess that's really our only option, barring a possible rangeblock.

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...if a rangeblock can't be done, not sure there is much else to do. Community ban would just be a formality at this point and seeing as you're the only one who even answered this despite his continued disruptions here....it is a rather sad statement of things as a whole. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• If for no other reason than to give clearance to revert and block on sight, I'd support a formal community ban. I blocked a couple of the IP's a couple days ago, but this person goes through them so fast that I'm not sure it did any good. Courcelles (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked 59.96.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 59.92.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 3 months, collateral be damned. I've seen enough. Oh, and he's banned as no sane admin would unblock, but if someone really want to formalize it it's fine with me. Tim Song (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Much much much appreciated. Thank you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (Austin, Texas)

• Don Martin (Austin, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP seems to be the subject of disruptive editing. An editor who has stated that he is the subject of the article filed a request for mediation of the dispute: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Don Martin (Austin, Texas). Whilst there may be underlying content issues, from the editor's statement at the mediation request I gather that there are also conduct problems. Could an administrator look into this, sort out any problems with the article content, and deal with any parties whose conduct is not in accordance with how we treat BLPs? Not taking action as I may have to deal with the request for mediation at some point soon. Thanks all, AGK 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SheffieldSteel. Neutral scrutiny by any other editors would also be appreciated. AGK 20:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help SheffieldSteel - your suggestion for a summary paragraph was accepted and posted after achieving the agreement of a majority of those that were involved in the dispute. GregJackP (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:TheReturnOfMe

TheReturnOfMe (talk · contribs)'s name indicates the return of a blocked user. Taunting other users about daring to go ahead and block him. Created a forked article of Horse because he doesn't want to deal with the protected page on its Talk page. Smells like a WP:DUCK to me, but could somebody run a checkuser? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See this edit. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor wants blocking regardless of whose sock it is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Horse has been protected since June of 2009. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours to prevent disruption while we determine what to do.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Their only contributions have been disruptive. They are quite plainly not a new user. The don't block me, my account was hacked argument would have some weight if used by a user with an established account, but not for one that's half a dozen edits old. Hence, I've extended the block to indefinite. Feel free to overturn if there's a consensus otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was about to change to indef myself, which is what we'd normally do to an editor whose only edits were vandalism or disruptive Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, are you sure you wanted to "take the risk"? – B.hotep •talk• 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Risk? Dougweller (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in reference to their edit summary. What is the smiley for sarcasm and "ooh, I'm scared to block you"? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 23:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This user has returned to post an "unblock request" that was summarily dismissed (using rollback). The question now is whether they should be blocked from their own Talk page. My own opinion is that access to this talk page is of no value since this isn't their first account. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They can make an unblock request on their original account. Talk page access revoked. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 16:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme

Resolved

 – Both editors ended up blocked for 24h by EdJohnston for breaking 3RR. Yworo (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Economy of the United Kingdom has been fully protected twice recently on my requests due to user:Ledenierhomme's apparent continuing vandalism of the article, who keeps removing various long standing and well sourced sections of the introduction of the article without consensus. I've tried to engage with Ledenierhomme on the talk page many times now and explained that long standing, well sourced information cannot be removed without consensus but Ledenierhomme gives little if any explaination and continues to remove such content once the article is unprotected again. I have warned Ledenierhomme on Ledenierhomme's user talk page about breaching the 3RR rule, which Ledenierhomme has many breached times on this occassion, as well as many times before judging by other users' warnings on Ledenierhomme's user talk page. Ledenierhomme's contribution history appears to consist highly of reverts of other users' edits, which leads me to believe Ledenierhomme is simply an edit war account. I don't think continued protection of the Economy of the United Kingdom article will solve the problem as Ledenierhomme removes content once the article is unprotected. Australisian (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any recent 3RR violation there. In fact, I see a number a uninterrupted sequential edits today (you do know that a series of edits counts as one edit for the purposes of 3RR, don't you?) and before that at most 1 revert a day. In any case, if 3RR is really being broken, the correct place to report it is WP:3RRN. Each time the user is blocked for it will be for a longer period. This user has actually not been blocked since Feb 2008. It's possible that the 3RR warnings on his page are actually spurious or editors did not follow through with reporting. If the editor is actually breaking 3RR, please report in the correct place each time and the problem should solve itself through standard process. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like other users and Admins to join in this matter as I feel user:Yworo has not been neutral. There is a clear case of a user vandalising the article whenever the protection I've requested ends. Ledenierhomme deletes random paragraphs from the introduction, which is well sourced and long standing, without giving reasons for doing so. Yworo appears to be almost taking sides with this user, failing to warn the vandal while warning the very user who has been trying to protect the article. Australisian (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not informed the user of the discussion here which you are required to do. Why don't you do so now? Yworo (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of that requirement. I have told the user on their talk page now. Australisian (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

However, the point is Ledenierhomme is clearly vandalising the Economy of the United Kingdom article. Is vandalism not someone who deletes random sections of an article many times, deleting content which is long standing and well sourced, without consensus, without giving reasons for doing so? That is what Ledenierhomme has been doing. Australisian (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's a misrepresentation. He's been giving reasons, both in edit comments and on the talk page. You just don't happen to agree with his reasons. It's not clear to me that you've taken the time to understand them. OTOH, he may not have taken the time to make them clear to you. On the third hand, people tend not to bother to explain again once you start calling them a vandal. Yworo (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Attack/borderline threatening emails.

Resolved

 – Suspicious user blocked/email disabled. Thanks again everyone Tommy²⁰¹⁰_message 12:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Further resolved with user's talk page access removed - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am receiving emails from User talk:Louiefontanez regarding some of my reversions– that don't even pertain to anything I've done involving him and certainly not regarding any type of abuse with rollback for that matter either. The first email I received was this:

"I edited the page for North American GM President Mark Reuss and you said my edits on Miguel de Cervantes were vandalism. Are you stupid or on some power trip?

Congratulations on being signed up for Wikipedia for more than a few days. You are now qualified to be an unpaid editor. I don't speak when I'm not completely sure about the subject. Maybe you should try the same, Dick.

While I don't expect it from a piece of shit like you, I would be interested in the thought process that went into your decision to flag an article on a 21st century white man as vandalism in an article on a 17th century Spanish man."

Annoyed with not only him not getting his facts straight and for blatant personal attacks, I sent him a message on his User talk page and I also replied the email with "if you email me again, you will be blocked" (which supposedly didn't send).. supposedly. Then he replied with:

"You screwed up and now you're threatening me with what? The Wikipedia police? You didn't even have the right article. Do whatever you want. You can't do shit."

—Tommy2010 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is definitely misuse of the Wikipedia email feature. Violation of WP:NPA on both fronts. Since the warning you gave was met by another personal attack, I think a 24 block for personal attacks is needed and Louiefontanez email abilities blocked as well since they are being misused. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

While issuing a "Only Warning" (which I never did finish), I noticed that Louiefontanez has one edit in 2009, none in 2010. Something isn't write here. A possible checkuser is necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, are you sure you have the right guy? This user hasn't edited in over a year, and I don't see that GM person on his old contribs. Crum375 (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, positive. I have no idea... And all my edits are legit. Unless he's using IPs... but even then all my edits are legit so I don't know. —Tommy2010 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The email account his username... @hotmail.com —Tommy2010 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP account in question is this one, 69.171.163.209. That account edited both Mark Reuss and Miguel de Cervantes - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think thats it too... Ridiculous. Like I said, not even pertaining to me. —Tommy2010 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have requested a Checkuser via J.Delanoy's talk page, if anyone knows of a checkuser online, please message them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (: —Tommy2010 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- That user account has sent three emails in the last two days. --Versageek 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Would make sense. emailed me at least twice in the past 3 hours. —Tommy2010 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold onto those emails, an admin might want to take a look at them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, I've indef'd Louie with email disabled. He still has access to his talk page. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Shall we marked this as resolved then? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Per this, can someone disable his talk page access?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably going to need oversight for that also. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access is gone, working on oversight. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff oversighted. Nothing to see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive sock or pointy simulator

Resolved

 – VLB Pocketspup indef blocked as a sock by EyeSerene. Yworo (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at User:VLB Pocketspup? "Funny" name, exactly 10 edits in his own userspace, aged, now jumps into climate change articles with a clearly disruptive set of edits. I'd block him out of hand, but I'd rather have some very uninvolved admin do it to avoid drama. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, how am I being disruptive? Have I done something wrong? --VLB Pocketspup (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked - clearly someone's sock and not here to be productive. EyeSerene^talk 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a filter set up for autocon-busters, but it didn't get any hits and was disabled as a result. (The filter was set to log-only, so no worries about false positives blocking edits.) Would it be worthwhile to maybe enable the filter? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Has it changed to now get hits? Or would it just have caught this one by coincidence? ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan and User:Mister Flash

Disruptive behaviour and editing. Both these users exhibit remarkably similar behavior and a consistent pattern of assisting each other to revert edits involving "British Isles". Their behaviour is extremely disruptive and both these editors have a long history of inappropriate edit summaries where everything is an anti-British-Isles conspiracy or general ad hominen comments. Recently, their behaviour is simply getting worse. Some recent examples:

• List of most common surnames in Europe 3 reverts for MBM June 3rd
  • 1st 19:55 3 June 2010
  • 2nd 20:40, 3 June 2010
  • 3rd 20:44, 3 June 2010
• Enceladus (moon) 5 reverts in 24 hour period June 3rd
  • 1st 11:33, June 3rd
  • 2nd 12:10, June 3rd
  • 3rd, 16:06 June 3rd
  • 4th, 16:15 June 3rd
  • 5th, 16:19 June 3rd
• Silphidae Tag teaming and reverting (Article history)
• Britain's Strongest Man (Article history) 3 reverts by MF, then MBM reverted before another editor changed article.
• Cowboy (Article History) A lot of edit warring)

--HighKing (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This probably needs to go to WP:AN3. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a longer term problem here that so far, has failed to be addressed by AN3. Inappropriate edit summaries, blind reverting without engaging or discussing, ad hominen attacks, and tag-teaming meat-puppetry. I believe it's best to discuss centrally (at least initially, and decide a course of action). --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

HK is correct, there is a longer term problem, and that problem should be explained here so that users can view this issue in the correct context. For over two years User:HighKing has attempted to remove the phrase "British Isles" from as many articles as possible. Recently he has been joined by another editor User:Bjmullan with apparently the same mission. The tactic is to identify articles, almost at random, from the What Links Here facility at British Isles. Instances of British Isles are then either removed directly or flagged with a cite tag for later removal. Every argument under the sun including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV is used to justify removal, but the most common is to require inappropriate references for what is normally an issue incidental to the subject of the article. In a recent case at Britain's Strongest Man the article was even PROD'd in an attempt to remove "British Isles". HighKing's actions have been the subject of RfC and various other remedies, but all to no avail. He has steadfastly refused to enter into agreements not to either add or remove British Isles from articles. The current complaint is the result of the latest rash of attempted removals, and yes, I have been reverting removals, but only in response to a determined attempt to eliminate yet more instances of British Isles. I reject the accusations of meat puppetry and tag teaming; neither of these activities is taking place. I am happy to enter into an agreement with HighKing not to add or delete British Isles from articles but he always rejects the idea. We are surely moving towards a topic ban for all those involved in this dispute, a dispute which has spread across Wikipedia to hundreds of articles and which has caused concern and annoyance to very many editors. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit record speaks for it's self. I, unlikely MBM which seems like a SPA, conduct edits in a wide range of subject and I have only ever removed or replaced BI when there are valid reason for these changes. MBM on the other hand just revert and reverts, seldom if ever investigation the reason for the change. I find his behaviour at Enceladus (moon) where he broke the 3RR to be unacceptable (the NASA reference used does not use the term BI). At the article Silphidae‎ is reverted my edit FIVE times before actual checking the reference. He final comment was "Yikes, the BI junker is right, accidentally". What MBM doesn't seem to realise is it wasn't accidental it was me trying to improve the article. Bjmullan (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit record also speaks for itself, and MBM's illogical tirade above is an example of his ad hominen approach to the problem. You will never see MBM or MF actually discuss an article and references, only attack editors. This project relies on policies to produce well-sourced and well-researched articles. We even have a page set up for discussing this topic, but MBM and MF steadfastly refuse to entertain any sort of logic or references or reasonable discource. MBM's policy of reverting and name-calling is the problem, not the term "British Isles". Anybody that gets involved, from admins to countless other editors, get the same treatment of being accused of being anti-BI editors. This ANI report is not about whether BI usage - many editors disagree, but all editors are bound by the same code of behaviour and the same policies. There are only two editors that consistently breach policies, whether 3RR or CIVIL, and despite numerous past warnings, show no signs of adjusting their highly disruptive behaviour, hence this latest ANI. --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the 'page protection' route has been exhausted. Time for administrators to shut-down the removal/addition of British Isles from any articles, by handing out subject bans to whomever they see fit. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to request a RS citation for the use of a controversial term. And British Isles is a controversial term. I see no procedural problem in deleting the term British Isles if it remains uncited after having been tagged “citation needed” for a reasonable time. I also see no procedural problem in adding the term British Isles if a RS citation is provided. Shutting-down the removal/addition of British Isles from articles is not the answer. RS citation references is. Daicaregos (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That is true and every editor bar these two have agreed with this, but these two editors simply don't or won't agree, and refuse to countenance any discussion over usage of the term, directly leading to blindly reverting and the other ongoing problems and disruptive behaviour. It has gone on for far too long and must be addressed. This is about behaviour and not a content dispute. I sincerely ask admins here to please not ignore this issue as has happened in the past. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think we need to go to ArbCom and get a ruling similar to The Troubles. Then there wouldn't be any issue about blocks and other sanctions. Meanwhile, if you edit-war on BI issues so much that it causes disruption, I'll just block you anyway - as I have already if you read the block logs of some of the major combatants here. Your choice. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a cop out of dealing this incident. Your last block was appalling and positively encourages MBM and MF to continue their disruption. And why is it that I read Meanwhile, if you edit-war on BI issues so much that it causes disruption, I'll just block you anyway as confusingly illogical as I don't see any blocks handed out this time (maybe because you've no excuse to block me this time), and as a threat directed to me personally? Wouldn't it be great if you were as quick to direct threats at MBM and MF? I have not edit warred (including your last ill-conceived block), I follow consensus forming procedures, I explain reverts, put in good edit summaries, and try very hard to reach agreement - all of the advice I've been given by various admins over my years of editing. But MBM and MF literally do the opposite, and this complaint is still open, no blocks handed out, and you're talking as if I'm the problem and you want to haul it off to ArbCom? Seriously, I don't get it. It seems strangely one-sided to me.....

And isn't ArbCom usually for issues where the *usual* processes have broken down? Can we point to *usual* processes and failed remedies? Have we reached that stage here? Or, like I suggest, it's really just a case of a pair of *remarkably* similar editors that need to be strongly encouraged to follow normal consensus-forming processes? --HighKing (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"As if I'm the problem" you say. That's exactly it, you're the problem. If you didn't try and get rid of British Isles like you do there wouldn't be a problem. Show me someone who's trying to put in British Isles all the time; exactly! No one is, but you and BJMullan are doing the opposite. Mister Flash (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This will you your only warning Mister Flash - if you cannot conduct yourself civily on this site and communicate without using personal invective you will be blocked. You've had site policy explained multiple times. If you are not already aware that comments like the above are inappropriate - consider yourself advised of that they are. Please consider refactoring as per WP:Civil and WP:NPA--Cailil ^talk 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No HK, BlackKite's suggestion and action against you is not a cop out it is the inevitable result of the wholesale failure of all editors involved to attempt any form of constructive dispute resolution. I have repeatedly asked you all to seek mediation. By not doing so you have all refused to engage with the dispute resolution process. You have all continued your disruptive patterns of behaviour and at this point I am in favour of wholesale topic banning (and in some cases site banning for single purpose accounts) of everyone involved in revert warring.
Each of you bare a responsibility for the problem and ArbCom will deal with the totality of the matter. You were warned a number of times by me and others that this would be the outcome.
I recommend disengaging from the reverting, adding or removing the dispute terms from articles and entering formal mediation. If this is not done forthwith the only options the rest of the community have are these: a) block all of you until you get the message; or b) send the matter to arbcom and let them dealt with it--Cailil ^talk 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll go for mediation. Tell me how. Mister Flash (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow the process at WP:RFM - all parties must agree to participate or the request will fail.--Cailil ^talk 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just read the first paragraph of WP:RFM and we've got "Complaints concerning the actions of another editor are not appropriate for content mediation, and should instead be directed to the Arbitration Committee.". Is this OK for the BI usage problem? Mister Flash (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is then a non-starter as I don't agree. This is NOT about the so called BI issue but the fact the neither MBM and MF adhere to the rules and guidelines of WP. Things like reverting with comment, reverting because they don't like the edit, reinserting un-referenced material, using OR to add BI to article, remembering the 3RR and using the article talk page for a starters. Bjmullan (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong here as I don't know the full history of this. Was`there not agreement among editors to create Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples as an attempt to discuss rationally any disputes over the term 'British Isles' being used or not used in articles? Jack forbes (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't general agreement. Also, it's used only to discuss British Isles not being used in articles. No one ever puts a case to put it in. So it's all about getting rid and not about proper usage. Mister Flash (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically that's wrong, but in reality a quick look at the page shows exactly why we do need something similar to WP:ARBTRB. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I would have thought mediation would attempt to iron out any disagreements between the parties. I would suggest to the participants that this should be the first step before thinking of going to WP:ARBTRB. WP:ARBTRB will still be there if mediation doesn't work. Jack forbes (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you (Black Kite and Jack) this should be fixable through mediation if each editor entered into it willing to bury the hatchet and accept that their current behaviour is not constructive. But since Bjmullan just rejected mediation ArbCom is the only option.
In this situation rather than going for a troubles style resolution the committee could simply be asked to look at the behaviour of the editors involved in the revert wars - those using the BI special examples page properly can be left alone--Cailil ^talk 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then, since no admins have the appetite to tackle the problem (of behaviour) of two *remarkably* similar editors, and shy away from addressing the issue as set out here, and are actively pushing towards ArbCom, let's do it. But I'm really really disappointed at all the admins that have actively chosen to ignore the underlying behaviour issues and I see this as a *massive* buck-passing exercise. --HighKing (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those mind sapping disputes on wikipedia. I don't see it as a mediation issue as we have two SPA editors (Flash and Midnight) who have prevented any attempt to take a more structured approach by blind reverting (often with abuse) and unthinking refusal to accept any change. HighKing to be fair has been prepared to engage in that process. Either a small group of admins have to engage with the examples page and resolve them issue by issue until the SPAs realise things have changed. While I would accept mediation I don't hold out much hope of it working given that this is a behavioral issue. I agree with Cailil that it is probably Arbcom, however I think the full range of behaviour on the examples page (with the links to articles) should be subject to review. --Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of admins watching this page, so perhaps there will be a small group willing to engage with the examples page and help resolve the issues. Black Kite and Cailil, would you both volunteer your time to do this? Jack forbes (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While I see merit in the BI Special examples page - I, as an Irish man am the wrong person for the job. You'll notice I haven't blocked anyone for BI insertions / deletions. The reason for this is the appearance of bias. While I am not biased or involved and can see the totality of the matter it would be better for an action taken not to have even the appearance of bias. I will still look in on this from time to time and may follow through with civility or 3RR blocks - but right now what's needed are topic bans. Someone else will have to implement that. Also I'm not wikipedia enough or regularly enough to keep up with that page. For all of these reasons I'm not teh man for this job. I will however make submissions to an RfAr if one is opened--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't need Admins to resolve the issues, what we need is for MBM and MF to stick to the rules and action to be taken against them when they don't. But it looks like no one seems to be willing to do that ... Bjmullan (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have tried that before, but the problem is that it needs everyone to take part in the process. Also, the reason I gave up with the SE page was that nearly every time I "closed" a discussion, the "losing" side kicked up a fuss. I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused of bias by both sides. Now, that probably means that I was doing the job correctly, but it becomes such a time sink because of the Wikilawyering by both sides that I eventually said "OK, find someone else to do it". I'm quite happy to give it another go, but the disruptiveness on both sides must stop for it to work properly. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, only one "side" kicked up a fuss when you closed a discussion. I also can't recall you ever been accused of bias by anybody but "one side" either. And no, you weren't doing the job properly. And no, you stepped away from the job in Dec, after a particularly disruptive day by our favorite pair of *remarkably* similar editors, when you said Fuck That" and deleted a call for help on your Talk page, and told us you didn't have the stomach for that crap any more.

Last time when you were involved, I decided I would voluntarily go along with the SE page despite my misgivings that it would end up simply as a form of censorship. I got involved primarily because of your encouragement and that of Snowded. You got involved at the start and to my mind quickly identified problematic behaviour and problematic editors. You issued direwarnings on Talk pages, laying down the law. The law was simple, and what was needed. But that failed. Not once did you take action.

But you're not alone. In Feb, User:2over0 filed an AN/I against MF, but it got nowhere. It seems admins can't separate disruptive behaviour from the issue of consensus forming. Let me help. As Black Kite pointed out in his rules, if an editor refuses to engage in constructive consensus forming discussions, reverts without providing explanations, reverts with inappropriate edit summaries, or breaches 3RR - then that editor is being disruptive. Doesn't matter if they're discussing "British Isles" or "Gaza Strip" or "Northern Ireland".

Black Kite, I used to have the greatest of respect for you as an editor and as a no-nonsense admin that wasn't afraid to step up and get a job done. The stickier, the better. But today, I don't believe you are the best candidate to get involved. Even though you were primarily involved in setting up the SE page, you abjectly failed to police the process or take any action when there were clear breaches of *your* rules, and it gives me no confidence that you'll do it right this time. But the final nail in the coffin was in April. I filed an AN/I report against MBM here (same issues as we're discussing here) which you marked as resolved (Taken elsewhere), but what you actually did was block *me* for edit warring! Except I had a total of 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 separate articles! That was bullshit. That was unacceptable. I'm not paranoid, but it does show more than a little perverseness and inconsistency that you steadfastly refused to hand out blocks to huuuuugeeee breaches of *your* rules last year, and then take on a perverse interpretation of edit warring to hand out a block to me.

But kudos to you and Cailil for responding here. It's a deafening silence from the other admins. --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively, just slap a pseudo-topicban on the relevant editors which means they are not allowed to add or delete BI from any article at all without it being discussed at SE. That would probably stop a lot of the issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Wouldn't make any difference. That's what we had before Mullan came on the scene with his instant deletions. All you end up with is the likes of HighKing promoting significant numbers of cases for deletion. Others are then sent scurrying round for references or spend tons of time arguing about individual cases. Ultimately HK etc. maybe gets a 60-70% win rate and continues then with the never-ending supply of articles containing the dreaded words. It ends up as a continuing battle. Your suggestion is precisely what the removal men are after. It results in BI being slowly but surely taken down according to the long-term objective. No-one puts forward cases for inclusion, why should they? This is what you get when one camp is determined to force a point of view (BI deletion) when there's no opposing camp. I'm just part of what maybe called a damage limitation squad. No, the only solution is agreed or enforced topic bans. I'll move off British Isles right now, won't add it, won't delete it, if HK will do the same, but he won't. Mister Flash (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash, this is not a forum for you to speculate on other people's motives - that is unacceptable use of the talkspace. Secondly you can't demand an editor whom you have had numerous and protracted content disputes with stop editing anything. If you wish to disengage then do so - if not then don't.
Be clear I would prefer to see you all disengage - but it has to be unconditional--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As soon as anybody breaches 3RR, block baby block. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's also a cop out. Why make up special rules? What's wrong with existing policies? This isn't a special case. It's really simple. Editors that don't follow the process of consensus forming, revert without giving reasons, revert with ad hominen comments and edit summaries, and breach 3RR, should be blocked. All we actually need is an admin that will implement existing long-standing tried-and-tested rules and policy. --HighKing (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR violations are obvious and have a process for that purposes. Tag teaming and povpushing are more complex and both "sides" have been doing this--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, sounds great in theory - except I pointed out a 5RR here, yet nobody has actually issued any blocks. And what about all the rest? The reverting without giving reasons, inappropriate edit summaries, ad hominen attacks? And what exactly are the "sides" anyway? Who's on each "side"?? *Every* participant on the SE page objects to the behaviour of MBM and MF, so how come they simple get away with this disruptive behaviour? Why do I get the impression that admins here would be much easier to satisfy if there were clearly delineated "sides", and where blocks could be issued to "both" sides? What is so difficult about examining the behaviour of MBM and MF? For example, as MF points out below, take a look at what has happened in the past 10 minutes on the Enceladus (moon) article.

And as a pointer to those admins still following here, if you look at the last 100 article edits for MF dating back to March 8th, 75 are reverts involving "British Isles". Of those 75 reverts, 40 had no edit summary. 85 of the last 100 article edits involve the British Isles. But everyone is OK with that, right? Even though Black Kite has in the past warned against my edits being mass reverted, MF and MBM know at this stage that it's a joke. Nobody will actually take any action against them. And even though there were warnings about following another editors edits and reverting, again, that was really only intended for "one side", right? The other side can just safely indulge, right? And you lot can go ahead and label *all* participants as "disruptive" even though, clearly, there are only two disruptive editors!. --HighKing (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Readers might like to pop over to Enceladus (moon) and see that despite the discussions going on here User:HighKing is still trying to get rid of British Isles, even as I write. He is being aided and abetted by User:Bjmullan who is currently vandalising the article in an attempt to loose British Isles. Make of it what yoou will. Mister Flash (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You just don't get it. What I am trying to do is reflect what NASA was doing with the image. Maybe it was Belgium, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Great Britain, Northern France....who knows? I'll tell you who knows, that guy from NASA. Bjmullan (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This time it's 6 reverts! And surprise, surprise, no blocks.....? And to think I can get blocked for 5 reverts on 3 articles over 3 days, and then have my block log dragged up at every opportunity.... --HighKing (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it's time for Arbitration Enforcement. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is, GoodDay. I think it's time for looking at the dispute a little more closely before we go there. I recently gave an opinion on one of the threads at the examples page [75]. I was immediately told that I was one of a trio who were determined to rid wikipedia of the term British Isles [76]. A strange thing to say considering I've hardly taken an interest in the subject. This is the type of comment that could be monitored if admins were taking a closer look at the page. Jack forbes (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We've just had 6 reverts on an article and no action taken. This is the responsibility of admins to enforce the rules and policies they've been elected to enforce. The underlying behaviour of MBM and MF is the problem. GoodDay, how is it that everybody else seems to disagree/get along *without* being disruptive? --HighKing (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

6RR, is reverting gone wild. It's time for administrators to commence blocking. We can't keep protecting pages forever. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article has now been protected. Mister Flash (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI case needs eyes

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen

A number of us believe that our old friend User:SkagitRiverQueen is back and socking in violation of her one-year ban, which as some might remember was enacted via a unanimous community vote. A checkuser has determined that a slough of IPs, plus two registered accounts, were all being used by the same user, but the behavioral evidence linking to SkagitRiverQueen has yet to be examined. Both registered accounts have been blocked, but determining whether this is SRQ would be important in deciding whether or not to extend her one-year ban (presumably to indefinite). If anyone can take a look and offer thoughts on a WP:DUCK determination it would help. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:18, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Notified SRQ by email, asked if she had anything she wanted me to pass on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

More eyes, please... uninvolved or involved. Unbelievable lack of closure. Clearly a quacking DUCK... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All the editors who have taken notice of this users socking is due to her behaviors looking like WP:DUCK. Her following User:DocOfSoc to obscure articles and also the comments the socks made that were in some cases identical to SRQ. What needs to be discussed is how to stop her IP's from socking and whether her extention should be made indefinite or changed to the time the socking was confirmed. That is my opinion on this matter anyways. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As CU on this case, I can say that SRQ accessed Wikipedia through the same means as the two recent socks, although from an apparently different location. Because there is no overlapping editing, this could represent a move or unreliable geolocation. There's no technical reason to believe SQR is not the same user. Given the behavioral evidence posted on the SPI, I think it's more likely than not that SQR returned as these accounts. Take a look at the SPI. Cool Hand Luke 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RFA self-nom topic ban for User:Gobbleswoggler

Resolved

 – User has voluntarily agreed [77] to this proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user filed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler in February, and it was quickly closed as a clear case of WP:NOTNOW. Today Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 4 was also closed for the exact same reason. Numerous users have tried to counsel them to wait a significant period of time before posting another but have been ignored. Given this user's inability or unwillingness to get the point I propose they be banned from nominating themselves for adminship for a period of one year. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not kick him when he's down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, he's been asked nicely and had the situation explained to him numerous times already and has pushed ahead anyway. He seems either unwilling or unable to understand why he continues to get shot down so rapidly, and since he won't listen to reason a formal restriction seems warranted. If he would voluntarily agree to it that would be fine too. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for a "formal restriction", it's not that big a deal. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to read/vote in his RFA's. Why have a long drawn out ban discussion for something that really isn't an actual problem? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Then what about the User:Wiki Greek Basketball fiasco? –MuZemike 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. That is exactly what I was thinking of. While Gobble isn't acting as unreasonable, there is an air of deja vu to this. Repeatedly taking actions that are directly contrary to a very strong well-established consensus is exactly the sort of thing users are topic banned for all the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. If he's not willing to discuss this, and he's not willing to take advice, he needs to be prevented from being disruptive. I guess this is progress, although it's not much. Like Wiki Greek, it's even more infuriating because Gobble is a good contributor otherwise. Şłџğģő 20:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, I'd prefer to see this editor voluntarily state that he'll not self-nom for a year, which would reflect better on him in the future. Failing that, the community needs to act and impose the restriction. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious question: since the user has continued to nominate himself, why is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2 deleted? I could see deleting it to encourage them not to continue nominating themselves, but since that didn't work, the record of their previous nominations should be available to future RfA voters. For the record, I can't view deleted pages and rarely do anything at RfA, but I'm genuinely curious whether there's anything there material to a discussion of this user. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted under G7, but that doesn't seem to apply, since it was indeed edited by others aside from the original author. I've been bold and restored it. Shimeru (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, RfA #3 doesn't seem to exist, having been moved to 2 previously. The current #4 should probably be moved to #3 for housekeeping, accordingly. Have not done so since it's currently under discussion. Shimeru (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I read it (remember, without the ability to see deleted pages), RfA1 is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler, RfA2 is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2, RfA3 is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler 2 (note the capital G), and RfA4 is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 4. A careful reader will perceive an obvious argument against deleting RfAs in the first place. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, yes. Well spotted. Seems a different housekeeping move is in order, then. >.> Shimeru (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no pressing need for a ban, and certainly not for a one-year long one (a lot can change in a year). The user does not have a history of problematic editing, aside from too many RfAs, and has been a positive contributor otherwise. A ban would likely just drive him away from Wikipedia altogether. The previous RfA from him was in early March, right? (Or was it February?) His RfAs have not been sufficiently disruptive, IMO, to justify a ban. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Where's the harm? If he keeps nominating himself for adminship despite not being ready, he'll just get turned down again and again. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Other than the RfAs, he does very good, worthwhile work here. Isn't there a possibility that the rejections will pile up so high he'll feel his presence is not wanted any more? Şłџğģő 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2 so it doesn't appear here soon? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have made this request too. Since I'm not a bureaucrat, I couldn't close it myself when I undeleted. Shimeru (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be a 'crat to close an RFA that has no chance- or in this case, is purely a procedural close. So, done. Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support a ban. It's becoming disruptive, and wastes time having to close it for the umpteenth occasion. Aiken ♫ 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. If, in this year he were to suddenly become the perfect candidate for adminship, he could still be nominated by someone else. 4 RFAs in less than 6 months are a wee bit too many for me. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support because we don't need the hassle each time. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support with a little bit of hesitation: I agree that this is not quite as extreme a case a WGB, but it is along similar lines: an editor who otherwise makes good edits, but fails to listen to well-intentioned advice. A year ban seems adequate to me - and perhaps making it also a condition that should he be nominated by another user (although no such nomination should be allowed under any circumstances in the next 6 months), the nominating editor has to have at least a year's editing, or something similar (a pre-emptive strike against potential friends asked to create an account just to nominate them) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I find this pattern to be disruptive. mono 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support TO PhantomSteve, what if a potential nominator's first edit had to be before 3 June 2010, or be a sysop themselves, as a prevention against meatpuppetry. It's a shame, as he's a good editor otherwise, but too much focus on the sysop bit isn't doing anyone any good here- including gobbleswoggler. Courcelles (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not a big burden to have a notnow close done on the RfA's, and it is possible that in 11 months one could succeed. If it becomes so much that it is disruptive then some action can be taken, but that may be at a dozen requests. Most self-noms do not succeed, but that is a discussion for WT:RFA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Floquenbeam. It was a well intentioned self-nom. As long as they're well intentioned, there's no harm. It is never a waste of time unless it harms the encyclopedia, and since this isn't article space, I don't see how it does. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Seems like a waste of time. --ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Floquenbeam. No reason for this now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Moot Gobble has agreed [78] to self ban for a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Why does Malleus have a free pass to be nasty?

It's no secret that User:Malleus Fatuorum and I don't care for one another. That's fine, you can't expect to get along with everybody. What you can, or at least should, expect is not to be personally attacked on your talk page by someone that you have already asked in the past to stay away from your talk page. Malleus said I was a liar, a disgrace, and a "dishonest pratt" [79] [80] despite being asked, both today and in the past, to stay away from my talk page, And yes, I told him to fuck off. Three times. In those words. That is what you tell someone who won't take the hint to go away and enjoys coming around just to stir up trouble. Why does Mal get a pass? Why is it that every time he is blocked for being nasty he is unblocked again? Why is he apparently entirely exempt from WP:NPA? I would add that continuing to post on a users talk page after being repeatedly asked not to would also get any other user blocked. I would fully expect to be blocked if I did such a thing, why does he get a free pass? How long are we going to let this go on? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a question that occurred to me recently. When I pointed out to Malleus that telling another editor to "grow up" was out of bounds civility-wise, he told me to "fuck off". Other editors joined him in this incivility and it was clear they considered themselves a privileged clique immune from repercussions from these actions. See this section of his talk page. Yworo (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And his reaction to being informed of this thread was to call me a "dishonest twat." I dpn't even know what I did this time to deserve his ire, and I don't care, but he is so far out of line it's ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I really feel for you Beeblebrox, its not funny being the victim of bullying.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's simple: There are a group of users including many admins who feel that WP:CIV is optional for good contributors. That's basically it. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:47, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is clearly faulty Yworo, and not for the first time. Beeblebrox has admitted to telling me to "fuck off" at least three times. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're telling me that two wrongs do make a right? I don't think so. Yworo (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Two wrongs doesnt make it right Malleus. If he told you those words, you shouldnt use the same language back as you then "lower" youself to the same level making any argument about bullying etc etc totally useless Malleus. Yworos comments also seems to be only a reaction to your first comments to him. Try to be more friendly with your fellow editors. Yworo has right in this situation not you.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you investigate before you pontificate. When have I asked BeebleBrox to "fuck off"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

While I make no comments on the perceived attacks/incivility, I must say that editing someone's talk page, calling them unpleasant things, is not really on. Sometimes the case is that people come to Malleus's talk page - it's fair game for him to tell them to f off there, but in this case, is Malleus looking for trouble? If he thinks those things of Beeblebrox, it makes me wonder why he keeps going to his talk page. Aiken ♫ 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it fair game to tell anyone to "fuck off" anywhere on Wikipedia. Politely ask them to stop posting on ones talk page, yes. Yworo (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why is Beeblebrox (an admin) saying it? Malleus was just giving his opinion. Aiken ♫ 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer that, but I don't think he is right to do it either. Yworo (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So will you be attempting to sanction him as well? No, of course you won't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

THis discussion isnt about that user its about you Malleus, isnt it time to owe up to your comments and perhaps apologize to everyone?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Look. You're all here because you want me to blocked, as some kind of a punishment for some imagined crime against "civility". What you don't seem to realise is that I hold you in no regard whatsoever, so do whatever you like. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can we please just cut to the chase here? I believe that BeebleBrox is an incompetent and abusive administrator, and ought to be desysopped. I fully recognise though that none of his admin friends will agree with that assessement, and I have no faith in the integrity of the admin corps or the rather ineffective measures that claim to control their excesses. So ban me, it's what you all want. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, isnt that what you really want so you can be really mad afterwards. Why not try to be polite and friendly like 99% of the other editors?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, nobody wants you banned. Aiken ♫ 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is your best trick to play the victim, Malleus? You brag about your incivility pattern. Don't complain if it comes back at you. --Cyclopia^talk 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is uncanny how only the incompetent admins seem have issues with Malleus... Resolute 23:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really; just that some of us realise that our limited time here might be better directed to reverting and blocking vandals, amongst other valuable work. If you want my opinion, you may ask for it, but it's likely to be swamped by unnecessariness. This kind of unfocussed and apparently unnecessarily dramatic ego-pushing is a matter of supreme indifference to me. I would prefer to spend my time improving this encyclopedia where I can before I die. You kids! Rodhullandemu 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

lol. Um, I think you and I are in complete agreement on that point! I'm not sure exactly why, or if, you are disagreeing with me, but my comment was intended to be commentary on Malleus' victim complex rather than the competence of any administrator. Resolute 23:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am happy someone has brought the issue. I was thinking of doing it myself, after having assisted to this disgusting WQA thread. What is especially concerning is the people that explicitly endorse double standards in favour of MF handwaving "pragmatism". This is much worse than Malleus' behaviour per se. --Cyclopia^talk 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'd say an RFC/U is the logical next step. I know you wrote one recently for B9HH. I've not had any experience putting one of those together, but I'd be happy to certify it. Yworo (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd certify it, too. I'm almost positive this is my first interaction with MF, and it is an entirely unprovoked personal attack. (Although it was a minor one. Once I replied with my customary snot, I was treated to this devastating zinger.) Şłџğģő 23:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its definitly a pattern for the user. Friendly questions and requests are met with rudeness and bully remarks.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence in support of your prejudice? Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It has already been presented. By many different editors.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See my comment right above ÅlandÖland's comment. I already typed this out and ÅÖ edit conflicted me with practically the same message. How about that. Şłџğģő 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the exchange that seems to have prompted this, I would say that both users are at fault here. Beeblebrox, perhaps Malleus is unwelcome at your talk page, but in his defense it looks like he was agreeing with you when he first posted there, so "fuck off" is a bit of an over-the-top response (what ever happened to just removing or archiving posts from people who aren't welcome?). Sure, Malleus' behavior has been discussed before and perhaps another discussion needs to be had, but I don't think it would be fair to do that in a context like this where he didn't even throw the first blow. If anyone's going to be chided, both of you can be, and then we can all just move on. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) *For the record your account is in error, his first post to my page today was this completely out of the blue attack: [81]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Far more users have indicated a belief that MF doesn't follow WP:CIVIL than have indicated the same towards Beeblebrox. Equivocating those users' civility failings is ridiculous. Şłџğģő 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't recall BeebleBrox telling me to "fuck off" his talk page, but I may have missed it. Now that he's shown his true colours I'm quite happy to fuck off from his talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you hate being on Wikipedia then why not find another site where you feel more at home Malleus? Or do you just like to start conflicts?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm here because I think the idea of wikipedia is a worthy one, but I'm here at this ANI cesspit because the idea has clearly been corrupted. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

When you edit warred with me several months ago on my talk page, I asked you to stop posting there and removed your comments. When you posted today to call me a liar (I still don't know what it was I am supposed to have lied about) I told you to fuck off, as that sort of language seems to be the only kind you understand and you often use it with others. I don't know why you think I'm incompetent or a disgrace, but I don't believe I belong to any elite cadre of admins, if I do they haven't bothered to let me know I'm a member. If you think I should be desysopped gather your evidence that I have abused the tools or otherwise behaved in a manner unbecoming an administrator and initiate an RFC, don't just come around and make petty insults without even explaining the reasons behind them. In other words: put up or shut up. If you can't substantiate your accusations, keep them to yourself. I would still like to know why Malleus gets a free pass to act like this, if I had behaved as he often does I assuredly would have been desysopped by now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was obvious. I think you're incompetent and a disgrace because you are. But let's back to why you started this fiasco. Can you remember? Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't have been desysopped. – B.hotep •talk• 01:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I started this? What was this:[82]. I'll tell you what it was, a completely unprovoked attack with no explanation. The thread was about some very minor involvement I had in a matter nearly a year ago, nobody had commented on the thread in two days, and along you come and start insulting me completely out of the blue for no apparent reason. We call that trolling. You could hardly find fault with my reply since your own talk page contains remarks like this: "As I already said, fuck off and take your poncey attitude elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)". In case it's not clear, in my opinion it is you who are a disgrace, or more accurately your cadre of admin friends who unblock you every time you are rightfully blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You should have been desysopped long before now, because you do exactly as those you so vehemently denounce for "incivilty". That you're clearly unable to see that speaks volumes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down

Particularly here on ANI, it would be very helpful if all parties stopped making personal attacks and hostile comments. Please stop poking and baiting each other as well. These incidents are stressful enough without a whole large group of editors all descending into a flame war on a public page.

If you are planning to post and cannot do so in a calm and respectful manner, consider that perhaps your comment is not going to be helpful and advance reviewing the situation and case, and might not be a good idea to post at all.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here here. Everyone needs to calm down. I've found that when people act rudely to me, I just reply with random things like Red Sox statistics, or whatever the hell I want to talk about and it makes me feel better. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this so complicated? MF's comments here and on Beeblebrox's talk page are clearly out of bounds, are blockable, and are well within the purpose of issuing blocks. We don't need an RfC to figure that out. This matter is stale so it's a moot point. But next time a block will help prevent this needless drama and time sink, why not simply do it and if any administrator cares to overturn civility blocks they do so at the risk of sullying their own record? If you do that, MF will either clean up his act or leave the encyclopedia on his own... waiting for this to accumulate to the breaking point because nobody is ready to act until then will probably result in a community ban. Although people should not be calling administrators liars, etc., there is an expectation that administrators should tolerate the abuse that often comes with the role with some amount of grace and decorum. If Beeblebrox is a poor administrator or is engaging in disruption that should be blocked (something I have no opinion about), there are forums for dealing with that too. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They do seem out of bounds, but if Beeblebrox can't politely ask MF to stop, there are proper channels to get MF to stop or voice his concerns in a more constructive manner. Once BB stooped to MF's level, all sides were at fault, regardless of what actually started the conflict. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. MF's comments in this thread alone are already sufficient to justify a longish block. Nsk92 (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It won't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, know that. I think most everybody here does. The question is, why not? Şłџğģő 04:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of like trying to deal with a rabid dog in your backyard. Rather than confronting it, you just hope it will go away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But it never does, it just sits there in the backyard, foaming at the mouth and bringing down real-estate values in the neighborhood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Eventually an RfC/U will be started, then ArbCom will be called in, and after many hourse of testimony, something might happen. That, in a nutshell, is why admins put up with it until everybody gets mad at the guy, then something will happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternately, an administrator could simply cut to the chase and issue a longish block when there's gross incivility that needs to stop. That takes all of a minute. I don't see why nobody has the resolve to do what needs to be done, and to brush off the inevitable name-calling that results. That's what we elect them for, isn't it? RfA isn't to elect a bunch of dog catchers who refuse to catch dogs. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In theory, yes. And then another admin would immediately unblock the guy, and then a megillah would be unrolled here and ultimately nothing would come of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Which begs the ultimate question, since MF obviously has no control over whether or not he gets blocked. What in hell is the matter with the various admins in MF's pocket? My favorite is Gwen Gale's, who has impressively made it this far without ever reading the civility policy. Şłџğģő 04:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you, you're mistaken Sluggo, I support short, preventative civility blocks, but when one admin out of one or two dozen (or more) can undo them without consulting the blocking admin, knowing that WP:WHEEL has sway over a further block, civility among experienced editors here is trashed. These uncivil editors not only use their slurs and baiting to win content disputes, they drive far more helpful content contributors away than they could ever make up for with their own contributions. I say keep blocking them until they either learn how to contribute without snark, or leave the project, because they do much harm to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my favorite in that block log is the admin who undid a 24-hour block after 12 minutes with the note "ineffective block". Well... yeah, the block is pretty much ineffective when you undo it.

Given the propensity for some admins to unblock them no matter what, the rest of the admin corps deals with people like MF and Giano as if they were unstoppable elemental forces of nature -- I mean, you can complain about the weather, but there's not much you can do about it, really. MF & G realize this, and correctly ascertain that they have carte blanche to behave any way they wish. From their point of view, that's a perfectly rational response to their situation; unpleasant, uncivil and frequently rather nasty, but entirely rational.

Since that's the situation, and it doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon, it's probably best to just mentally pigeonhole them into the appropriate slot, and try to ignore them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Per Bugs and BMK above, and per me as well. It's obviously my raison d'etre to be a poncey asshole and to have the last word of course, but for all that I recommend leaving this user in peace while he works through his civility issues, and if that fails, draft a properly constructed RFC/U. As with a certain other user, they enjoy extra leeway because they add value to the encyclopedia, and so there is no stomach for a community ban. RFC/U then Arbcomm if necessary. Of course as I said in the second diff, if MF could just express his dissent about the injustices and "hypocrisy" that he sees on the site in more socially acceptable ways, life would be so much easier for everyone. It seems that he doesn't have that in him at the moment, sadly. So leave him alone, ignore him if you can, and if it's still like this in a week or two, seek the next step, would be my advice. --John (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Malleus block log and absolute indifference -if not conscious opposition- to everyone asking him to behave differently seem to indicate your "wait-and-see" strategy is not going to work. --Cyclopia^talk 09:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I just love this, people getting oh so het up about Malleus' 'incivility' whilst at the same time comparing him to a foaming at the mouth rabid dog. Hypocritical idiots. Quantpole (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What a load of rot. Malleus is a fine editor, and there are far better things to be doing than conducting bloody witchhunts against the bloke. But, of course, the admin corps need their pound of flesh and wouldn't dare go looking for it amongst themselves. Skinny87 (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OOh please, Malleus has given incivility a name... just look it up in a dictionairy and you find Malleus profile there:)--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Quantpole and Skinny87, I don't think anyone is denying that MF is, in some ways, a fine editor. Thing is, he also seems to have a dirty word problem. None of us is perfect of course, but I don't think it is hypocritical to question what we should do about this user's serial incivility (no scare quotes). It certainly can't go on long term. In suggesting folks try to ignore him and see if he settles down on his own, I am in no way condoning his behavior. Just trying to be pragmatic about how we deal with it. --John (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is hypocritical to ignore the numerous fuck offs from Beeblebrox and the incivilities in this very discussion from various other editors. Stop treating Wikipedia as some sort of grudge match by abusing the incivility policy to go after those you don't happen to like. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ok people, let's try this again. Here are the facts:

• Last year Malleus and I did indeed have an edit war on my talk page. We both edit warred, I'll admit that. He persistently posted remarks after I asked him to stop and I kept replacing them with a "don't feed the trolls" graphic

I should think Malleus got the point from that incident that I did not wish him to post further to my talk page

• Yesterday for no apparent reason he began posting there again, beginning with an edit in which he called me a liar but did not explain what I was lying about

That is trolling, plain and simple

• I told him to fuck off
• He posted some more remarks
• I told him to fuck off again
• He posted some more remarks
• I removed those remarks from my talk page and initiated this thread
• Malleus called me a twat when I informed of this thread as required by policy
• Malleus posted here saying he didn't remember being told to fuck off from my talk page even though he had already recored the remark on his own talk page
• Malleus plays the victim and keeps attacking me by saying I am incompetent an a liar yet refuse to substantiate those claims
• I still don't know what made him want to show up on my talk page uninvited and began insulting me, but I stand by my statement that it was trolling. If not, then what was it? What possible purpose was served by it? This is not a witch hunt, I didn't come after Malleus, he came after me for no apparent reason. Trolling is trolling no matter who does it, and Malleus trolled my talk page. I admit I fell for it and responded emotionally, which is exactly what trolls want. Malleus claims to hate the drama, and yet he undeniably stirred this up himself. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• MF telling anyone to "grow up" is ironic, and also funny, since that kind of comment is most typically made by a teenager. Adults don't tell each other to "grow up". I think you should simply roll back any post on your page by MF, without comment, justified based on being strictly harassment. From what I've seen, he has no intention of "working out his incivility problems", and if the admins won't block him, the only effective strategy is to treat him as if he were already banned, rolling back any comments on your talk page as if they had been posted by any old perennial troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Compliance with WP:CIV should never be considered optional

I don't know the principals in this dispute. But I believe I do know two important points, made above, but important enough to repeat here.

1. As we all learned in kindergarten, "two wrongs don't make a right". I think our policies and other wikidocuments are clear on this -- when we feel someone is being rude to us, or personally attacking us, we are never supposed to respond in kind.
2. As another contributor wrote: "There are a group of users including many admins who feel that WP:CIV is optional for good contributors."

I can definitely confirm that some of the wikipedia's administrators act as if the wikipedia's civility policies do not apply to them. I would strongly urge those administrators to do what we are all supposed to do when we feel tempted to respond in kind to perceived incivility. Asking for help, or the opinion, of uninvolved third parties, is a good choice.

I don't like being the target of incivility, and personal attacks. But I find it a lot easier to handle that kind of behavior from non-administrators, who are my equals, and can't use their administrator tools to retaliate.

I request any administrator who doesn't feel willing or able to comply with the wikipedia's civility policies to resign their administratorship, because I think we should all agree that compliance with those policies should never be considered optional. Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with most, but the discussion isn't (or wasn't, in any case) about an administrator. The most well-known "problem editors" in this vein aren't admins. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I am an admin. And I did tell Malleus to fuck off. And I would do so again if he posted to my talk page again. If every admin who had traded insults with Malleus resigned we would be short staffed in a hurry, despite his victim act he obviously enjoys stirring up drama, or else why did he begin posting insults to my talk page yesterday? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We would certainly be rid of the worst of them, which those more honest than yourself might consider to be a good thing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The best way to deal with foul-language, is to ignore the foul-languager. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And the best way to deal with trolling is to block the person doing it, yet nobody will do it to "the unblockable one." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But if no one will do it at present, be patient, grasshopper. As with other now-banned users, he will eventually get enough users fed up that appropriate action be taken. One thing to keep in mind: If someone is uncivil with you, that does not diminish you, it only diminishes the name-caller. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Malleus just appears disappointed that this potentially limitless resource has become instead an online game of "gotcha". What is contributed by any editor is less important his ability to play by the rules of several nonsensical social games which have nothing to do with actually building anything encyclopedia-like. In this "Civility" game what is said is less important than how it is said. "Incivility" never caused any harm to the encyclopedia. If a good, productive, valuable editor tells you to "fuck off", well then do that, and get back to work. If Malleus' choice of words offend you, then perhaps they were meant to, and perhaps for a good reason. Malleus is not "playing victim". He's a disillusioned idealist. That the ban of such a valuable editor is considered all-but-inevitable by both him and others says more about the the project than it does about the editor. So says I. Dekkappai (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• What a fascinating and enlightening discussion. Not. Have your necktie party wherever you like, it's your loss, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo treats CIV as optional - choosing to insult or attack editors he doesn't like. Many admins treat CIV as optional - choosing to insult or attack editors they don't like. Often, it's the admins who most often resort to abusive language and personal attacks who make the most noise about trying to kick of editors who sometimes stoop to their level. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So? Much as he likes to think of himself as such and much as the brown-nosers and sycophants like to believe the contrary, he is not God! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Catch-22 Absurdity

I registered my Username, Albert Sumlin, on April 21 of this year. After one month of editing I was blocked without warning as a suspected sockpuppet. Following the instructions, I filed an unblock request on the grounds that it was my first and only account. For my trouble, I got juvenile insults from "Smashville." So, I read the "Guide to Appealing Blocks," and anything else I could find on the subject, only to learn that there really is no way to appeal a block once you have been accused of sockpuppetry, and any attempt to prove your innocence, such as by requesting an IP number check, will only serve as proof of your guilt. Curiouser and curiouser. So, I set about to try to understand why I had been blocked. After spending a considerable amount of time, I was satisfied that I had learned the answer, so I created a second account and filed this report: [83] Within minutes, there was a tag placed on my user page by "NeutralHomer," expressing a concern that "Sumlin, Albert" may be a sock puppet of "Albert sumlin." Good one, "NeutralHomer"! Except that Sumlin, Albert is not a sock puppet of Albert Sumlin, he is Albert Sumlin, searching Wikipedia like Diogenes for someone who has an ounce of sense. Meanwhile, Will Beback, who executed the original malicious block of my username, writes in response to my report, "Even if this user was not a sock, this is not the right way to appeal a block" -- Right! Because there actually is no right way to appeal a block! It reminds me of the 17th century practice of dunking a woman to ascertain whether she was a witch. If she drowned, she was innocent. That's what I call a "win-win" situation.

If you all don't want new editors, why don't you just say so, instead of calling yourselves "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The late Mr. Sumlin (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did you read that there is no way to appeal a sockpuppeting block? Crum375 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here:[84] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The late Mr. Sumlin (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You do know that you're allowed more than one {{unblock}} request, don't you? Go back to your original account and plead your case. Creating block-evading accounts is definitely not the right way to be unblocked and only serves to reinforce the original assumptions. —DoRD (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, it doesn't say that. It says you shouldn't ask for checkuser evidence. You can always appeal a block, and should do so, if you believe you are innocent. Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've unblocked on the basis of WP:AGF. There is zero Checkuser evidence, although the original account is so old that records would no longer available; there is no WP:SPI case to support this block. Merely "editing the same articles" is a very weak basis on which to block for sockpuppetry, and there is nothing, zero, nada, that I have seen to support this. Meanwhile, we have risked losing a potentially good editor on the basis of very thin evidence. If I'm wrong, I'm open to correction, but I am old-fashioned and prefer to see some, er, evidence. Rodhullandemu 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I am old fashioned too, and if the blocking admin says "If any admins have questions about this block then please email me", I contact that admin by email prior to unblocking. Crum375 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What Crum375 said. In many cases it's not a good idea to state publicly what led to the block. I wouldn't have unblocked here without consulting the blocking admin in private, especially when another admin has reviewed and confirmed the block. Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On very weak, and unsupported reasons, as far as I'm concerned. I'm fully aware of WP:BEANS, but sorry, I remain committed to due process and require evidence. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I missed that, perhaps. But it's anathema to the way we work here to have "secret processes" unless ArbCom or WMF are involved. Please see my unblock rationale. We do not, and should not, have hidden reasons here unless there really is some cogent reason for doing so, and I don't see mere sockpuppetry as transcending the requirement for openness. I'm sure the blocking admin will give me full evidence, chapter and verse, if necessary. Meanwhile, we are not Soviet Russia and do not have the luxury of secret trials. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are an admin with any experience, you'd know there can be many good reasons for not making evidence public. But the main point is that you don't reverse an admin's action without consulting him, especially when he asks to be contacted by email prior to unblocking, and after other uninvolved admins have reviewed and approved his decision. Crum375 (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This block sucked and this guy is entirely correct to complain about it. The only reason people are ignoring it is because he isn't one of the local personalities. Imagine if, say, Giano or WMC were blocked for sockpuppetry on such flimsy evidence. Jtrainor (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Leaving aside "personalities", which are largely irrelevant here, blocking any editor is a serious measure to take, and a last resort; even more so without making the reasons public. Alleged sockpuppetry is one of the easiest reasons to cite, and to my mind, requires a cogent argument, reviewable by independent editors, admin or not, and linking to diffs. The appropriate venue for doing that seems to be WP:SPI, with or without Checkuser. We cannot hold ourselves up as honourably taking such actions without accountability for those actions, and unreasoned actions are the worst of all actions. But it would help if such blocks were supported by diffs rather than "email the blocking admin"; this is not the transparency required by this project. And it means that the blockee has no way of seeing the evidence against him, or countering it. That's a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice, and should have no place here. That's why I unblocked. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously? We can't block someone as a sock unless we disclose publicly how we reached that conclusion? Sorry, that's just plain untenable. Dealing with socks is unique in that the details how we reached the conclusion of socking assists the user in evading detection in the future. This is different from any court proceeding that I am aware of. We routinely block on CU evidence, which normally is not disclosed to the blockee either, or even to the blocking admins (except a 8-ballish template) - are we not supposed to do that, too? Surely, "you are confirmed to be the same user" is not much different from "you are a sock"? Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have emailed evidence to Rodhullandemu, which I would have done ealrier had he asked. As Tim Song says, there is no policy that requires we share with puppet masters the means of their detection. If we did so routinely we'd soon be unable to detect them. While "justice" is a laudable goal, we don't operate in the same environment as a court of law. For one thing, it's usually pretty easy to establish the identity of people in the justice system, while it's quite difficult to do so on Wikipedia. The editor in question, user:Herschelkrustofsky, was sanctioned in three ArbCom cases before being banned by the community. He has used dozens of socks over the years, and had a reputation for using socks on Usenet before that. WP:LTA/HK. The block was made properly, it was reviewed by two uninvolved admins, and should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely at this point you should leave him unblocked, per wp:ROPE. If he really is who you guys think he is, it will become apparent and you can block him again. If, on the off chance he's telling the truth, he isn't, then we've gained a valuable new contributor who you'd just be jerking around in blocking again. Have his edits up to this point been problematic enough to warrant a block? If so, block him for that. Otherwise, there's not much harm in letting him edit a little longer, even if a sock-puppet. There's the potential for a great deal of harm if you block a new contributer. Buddy431 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were a close case, your suggestion would be a good one. However this case is clear enough that a block is appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Rodhullandemu wants to look at this one then too (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:79.72.128.246 inserting unsourced content and making accusations of sockpuppetry

User:79.72.128.246 is repeatedly reinserting content into Isang Lakas‎

• [85] 00:35, 4 June 2010
• [86] 11:31, 4 June 2010
• [87] 16:00, 4 June 2010
• [88] 17:59, 4 June 2010
• [89] 19:59, 4 June 2010
• [90] 00:35, 5 June 2010

The edit summaries claim that the articles show that actors are portraying certain characters in an upcoming television series "Isang Lakas‎" or originally "Sanglakas". I have searched each of these articles and found no mention of the series. The IP has been asked to provide information about where these sources confirm the claims and the only response has been the edit summary "It says so in every article, most of these articles have it in different language and on second pages" which would put it in the forum posts.

(Note that I have reverted multiple times on that article as well, based in part on this confirmation that the edits were vandalism and that 3RR does not apply to reversions of vandalism.)

The editor has also repeatedly slapped {suspected sock puppet} tags on two users pages (see [91] and [92]) despite being told that baseless accusations are not allowed and s/he would need to file a Suspected sock puppet report. The editor claims to have already filed one, but my search for the two names in question came up empty. The editor then accused me of being a sock puppet [93] and a "dumby" [94].

Can something be done about this disruptive editor? Active Banana (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user still editing

Resolved

Someone take a look at User talk:173.217.160.99. Still editing mainspace despite having a 24h block. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, their block ended 1 hour before they started editing again. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, Huggle was showing them as blocked. Sorry about that. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Keeping an editor off my talk page

Resolved

 – For now the editor is blocked, hopefully giving them time to calm down. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about this and am going to be offline most of the next 20 hours. The editor is Ceoil (talk · contribs). I haven't any idea what the best thing to do about this sort of silliness is. I'm not asking for a block, so I'm not even sure what Admin action if any would be useful. All I know is I'm fed up, have been trying to 'get lost' as requested by him but did edit his page one last time when I discovered that he was claiming that he struck out a comment of mine elsewhere because I'd said I'd gone to bed, when that wa obviously not the case. For some reason he's noticed that and decided to be a pita. Thanks. I'll notify him. Dougweller (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: There is background to this. Admin who can give, mistakenly, but not admit that, and refused to take in kind. That is a coward. One established editor to another who has left an templated msg last warning can expect rigght of reply, you would imagine. Not for Dough, and here we are. This is now bitter, and a week old, and I will say this - an/i is not your army, template happy process blind child. Perhalps you should think more and interact more with thoes you have blindly templaed and not run off for help. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a classic wikidrama, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". If nobody bothers to say anything further, it will just disappear, and time and energy can be spent on something more productive. Ty 02:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Regardless, it's not the wisest idea to keep reverting his talk page after he's asked you not to. Really, the masts people will decide to tie themselves to.... Shimeru (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So I can be templated in error by a lazy admin, but I have no right of reply. Its worth mentioning that that this is the second time I am here on an/i in five days for a bunch of just nothing. Over Dough? He seems so thick and harmless, but if he reverts me agian won't take that. You cannot template and treathern established editors and just walk away with basically, two fingers aloft, and by the way you are a useles troll -all under the protection that npa is one way traffic. Fuck that. Not good enough, at all. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Frustration vented on all sides. Hot air expended. Let it dissipate, please. Get some sleep. Ty 03:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strage as it may seem, frustration vented was I all i sought. When I asked on the warning admins page, I was told to fuck off, troll. So I can vent here with out being archived. Go an/i. Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody either block me or close this; either please. closing might note this. Or is this just for amusement now, open for rent an openion, what ever dregged voice (not you ty, I respect you) might like to chime in. Ceoil (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a block of Ceoil, since they're edit warring with Doug on his talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did so. 48 hours. I hope he'll take the time to cool off and not stew over it, because this isn't productive. Shimeru (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. This was the sort of thing I hated on Usenet, shame it gets here. For the record, somewhere in the maelstrom and probably deleted I noted (before Ceoil) that I shouldn't have used a template and regretted it (I did the bad thing of making assumptions from too little evidence, ie just his talk page, I must never do that again!). His timeline and version of events for some reason differ considerably, but going into that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I plan to stay off his talk page and really hope he stays off mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-outing by new editor

Would an admin take a look here please? I'm not sure if the editor really meant to reveal his/her email address in the edit summary but it probably wouldn't hurt to go ahead and delete it. I left on note on the User Page about it (linking here). SQGibbon (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted the edit summary for that diff. I'm not sure what to do now, but since it has been mentioned in a public forum now it needed to go from public view ASAP. If anyone thinks full Oversight is needed, please go ahead and request it. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I have not mentioned it here? Would there have been a better way for me to have handled it? SQGibbon (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to immediately hit the revdel button, then go to User:Oversight and send it as an e-mail to that account, which is processed through OTRS to everyone with the Oversight permission- that way the diff is never drawn attention to in public. The oversight crew is usually pretty fast about such things. I've heard IRC can be used, but I can't say I have any experience with the medium. Courcelles (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Will remember that in case it happens again. SQGibbon (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no effective difference between revdel and oversight; revdel hides the information from everyone, and sysops can press a button to view it, while oversight hides the information from everyone, and oversighters can press a button to view it. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP

An IP has made a legal threat over the article English Defence League: "This is slander, and legal action is to be concidered".[95] TFD (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's WP:NLT and WP:DOLT etc, but I was putting it down to "IP using big words" (it's not slander they should be concidering [sic], it's libel). I'm inclined to ignore it, to be honest, unless they repeat. (Note: I replied to the IP at the time). TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think unless the IP continues editing, there's not much we can do, except perhaps drop him a warning on his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should discuss wit the user the issue and resolve it using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. Truthsort (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Manatee Palms Youth Services

Resolved

 – no admin action needed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at Manatee Palms Youth Services. An IP, perhaps with dubious intention, is trying to delete the article. -Regancy42 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment at the AfD, then. I would also be wary of ascribing motives for an action unless there is clear evidence for it (the action of itself not being evidence). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IP sockpuppetry at AfD

There's something strange going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manatee Palms Youth Services. The nomination was by Joe routt (talk · contribs), but the page was tagged and transcluded by the IP 96.228.200.80 (talk · contribs). I assume that this was simply Joe routt (talk · contribs) editing logged out; nothing wrong with that.

But 97.67.16.26 (talk · contribs) is active in the deletion discussion, simultaneously with Joe routt (talk · contribs). According to DNSstuff.com both IPs are located in the same Flordia town.

I suggest that all three users – Joe routt (talk · contribs), 97.67.16.26 (talk · contribs) and 96.228.200.80 (talk · contribs) – are the same person, and are inapproriately multiple-!voting on the AfD page. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the place to go then. Aiken ♫ 16:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did know about that page, actually, but I thought that an admin or two ought to deal with the sockpuppetry's effects on the discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 16:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, report filed, but I still think that the deletion discussion could do with some admin intervention. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

96.228.200.80 is my home IP. I made my initial edits without realizing that I hadn't logged in. But I am not 97.67.16.26. Joe routt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So it's just a coincidence that the only other argument for deletion aside from you is is being made from a computer at your local Salvation Army? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Within a couple of minutes? On a near-new AfD page? (My thoughts precisely...! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joe routt) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think I know the editor. I told her about the article, but I didn't know she would edit it. I can at least say that I don't have, and have never had, any socks. Joe routt (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So it's either a case of WP:BROTHER or WP:MEAT then? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

More or less, albeit not deliberate on my part. I'm trying to resolve this on my end. In the meantime, I will refrain from further editing of the AfD until this reaches its conclusion. Joe routt (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Was there any prior attempt to discuss the matter before filing this report? Per WP:AGF this account has been editing the encyclopedia on and off since August, 2006, with utterly no history or implication of bad behavior as far as I can tell. As such they're entitled to a presumption that they are telling the truth when they say that forgetting to log in was an honest mistake, and that they might have mentioned the article to a friend. Politely asking the editor to remember to log in, and reminding them in a non-accusatory fashion about off-wiki canvassing, would have achieved the same result than making a sockpuppet case of it in three different forums within a couple hours of the deletion nomination. I'm going to go ahead and remove the excessive sockpuppetry accusations and notices from the deletion discussion, where they're clogging things up. A single notice is just fine, and the closing administrator can use their own judgment about whether a like-minded "friend" should be discounted or not. I haven't been following this all too closely but this doesn't seem to be the first instance in recent days of aggressive wikicopping on matters that could have been dealt with before being escalated. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I and multiple editors thought it (and think it, to a degree) suspicious and implausible that two different people in the same town would both cast "delete" !votes within minutes of each other, on a relatively new AfD page. If you have a general problem with my editing pattern, then dispute resolution would be best. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to make a federal case of it, but you really ought to take a look at your recent run-ins here and ask yourself why you've been locking horns with a number of well-established editors in such a short time span. If you can find a more productive way to channel your zeal for cleaning up the encyclopedia, much time and considerable angst could be spared. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Wikidemon. Joe routt (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the SPI case as "nothing to do", though Joe is advised to take note of how things can be interpreted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor requiring extraordinary reference and has just removed all 25 Ref's

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wrong venue. Please follow the dispute resolution guidelines. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor is requiring a citation in a form beyond any reasonable interpretation of practice or policy. The sentence being questioned is simple, clear and concise - the supporting references deep, sober and widely available. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how one meets impossible and unrealistic demands. The entire, short, incident is found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PIGS_(economics)#BRIC.27s

The editor has now removed all 25 references (replacing each with ("Cite needed tags") and has made a specific demand for me to go through this with all 25... This is not behavior commonly associated with Good Faith practices.99.141.254.167 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For ease and clarity, this was the edit being discussed in the section linked above: "Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC."

Numerous ref's are to be found in the talk section that is linked.99.141.254.167 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page discussion it seems to me the editor is correctly stating that the 25 refs do not support the actual statement made, without engaging in synthesis. The sources do not support the direct statement made, rather they are various unrelated tangents from which one is drawing a conclusion. This is what we consider original research and thus his removal of the claimed sources and tagging for needing an actual citation would be correct. Also, this really isn't an administrative issue at this point. Dispute resolution would be the appropriate first step, such as asking a third opinion (which I've now given unofficially here), asking members of the related project to weigh in, or filing an WP:RFC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The matter is not simply that one sentence. The issue relates to how sources are being treated though the entire article following a rewrite by 99.141.*.*.

99.141.*.* boldly rewrote the article. A series of reverting between myself and 99.141.*.* ensued where I asked him/her to discuss his changes on the talk page or to say where he/she saw probems with the previous version.

There are many problems that I see with the new version. Use of citations is one. Many of the citation in 99.141.*.*'s rewrite seem to have been attributed to statements without a great deal of attention being given to whether those references actually support the statements being made. Additional commentary and original interpretation is a particular problem.

99.141.*.* is very determined that his rewrite will stay (see the edit history, I stopped reverting when he/she broke 3RR). However, if the rewrite is to stay then it has to be reference properly IMHO. As stated on the article talk page, my intention with removing all of the references was to keep 99.141.*.* text but to start with a blank slate with respect to referencing. The references can then be added to the new text in a manner where we can have confidence that statements made in article is actually what is supported by the reference without additional interpretation or synthesis.

I would suggest that 99.141.*.* simply re-adds the references but with a quotation accompanying each one to show that what the reference says is that he/she attributes to the reference in his/her rewrite. --RA (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

More harassment from Arthur Rubin

This is another formal written complaint about User:Arthur Rubin. Arthur obviously wikistalks me on a regular basis. He is a long time editor and admin, and therefore is fully skilled at avoiding actual policy violations, while being as disparaging to my contributions whenever he sees an opportunity. Arthur and I began being in conflict over articles in the field of logic. He has now expanded his harrassment opportunities. For the record, this is an on-going issue with Arthur, and I have made formal complaints before.

On this occasion Arthur has given me a non-veiled threat to block me, even though I have violated no policy. He is so arrogant that he believes that I should be contemplating his mindset, and furthermore should be grateful that he had generously decide not to sanction me.

This is a formal written request for all the following actions

• An admin will give a written instruction to Arthur on his talk page not to wikistalk, or otherwise harrass me.
• My talk page is to be removed from Arthur's watchlist either by him or some administrative intervention.
• Arthur is to be banned from any future administrative action against me. If there is something so important as to require action, he is to approach some other admin with the issue.

I find all of my requests to be completely reasonable, and not any violation of Arthur's freedom to participate in contributing to the WP community. Be well, Greg Bard 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to show specific edits that establish a pattern of WP:wikihounding, if in fact that is what occurred. TFD (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Arthur Rubin of this discussion. Cardamon (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strangeness at Consumer Watchdog article

Back in April, a long term sock (User:Proxy User) of User:WiccaWeb began edit warring at Consumer Watchdog to insert some poorly researched original research, with an occasional citation to a blog. Both of those accounts (and some other related socks) are now indefinitely blocked. User:DeeKay64 has since taken up the exact same cause, alleging that the Consumer Watchdog organization is some sort of a front for Microsoft (apparently because of their domain name whois record)? User:DeeKay64 admits to being a sock, but I thought it would appropriate to bring this strange set of circumstances here, since it's becoming a bit of an ongoing issue. jæs (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a visit to WP:RFCU is appropriate as well if you haven't already gone there, just to see who this new sock belongs truly belongs to just in case if it's not Proxy User. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked the self-admitted block-evading alternate account, of course. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)