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

Unresolved

Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Race and intelligence @115K. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Ghostofnemo and SYNTH

Unresolved

 – This has turned into a civility issue based on User:Ghostofnemo#Wikipedia Hall of Shame also is in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions--Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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.[1] 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' ."[2] 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.[3] 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)

Although it may not be "official" this has received the attention of additional editors. All have explained why your edits are not being accepted. I assume any further attempts to buck consensus will lead to some requests for a block. It would be best if you simply dropped it and tried imrpoving other aspects of the article.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately GhostOfNemo has updated his user page in a way that attacks other editors and is violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." and "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki)" see: User:Ghostofnemo#Wikipedia Hall of Shame. A "Hall of Shame", providing "reasons for exclusion for your amusement", and misrepresenting a debate are far different than "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages". I am seeking its removal. The user is more than welcome to keep the sources in a sandbox or right there for future reference.Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Also in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions.Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly uncivil and is not conducive to harmonious editing, with quotes taken completely out of context. If GoN wants to link to diffs or sections, fine, but don't take parts of arguements out of context.--Terrillja _talk 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading your comments, I reread my userpage to see if I'm being uncivil. I don't see anything there that is uncivil or which distorts our discussions. Dissent and peaceful protest are my responses to your uncivil behavior. You should stop the witchhunt and just deal with the fact that your behavior is questionable and some of us will dare to question it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator had ruled on this, and told you to cut it out, I wouldn't have been driven to do this. This seems like a better response than edit-warring with you. It's the last act of desperation of a powerless person who is having his edits summarily deleted for apparently dubious, and at the risk of being uncivil, suspicious, reasons. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cut it out. I don't know whether you really believe yourself to be powerless and confronted with a seemingly monolythic group of enemies or are just enjoying the pose, but the fact is that there have been good reasons for your fellow editors to confront your way of editing. You have been repeatedly pointed to the guidelines relevant for a constructive discussion of inclusion. Instead of taking them into account and working with them or at one point gathering that maybe what you want to do is more akin to journalism, and less to encyclopedic writing, you insist on inserting your POV unchanged. That's not the way WP rolls. 87.166.74.135 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• This has been going on for several months at least, and the content over which Ghostofnemo is warring has consistently skirted or violated exactly the same policies. His response to other editors is basically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have no idea why this editor feels such a strong connection with this subject, but his actions give the impression of righteous anger not a collegial attempt at writing an article. I propose that if this continues, a topic ban is the best solution. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, it's not me vs. them. It's reliable sources vs. them. I keep hearing POV and OR, but if you'll look at my edits, you'll see they are reliably sourced and that my edits do not misrepresent the sources. But the edits are immediately deleted, and if a reason is given, it's usually an accusation of POV or OR! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you'll look at the talk pages, you'll see that there has been LOTS of discussion. I do hear them. But they keep accusing me of POV and OR. I don't see any. Do you? Where exactly do you see it? Please show me an edit I've made, compare it to the source, and show me the POV or OR. How can I respond to their accusations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about one of the most recent ones: [[4]]? Another topic, but as I have pointed out on the talk page, this is OR. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and maybe get someone explain it to you with exemplary edits. 87.166.74.135 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories are different, because there are not many reliable sources that present conspiracy theories. We're presenting the theories that exist. We're not trying to prove that they are factually correct. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See this on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Addition_of_Operation_Northwoods_.2F_OR

And I have made some changes based on their input. But they insist on total deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a strong connection with the subject, I have not deleted anyone else's reliably sourced edits, regardless of how unflattering they are to the subject. It's not like I'm trying to keep things critical of Bethune out of the article. But it does seem that the editors involved are trying to keep things critical of the whalers and the Japanese authorities out of this article and the Ady Gil article, even if they are reliably sourced. Why? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@GhostNemo - As an uninvolved party, I haven't read all the contested edits, but I did check out the links to the BBC article, used twice, and in both cases the insertion was quite incorrect. Actually, calling it Synthesis is too kind, it's improper inference without foundation.--SPhilbrickT 13:40, 6 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)

I did actually also block MBM for a week in that last rumpus, I think you'll find. But yeah, you're probably better off finding another admin to work on this - for one thing, I'm not as active as I used to be. But I still think RFAR may be the better route. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 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 [5]. I was immediately told that I was one of a trio who were determined to rid wikipedia of the term British Isles [6]. 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)

Now see this: The Manor House Bishop Bridge. HK is doing his utmost to cause more friction. This is just shear provocation. Mister Flash (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why won't any of you follow my advise at SE & work at 1 article-at-a-time? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is deliberately ignoring all known policies and procedures that this project has put in place for editing. And this behaviour has got to stop. As Daicaregos stated earlier, very clearly: 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. This RS tag has been in place since May. You do not have the right to censor my edits, or refuse to follow policy. --HighKing (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To the administrators out there. I plead with all of you, enforce 3RR on the articles which come within the British Isles usage scope. Enforce'em with ever increasing blocks. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I believe I shall begin making Edit-warring reports. As the edit spats are my major concern for those articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I protected Enceladus (moon) before I saw this thread. This is a much bigger behaviorial problem than I first thought, and I agree with GoodDay above. Dreadstar ☥ 22:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alls quiet today. But if the problem is well-known, and nobody seems to care enough to help, what's the answer? It seems that any AN/I or WQA filed is ignored. Anyone have any sensible suggestions? --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quiet? 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR, 5RR...Oh and claims of vandalism for inserting a claim that can be reliably sourced. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about you and Mullan not removing British Isles from articles unless it is obviously wrong, which in 99.9% of cases it isn't. That'd sort it, straight up. Mister Flash (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that is exactly what we have been doing. Neither you or MBM have bothered to check the references and the context of the references to BI. Look at the your figures, 75% of your edits are about reverting subject relating to BI. Is that the definition of a SPA? MBM is no different. In future I will report you and MBM without any warning for your disruptive reverts. Bjmullan (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing wrong usage with unreferenced usage. Mister Flash (talk) 19:13, 6 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)

I would like to suggest that SkagitRiverQueen ban for a year be changed to an indefinite because of use of multiple sock accounts. Also, if there is a possiblity to do any range blocks for a short period, say a month to 3 months, is doable than that should be done too. Opinions? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does Malleus have a free pass to be nasty?

BOLDly closing this, I don't see anything constructive coming out of continuing it. This is becoming a pissing match and no problems are going to get solved out of letting it go on here. If anyone believes there is still a problem they can collect evidence and consider WP:RFC/U, as was suggested by several users; name-calling at ANI is not going to improve the situation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by Rjanag. Please do not modify it.
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" [7] [8] 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. --Cyclopiatalk 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. --Cyclopiatalk 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: [9]. 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:[10]. 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. --Cyclopiatalk 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) You may be right, but you're almost certainly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 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. 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. 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) So ban him then, or haven't you got the balls? Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) @BB: Bingo! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 6 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)

Self-disclosure is not oversightable (nor should it be rev deleted) unless it is an accident. Which this doesn't appear to be. Prodego ^talk 03:31, 6 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)

This seems to be the result of this editor moving an article without discussion (the edit summary oddly called the move a 'proposal' and me asking him to restore it. As there was a discussion about the article name in April and the article 2012 phenomenon is a fairly actively edited one. He refused to move it back and Arthur Rubin did the move, asking him to fix the redirects. The comment about blocking was "I suggest you fix all the redirects. It should give you something to do while contemplating why I didn't also block you. " Gregbard has complained before about harassment, see [11] asking that all members of a Wikiproject be given a 24 hour block if there was a problem. Unless he comes up with some proof quickly I don't see much to do here. Dougweller (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We need some diffs or evidence to show that this is happening; until then, we have no evidence that harassment is happening. (Note: the section Dougweller mentioned above is here.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The threat of blocking was improper, due to my long history with what I consider Greg's inappropriate edits of logic articles. As for this incident, I wasn't stalking Greg (although I have, at times gone through his edits to logic categories and templates, and proposing deletion of some as absurd, without possible definition, or inherently violating NPOV). 2012 phenomenon has been on my watch list for some time, and I noticed the move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur has taken responsibility for his offence to me. I have accepted. Just so that we are perfectly clear: 1) My complaint to Incidents was justified, 2) Arthur has admitted to the offense, 3) I will continue to engage with Arthur in a civil manner, however 4) I reserve my right to bring this incident up again in the future as evidence of a pattern. Be well, and thank you. Greg Bard 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Strangeness at Consumer Watchdog article

Resolved

 – DeeKay64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sock of WiccaWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Feel free to take this to SPI to verify. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

User:EunSoo and socks

Resolved

 – EunSoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his socks have been blocked appropriately, and the edits have been reverted. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

EunSoo (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday by User:Syrthiss for edit warring on Ayumi Hamasaki (see). EunSoo soon came back editing under an IP address and his block was extended. Today, he came back with a bunch of socks and made the same edits as he did on the previously mentioned article. Some are listed here and these are the others 201.15.105.230 (talk · contribs), 92.118.181.151 (talk · contribs), 200.48.170.215 (talk · contribs) and 222.124.223.42 (talk · contribs). He also edited under 125.162.70.81 (talk · contribs) but this one was blocked earlier. IPs 92.118.181.151 (talk · contribs), 200.48.170.215 (talk · contribs) and 201.15.105.230 (talk · contribs) were just blocked by Zzuuzz. But can someone protect those pages because he will be back soon. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He came back 118.97.148.195 (talk · contribs). MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Being sorted as we speak. – B.hotep •talk• 22:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the articles affected by the IPs you have mentioned remain in the state that they left it in. Can you confirm that what they have done are good edits? – B.hotep •talk• 22:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really gotten around to reverting all of the edits the IPs made, But mostly all of the edits made are not good edits but to the EunSoo they are. MS (Talk|Contributions) 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How is adding this "Also known as = MatsuJun, Matsumoto Jun (松本 潤)" a bad edit? And MS didn't explain why it was a bad edit 200.81.202.164 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done the ones I can safely do for now. If there are further problems in the next few hours, add here. In the next few days, add pages to WP:RFPP, or by Monday, if I am around, ping me on my talk page. Cheers. – B.hotep •talk• 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious sock right above and he's back editing under 115.69.217.106 (talk · contribs), 61.7.142.159 (talk · contribs) and 201.18.12.26 (talk · contribs).

He is also using a different editor's edit summary (here to "justify" his edits. MS (Talk|Contributions) 06:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As a pro-active move, someone may want to warn the Japanese WikiProject about this editor and anons in general. Originally, he was working on Korean-related articles. But because of my relationship with Japanese-oriented articles (and remembering that awhile back I pissed him off at a non-Wikipedia wiki site), he's given up on Korean articles and is now attacking many of the Japanese articles. People like this editor has all the free time in the world, and nothing will stop him. Groink (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Colton Harris-Moore edit

I just stumbled upon this edit to the Colton Harris-Moore page; does anyone think this may be an issue to report to the police? -download ׀ sign! 22:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do so--any user who believes it to be a worthwhile effort is welcome to. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdvarq

The User:Rdvarq is editing Alianza Lima and Universitario de Deportes, replacing verifiable content with original research and false content. [12] [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] --MicroX (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the last few edits are of concern, but the first few worry me. Tell the editor that his edits are removing information and references from the article, and ask him/her why he/she is doing so. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I know why he/she is doing it. The user is a fanboy of Alianza Lima. When you see someone start doing the things that this user is doing, it's pretty evident that they are just here to troll. Unfortunately, talking to this person won't fix anything. This user is an edit war waiting to happen. Additionally, this IP user 190.41.149.140 (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing; messing with the national titles. The IP has only done 4 edits but all 4 consist of actions similar to Rdvarq (talk · contribs) --MicroX (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Resolved

 – more participants welcome at the talk page, though. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please look at the edit warring at this article and at the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎ of the editor involved? He's citing BLP as his reason for multiple reverts - at least 5 now I think. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm the editor who keeps removing the possible BLP until Talk is completed. The page is now protected, by the way. And I appreciate Dougweller leaving an unbiased message. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

6 times now in fact. If this is a BLP issue why are you edit warring without reporting it to WP:BLPN? The talk page isn't the best place to discuss BLP issues. Dougweller (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think LAEC has some good points, and the BLP issues aren't entirely unreasonable, but they're far from intuitively obvious. In disputed BLP matters like this, I endorse the full protection without blocking the editors involved, and the discussion proceeding on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Article protected by CIreland (talk · contribs). Is this thread resolved? - 2/0 (cont.) 02:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

More contrary WP:ENGVAR edits

Just an FYI, the problems reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#Contrary WP:ENGVAR edits and questions are continuing. The editor is continually reverting/repeating the same edits over again[20][21][22][23][24][25] and it looks like he/she is opening up sockpuppets[26] which are also being used to vandalize tags[27][28].MrFloatingIP (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious disruption is obvious - note any further instances to WP:AIV where they can be dealt with quickly as vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Anthonzi

• Anthonzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • See discussions. Talk:Emperor of Japan#exactly meaning of the title tennō, User talk:Anthonzi#June 2010
• Anthonzi all of a sudden came to Talk:Emperor of Japan and wrote "You should probably stick to editting the Japanese wikipedia until your English proficiency increases significantly." [29] (copied a misspelling as it is.)
  • Other editor reverted the post as a personal attack [30] and warned the user [31], however Anthonzi restored the attack and tried to justify the claim. [32]
  • Despite the warning by an administrator SarekOfVulcan [33], Anthonzi is still insisting the legitimacy of the attack.[34] This proves the warnings by the community are not effective to make the user acknowledge the wrongdoing. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Requested action to Anthonzi: Blocked from editing for an appropriate period of time. As described above, warnings are no longer effective to the user.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to believe that anything that can be misinterpreted will be misinterpreted. I'm not sure how a qualified suggestion about the practicality of attempting to edit an English encyclopedic article with less-than-phenomenal English skills constitutes a personal attack.--Anthonzi (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP accounts 94.116.37.43, 69.110.12.49, 68.122.34.169

IP account 94.116.37.43

• here Pejorative ethnic reference and referring to another editor as a “war criminal.”

• here refers to me as a “racist and a “war criminal.”

• notification

IP account 69.110.12.49

• here Referring to an edit as “vandalism.”

• notification

IP account 68.122.34.169

• here Referring to an edit as “sabotage.”

• notification

It is also likely that the IP accounts are socks of each other since the attacks were coordinated and took place within a short time of each other. Requesting block of these IP accounts.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of racial or ethnic slur should be tolerable here and have dealt with that IP appropriately, I believe Toddst has warned the other two. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:46, 6 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[35]. 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[36][37] Presumably it is also in direct response to my complaints about Giraffedata at the Village Pump[38] and User:Seresin's closing that and stating RfC was the best course of action to take[39]

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)

Looks like he has a named sock that was made before the range block, ConductResult (talk · contribs), whose only edits have been very random edits to Lad, A Dog (kept undoing himself), an article I have up for FAC, uploading a new version of File:Anna Tower.JPG, an image uploaded to the Commons by Karunyan with his sock Karunyam[40], and to post to my talk page about the range block stating "Actually all he blocked was just three or four floors of some obscure hotel in Chennai, India. It also seems that surfers who connect with their laptops to the wireless network in the ground floor of this hotel connect through the range 59.94.224.0/19 "[41]. May need to do a CU to find the rest before this is truly ended for awhile. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't hear myself think over all the quacking. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And another User:ColIectonian (another spoof of User:Collectonian - either he made a stable of these things, or he's getting around the range block. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've asked a checkuser to take a look. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, found another TheCoIlectonian (talk · contribs) that recreated the RfC/U above, but is already blocked for the username. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone got that one, as well. I've also placed a month's semi-protection on Lad, A Dog to... well, I'm not sure what. Move this tomfoolery somewhere else, at least. Courcelles (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2  Confirmed by Deskana (talk · contribs) that ColIectonian == ConductResult. Sadly no IP block possible. Tim Song (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pooh on the range block...is there anyway to do any kinda filter on the username to auto alert if a play on Collectonian shows up? As it is a made up word, there is no way anyone would be using it as a legitimate user name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) Not a filter, but perhaps a bot? User:X! runs a namewatcher bot for UAA, perhaps you could check with them? Tim Song (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Left him a note, though he is mostly on a wikibreak, it seems like he is checking his user talk :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Question If someone stalks another user on here, should we call the police?--222.154.163.53 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just what I love about Wikipedia. When your an IP and you ask a serious question, a) your question is ignored b) some smelly snotrag admin or admin-wannabe goes and checks your contributions like your a crook. Fucking twats!--222.154.163.53 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I check everyone's contributions like they're a crook ;-)

To answer your question, no, almost certainly not. If you're talking about the "stalking" alleged above, then it simply means one editor examining another editor's edits in an inappropriate manner - that's something we'd look at here, and is in no way a matter for the police. If you're talking about something else, then I'd suggest that - at least initially - you describe it here. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

While some places have laws against such actions, as long as it is purely on Wiki and the perpetrators are not in the same country as the victim, there is little to no point in doing so. If it gets really bad, the first action would be contacting the ISP. And, FYI, calling people "twats" is certainly not a way to make anyone think your question is legitimate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User 'WKTU' and 'Islam' article.

This is a mixed case of bad faith, npov, and vandalism. There is currently an 'undo-war' happening on the 'Islam' article. This 'war' is mainly between users Iwanttoeditthissh, WKTU, and unfortunately me. User WKTU is falsifying information on the page and has been asked to stop. We (Iwanttoeditthissh and I) have asked him to discuss this on the articles talk page but he will not. He also deletes warnings from his own talk page. We believe he is acting in bad faith as he will not stop to discuss the edits, and claims 'seniority' over us as his profile is slightly older (although with less edits). Please intervene. Alek2407 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of my article due to AfD.

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Newgrounds_Linux for details. Rohedin ^TALK 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Expansion on the above comment from an involved user who has behaved impeccably throughout an AfD: the consensus appears to be that the article should be deleted, the author has indicated their desire that the article be userfied. I've suggested that the article should be userfied, and the AfD speedy closed (delete, after userfication). TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat in Watch list over sourced statement

I monitor this article "Ed Decker" after going through I forget how this got on my watchlist but it disturbs me greatly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Decker&diff=366407186&oldid=355897728

I was neither divorced or excommunicated for adultery. I divorced my former wife, Phyllis Ray Decker Montanari Danielson. I did so after extensive counseling with the Bishop and our Stake President and their recommendation that I do so. While I do not throw rocks, It was she who was having multiple affairs. I remained an active Mormon for a full 7 years after the divorce and was finally excommunicated in Bellevue, WA in 1976 AFTER I requested that my name be removed from the records of the church… The original documents from my excommunication are on file at Utah State University Special Collections Library : Collection #210, J. Edward Decker Collection, where most of all the research, books, videos, audio records, correspondence, files, etc are on file for researchers to use. That document clearly shows their reluctance to excommunicate me and that it was”my" decision and mine alone. These two facts clearly show that the Wikipedia posting on your website is false and slanderous.

How Ever the Statment Mr. Decker refers to is source by what appears to be a source that looks extremely dubious at best. I intend to remove it but since the legal threat has been made i felt the need to report it publisher page of source

Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)