Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Topic ban proposal for user:Vexorg

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vexorg to save space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please wait until this notice goes to the top of the ANI page before timestamping. –MuZemike 05:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing; trolling

After existing more than a year without being edited even once, the Swiftboating article has been targeted by a tendentious editor: 68.35.3.66 (talk · contribs). He is intent on reversing the actual meaning of swiftboating. While all reliable sources note the term derives from the unsubstantiated charges, political attacks, innuendo and smears launched against John Kerry during his 2004 US presidential campaign, this editor insists just the opposite. His very first edit summary at the article explains his opinion:

• 12:23, 8 November 2009‎ (all of the charges were substantiated either by video of Kerry's anti-war activities or statements of fellow veterans)

Simple content dispute, correct? No. He has been asked by numerous editors to provide reliable sources to justify his edits, but he has refused - and instead just continues to insert his edits. When he is confronted with multiple reliable sources refuting his edits, he dismisses them as biased, opinions or unreliable (but refuses to check with WP:RSN) - and instead just continues to insert his edits. His edits against consensus have been criticized and reverted more than 20 times, by multiple editors and admins:

• Snowded (If you carry on edit warring against consensus then I will ask for the page to be semi-protected)
• The Four Deuces I agree with Snowded. The article is about swiftboating as a concept. This is not place to debate the merits of the campaign against John Kerry.
• Verbal It's well sourced, correct, NPOV, and appropriate. Keep per snowed et al.
• Gamaliel (consensus appears to be solidly against your removal, so there is little point to your edit war and its associated hostility.)
• Xenophrenic I've returned wording that is supported by the cited source. The changes you made were not supported by the cited sources.
• Bazzargh Performing the obvious search, it describes the Swiftboating campaign as 'fact-free' on page 14.
• Andrew c You have made WAY, WAY too many reverts on that page. WP:BRD suggests that you make one bold edit, and if you are reverted, you should NEVER re-instate your edit, without gaining a new consensus on talk (you past that point weeks ago, so our patience wears thin).

Reverting his unsourced and POV edits indefinitely isn't a problem, but the editor has also begun to expand his activities into soapboxing on the article talk page about the problems with Wikipedia; attacking editors as part of a "clique"; and "characterizing" editors with intent to "embarrass" them. When I moved his inappropriate article talk page comments to his user talk page for further discussion (instead of outright delete them as the advisory template at the top of the talk page suggests), he returned them. So now I'm dropping this in your collective lap. Good luck with it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic... is lying. Most of my edits required no source or were better sourced. For example, explicitly attributing the "fact free" opinion to Manjoo, is supported by the Manjoo source of the same "fact free" statement. Note that for a long time, I was insisting on a source for the "not substantiated" statement that was originally on the page. You don't need a source to remove an unsourced statement. After considerable edit warring by the clique, they finally implicitly conceded my point that the source provided did not support the "not substantiated" statement, by switching to the "fact free" hyperbolic opinion of Manjoo from the same source. I, in good faith, admitted that this was supported by the source, and merely argued that this obviously untrue hyperbolic opinion should be explicitly attributed to its source, the author of the source they provided, i.e., Manjoo.

Note, that I edit in good faith, that I have voluntarily adhered to a higher 1RR standard, despite facing a clique and that in contrast Xenophrenic... has taken to edit warring on the discussion page. Note the lack of rigor in Xenophrenic... characterizations here. I doubt he can explicitly back up his claim of POV and unsourced edits. I assure you I can back up my characterizations of the behavior Xenophrenic... and the clique. The "fact free" POV editing by the clique, is obviously not in good faith and a violation of the spirit of wikipedia standards. I don't know if the letter of wikipedia standards can address such abuses. The clique is mocking wikipedia to its face.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over Xenophrenic...'s complaint above, it must be embarrassing how he can only quote the clique, and not examples of unsourced or POV edits, they must be hard to come by.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving each of my above points. I am sure the reviewing admins know the difference between reality and mere claims. They know the difference between "opinion" sources and quality research with citations and footnotes (see Manjoo). They can count - they know the difference between your many 1RRs, 2RRs (15:26, 12 February, 10:05, 13 February), 3RRs (04:54, 17 January, 07:00, 17 January, 07:10, 17 January), etc. They know that just because you haven't crossed the 3RR "bright line", it doesn't mean you aren't edit-warring. I reiterate my request to have an end put to the slow-burn edit warring, endless circular reasoning and personal attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain which is POV and unsourced? The "not substantiated" statement which you and the clique have since abandoned, or my edits removing it, and insisting that you provide a source? Now you have replaced it with the obviously untrue hyperbole "fact free", and revert my compromise of attributing it to Manjoo, which is the source that the clique provided. Are you just inserting a statement you know to be untrue ... to prove you can? The power of your clique is most impressive, its ethics however is questionable.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not taking the bait and I'm ignoring the attacks; letting the admins handle this. Updated. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't take the bait either, when I repeatedly requested a source for the "not substantiated" statement. Evidently you don't have to take bait when you are part of a clique.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This was a dispute over a rather charged bit of information that was flagrantly in violation of WP:NPOV. The IP's efforts at fixing the problem were problematic, but Balloonman fixed it. Far too much drama for such a small dispute, and hopefully with the change in place this will die. -- Atama頭 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Atama, you appear to have access to some information of which I am unaware. Can you be a little more clear on the "flagrant NPOV violation" you observed? I'm not seeing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Declaring that something is "fact-free" and "lacked any compelling evidence" in an article is making a POV comment, an opinion. To state that anything isn't "compelling" is an opinion; how can you factually state that evidence fails to "compel" anyone? I consider this is to be a violation of the policy. An example of the proper treatment of such material would be Adolf Hitler#Legacy. Note how it states, "Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are typically regarded as gravely immoral." If the article simply said, "Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are gravely immoral", that would be using Wikipedia to editorialize. Inserting politically-charged opinion as fact, even with a reference, is against Wikipedia policy. Just as with the Hitler example, it may be an opinion almost uniformly shared but nonetheless such wording is to be avoided. This discussion might be better located at WP:NPOV/N. -- Atama頭 02:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation, your example and the policy section you linked are all predicated upon the incorrect assumption that the material is an opinion, and not a statement of fact. Most of this discussion pivots around that specific point. If the wording expressed a person's opinion, it would indeed require attribution to that person, but it is not opinion - it is a simple statement of fact in a reliable source. If you wish to remove the word "compelling" from the factual statement, and leave it as "lacked any evidence", I won't argue against it. The issue here isn't how we convey the basic fact in the Wikipedia article: "The charges made by the SBVT campaign against Kerry _________________________ (fill in the blank)

• were unsubstantiated -- Associated Press
• lacked any compelling evidence -- Farhad Manjoo
• failed to come up with sufficient evidence -- Washington Post
• were fact-free -- Farhad Manjoo
• provided no justification for looking further into the decisions to award the medals or the anti-war activities -- Navy
• were dishonest and dishonorable -- John McCain
• can accurately and fairly be described as a smear -- History Detectives
• were misleading; mischaracterize the actual basis on which Kerry received his decorations Factcheck.org
• are more vicious; the lies cut deep; this smear campaign has been launched by people without decency -- Jim Rassmann
• is a dirty campaign that tries to paint a war hero as unpatriotic; the ugliest thing I've ever seen in politics -- Lee Iacocca

...the issue is that some editors are trying to paint the basic fact as a mere personal "opinion" by attributing it to a single individual. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. I do concede your point that the previous wording was unnecesarily "politically-charged", so I have rewritten the content so that it conveys the basic fact using the most encyclopedic (and least inflammatory) terminology. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is cool, as I hope I made clear elsewhere. I had two problems with the text from before, the term "fact-free" which just seemed like bad writing if nothing else, and "compelling" which as I'd said before could never be tied to a factual statement, ever, by its very nature (if I have to use another analogy, it's like saying that it's a fact that something is delicious). Again, the rewritten prose is just fine with me, and I've since reverted the IP in question to preserve your text, if that shows you how strongly I support it. -- Atama頭 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, you don't get off the hook that easily! You were the first to make a Hitler reference, so you automatically lose the argument! But seriously, you made some valid points which I hope have been addressed. However, this discussion wasn't brought here to ANI to hash out the proper way to word article content. This is about the IP editor's long-term warring, tendentious editing and personal attacks on others. I appreciate your revert of his edits, but that just puts you in the company of a dozen other editors that have tried the same thing to little effect. I doubt the real problem is solved. A quick look at his contribution list and talk page indicates he has expanded his battleground and is commenting on editors instead of content again, as well as templating regulars. I do appreciate you taking the time to help, occasional minor disagreements notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(←) First, Xenophrenic rewrote the disputed bit of text to be very encyclopedic, and I'm grateful for that. Second, the IP in question has edit-warred to remove 2 reliable sources and has reached 3RR. I left the IP a warning that they are one revert away from being blocked, and reverted their most recent change to the article. Since I'm now "involved" with the article it wouldn't be appropriate for me to block in case they defy this warning, but I'll see that it gets reported at the very least. I've also warned the IP against unfounded vandalism accusations. -- Atama頭 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why this discussion is located here instead of at WP:NPOV/N. The IP editor has attacked other editors as vandals, liars, members of a "clique", all without justification. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys don't proof read when vandalism has been cited. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has made a !vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson AFD, regarding an article that he wrote; he is currently listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as not being allowed to edit the Wikipedia: namespace. I don't know what the exact rules are in editing restrictions — is this alone enough to breach his editing restriction? Never mind that he did falsely accuse me of having some sort of vendetta against him, and never mind that he did push his "speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" mantra on us again. And never mind that he clearly thinks that his restriction is a joke (just look at his userpage). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• ETA: It says "Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block." Hmm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So should that go in a seperate ANI post or do you want to just change the title of this one? Nefariousski (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to notify him on his Talk page. Woogee (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Notify him about a discussion in a namespace he can't edit, just so… oh never mind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU has blocked Kmweber indefinitely for the violation of editing restrictions. -- Atama頭 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, was in the process of blocking myself as well. Whether he felt it was valid or not is irrelevant - ANI is the most high-traffic page for that sort of thing, and if anyone wanted to speak against the ban, they could have, and in fact at least one someone did. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As ever, I invite review - if deemed appropriate - and do not need to be consulted should another admin decide to lift or vary the sanction. To be clear, I enacted the provisions of the community restrictions and have no opinion on them (unless I commented - in which case my opinion is irrelevant). LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Give the guy a break. Don't wiki-lawyer. The article was created by him and he is the major editor. So when there is an AFD, he is an expert in saying why he thought the article qualifies. So stop the drama, use IAR if you have to, and unblock the guy. After all, you want to encourage him to write articles so stop hounding him. Ipromise (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem awfully draconian. Commenting on an AfD for an article where he's been a major contributor hardly seems like trolling around for trouble. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of community block

Proposal: Current editing restrictions are lifted. In its place is a restriction to not allow Kmweber discussion in RFA, noticeboards, and ArbCom until December 31, 2010 and restrictions after that to be based on article edits between March 6, 2010 and December 31, 2010. Ipromise (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• We've given him way too many chances. Why does he keep slipping through? It's clear that he's not here to play by any of our rules, only to wikilawyer everything to death and force his "everything should have an article, sources are optional" mantra, which is not only wrong but destructive to the wiki. His comments in the AFD suggest that he doesn't believe in the policies that nearly everyone else believes in, and in fact wishes only to refute them — and he's been doing this for at least three years, if not longer. His contributions to article space are minimal; almost always two-sentence stubs with a stub template, no categories and no references. (I asked him about this once, and he said basically that he "can't be arsed" to learn the category tree; his comment in the AFD says that he honestly believes that ONLY contentious info should be sourced if at all.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)TenPound Hammer is the AFD nominator so there is a conflict of interest. He nominated the article for deletion then tried to get the article creator blocked for commenting on the AFD. If TenPound Hammer believes the current editing restrictions stays in place, that is a valid opinion which he is encouraged to express above. But to seek Kmweber's block because of an AFD that TenPound Hammer nominated and that Kmweber created is a very mean thing to do. Ipromise (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're making false accusations. I filed the AFD because I thought the article failed notability. In no way was I doing this just to "bait" Kmweber into getting indeffed. He seemed to be keeping with the promise not to edit WP: space (even though he still calls it out a joke), so I honestly didn't think he would even touch the AFD — after all, I also AFDed one of his other articles the same day and he never touched that AFD. You're awfully accusatory, Ipromise, you know that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the false accusation? Unomi (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Tenpoundhammer. And per Kmweber,[1] keep the indef too. It might have been reasonable to seek an exemption from a community restriction in order to participate in a discussion, but he didn't go that route. Instead he declared in big red letters that the restriction didn't exist and tested its boundaries. His lightweight mainspace history really doesn't merit additional chances. Let him wait on the sidelines and participate in other WMF sites. In half a year I'd consider a return if he pledges to refrain from past problems and hasn't socked. Durova⁴¹² 04:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and seek clarification. And generally support the notion that he is able to defend articles that he is a major contributor to. Unomi (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per Durova. There are reasonable means of asking for permission to violate ones restrictions. "Hey ArbCom, can I have a temporary pass for the sole purpose of discussing this one AFD, since I am a primary editor on the article" would have been the way to go. The attitude displayed by Kmweber over this shows that he is unwilling to work within the bounds of his restrictions, nor is he willing to calmly and reasonably seek amelioration. There's a big difference in approaches, and as with lots of his past actions, Kmweber shows here an utter disdain for the community and for expected behavioral norms. --Jayron32 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The expected behavioural norms are in no way those exhibited by tenpoundhammer. Seriously. Tenpoundhammer could have been slightly more diplomatic than, by his own words, nominate 2 articles which tph attributes to kmw for deletion. He could have gone to KMW first and ask for rationales for keeping it. TPH may actually have done so on the talk page of the article prior to nominating it, I don't know, because this has been brought up *after* the article was deleted, a week *after* kmwebers initial post to the afd. TPH should be ashamed of himself, and those supporting this should consider the circumstances carefully. Unomi (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• KMweber controls his behaviour. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to comment on those AfDs. He's been here long enough that he knew he could have sought a different route. If he actually felt so compelled to comment on those AfDs regardless of his restrictions than its probably further evidence he shouldn't be here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• To Unomi: Its not that he commented on AFDs about his articles, its how he went about it in light of his restrictions. Per Durova's link, his attitude was not "I am under restrictions, how may I work around them so I can still comment at the AFDs" it was "Fuck my restrictions, I will do whatever I want when I want." The former approach would have led to no block at all; indeed it may have led to a loosening of restrictions when he showed he was able to work with others. The latter approach merits a block. --Jayron32 00:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? — I missed the discussion that led to the unblock with restriction, and here we are are: It Didn't Work Out. Support the indef. Put a cherry on top. Jack Merridew 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• You don't see a problem with TPH nominating at least 1, 2, 3 of KMWs pages and articles for deletion on the same day, without having the courtesy decency to approach kmw for a venue of response? Right, It Didn't Work Out. However you may feel about the guy, you must admit that this is pretty low. Unomi (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. I don't know what to say. Not that I need to. The Block Log speaks for itself JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Err, what does that mean exactly? Should we indef everyone that has a block log? How about this guy? Unomi (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per Jayron32.  Sandstein  07:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Right, lets block him 1 week after he initially commented on an afd of an article he was the main contributor to. Ignoring that TPH offered up 2 of kmws user pages for deletion on the same day, even though he arguably should have known that nothing had changed since the last time he nominated them for deletion. You must know this can't be right. Unomi (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since the "no Wikipedia space" restriction was placed, notwithstanding that he disputes it, KMWeber has not edited in the Wikipedia namespace until this incident. The main reason for the restriction was, IIRC, to stop drama-mongering, I don't think a !vote on an AfD on an article to which you have significant contributions is a violation of the spirit of that, and AfDs have a timetable which means that a request to vary the restriction might well take you outside the timeframe. We should consider what can be done to allow people to participate in AfDs where they have prior interest when they are under some kind of restriction; I can see why you'd want to keep it to a single comment block with not more than a couple of hundred words. But ignoring restrictions is not the way to challenge them. Perhaps we can let Kurt off the hook this time, but with a clear message that this was not the right way of going about things. LHvU is not given to capricious blocks, I think this was in good faith and defensible, but I think we could probably take a collective deep breath and step back this time. I note that Luna Santin has unblocked him, it would be better if Luna had let LHvU do it based on this discussion. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Kmweber was already given a final warning in December, here. It was for the same reason than this block: Kurt participated in a wikipedia-space page. And he gave the same reason: that he could do it because it directly concerned him. If Kurt is unblocked, he shouldn't be allowed any exception from his wikipedia-space ban.

And, yes, a one week block would have been enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

support an indef. I'd seriously question the admin who unblocked without clear consensus to do so on the ultra super duper last chance.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any restrictions on Kurt from participating in AfDs and support his being unblocked. It is absurd that any article creator could not be permitted to defend the article he or she created. I also think this rather overthetop edit should be undone. Since when is commenting in an AfD, "illegal"?! We have all seen lame non-arguments in AfDs (pretty much any time someone says to delete something as "cruft") that should be discouraged, but even then, they are not "illegal". What law did Kurt break by commenting there? Even if Kurt was under any editing restrictions, he should at least be able to defend an article he created. He made two edits in the discussion, did not spam it, did not start tossing around swear words. What is so problematic there that it breaks a law or is even that big of a deal in Wikipedic rule terms? We should not toss around terms like "illegal" unless if it concerns something like actual libel or intentional copyright violations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked Kmweber at this time. As far as I can see, this is the first infraction of any kind on his topic ban, and multiple users above have expressed opinions that he should be entitled to comment in XfD discussions where he was a major contributor to the page under discussion. A warning might have sufficed, or a short block -- which he's already served -- but indef is a frankly ridiculous response here that I will not abide. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My Hero/Heroine :) Unomi (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what in this guy brings the most severe response from the system. I am disappointed by the response, especially from users whom I respect. I know he has a past and a mile-long block log but I am simply not comfortable with this latest round of his blocking cycle. He has edited sparsely since February and today when he edits to defend his article he gets indefed. I realise that he did this against his topic ban and that the article he was defending was borderline notable. But his was a human response. Please give this guy a comfort zone, on humanitarian grounds, to do something that most people take for granted: defend their own creations. Repeatedly nominating his articles for deletion is traumatic enough for him and at minimum would justifiably make him feel targeted. Getting multiple users, all at the same time trying to ban him after he reflexively ran to the AfD to defend his article simply does not pass any appearance of fairness test. Actions have to be fair and appear to be fair, in an analogous way to the virtues of Caesar's wife. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't see where you had the consensus to unblock. There certainly didn't seem to be it above.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not about editors being in agreement, it is regarding whether decisions are in-line with policy and with the 5 pillars(though generally one hopes they are one and the same), quite frankly the behavior and reactions seem to fall far short of both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, which remains a core principle. Unomi (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, KMWeber is in full control of his actions and if he isn't, he shouldn't be editing wikipedia. No one forced him to respond to that AfD. if he can't help but edit wikispace and knowingly invite drama then he doesn't belong here. If you have evidence of intent to bait, then provide it. Especially since after having his comment struck he came back a week later and did it again. That shows complete intent to disrupt.--Crossmr (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a discussion I find to be necessary or fruitful at the moment. Please reflect on this; are you holding kmweber to a different standard than tenpoundhammer? Unomi (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why because you can't argue against it? You brought it up. And yes, since he is under an editing restriction, he is held to a different standard. It is quite simple. He knowingly and without evidence of physical coercion violated his editing restrictions in an area that he had to know was going to cause drama. Can you say the same about tenpoundhammer?--Crossmr (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I find it a tad unfortunate that you didn't choose to redact your comment above or back it up with diffs on the back of kmwebers response to your comment. Editing restrictions are meant to ensure that an editor does not cause drama, it is not meant to take away a right to response(that would be against WP:CIVIL). Perhaps we should move this whole discussion to 'neutral ground'? WP:EQ refers to Ethic of reciprocity for good reason. Second of all, the standard that I was referring to was regarding presumption of intent or reasonable ability to foresee consequences. Do you believe that tph was was unable to foresee that drama and / or duress would be caused by nominating at least 3 pages attributed to kmw for deletion? Or do you believe that he was unable to control himself? Clearly tph welcomed the outcome, why else would he declare lhvu his hero? Clearly tph brought it to AN/I in order to facilitate such an outcome, as an experienced editor he would know that there was no urgency here, kmw responded to the afd 1 week ago. Consider that 20 mins after creating the issue here, having had no response, he adds: ETA: It says "Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block." Hmm.. Yet still stated I didn't explicitly ask for him to be blocked; I asked if he should be blocked.. Consider further that the 2 user pages he nommed for afd were previously closed as keep, and were stated by all involved to be within policy, why would he have imagined that this had changed?. WP:CIVIL clearly states: It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.. Unomi (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

His response is immaterial, whether his comment was struck out first or not, both were made while he was under editing restrictions. The time line of the striking out doesn't supersede the timeline of his being restricted. I find it a tad unfortunate you continue to try to dance around the issue when it is clearly obvious that he was under an editing restriction and chose the route to generate the most drama. Sorry, can you point to the part of CIVIL that says its okay to violate your editing restrictions to respond to an AfD of an article you once edited? I'll wait while you look it up. Editing wikipedia isn't a right, so there is no "right of response". tph was not under editing restrictions. If you'd like to propose some for him, feel free. I'll even give you a little toque so it'll last longer. If you'd like to read up on something you should do some reading on Personal Resonpsibility. kmweber seems to utterly lack it and you're enabling him. He controlled his actions. No one forced him. If you can't deny that or provide evidence to the contrary, then we really have nothing further to discuss here. I asked you if you had evidence that tph was intentionally baiting kmweber to provide it. I haven't seen any. If you think tph did something untoward start a separate discussion and provide evidence. But unless you can demonstrate how someone forced him to make those edits, he's got nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you truly have a burning desire to discuss this then feel free to ping me on irc, but at this point I see no reason for us to waste yet more foundation resources on ANI threads. Unomi (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"indef is a frankly ridiculous response..." Why? Is it too long, or too short? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe she meant not definite enough? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will check the restriction, then, to see whether it should have been the short or long indefinite... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can I hear just one good reason why we should keep bringing Kmweber back? One good reason? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is none. Plain and simple: he violated his editing restriction. No ifs, ands, or buts. It is not complicated. Just like some other editors whom I won't mention, he is apparently entitled to an infinite number of "second chances". — Huntster (t @ c) 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unomi has suggested on IRC that this discussion be moved to a talk space or otherwise non-WP: space so that Kmweber can reply. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. Those end up being missed. Moving to subpages never accomplished anything than to try and prevent a discussion from actually going somewhere.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The block rational seems thin and heavily bureaucratic. It's continuing proof that when it comes to getting blocked, it's not what you do but who your friends are (and as important, who your enemies are). I'm not fan of Kurt but I've rarely seen an editor hounded as much as he has been. I'd be as argumentative if I was faced with the venom he has put up with. The whole thing is a little high school clique-like. Sorry if I soiund harsh. RxS (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Trouts all around. One for TPH, one for Kurt, one for the blocking admin, and one for the unblocking admin. Really? Was this necessary? I mean, come on, Kurt was harmless and not causing trouble up until this point. Couldn't we just leave him alone? The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• I largely agree with The Wordsmith above. Kurt made two edits arguing to keep an article he created. Heaven forbid! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• He was restricted from editing anything in wikipedia space. He did, and look where we are. This is the exact reason he was restricted from doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, maybe. I don't think the content of his arguments caused the drama (which has been the problem in the past), and I don't think we properly thought through how people should comment on content issues in such cases. If the ban is designed to include AfDs on articles where Kurt has significant content edits then we should say so explicitly I think. Piling in to other AfDs and noticeboard threads is obviously not going to fly but I can see why this particular case would be perceived as it was by Kurt. The main thing is that it does not seem to be part of a pattern of pushing the limits, and actually it does not seem to have had any effect on the outcome of the debate either. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• He was told all wikipedia space, he doesn't need someone else to come along and say, "and yes, we mean AfDs, and yes we mean projects, and yes we mean AN/I and yes we mean RFAs, and yes we mean...etc.etc." In the absence of any exceptions it means ALL wikipedia space.--Crossmr (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why he would or should be restricted from AfDs. Looking at discussions in which we both participated, his edits strike me as expressing valid viewpoints: [2] (1 edit to the discussion; explains why he thinks it should be kept) compared with say the far more antagonistic [3] from the same discussion by a different editor who says to "Build a bonfire and burn this crap." Or [4] (a single edit to the discussion, no attacks on other editors, not just a vote) and even if there is a concern that Kurt is somehow "too inclusionist," well, by that standard we would disallow delete votes in the same discussion from accounts that think they have a closed-minded "mission" to delete, would never argue to keep (that account never has, not once, as far as I can tell), and come here for sexual pleaseure... Now even something like here, he did not link to WP:Speedy keep or something, so his reply seems fair. Moreover, even if we disagree with his stance that existing is sufficient for inclusion, so what? It is just a stance. No one is forced to reply to him. A closing admin should be able to weigh the opinion accordingly. As for his more recent edits, this question is fair and reasonable and politely worded while being academically challenging. Many editors share that frustration with the repeated subjective use of "notability" in discussions. We have a whole category of editors with userboxes opposing notability and proposals that come up from time time saying to scrap this subjective/elitist term. I do not know the history between TPH and Kurt, so I have no comment on his accusation in his initial comment. Going back to his last AfD prior, we have this. Personally, I don't like copy and paste comments and the initial keep is similar to other keeps from this user, but the subsequent question might be valid and even with regards to the copy and paste, again, I see rapid fire "Delete per nom" and "Delete as cruft" style votes (sometimes three or even four in under a minute!) by several accounts over and over that don't really contribute anything to the discussion or reflect any interest in looking for sources let alone reading the article, but if those aren't banned, then I don't see why the opposite would be either. If anything, we should encourage Kurt, like all users, to not only participate in AfDs, but to go beyond the discussion to source searching and incorporating. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Because he was restricted from all wikipedia space without exception. That is why he was restricted. He should continue to be restricted since he demonstrates that he would prefer to take the route of most disruption rather than work with the community. That's why. Unlike many around here I don't use WP:TRADEAGOODCONTRIBFORBADBEHAVIOR cheat sheet that is so popular with trying to excuse and coddle disruptive users.--Crossmr (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific question

What do we think should be done in the case of users restricted from editing in project space (something which is not as unusual as it once was) in the specific case of AfD discussions on articles to which they have significant past contributions? I would say this should be an exception to general project-space bans, provided that involvement on the AfDs does not become disruptive. Line by line rebuttals after every !vote is obviously going to be perceived as a problem but a single !vote with rationale would seem to me to be a reasonable thing to allow in the specific case where the user has significant prior contributions to the article under discussion. I don't want to open the door to Wikilawyering here but I do think we need to be fair to people. The point of topical bans is, as I see it, to allow people to continue to contribute to content but to keep them away from their hot-button topics. I think you could argue this either way and I think we should come to a consensus view of how it should be handled in general. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, should we just do it here, village pump or an rfc? Unomi (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You start making exceptions and they argue for me. Suddenly it was in the "spirit" of the rule and not the "letter". No. If they're restricted from editing wikipedia space, they're restricted from editing wikipedia space. If they have some vitally crucial to the debate (in the terms of sources), then it can be edited into the article as necessary and the discussion can carry on from there. I can't say that there is every a reason where a specific person "needs" to participate in an AfD debate. AfD debates usually come up on things like sources and they don't need to edit the debate to provide those sources.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions need to be noted, so that uninvolved admins requested to act upon an alleged violation know precisely the remit. A working model that an exception to WP namespace pages bans/restrictions would be AfD's/DRV's, GA/FA discussions relating to articles previously edited would be fine, but it would need to be spelt out within the topic ban wording. That way, there is no confusion as to the extent of the ban when the wording is reviewed (and people under total exclusion type bans would not need that reinforced within the wording). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have voiced this opinion previously, but unfortunately, the "specifying the exceptions" part has often been forgotten during sanction proposal discussions (rather than always deliberately left out). I tend to avoid letting that problem exist when I make a proposal precisely so that enforcement is practical, and does not become as much of a headache as the alleged violation(s) that might later occur. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be able to at least defend articles they created in AfDs, barring they were banned for something like real world harassment, i.e. in which they are permanently blocked anyway. Any unblocked account, under other restrictions or not, should be able to defend articles they created under the normal participation conditions, i.e. if he is not swearing and tossing out severe personal attacks, then okay, but in this case, he made a mere two edits to the discussion which do not strike me as the least bit disruptive. I understand some editors did not like his RfA comments and apparently admin board ones as well. Upon reviewing his Afd contributions, I see nothing overly wrong with them. Even if some accounts don't like when he says "Keep, it exists," so what? We see lame non-arguments ("Delete, it's cruft") all the time in AfDs. We should probably not make a bigger deal out of them then they merit as any reasonable closing admin will hopefully ignore the weak arguments anyway. So, yes, like all of us, no one should be making personal attacks and such, but if he wants to make a mere two edits defending an article he created and therefore might know something about, just let him and if anyone thinks his arguments are weak, ignore them rather than start admin threads that only exacerbate tensions and distract us from improving content. Take care everyone and best wishes! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Per WP:OWN, having created an article doesn't give an editor any special privileges relating to that article. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with A Nobody on this point. While no one owns any article, a major contributor, particularly when that editor is also the creator, is particularly likely to have useful information and views worth considering. That is why CSD and AFD taggers are strongly encouraged to notify the original creator, and all the scripted tools for that do so automatically AFAIK. The alleged disruptions by kmweber involved "mass-!voting". If limited to discussions of articles of which he was the creator or q major contributor, he could hardly "mass" comment, and the process would be more transparent. In the absence of a modification of the restriction, I would, in principle, be willing to post on his behalf any comments in any such AfD discussion, whether I agree with them or not. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A major contributor can't argue anything that anyone else can't. There is nothing any individual person can do in an AfD that no one else can do. Most AfDs comes down to a lack of sources and they don't need to edit an AfD to provide those. Kurt's language on his talk page had a tinge of WP:OWN to it and that isn't remotely a good reason to ignore your sanctions.--Crossmr (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course a major contributor can argue something that someone else can't, especially for marginal articles a major contributor may be the only editor who is familiar with the material or had cause to believe that the existence of the article had merit in the first place. Kurts arguments or behavior on his talk page is immaterial to a general discussion of how these things might be better handled in the future. At the very least a person in such a case should be granted a proxy or other means of informing the discussion. Unomi (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What? AfD discussions are supposed to be decided on policy. So what is it that they can argue that is going to make a difference. Their opinion that it should be kept shouldn't really influence the outcome unless they've provided evidence to support it that wasn't already in the article. Evidence they could add to the article without editing the AfD. There is nothing preventing them from improving the article or addressing concerns on the article and then posting on the nominators or someone else's page who is involved in the AfD and asking them to reconsider the improved article. If there are questions over a borderline source they would be just as free to defend it on the article's talk page (which is where a borderline source should be discussed first). Otherwise, in what scenario do you envision that someone would be incapable of addressing a deletion reason without being able to access the AfD, which no one else on wikipedia could do?--Crossmr (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I frequently find myself arguing with accounts in AfDs who have no real knowledge or the topic under discussion and nor are they even interested in looking for sources. Rather, they just decide that they don't like the topic and so vote rather than argue to delete. By contrast, an article creator might actually be familiar with the subject and willing to look for and add sources in order to rescue it, including sources that might not be fully accessible on a standard Google Search. Google Books, for example, only gives snippet views of some books and some editors might not even have access to something like J-Stor. Many subjects are actually discussed in reliable secondary source journal and magazine articles as well as even full length books that are not always accessible online or in the case of something like Google News, one needs a paid subscription to access. I would much rather hear from someone who has a greater likelihood to have these sources or an interest in acquiring them and utilizing them than ignoring such a crucial opinion. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge and what matters more is the opinion and efforts of those who have, look for, and incorporate the sources than merely accounts that just toss out abbreviated links to ever changing guideline and policy pages. And let's be frank, we know many accounts show up in an Afd to never acknowledge or return even if the article has been drastically improved since nomination. We need those improving it to indicate as much in the actual discussion so that key development is not glossed over. I cannot help but ascertain that simply allowing Kurt to have made his two posts and either replied or ignored them in the discussion would have been far more favorable and far more constructive use of everyone's time than making an issue out of something easily ignored at worst. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator is closing an article based on votes and not reading the policies and arguments made and checking the article itself than that is matter for deletion review or administrator review. It isn't a reason to allow disruptive users to start trying to make exceptions on their restrictions on the off chance they might have a close of an AfD on their article done by an admin who isn't doing his job properly. If someone has been restricted from editing wikipedia space because of their constant disruption, I don't find their opinion to be all that crucial to begin with. But you're not describing anything that shouldn't first be discussed on the article talk page. If sources are questioned, they should be discussed on the article talk page before being taken to AfD. If there is a question about the sources the party is more than welcome to give much fuller details about the source on the talk page, which is where it should go so future editors can find it if they also question it. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge yes and we're doing it as a community. What matters most is that the people who participate in that process can do so without being disruptive. That is first and foremost. he had choices and chose the most disruptive path before him. Something he was restricted from doing. As durova pointed out he could have contacted someone, as I've pointed out he could have addressed sources on the talk page and asked the nominator to look at that again. If admins are closing debates properly there is zero reason for any restricted user to edit them. They can address whatever concerns there are at the article level. If there is a problem in the process, creating further issues by creating exceptions for some users who are otherwise restricted doesn't solve that problem. It then gets into a battle over what is a "major" contributor. Someone says 50%, someone else says 30%, someone else says just 10%, do we count characters? Visible words on the page? If someone simply makes an edit to a page is he then allowed to go edit the AfD. Would we then see restricted editors simply making a single edit to a page so they can go get involved in the AfD? no. As I said above. Give them inch, they'll take a mile.--Crossmr (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AfDs come down to polices applied to the specific facts of an article. A creator or major editor can, in many cases, assist in establishing those facts. Such an editor may know better where to find sources than most other editors commenting -- not always, but often enough to take note of. Such an editor may have relevant information on which sources in a particular field are reliable and why. Such an editor may have relevant information about the context of the article that most editors do not. Granted, this info could be presented via a proxy. Granted also, a different editor might have any or all of this information, and might happen to see the AfD and comment. But that might NOT happen either. Yes an editor might be disruptive. In such a case that editor might be blocked (note that in the instant case kmweber was not disruptive, although he was also not persuasive). It is said above that no one editor can do anythign at an afd that anyone else can't. And in a formal sense this is true. But it is common at an AfD for one editor to do something that no one else in fact does. For one editor to present sources or arguments or information that persuade others and turn the result of the discussion. That is why it is a discussion, and that is who it is supposed to work. And it is not by any means inevitable that had one editor not offered those sources or arguments someone else would have. AfDs are limited in time and space. Most AfDs have only a few editors commenting, who are not always really representative of the community as a whole. This is a problem with the AfD system. Restrictions of major contributors to an article will be all to likely to worsen the situation. The possible benefits -- avoidance of some possible disruption -- do not IMO match the possible costs -- possibly valid arguments or views not being considered. DES ^(talk) 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

and again, it all can and should be provided on the article talk page if it the sources are questioned. Both to solve the immediate question and to help future questions. The sources can be edited or clarified on the article just fine without editing the AfD. The user can then ask the nominator via their talk page to recheck them or ask another user to make a note on the AfD. Sorry, but I still fail to see anything which necessitates a restricted user from having their restrictions lifted. If that editor didn't want to be in that position, they shouldn't have been disruptive in the first place. With proper process the admin should be checking the article before deleting it and comparing it to the argument. If the article has been significantly improved to render the argument invalid, he shouldn't be deleting it. If the admin isn't closing properly that is a separate issue from trying to make exceptions for restricted users. And you haven't even begun to address what is considered a "major" contributor. That alone could take months to hammer out and you'd still have wish-washing over it when it came time to try and handle users. We're not avoiding possible disruption when we restrict a user. A user only ends up restricted from wikipedia space after they've been significantly disruptive. It doesn't happen from a single comment. It happens after long term disruption so it isn't done without good reason, when it is done the community has decided that there contributions in that area are no longer welcome. What's going to happen is some restricted editor is going to go from AfD, to DRV, to AN/I or wherever because is tangentially related to the AfD for which they're exempted, which will only result in more drama.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are taking an excessively melodramatic approach to all this, why don't you just tell use how you really feel? In this particular case kmweber did not disrupt anything, he defended his article with 3 posts to the afd (as I recall) yet we are now faced with walls of text that read like the end of times is upon us, is this a disruption we should lay at his feet? Should there be actual disruption of an afd or improper use of ancillary venues then I trust that the editor in question will be made to regret it, but there is no reason to assume to worst without cause. Unomi (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being intentionally obtuse since you asked. The specific question is about users in general. Not just kmweber. In fact my last post had nothing to do with KMweber. We talked about Kmweber above and you didn't want to have anything more to do with it. So which is it? If you want to continue talking about him we can do so in the section above, this section is for discussion of sanctions in general and should exceptions be made for users to defend articles on which they are a "major" contributor (whatever that means). My answer is quite simply and will always be, no. There is zero reason to afford them that luxury if they've found themselves in a position to be restricted from editing wikipedia space. We don't just do that lightly. There is nothing that they could say in an AfD that couldn't and shouldn't be said on an article talk page that would genuinely have an application to the AfD process.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

By that argument we shouldn't have centralized AfD discussions at all, since such discussions can occur on article talk pages -- as indeed they once did, before the creation of VfD, which later became AfD. Comments on article talk pages may well not be seen by other participants in the discussion and so may not persuade or inform them. An AfD is not supposed to be merely a bunch of people posting arguments for an admin to evaluate (even assuming that the admin reviews the article talk page, which is not part of the standard instructions to AfD closers), it is supposed to be a discussion. This means that comments should be read by and reacted to by other participants. Restricting one user's comments to a quite different page hinders such discussion, and therefore makes the AfD potentially less useful than it could be. As to what constitutes being a "major contributor", that is no more subjective than having "substantial coverage" -- a matter often debated at AfDs -- nor for the matter of that than many other Wikipedia standards. If the matter comes up and a question is raised, an uninvolved admin can review and if s/he thinks the "major contributor" standard isn't met, warn the restricted user or if need be issue a block. In many cases it is crystal clear when a given user is a major contributor -- lots of articles listed at AfD have only one non-trivial contributor, ignoring edits to add tags, formatting and the like. If the user involved becomes disruptive on the AfD that can be dealt with. If the user has in the past been disruptive on AfDs for articles s/he created, then the restriction can specifically include such, it merely should not do so by default and without specific discussion of the issue. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Wikipedia is usually served better by pragmatism than legalistic interpretations of rules or even editing restrictions. If the user is behaving and helping an AFD debate on an article he's had content involvement with, then treat it as an exception to the restriction. If he's obviously being unhelpful or disruptive, then revoke that implicit privelage and come down like a tonne of bricks on him. Sure, the letter of the restriction may not allow him to contribute, but this looks to me like a valid place for IAR, as long as it is helping the project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am actually arguing for an explicit exception, not for creating one on the spot via IAR. The problem with IAR in such a case is lack of predictability. If an editor comments despite the letter of a restriction, s/he may be blocked with no significant discussion of the value or non-value of the particular edits involved, by an admin who simply points to the letter of the restriction (as in fact the blocking admin did in the current case). While in a different case an admin may take the view espoused by Scott MacDonald. Thus an editor subject to a restriction would not know with reasonable assurance what conduct would or would not result in a block. I am arguing that when a restriction would by its terms cover AfD, it should be interpreted as always having an exception for AFDs of articles where the editor is the creator of or a major contributor to the article, unless there is an explicit provision to restrict AfD participation in such cases. In short I am arguing for a "leagalistic" view of editing restrictions, because some will choose to treat them that way anyway, merely for a specific amendment to the general rule in such cases. One of the principles of a legal system is that people ought to be able to determine in advance what conduct is subject to penalty, and while Wikipedia is not a government or a legal system, that principle should IMO apply in general here. (As usual I have little support for the use of IAR, a policy I think we would be better off without.) DES ^(talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see six editors who have for one reason or another supported the idea of such a general exception, and only two who have opposed it, one quite briefly and one quite extensively. What would be the best way forward to confirm and document such a consensus? DES ^(talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Make that 7. I was of a mind with Scott, but DES convinced me; in this case, he did, as Scott said, "behave", but still got his ton of bricks. This is a reasonable exception, and due to kmweber's reputation with several people who would like to see him gone, I think an "official" (much as I hate that word) exception is the best way to go. Kmweber should be allowed to participate constructively in AFD's of articles he has previously edited, and discussions that are about him. I assume an uninvolved admin will come along eventually, decide whether there's consensus to change the wording of the ban, and make the change. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, I find any Draconian punishments to be a major problem. I would suggest that no one be barred from a single short comment (under 100 words?) in a WP process page concerning articles etc. with which they have been active. Such a single comment is hardly likely to upset the great order of the cosmos, and will prevent cases in which (for example) one editor decides to nom for deletion lots of stuff from a person who is barred from making even a simple comment on the process (without claiming this is the precise current situation). Collect (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Such an exception would easily be gamed, which would lead to further drama. It should either be "allowed to comment" or "not allowed to comment." This is something where a gray area is just inviting abuse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I think differently than everyone else here on Wikipedia, but this question occurs to me: why can't the individual Guy mentions in his post above first ask someone for permission to participate? If a person who has been banned from a given namespace decides to add a comment, her/his contributions will be ignored or deleted -- unless some uninvolved party runs interference. Doing so will only make their contributions more convincing. While we can't make our fellow Wikipedians think, we shouldn't unduly mollicuddle them when there is a reasonable alternative she/he can take. -- llywrch (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor using hacked AWB code

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games § Moby_Games_ext._links_removal

User:Lorson modified the open source code of AWB to make hundreds of edits. I am not sure there was a consensus for these edits. I contacted the editor in their talk page in User talk:Lorson and after a short reply in which never denied to hack the code, they kept mass edits despite of the reaction of a number of editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor is operating an unapproved bot making more than 10 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe he has finished this "run", so a block now wouldn't really be preventing anything. Have to find whether these edits were valid, and if not, rollback.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Reach Out to the Truth did 200 rollbacks in the last hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson (talk · contribs) does not appear at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users. Whether he's using AWB in a bot or directly, if he doesn't have permission, he has to stop now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the issue is, the only problem is that User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth abused their rollback privilege. And I got some rather hostile message from User:Mephistophelian on my talk page that I ignored. I was only using AWB to make my edits faster.--Lorson (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But if you don't have permission to use AWB, then you may not use it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB needs permission, which Lorson doesn't have. The editor hacked the code to run an unapproved bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't some sort of accidental-use-without-permission. If someone has gone to the trouble of building a hacked version of AWB, it's clearly an intentional breach of the requirement that AWB editors must be authorised. I suggest that Lorson reverts all the edits done with unauthorised AWB, or faces a block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson has been tempblocked for running an unapproved bot (which he was essentially doing). An admin may wish to block Reach Out to the Truth and/or JasonAQuest, remove rollback, or do nothing to them at all, their call, I have to leave the computer at this moment in time.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that both User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth have been warned about their use of rollback for this incident and I've pointed them to here. Lorson has a further comment at User talk:Lorson#Block. something lame from CBW 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

JasonAQuest did more than 750 rollbacks in an hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Lorson failed to obtain agreement or support for his/her mass revisions, I fail to see why two users should lose privileges for rolling back articles to a state which had been agreed upon by the majority of editors whom it concerned [5]. There was also concern that Lorson's edits were the result of a conflict of interest and hypocrisy, i.e. removing links to Mobygames while adding contentless spam links to GameFAQs. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw someone engaging in massive deletions of links that had withstood years of scrutiny. It seemed like vandalism, was at the least disruptive, and would be more difficult to fix if left for later, so I acted with the tools I'd been given (which included rollback) to address it right away. "Don't fix it yourself" didn't occur to me, and I apologize. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The removal of MobyGames links was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Moby Games ext. links removal. There was no consensus for removal of the links, but he continued doing so anyway. Back in October he had added GameFAQs links to numerous articles, and I find it odd that now he wants to remove MobyGames links from articles. As far as I can tell he hasn't removed links to any other sites, just MobyGames. Reach Out to the Truth 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why users should be warned for rolling back edits of an unapproved bot. I'd sooner thank them, no? Rollback is intended to make stuff like this easier. Cleaning up after an unapproved bot fits the bill in my mind. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:02, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

These issues can't be sorted out with rollbacking that gives no explanation why it's done. This is independent of who is right. Recall that in edit wars both sides claim to be right. Reporting the incident helps in solving it. We had one day and half of edits and reverts. I am still not sure what the actions from now on should be. What dies the Video games project say? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing for a few edits and some reverts. We are discussing for a day of edits, reverts, then 3 days pause and again edits and reverts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread would indicate the person running the unapproved bot is wrong, and would seem to serve as all the explanation necessary. If we'd have waited, other edits might have been done to the articles, and then each one would've had to be sorted out individually -- which probably never would've actually gotten done. It would be good to be able to specify an edit summary for rollbacks, but when someone runs an unapproved bot I think that qualifies as a case where we can use a quick clean-up method. It's not an edit war if you're just cleaning up after something like the above violation. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:13, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacking was been doing before my report here and stopped after it as long with Lorson's mass edits. For one hour Lorson's edit were done simultaneously with rollbacks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if he began rolling back before this report, the fixing still seemed to be justified in the end. He probably should've made a report, but in that event, beginning to clean up before he gained consensus on the appropriate action would be fine, as long as he was right about their being in violation, which he seems to have been. Again if he would've waited then an eventual mass-revert might've become impossible, so I have to be glad he did what he did. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:24, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The VG wikiproject endorses the use of links to mobygames, when they are beneficial to the article (primarily for game credits, which they usually carry extensive lists for, such that we would never include (eg). Also extensive and cross-platform screenshots.). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources for details. The few times I have seen this previously discussed, it was agreed that mass-deletion of any links that were added in 2005 was counterproductive. A checking effort was undertaken, though it didn't get through all uses of the template. The project's editors are (or should be) aware that checked-links-that-are-deemed-insufficiently-useful may be removed.

Also, Lorson appears to be a SPA, having nothing but pro-gamefaqs.com and anti-mobygames.com edits in their contribs. (gamefaqs is listed in the same VG/sources subsection, but has tighter restrictions on appropriate usage). I don't know how that gets 'dealt' with, but it sounds like the editor otherwise intends on returning to doing the same thing at a slower pace once their block expires, so it probably should be. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:VG/RS is not relevant in this case, as it discusses sites used as sources not ELs. SharkD  Talk  02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

His behaviour has been farcical. First, he joins to spam GameFaqs. Get's called out, and throws a fit over MobyGames because it's so unfair. He then downloads the AWB source code, alters it, with the sole intention of bypassing the clearly stated authorisation procedure, in order to run bot-edits to remove four year old links against consensus. How is that remotely acceptable? The hacking of AWB is bad faith. This is a single purpose account, whose purpose is detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. He still has thousands of edits which are live - they should not stand. - hahnchen 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and reverted the edits as unapproved botting. Next time please do bring situations like this to an admin, WP:ANI or WP:BON. Admins are uniquely positioned to quickly undo any unapproved bot edits with &bot=1, rollback summary, and mass rollback. –xeno^talk 04:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop it with the 'hacked' references

AWB is distributed under the GPL, the right to view and modify the source to fit your needs is enshrined in the license deliberately chosen by the programmer. Running an unapproved bot for a task without consensus is a Bad Thing(tm) but everyones running around like he committed some horrible, awful deed in respect to AWB. He didn't. That's how open source works. --M^ask? 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're familiar with open-source software, you should know that "hack" is a judgment-neutral verb. It means he took a tool and modified it to suit his purposes.... which in this case were to evade WP's requirement that it be used only by people who had demonstrated themselves trustworthy. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be established that "hacking" is not necessarily a bad-faith action. For the record, I run a "hacked" version of Huggle, which is configured to use global and project config pages in my userspace, and has a couple bug fixes. This simply allows me much more freedom in how I can configure it. And it also manages to speed up the program so that it isn't so slow, thereby allowing me to spot and remove vandalism at a much faster pace... Is it bad faith? I would certainly hope not... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I will opine that when someone sees a bunch of rapid-fire edits regarding the same thing across a clearly-defined subset of articles is indeed a cause for alarm amongst editors. The bot policy is there for a reason because of the potentially destructive edits they can make if something goes wrong. That's why we only allow users that have been approved in advance by the community (either through WP:BAG for normal bots or by individual admins in the case of semi-automatic scripts like AWB) so that we exactly know why such edits are happening in a certain fashion and at a high rate. Whether or not the software used is open source has nothing to do with this – it's how it's being used with respect to applicable policy and normal procedure. –MuZemike 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hacking" is not a bad action in general but "hacking AWB" to skip its checkpage and do mass edits against consensus and approval it is. Using AWB needs 500 edits in mainspace and APPROVAL, not hacking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See, you're highlighting the wrong issue. He was freely exercising his rights given to him by the developer. He made it skip the checkpage, that's a requirement to use it on en.wiki, not to use the software. Focus on the edit's against consensus and the unapproved bot, violations of our rules, because he did nothing to AWB that voided his license or right to use AND modify the code. Everyone seems to be getting pissed for the wrong reasons with this. --M^ask? 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no one is getting pissed off because he hacked the software. They are pissed off because of what that hacking demonstrates: a willful intent to defy policy. No one is complaining about him violating any software license (which he obviously didn't); that's not what hack means. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. AWB is open source. Take it, play with it, develop it, do whatever you want but not bot-like edit in wikipedia. The reason I emphasized in the title in the "hacked AWB" because the edit summaries where writing "using AWB". Well, it wasn't the official AWB and the edit summaries were misleading giving wrong impression on the policy around AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What I find odd about this discussion is that there are several editors at the very top of WP:MOSTEDITS, including one of the AWB maintainers, who routinely do 10-hour-long full-speed AWB runs from their user account. Leave them a talk page message in the middle of a run and their session will stop but they'll take hours to get back to you. Obviously they are away from their computer while it runs in bot mode. Obviously they have "hacked" AWB so that they can run it as a bot from their user account. This has been so obvious for so long that I had assumed it was an open secret. Personally I don't have a problem with it; but we can't very well complain about someone "hacking" AWB to bypass our approvals mechamisn, when we've been turning a blind eye to it for years. Hesperian 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly no fan of those editors flouting AWB rules of use but I am forced to admit that most of the edits they make are uncontroversial; this was clearly not the case here. –xeno^talk 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of folks that Hesperian is referring to above have BAG approval for (well, the vast majority) of the tasks that their performing, anyway. People aren't really "flouting the rules" if we give them permission to run in full auto, ya know. There's no hacking required to use AWB in full bot mode either, since it's built to be able to do so as long as the account that it's logged in to has both AWB permission and a bot flag.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm talking about user accounts not bot accounts. Hesperian 08:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? Because I never used my user account to run in bot mode. Check discussion in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_14#AWB_doesn.27t_recognize_bot_status_from_CheckPage. I am the one who asked the disactivation of this "feature" in AWB. Moreover, I think I reply to messages in my talk page fairly fast. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he's referring to you, you are not at the "very top of WP:MOSTEDITS". In any case, this is really an issue for WT:AWB as it is peripheral to this ANI, which I think is resolved at this point unless Lorson continues making mass edits without approval/consensus. –xeno^talk 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So is anyone going to explain why the spammers don't get reverted, but when I undo their spam I get blocked and reverted?--Lorson (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Begging the question. –xeno^talk 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to MobyGames is not spam. Period. -- œ^™ 08:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lorson, you first have to gain consensus to remove these links. As far as I understand, you don't have this consensus at the moment. As soon as there is a consensus for that please ask for a Bot Request for Approval (BRFA) before making automatic edits. I know that you may think that this delays things but it's the only way that will assure there are no disagreements, reverts, long discussions in many places, etc. So, for now just focus in convincing the Video games project or start a discussion somewhere that is appropriate. I think the discussion here will start making circles. The incident was sorted it I think. A summary of the discussion will follow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary:

• User:Lorson ran an unapproved bot from his account. He got blocked for 24 hours for this action.
• User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth massed rollbacked hundreds of Lorson's edits. They got warned about misusing the rollback feature. No further action taken since they were acting for the greater good.
• MobyGames links removal doesn't have consensus at the moment.

Do we agree with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair summary. -- Atama頭 17:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't removing links, I was reverting links added by spammers. Why do you and others keep saying the former? And is any going to answer my question?--Lorson (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will answer your question when you stop begging the question. –xeno^talk 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive vandalism on Israeli art student scam

This article is going through the AFD process but has been continuously sabotaged by those who want it deleted. Cptnono has just unilaterally blanked out the vast majority of the article (diff) without any consensus and in a way that completely removes a major topic of the article.

He made his intentions perfectly clear with this charming comment: (diff)

True. There is no consensus to delete. I personally will have fun raping it because it is a terrible article.

In other words, he is admitting to vandalizing an article because the AFD process is not going the way he likes. This certainly merits a block, IMO.

And sadly, this isn't the first attempt at vandalizing that page.

• Ucucha blanked 90% of it ([6])
• Gilabrand inserted hate material ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11])
• AMuseo moved the article to a ridiculous name ("Alleged Art Scam by unidentified, self-described Israeli art students") ([12]) (He also made a deceptive comment implying that an unrelated article was a "previous" version of the current one ([13]) and has repeatedly questioned the motives of those who vote Keep, disruptively accusing them of bigotry ([14], [15], [16], [17]))

I'm getting really tired of this. Can an admin please protect the page until the AFD is over or block the people who keep doing this?

It's concerning that these sabotage attempts may have made otherwise neutral users vote to delete upon seeing the sabotaged version and assuming it is normal. Factsontheground (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just deleted a good chunk of the article. Per the discussion, many editors believe it is not in compliance with wikipeida standars. Factsontheground made a comment regarding the lack of consensus to delete so I decided to be bold and get rid of the problem. He or someone else can revert if they don't like the change. There is o vandallsim and I am not attempting to disrupt the project. I thought 1/25 of the article might be acceptable. If I am wrong fix it but I believe I am not. I am also not vandalizing and have a clean block record. A simple "Don't do that" would suffice.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• As requested, DON'T DO THAT~! Silliness aside, perhaps you might want to go read up on WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Mind your own business? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain why you made that comment about raping the article then. Factsontheground (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No explanation is necessary (unless the crass term was inappropriate). The article is terrible. That is why there are so many deletes. If it would have been done right (in my view) it would have stuck to the topic and not been a coat rack for fringe theories. I would actually consider removing my delete vote (if you had not noticed my initial response was neutral asking for the article to be split) with it as it is. But Bold->Revert->Discuss if you don;t like it. Don't label trying to fix (and at the same time ripping out the garbage) as vandalism. Chill out. We are all on the same team right? I assume we are not by your last comment over there but we can at least pretend to be.

And edit conflict. Mind my own business? That doesn't apply. I will totally self revert per your request.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you are trying to improve the article, not rape it. How stupid of me not to see that! Factsontheground (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I said isn't it? I think the article is garbage and deserves to be deleted or redone. I am sorry since "rape" is a lame term to use. Do me a favor, next time don't hold it over other editors heads that an article might be kept on what many view as purely wikilawyering grounds. Don;t delete others comments. When you act a little nicer people are less likely to be knee jerkey back. Not to pin it on you. I did say I was going to rape the article but in this case it did make it better. Apologies for using such a crass term. I have also self reverted so are we done here or do we need to discuss blocks based on manners?Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about manners. The term is crass but that's not the real problem here. The thing is that the word "rape" has negative connotations. Raping something usually does not improve that thing. In fact, it generally makes it much, much worse. It's the meaning of what you said that bothers me, which is basically "I don't like this article so I am going to make it even worse!".

If you had said that I would have had the same objections. It shows that you are not trying to improve the encyclopedia but see it as battleground and you are not editing in good faith.Factsontheground (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took it that way. Are we done here or do you want to keep on arguing?Cptnono (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of posting this here was to get the attentions of some administrators. Since I haven't heard from them yet, I'm not done. You can do whatever you want. :)Factsontheground (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I am going to f off somewhere else then since I don't want to be disruptive. Apologies again if you took offense. I am really ticked off at the way the AfD is going and have not been on the best behavior. Consider my edit and consider what I said about how you act (not like I should give advise) since it really comes across poopey.Cptnono (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, was WP:RFPP not appropriate? Secondly, any admin who wishes to protect the page must await an incoming "that's the *wrong version*" comment. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 13:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question Factsontheground, who long are you going to complain about the changes that were made to your "terrible article" on March 4? In case you did not notice, today is March 9. At least one of the users you mentioned in your complain was banned, and even blocked. What else do you want?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Any protection will undoubtedly be the "wrong version" and lead to more debate on article and user talks. It is my own opinion that the AfD needs to reach its conclusion as soon as permissible by policy, and that should be the goal. Once that has given us a clear decision then we will know who might be stepping over what line. Without an AfD result there is no line, only circles... dancing and twirling... dancing and twirling... SGGH ^ping! 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If the concern is the obvious wrong version, if it's up at AfD... the lock should be the version just below the AfD being opened. No policy on this that I can remember, but that's the most common sense at it was *that* version someone felt needed to be deleted. No, this is not entirely fair since AfD'd articles can be improved during a discussion, but there's no other way to get it anywhere close at all without endless drama. Proposed new material or objections to content should be done on the article talk page, and preferably mention in the AfD that changes displayed may or may not influence their !vote. I'd do this were I an admin, but just stumbling into this thread it's the first thing I thought of. Suggest that parties take any new material or sources resulting in blankings to WP:RS in the meanwhile. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems a fair solution to me. The AfD seems to be slightly on the delete side of no consensus at the moment. But I take the concern of Datheisen that protecting means it can't be rescued in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: after I edited the article earlier today, it's unfortunately become the target of a banned harassing troll who follows me around [18]. Since this disruption is essentially quite unrelated to the actual dispute, it may become necessary to at least semiprotect the article to stop the content issue being further exacerbated by the troll disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, I take exception to your claim that I vandalized the article. I took out the part of the article about a conspiracy theory that appeared tenuously related with the supposed main subject of the article (people claiming to be Israeli art students selling fake art). You disagreed with that edit, and may even have been right. But my edit was not vandalism, and your claim that it was is groundless. Please be more careful with such loaded terms in the future. Ucucha 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since making the bold edit then reverting, a few people on the talk page have mentioned doing something similar. Factsonthe ground also engaged in a minor edit war after someone reinstated my edit. He was warned about approaching 3rr. I would like to know if he reverted as 79.191.100.231 to skirt 3rr. We dont need a check user or anything. Just a yes or no from the editor would be good enough for me. Iy looks like the edit warring has stopped so a lock shouldn't be needed. Besides using a crass term, my edit was beneficial but I self reverted at another's request. We should be done here.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't edit by IP, Cptnono and I welcome a check user. Factsontheground (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I was hoping that an administrator would do something about Cptnono declaring that I personally will have fun raping it because it is a terrible article. To me, that seems totally unacceptable behaviour. Am I completely wrong? Factsontheground (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly not optimal or desirable. However, at the moment, we have a multiway fight going on in the article, on the AFD page, with a number of people pushing buttons and acting abusively in some way (but not seriously breaching the peace).

It was the sort of comment that tends to make AGF go out the window temporarily, but wasn't followed by futher serious abuse.

As Cptnono has stood back and not continued provocative behavior, there seems to not be a preventive case to be made for sanctions. There was more drama than actual damage, IMHO.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I admit that the comment was knee-jerky and bad on my part. I'll make sure to not say something like that again.Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like the opinion of a neutral admin. Not one who appears in every WP:ANI I post advocating blocking me regardless. Factsontheground (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, not only was the intention you expressed antithetical to the goals of Wikipedia, but your use of the word "rape" is offensive.

Factsontheground, I advocate blocking you regardless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already said I shouldn't have used the term and will not do so in the future. Restructuring an article or maybe "ripping out the bad bits" (that might have been better) is not against Wikipedia's goals. The particulars on if that is to happen is ongoing over there though.

Why does it not surprise me that a female complaining about being personally threatened with rape gets blocked for her impertinence? Typical male Wikipedian admins. Factsontheground (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait what? Did you think I was threatening you personally? That was not my intent at all.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was joking about blocking you, Factsontheground, and I tried to indicate that with the little smiley at the end of the sentence. I don't advocate blocking you. I'm sorry if that sentiment wasn't clear. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, in that case sorry for not getting the joke. So many admins have told me they want to ban me that I'm getting paranoid now. Factsontheground (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought I should point out that the edits that FotG considered malicious from other editors are very similar to the ones which have now swung favor at the Afd to keep. So now that FotG isn't edit warring over it and if my use of a completely inappropriate term is forgiven, everything should be good.Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational's repeated moving/redirecting of longstanding article without discussion

Unresolved

User:Linksnational gutted the longstanding article Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II with this edit on 6 March then moved the article to German brothels in World War II with this edit. Because the article was gutted and rewritten and moved to a different title essentially an almost completely different article was created. I disputed this move and returned the article with this edit and also tried to get some discussion going on the talkpage with this edit and subsequent notices both on the talkpage and a notice about article moves on Linksnational’s talkpage. Linksnational then tried to do the move again by the backdoor by twice redirecting the article to his new preferred title with this edit and this edit. When I undid this new redirect that had taken place without any two way discussion he then moved the article to yet another new title Camp brothel with this edit. The article has now been effectively moved twice and redirected twice without consensus. There are concerns with the original article but I cannot deal with Linksnational’s attempts to deal with this by a ‘’backdoor deletion’’ and no two way discussion. Can someone please restore the article to its original place (as I cannot do this over a redirect) and encourage Linksnational to gain consensus before major moves and wiping out of text and sources. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Waggers, who marked the article "Resolved" above, moved the article back and warned Linksnational.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry should have given this a  Done :) waggers (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've rollbacked his various changes pointing to his preferred article titles -- someone else should take a look at his edits relating to German war reparations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

tried to get some discussion going on LOL. You haven't responded to my arguments and disregarded my proposal for solution. So stop crying. -- Linksnational (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational undid all the changes that were made by Waggers and SarekOfVulcan, so I've marked this unresolved. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article written at the new name is substantially different from the old one, why is it done as a move-and-edit instead of just writing a new article on a new topic at its appropriate name? DMacks (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@DMacks Sexual enslavement is not a appopriate lemma. It's mispresenting the factual situation already in the title.

How shall someone reach a consensus with nobody ready to discuss? Skydeepblue's claim "stop making changes until you reach consensus with everybody" is absurd, if you don't join the discussion. It's a phrase to protect the article in status quo and results in a prohibition to edit. And I proved that this version contains total bullshit, which has to be changed immediately - in favour of wikipedia's reputation. This article is ridiculous. I showed Polargeo, where the article is wrong and he has conceded. Bullshit doesn't become reality by being part of an article for a long time. The article is not based on reliable sources, but on internet rumours, half knowledge and suspicion. I brought sources, which disprove the current version. The German version doesn't say anything else. -- Linksnational (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see at least one other editor contributed to the talk-page discussion. This issue isn't so urgent that it can't wait a few days to be discussed further. As you can now see, it's not a clear-cut issue in many people's minds, although it's apparently quite clear to you how you understand the pages should be titled/written. If you think the article is mis-titled, file WP:RM to draw wider attention to that issue. If you think the content contains a mix of two separate ideas, split/particially-rewrite it into to separate articles at new titles. Page-moving is a way of saying "what we have here now is actually better titled something else" not "what we have here is a mess". Maybe create those two new pages each on the specific topic you see in temp space so others can see really what you propose. They might have a better understanding of your position and how this will be a good result once they see it rather than just seeing you destroy a long-existing article. File WP:RFC if you want to draw wider attention to the general content concern. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not destroy the article, I have improved the text. But still the title is misleading. I suggested to split the text as in the de:WP to two articles: camp brothel and soldier's brothel. Polargeo admitted, the current article is mixing the phenomenon, but didn't respond to my suggestions anymore. Since the article contained fatal mistake, immediate action was needed. I showed, that the statements "rape camps", "prevalent", "sexual gratification for the soldiers" were not sourced and wrong. The article became a deposit of Anti-German sentiments, supporting rumours, mispresenting the facts. Is this an open project or not? How long an article exists, doesn't matter. Facts and reliability matter. Mischief doesn't get better, if you stick to it out for a long time. The deletion is the best idea. Sourced information can be found in the two articles corresponding to the structure in de:WP. -- Linksnational (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been given information about how to reach WP:CONSENSUS for your ideas. "Immediate action" is not needed, rational discussion to find a good solution is the way. You boldly made a change you felt was very important, others disagreed with both the process and the solution and reverted. Now it's on your shoulders to get more support for your idea, given that it's not presently the generally-appreciated solution--that's how WP:BRD works. DMacks (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been moved several times before. Its prior name was German soldier's house. So actually I set back to a earlier consensus.

If you notice after month, that an article had been vandalized, do you wait until every author takes notice and agrees to a revert or do you take action? In this case it's not vandalismus, but a big harm with good-will. So I edited the article and made my point clear. Now, the biggest bullshit is gone. From this position we may discuss the necessity of this lemma. I wanted to solve both problems together. I do understand, that not everybody approves this procedure. But it's still my point: The lemma is misleading. We have to choose a non biased lemma. What do you think: Would we be able to write an neutral article about your life using the lemma Dork DMacks? All positions and theories can be presented. But reliable sources say, that talking about sexual slavery is not appropriate to the historical facts. We would discriminate this position by using that definite type of lemma. There are two possible lemmata for the content: Lagerbordell and Wehrmachtsbordell. This way they are used in the de:WP. The lemma sexual slavery is artificial. We should choose the lemma as it is discussed in scientific research. At this time I'm the only one in this context, who has able to read the German sources. I might have been quick or rude in my approach. Please regard, that I'm not a native speaker. Discussing is giving me a hard time. I have to look up in the dictionary. I'd rather spend my time on improving articles - especially when I see, how necessary it is. At the same time I could have translated parts of the German article and sources. -- Linksnational (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lloydkaufmantroma

Resolved

 – Subdued he is. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please ban User:Lloydkaufmantroma and protect My Big Fat Independent Movie, Chris Gore, Philip Zlotorynski. Under various names, Lloydkaufmantroma has repeatedly vandalized My Big Fat Independent Movie and Chris Gore (as well as Philip Zlotorynski though we've made that one a redirect now) for over three years. A big part of this vandalism includes repeated claiming that Philip Zlotorynski is a pseudonym of Chris Gore. I have reverted a number of times and warned the guy, but he's a pain in the ass and keeps coming back. I don't know that its only one person, but his behavior strikes me as someone who gets his jollies by making this his passion. Names and IP used to vandalize these articles over time, here are some key points:
• 20-May-2007 IP 24.9.103.208 adds claim to Philip Zlotorynski article claiming he is pseudonym of Chris Gore.
• 11-June 2007 Editor "GBone77" reverts vandalism to all 3 articles. Edit summary "Article is completely inaccurate and filled with incorrect and information intended to be vindictive and harmful." "Gbone77" is gamer name used by Chris Gore [19].
• 8-Jul-2007 Editor "Tromaintern" reinserts "box office bomb" language to movie article, also adds the pseudonym claim, "it was produced, directed and co-written by failed film critic Chris Gore, who founded the now bankrupt magazine Film Threat. Gore directed the film under the pseudonym Philip Zlotorynski."
• 19-May-2008 IP 66.133.226.49 (self-identifies as Philip Zlotorynski) repairs vandalism to his page. First edit summary, "I am Philip Zlotorynski, I am a real person. Do not make false claims connection me with ANYONE. That is illegal." Second edit summary: "I am Philip Zlotorynski. I am a real person. Do not falsely associate me with ANYONE. It's illegal and I'll sue.")
• 22-Dec-2008 New editor "Indiefilmrules" makes 6 vandal edits, 5 to Philip Zlotorynski, 1 to My Big Fat Independent Movie.
• 29-Nov-2009: IP 69.146.192.45 edits to all three articles in restores restores fake photo to Zlotorynski article.
• 13-Dec-2009. New editor "Moehoeheehaw": vandal edits to all three articles, restores fake photo to Zlotorynski.
• 28-Jan-2010. I stumble across thread on Wikpedia Review[20] describing this vandalism problem and asks "some admin" to fix and protect pages. I fix pages and watchlist them.
• 2-Feb-2010. New editor "Lloydkaufmantroma" - vandals edits to all three articles, restores fake photo to Zlotorynski article.
• 5-Feb 2010. "Lloydkaufmantroma" vandal edits to all three articles. He also creates a userpage that says "Support truly independent cinema, donate to Tromadance!!"
• In last thirty minutes. He came back again.

This is not an issue about unsourced BLPs (the articles always seem to have some sources), its just a lone crank who needs to be subdued.--Milowent (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• UPDATE: User returned today on a new account, User:Fishedmouth, and has already been banned.--Milowent (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

71.246.35.80 again

See this thread in "Archive 601", which has only just slid off the top of this page.

User:71.246.35.80 (talk), who plausibly claims to be Ernie A. Smith, has yet again added a little speech to Ebonics. I happen to think that some of what he says this time is very reasonable, but this is beside the point: he's yet again showing himself to be stunningly unaware of, or unconcerned with, the principles of editing. In view of his merrily expressed disgust at me on the same article's talk page (disgust that doesn't worry me in the slightest, btw), my own reluctant deployment of an administratudinal cluebat might look personal, and so I again leave the matter to whichever uninvolved administrator happens to see this AN/I thread. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Quite a bit of the article to who whose content 71.246.35.80 so strongly objects was written by me. And so the imaginable charge of misuse of administratorial red buttons to further my line in a content dispute again makes me reluctant to "be bold". -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's wayyy too much reading for me at this time of night! Aside from the behavioural issues, I don't see an OTRS ticket number at the named account. This is a presumably living person, so isn't that ticket or block? And the IP is giving the appearnce of posting in the name of a living and by the sounds of it prominent person - that's not on at all is it? Sure it seems plausible they are the person, but it doesn't work that way here. I could do a pretty good Jimbo Wales impression I bet. Franamax (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point, the user seems to be steering towards a more civil path (see this exchange). Mr. Smith (and I have no reason to assume he is otherwise, ticket or no) is new to Wikipedia and any actions should consider WP:BITE, even if he is a bit chompy himself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 09:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: And now, talk of pedophilia

[What's above is brought in from archive 601]

Having earlier wondered about my reaction if somebody were to claim that "Wikipedia" were a blend of "wicked" and "pedophilia" (a thought experiment that did not offend me in the slightest, and to which I think I replied courteously), 71.246.35.80 most recently writes, I would not be surprised if a pedophile porn web-site suddenly appears with the name Hory's Wickedpidiah very soon.

This was several hours ago; 71.246.35.80 has had ample time to think better of the remark and amend or delete it. But he has done neither.

If 71.246.35.80 is just blowing hot air, the hot air is unusually malodorous. If he's not just blowing hot air, then the world really doesn't need "a pedophile porn web-site", whether it's named after Wikipedia, a musical, some village, or myself. But the naming would surely not be coincidental; is 71.246.35.80 perhaps planning to create such a website himself? We alert "the authorities" when there's something that might be interpretable as a suicide threat; perhaps we should alert them here.

As an administrator, I'd take prompt and strong action against this IP. But since this seems to have become personal, I'll refrain from touching my own admin mop, bucket, and red buttons, and I'll instead leave the decisions and actions to others. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, because warnings haven't worked. If diruption continues when the block expires, I suggest a quick escalation to a long block. This user has all the hallmarks of a serious timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block - I cautioned this editor about this exact type of activity when he was using the account Ernie A. Smith Ph.D. (talk · contribs). Dr. Smith has a reputation of activism and pushing his viewpoints on Ebonics, which largely are not accepted by mainstream linguists. I gently tried explaining that neither are acceptable here, but it looks like I have been ignored. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Puzzlement at Caknuck's comment. The IP seems to be doing various things that he shouldn't be. However, there's a reason (explained both in Ebonics itself and in AfD/Ebonics) why there's an article on Ebonics in addition to that on AAVE, and much of the reason concerns minority positions in linguistics. John Baugh has analyzed the term "Ebonics" as having four definitions, and he attributes one of these to Smith. As far as I'm concerned, Smith is welcome to use the article talk page to help in an understanding of this or any other of the three definitions, or to explain how Baugh is mistaken. However, he has to do so by citing published work, by presenting his PoV as dispassionately as anybody else might, and concisely. (He's also free to insult me, if doing so amuses him and he's brief about it. Later, I may adorn my user page with one or two of the juiciest examples.) However, he should argue rather than rant, and should not hint at an intention to create a kiddyporn website, especially one under a false flag. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC) ... reworded a bit Hoary (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That and he should use about a tenth as many words. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It might also be worth applying WP:TALK fairly strictly on that article; an extensive vocabulary and clever (albeit pompous) rhetorical style doesn't automatically indicate the possession of either effective communication skills or clue. EyeSerene^talk 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Those techniques are most effective when used oratorically: one can be "swept away" by the sound and the emotional tone, with the occasional nugget of content to provide enough of a clue as to what's being said. (I think many people listen to performances of Shakespeare in this way.) Put on a page, in an age where brevity and conciseness are esteemed, it just comes off as verbose and pompose. Combine that with the editor's proclivity for elaborate personal insults and result is something I think the project can well do without. Hoary has poiinted out that Smith's opinions are important in respect to the Ebonics article, but certainly doing justice to his opinions doesn't require him to be here, not when there are reliable sources that can report those opinions without the attached vitriol and bluster. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 matter was not resolved

Resolved

 – DNFTT. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter of not providing evidence that truthseeker666 had not done anything to deserve his suspension was not resolved. Admin:rkwaton and others repeatedly asked for the factual proof Ttruthseekers had vandalised Wikicommons. Admins here denied to give the proof and instead classed the matter as resolved and closed and deleted the thread. .Why. If the proof of this vandaqlism never provided then matter was far from resolved and Truthseeker suspension unjustified. Do not ignore users and admins like this. Explain these actions. PeteyJ Bristol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No explanation is required. He was editing tendentiously and spamming his website. If he feels hard done by he can ask for his money back, I guess. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this IP be blocked per WP:DUCK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh. One edit from early this morning and nothing since. TNXMan 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quack! Call the CUs for help... then again, maybe not since there's only a single edit (read up on point 64 of WP:OWB). --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is wrong for well established admins like RKLawton to be ignored and other admins stat they need give no explaination. If you behave like this there is no justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ADMIN:Milborneone WP:CIVIL

I have just been reading the pages of truthseeker666 and have noticed a very glaring point. truthseeker was warned by milborneone re wp:civil on his user discussionpage. No similar warning was given to user ALR for using comments at truthseeker like "nutter" and "idiot". Why would this admin take sides. ALR and milborneone are both freemasons. Is this part of their vow not to attack other freemasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to block suspected sockpuppet

Hi there - could someone please urgently look at blocking User:Orang77 as a sock of User:Roman888. Details are in the thread higher on this page about User:Roman888. I'm struggling to keep up with reverting and blanking this guy's copyright violations . Cheers - --Mkativerata (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Orang77 as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888 since they were adding the same material Roman888 did to articles. I have made the block indefinite with account creation blocked, and asked the user to appeal on the talk page of their main account. Review, or alteration if necessary, would be welcome, as I don't do these kind of blocks often. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block. This was a warning sign, and they had even threatened to sock from their old account. -- Atama頭 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I really think that a checkuser needs to check the accounts before any conclusions are made that Roman888 sockpuppeted as Orang77. While Roman888 did threaten to sockpuppet, until a check is performed, there is no proof that Roman888 and Orang77 are related in any way. That said, Orang77 should not be blocked as a sockpuppet until there is proof of the suspected relation. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ever heard of WP:DUCK? No Checkuser is going to run a check here because it's already so obvious.--Atlan (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's absurd to think they're not the same person. The original editor threatened to create a sockpuppet, and you'll see how "not using URLs" was mentioned. A new account was created, with a similar name (five letters and a multi-digit repeated number), declaring defiance against admins and rules in their very first edit and mentioning that same bit about URLs. Then goes on to make the same edits. Mythdon, it's doubtful that a checkuser would even agree to run the tools in a case that obvious, often at WP:SPI they'll tell you that it's a waste of time and that the editor should just be blocked on behavioral evidence, which is what was already done here. -- Atama頭 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated, undiscussed renaming

Karim Hassan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has on several occasions ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) renamed articles without prior discussion. The renamings have all been reverted as they were contrary to most commonly used English names or in other ways violated the naming conventions. The editor has received reminders ([26], [27]) not to perform such actions without discussion, but that hasn't stopped him. Previously, the editor (sometimes as 196.219.76.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) had an obsession with changing years of birth/death of historical persons to not commonly accepted values, but apparently gave it up following stiff opposition, including a temporary block of the IP. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The first mentioned reminder indicates that such moves should not be performed due to the fact that the guideline linked reads that titles of articles should be named after the most common English name. I don't know what "Saladin" is so I don't know what the most common English title for "Saladin" is. I think this issue should be about whether the moves violate the said guideline. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've seen Ridley Scott/Orlando Bloom movie Kingdom of Heaven (film), Saladin was the character played by Ghassan Massoud, the sultan and leader of the Muslim army. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this discussion? This discussion is about the behavior of Karim Hassan, not Saladin's appearances in movies. Please discuss what is relevant to the discussion and not what is irrelevant. Also, please see WP:NOTFORUM as the comment falls under that policies prohibitions. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he was just explaining who Saladin was, since you said you didn't know. WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I was trying to explain who he was in a context that someone generally ignorant of history might understand. He is generally known as Saladin in English, but it could be transcribed differently. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Saladin did not appear in a movie, an actor playing Saladin appeared in a movie, but you right that it is irrelevant. Saladin is by far the most common English name of the person who conquered Egypt, Syria, and parts of Palestine in 12th century. His name in Arabic is صلاح الدين, pronunced Salah ud-Din and sometimes transliterated as Salah al-Din (for differences in pronunciation and transliteration, see sun and moon letters). Karim has repeatedly moved article to what he feels is the correct English transliteration of the topic, not the most common English name for the topic. nableezy - 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The issue is not that the Saladin page move violated a naming guideline; you can be bold and move a page in good faith that violates a guideline you don't know about, and once reverted, move discussions can take place on article talk pages, not here. The issue is that he has not, ever, responded on a user or article talk page to any of the many comments made to him, and is repeating the actions after finding out he may not understand naming guidelines. This, coming on top of his earlier date-related edits (and page creation issues), makes this a valid ANI issue.

  Karim Hassan should not make any more page moves without first bringing the issue up on the article talk page, until he has a better understanding of our conventions. I see he's never been given a welcome template, I'll do so now. He seems to edit sporadically, so if he doesn't reply here before archiving I'll try to remember to leave a more detailed message on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User Andrewrp

I've just indeffed Andrewrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism after a final warning. I think that the account may have been compromised which is why I indeffed it. Previous recent edit history before today shows evidence of vandal fighting, not vandalism. Am happy for any other admin to review the block and amend if necessary. I'll let Andrewrp know of this discussion and that he can comment on his talk page if he so desires. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrewrp has been notified Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good call - definitely seems to have been compromised or otherwise accessed by someone else. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing regarding World Net Daily by several people

The editor got a bug about using World Net Daily as a source and, after edit-warring a little in Ilana Mercer, started a discussion about it at RSN, which was the right thing to do. And, so far, the discussion about it is not as clear cut as he'd like. But the editor has gone to multiple articles and started removing WND sources,[28] citing the discussion at RSN as the justification. This is after a discussion that has been taking place for less than 2 hours. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The length of time the conversation has been taking place is not particularly relevant, as the subject has come up before, with the same result: WND is not a reliable source, except as a record of what is in WND, but use of information and opinions from WND which does not appear elsewhere is problematic because of WP:UNDUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am being harassed for starting Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WORLD_NET_DAILY_final_answer_needed. Jon Osterman (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, you're not being harassed for starting it. If you bother to read, I clearly said that starting the discussion was the correct thing to do. What is disruptive is your search and destroy mission, where you are going around to articles and deleting the source links on sight and using a discussion that's not even closed yet as justification. I'm not sure why you can't wait for the discussion to run its course, but you're like a kid with a new toy that they can't wait to play with. Just chill for a little while. And be judicious in your deletions. As was pointed out at the RSN discussion, there are instances where WND can be used as a source and I'd certainly hope that you are actually checking the links before just deleting them. You ARE checking them all, aren't you Jon? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes Nite, I am checking them. You ARE reading that everyone agrees you're wrong about concensus, aren't you Nite? Jon Osterman (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No Jon, I'm not wrong. More than one editor has agreed that WND can be used as a source about what it has printed, which os one of the specific things you brought there. And you have acknowledged that you understood that. And I am having difficulty believing that you were able to delete a WND source in 5 different articles in the same ONE MINUTE, while giving them all objective consideration. Yes, 5 different article in the same one minute. 15 different WND links in 3 minutes. 9 of them today in 8 minutes, all with the same cut and paste justification of the RSN discussion. Sorry, just not believable. Oh, and if you're going to use the term "swiftboating", please learn to use it in the proper context. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I made those edits with this invention you may have heard of -- tabbed browsing. See, I opened a bunch of articles. About 10, 12 at a time. I have a big CPU arse on this computer and can handle this. I reviewed with my editing pencil and adjusted several, then closed the rest untouched. Then I saved a few in one shot, hence that time frames you seem to dislike. Work smarter, not harder, I say. So is your problem with the speed or the edits? I didn't see any rule saying I couldn't save a bunch at once, so you're trying to smear me for good edits there? Isn't the end content what matters, not politics? Also, did I stick my editing pencil in your mouth? No? Please take your editing pencil out of my computer's arse then. Jon Osterman (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've heard of tabbed editing, I just don't believe you did it. And your uncivil responses both here and on your talk page are about to cross the line. I'm not sure what your fixiation with your ass is (or your rectum as you said on your talk page) or what you've been putting it in, but I have zero interest in it. So kindly take your chatter about it somewhere else. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jon Osterman, whether or not your "correction" of the title was an honest mistake, you would be well advised to refactor it. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've changed it to a more neutral title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not about World Net Daily, this is about an editor acting disruptively. It wouldn't matter to me if it was WND or CNN. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jon, please be civil and non-confrontational. Niteshift36 has pointed out that there are cases where WND is a reliable source and cases where it is not. That is both obviously true and consistent with the current and past discussions at RSN. If there is a valid reason to include an attributed opinion, citing WND is obviously called for. His complaint here was that you were asking for a black and white decision and acting as though that decision were already made; that we had to immediately remove any use of WND as a source. That behavior is disruptive. Celestra (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's a complete fabrication of what happened here and I will not be railroaded. I challenge any of you to find more than the one removal I conceded was not needed on that columnist's page. Go on -- find me any of my removals that were not in compliance with RS[29] as I now understand it. Jon Osterman (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The only one I would consider leaving is this one, which appears to be a reference to conservative criticism of the article's subject. Its removal also left a broken citation tag, as did a few others, so please be more careful! I agree that the removal of the others seems to be in line with consensus, though. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Both of you - Assume Good Faith is one of our core values. Please don't assume the worst of each other here.

Jon, nothing will be harmed by slowing down a bit here. Even if everything you've done is policy compliant and in line with the consensus, editing very rapidly worries people. It won't hurt anyone if you discuss a bit more and act a bit more slowly.

Niteshift36, please don't claim abusive editing without specific diffs which you can demonstrate were against policy or consensus. It's clear Jon's made you worried, but you're using language which is not justified by the evidence at hand here, and that's just increasing drama rather than helping resolve things.

Everyone please take a breath and try to de-escalate.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• GWH, AGF is not a suicide pact and, at this point when I've been accused of "harassment", "targeting", "swiftboating" (by someone using it in the wrong context) and being a "discomfort in their rectum", I'd say I've taken enough crap to stop assuming good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "This user has frustrated me a lot and made me very angry" and "This user is clearly acting contrary to Wikipedia principles/policy/precendent/etc".

There's a common but incorrect assumption that AGF refers to the former. What it refers to is the latter.

As an uninvolved administrator, I have not seen any evidence that either of you are doing anything with intent to damage Wikipedia or ignorance or with disregard to the policies and core values etc.

It's obvious that you two are not currently getting along. I understand that and we can't force you to make nice.

BUT - we can point out that neither of you appear to be doing anything "wrong" from an enforcement perspective and ask that you stop making insinuations and snarky comments to the effect that the other is engaged in vandalism or other policy-noncompliant behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone mention it, so I thought I'd bring this dif to the community's attention. "Thanks for the inspiration, Niteshit36". A very blatant personal attack by User:Jon_Osterman. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• This matter can be easily resolved. One should simply look at the author of each specific publication in WND. For example, if it was published by Bill Gertz, the claim should be attributed to Bill Gertz. This is just as good as any other publication by Bill Gertz. There is absolutely no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source.Biophys (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange. It was almost precisely a year ago that the Obama articles were besieged by a wave of WND-inspired accounts. Must have something to do with March "madness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Something about the coming of Spring and the end of hibernation? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP vios now in retaliation on the World Net Dailying

Can an admin review someone adding BLP info with sites like "kerrylied.com"[30]? I will let JakeJoisey know. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one might conceive of a more frivoulous use and abuse of this process, but you'd be hard pressed to do so. The sourcing in question was to the internet archive of the primary source referenced in the now long accepted by interested editors "press release" source...which merely served to bring attention to the original source (that I provided) in the first place. In other words, source A (and the associated WND article which inspired this RS/N discussion) both served to support and present the content of source B which is the internet archive link I provided. I might also add that the additional sourcing (this time to the primary source) was provided on the suggestion of a participating editor as a substitute for the now-disputed WND source. Now the PRIMARY source, whose legitimacy as an RS has not been thus far challenged, is being declared persona non grata...and now, to boot, User:Blaxthos has accused me of engaging in "disruptive editing"in his edit summary deleting the provision of the additional source.

Beam me up Scotty. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention needed

On my way to ask for some help in dealing with User:JakeInJoisey and find him making accusations here with no notice. At any rate, JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is causing quite a disruption at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the associated talk page -- he's been edit warring for the past few days to include clearly inappropriate sources in the article (WND, "kerrylied.com"), he's completely ignored the literally dozen-plus editors who have rebuked his attempts at the article and at RSN, lawyering and otherwise trying to make a point. Discussion doesn't seem to be helping -- can someone please assist? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility / application of G7

Resolved

 – Editor blocked 31 hours for personal attacks, pointy/tendentious editing

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How should I deal with this edit to my user talk page? Another editor, Atmoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), appears to feel that he owns certain articles that he created, and has incorrectly labelled my edits (including adding a {{hangon}} tag to the disputed articles) as vandalism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the vandalism thing. Not the rest. -Atmoz (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Once other users have made substantive edits to articles you created, G7 no longer applies. This is not a reason to remove G7 from the speedy criteria... –xeno^talk 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a "substantive edit"? And that's not what G7 says. It says "substantial content". What substantial content was added to, for instance, Owen Toon by another editor besides myself? -Atmoz (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as commented at my talk page, you are probably right in that you were the only one to add substantial content. However, DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) declined the speedy so fulfilling it at this point would be wheel warring. –xeno^talk 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) G7 may very well have been satisfied in the case of Owen Toon. However, speedy deletion is discretionary, which means that other factors can be considered even if a criterion for deletion is met. It was open to User:DGG to decline your G7 tag on the basis that the subject is notable and warrants an article. Please don't keep making edits to WP:CSD to remove G7: if you think G7 is an inappropriate criterion or should be amended, discuss that on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given Atmoz a uw-npa3. No need for such a header. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz has removed the warning, which means that it has been read and understood. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that some of you have fragile ears. Although I'm not sure why you needed to post it here. -Atmoz (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside Atmoz's blatant personal attacks and using Twinkle to revert non-vandalism and labeling it vandalism, his complaint may have merit. Look at the version of Robert Lin when this user first tagged it; the only contribs besides the author were one bot categorization and 1 user adding a default sort. The article at that time certainly qualified for a G7. DGG did not decline the speedy because the article was deemed to be G7-ineligible, but because that admin declared such people to be "always notable". A bit moot now on edit conflict, but I am concerned about DGG substituting their own very pro-inclusionist POV on what should have been a simple G7. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As above, speedy deletion is discretionary. In my view, it was open to User:DGG to decline a tag that met G7 for countervailing reasons (ie the subject was unquestionably notable). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec}@X: Wheel warring is a crappy policy. If an admin makes a mistake, it's the job of another admin to fix it. I don't want my name on these articles. I don't care if Wikipedia wants to have articles on them. I just want someone else to write them. I don't think that's too much to ask. I'm okay with them getting deleted, and then having someone use exactly the same characters in exactly the same order as I wrote them. I just don't want my name on it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz doesn't want their name attached to these, so perhaps to fulfill their wish (and if others are adamant about keeping the articles around), the article could be deleted and one could re-create it under their own hand (noting the other previous minor contributors in the initial edit summary). If Atmoz releases their contributions to the public domain their name does not need to be in the edit history. –xeno^talk 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do such on those articles. -Atmoz (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Just those articles. An alternative would be to use WP:RevDel to remove their name, but I'm not sure if this is permitted per the policy. –xeno^talk 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSDX (a useful page of explanations of speedy criteria) says of G7 "Does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject." Tagging an article about 14 months after writing it would seem to me to be far too late to use G7 on this basis. Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Precisely. The application of G7 should be balanced against the principles of WP:OWN and the damage to the encyclopaedia of deleting quality long-standing content. That balance can be achieved by the exercise of discretion to decline a G7 even if G7 is satisfied. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should stop worrying about the letter of the policy and instead focus on fulfilling good faith requests for our long-term users. –xeno^talk 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I or any editor except the author may remove in good faith any speedy tag I object to--it's not even a function of my role as an administrator. But in my role as an admin, I consider deleting an article under any deletion condition to be subject to the judgment of the administrator, and I delete when i think the deletion conforms to the criterion, is a reasonable and good faith request, and I see no way of dealing with the article otherwise. Normally G7 is used to remove material that an editor decides while working on is not notable, or not sourceable, or not worth finishing to the extent that it would be an acceptable article, or that they have made such a bad mistake in the name or otherwise that it seems better to start over. They nominate it as G7 because they want to help the encyclopedia by not leaving it there for someone else to get rid of. (this is a particularly good solution when someone prods an article) G7 is important for all these purposes, and should not be removed from the CSD reasons--I delete articles under it frequently.

If someone who has written a good article on a notable person decides he would rather not have done so, for a reason which he cannot or will not explain there is no reason to delete the article. I asked Atmoz repeatedly for his reason, and received no satisfactory answer. I have not the least idea what his motive may be, except that considering the subject the people work on, I assume it has something to do with the Global Warming controversy. The license is irreversible, and once contributed, anyone may use the material. Nobody owns an article once they have submitted it. If someone wants to develop the article, they have every right to use the material already there. If the article does not even need further development, then people have the right to read it. Irreversible is irreversible. (we make exception of course for plain errors, and I would be prepared to make an exception for borderline notability. In fact, one of the articles I judged not necessarily notable, and, as another admin had deleted it, left it there. Someone asked to see it, so I restored it to their user space, not main space.) As for being an extreme pro-inclusionist, one of the people , Robert Lin, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a position that is makes someone unquestionably notable according to WP:PROF.

I do not consider I made a mistake. I consider deleting the articles would have been a mistake, and I would be somewhat surprised at any admin who would delete an article on a member of the NAS, though I would not bring the matter here, for they might have deleted it without having read it. I consider removing the user's edits would be a serious misuse of RevDel. I would object even to the removal of Atmoz' name, for we must attribute the edits. I would probably bring any oversighter who removes the edits to the attention of arb com, for them to decide how to handle it. The basis of Wikipedia is that we operate under a license, and the license is not optional. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken there - if the user releases the material to the public domain, we can import it without attribution and relicense it as cc-by-sa. –xeno^talk 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, if someone comes back later to ask for proof that the edits were released PD, how do we do so without pointing them to Atmoz' name? I don't think this can be done. (edit) Given further thought, this is a legal matter and would have to be referred to the Foundation lawyer for an actual answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think s/he is so worried that s/he would have a problem with us showing them the diff where s/he released the material. Anyhow, I think this is somewhat a moot point and Atmoz may have abandoned their quest to detached themselves from these edits (perhaps along with their service to Wikipedia). –xeno^talk 14:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad block

• I don't think a block was necessary here. It was heavyhanded and premature. Moreover, the issue is not resolved, the user still has live edits they want to detach themselves from. –xeno^talk 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Grounds for block are on the user's talk page - including ongoing personal attacks. User has no right to detach themselves from live edits - so far as I know, so that point is moot. Rklawton (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • They had been warned about both the issues you highlighted there and had not persisted. God forbid we entertain wishes (regardless of their "rights") from our long-time constructive contributors. –xeno^talk 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolving issues is too hard. Much easier to play with the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the speedy should have been granted in the first place, but having said that, I find the "scrub my name from the author list" to be troublesome. Users are presented with the GDFL terms before they hit submit. Tarc (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Block discussion should take place on the user's talk page. I've already posted a link there that shows another attack following the warning. Rklawton (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked you at the talk page to reverse your block (you say you blocked him for the "fragile ears" comment), but failing that, consensus to reverse it can be established here. –xeno^talk 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block was perfectly legitimate. Such a remark (the section header) is inexcusable, and should result in blocks. Also, I would like to draw attention to an edit summary, in which they address users who warn them by "civility police". The edit summary is indicative that the block is necessary. Let's see how the cards play out when the block is over. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block. The editor's desires regarding the articles in question might have been accomodated had he or she approached them civilly, but the aggressive and abusive tack taken shouldn't be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not want this to become personal, and i am willing to remove the block if he wishes, unless there is objection to it here. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I object. The editor clearly continued baiting after the warning, not once but twice. And this from an editor who should know better. Also this discussion should take place on the user's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Object X 2. Incivility is not a right. Woogee (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I object per my endorsement of the block above. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz has just informed everyone in an edit summary that an unblock is not needed. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion of "good block / bad block" is unproductive. In light of Atmoz's comment on his talk page that he'll refrain from such language going forward, I support unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Atmoz is only agreeing to refrain from that use of language towards "sensitive ears". Whether the editors have "sensitive ears" (i.e. easily offended) is irrelevant. The incivility still happened. Atmoz should be agreeing to not speak that way to any user. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, it appears he decided to just sit it out, there's no longer an active unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would hate to think that this incident would push an editor further away from active editing. I see no reason to keep him blocked, and intend to unblock per rough agreement of four administrators (Xeno, Floquenbeam, DGG and myself) who have all reviewed this block. Of the four edits that the user made between his warning and the block ([31], [32], [33], [34]), not one is deserving of a block. Calling those edits "baiting" is highly subjective; I simply don't see it. [35] gets you maybe-kind-of-close-to baiting, but certainly not anything blockable. NW (Talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  Go for it. I was hoping Rklawton's would reverse or lift it himself, but he doesn't seem to understand that blocks are meant to be preventitive, not punitive. This was the user's first block and I don't think it was necessary at all - and it certainly isn't now. –xeno^talk 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  I only see incivility in the first diff, but, there's other concern as well. Atmoz admits to block evasion, which is a serious offense that can lead to blocks. The block should stay. If anything is done to reverse the actions against Atmoz's incivility, the block should only be changed to a sockpuppetry block. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  I've reverted Atmoz's edit as an IP. I don't think that it is worth blocking the IP over this, as innocent people would be affected by such a block. I've told Atmoz to sit out the rest of the block, and return to the discussion when it expires. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  S/he evaded a block - yes - but to redact their incivility, and we're reverting them? Am I simply a player in a comedy of errors? –xeno^talk 14:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of questionable admin actions, but this one [36] deserves a special category of it's own. care to explain how that edit was of any benifit Mjroots?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've seen a lot of blocks being evaded. That's about the only one that I've seen that should have WP:IAR invoked. The majority of the time that a block is evaded, it's to continue an edit war or a conflict or vandalism or what not. He clearly evaded merely to calm the situation. While "the rules" say he shouldn't do it...it was clearly a good faith action. Thus, I say WP:IAR. --Smashville^talk 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Same here. I support the original decision to block, and block evasion is not allowed, but come on, someone trying to retract bad language they made should never be reverted. In response to Cube lurker, I wouldn't call that an "admin action"; while an admin did it, that edit could have been made by any editor. -- Atama頭 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't use the tools, but was made under the under color of authority. But not worth arguing about semantics, the action speaks loudly for itself.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that admins don't have any authority over other editors, either literally or figuratively, except perhaps the kind of authority that a citizen carrying a gun would have over an unarmed citizen. But you're right, those are semantics, your basic point is spot-on. -- Atama頭 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Understandable, but regrettable block. I believe this could have been solved differently. I'm baffled, flabbergasted and flummoxed by Mjroots revert, and I'm seriously tempted to used uncivil language to describe it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• This should have been handled differently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, I forgot to post here earlier. I unblocked Atmoz several hours ago, per discussion above. NW (Talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks by user:Mehrshad123

Take a look at his contributions in Fereydoun Farrokhzad and its talk page. He persists on removing sourced material from that page and the reason that he mentions in its talk page only consists of personal attacks and calling other users as propagandist and agents of political groups (for example, he calls me a member of MKO, which is a political organization with a history of terrorist activities). He also persists on repeating these claims in my talk page [37]. Alefbe (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't anybody out there? Alefbe (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no vandalism. Please read WP:VAN for what does and doesn't constitute vandalism. Removing sourced material that an editor truly believes is unwarranted is not vandalism. What you have is a content dispute that should be resolved through dispute resolution.

I do, however, see blatant personal attacks from them, which is not good. At the very least a strong warning would be warranted, but I'd rather see what Mehrshad123 has to say about this. On that note, when you create a topic at WP:ANI about another editor, it is required that you inform them of the discussion (this is mentioned at the top of this noticeboard, and at the top of the page when you make an edit). I'll leave the notice for you, but remember this in the future.

It would also have helped you tremendously if you had tried to discuss matters with the editor prior to bringing the matter to this board. Nobody has edited Mehrshad123's talk page for nearly a month, and I see no interaction between you and the editor aside from your removal of messages that they left on your talk page.

I also see you participating in a slow edit war at the article. Mehrshad123 has attempted to discuss matters at Talk:Fereydoun Farrokhzad, your only response was to say, "Cordelia, you are too patient with Mehrshad123. Enough is already said. Don't reward him with a lengthy discussion." That is entirely the wrong attitude to take in a content dispute. You have been blocked more than once in the past for engaging in edit wars, be sure this time that you instead choose discussion rather than reverting or you may be facing another block in the near future. -- Atama頭 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why I usually hesitate going to ANI. Most of admins who are active here don't even distinguish between a relevant discussion at a talk page and personal attacks (by a user like Mehrshad123). The first time that I was blocked was because User:Rjanag refused to take action against a disruptive editor (a sock-puppet of user:Orijentolog who was later banned) and the second time that I was was blocked was because Rjanag misused his sysop tools in a content dispute with me (and anyone else agreed that it was a misuse of tools [38]). Now, User:Atama refers to those two blocks and instead of dealing with obvious personal attacks by Mehrshad123, he threatens me being blocked. Alefbe (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I never threatened to block you. I'm giving you advice so that you don't get yourself in trouble. Nobody agreed that Rjanag abused their tools, the strongest statement made was when Gimmetrow called the block "questionable" in the unblock statement, which is a far cry from stating that an admin abused his powers. You're just digging a hole for yourself here, I'd suggest you start listening to advice rather than throwing up defenses. Posting to a noticeboard puts you under scrutiny also. -- Atama頭 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was also involved in this content dispute. Alefbe did indeed made an attempt at discussion on the talk page (see the "Please help clean up Fabricated Content in this article and similar articles" section at the top of Talk:Fereydoun Farrokhzad, which relates to this same edit war). I'm guessing that Alefbe's suggestion to me about "Enough is already said" may just have reflected the length of my previous comment on the talk page. I wasn't really appreciating Mehrshad123's repeated personal attacks, either, and did not think that the talk page discussion was going in a particularly constructive direction. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That attempt at discussion was a month ago. The use of heavy-handed tactics like noticeboards or reverting before trying to talk to someone is a problem, and I'd like to help Alefbe keep from shooting himself in the foot in the future. I've given an only warning regarding personal attacks to Mehrshad123, due to his persistent attacks against other editors. -- Atama頭 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to the matter. The editors in question, Alefbe, CordeliaNaismith and others are deliberately posting false information into articles related to Iran as part of an anti-Iranian political campaign on Wikipedia which they are promoting on their discussion pages. If you read the discussion page for the Fereydun Farkhzad article, the personal attacks are from Alefbe and CordeliNaismith not me. Also CordeliNaismith's claim that "Alefbe" started the discussion on this topic is a lie as much as the false content this editor is deliberately posting on Wikipedia in Iran-related articles. I was the one that started the discussion (titled "Please help clean up Fabricated Content..."): In fact Alefbe IGNORED this discussion and encouraged CordeliNaismith to also ignore the discussion, specifically saying things like "Cordelia, you are too patient with Mehrshad123. Enough is already said. Don't reward him with a lengthy discussion.". If anyone is starting a Personal Attack it is Alefbe, and I am the victim, not the perpatrator. My response to the vandalism and edit war has been exteremely patient and civil. I responded to Alefbe's vandalism and edit war on his discussion page as follows: No one doubts Farokhzad's opposition to the Iranian government, however his main target was Islam as a religion, more than the government - The sources provided in the article suggest that he may have been murdered by an arab hit squad operating in Europe. This "editor" ignored my comments and contributions as usual and reposted the same lies in the article by simply doing a full revision. I strongly suggest this group of editors be (at the very least) warned about the consequences of their exteremly rude and inapropriate behavior!--Mehrshad123 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog or As the Wiki Turns

Resolved

AIV is backlogged (when it is not?). Could an admin take a look please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Poof! TNXMan 21:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

86.162.18.140 / KirkleyHigh

I'm sorry for my bad English!

About 86.162.18.140 / KirkleyHigh :

• He has been positively accused of sockpuppetry and circumvented his three blocks of his first account.[39]
• He removes track listings with references and only keeps two formats released in the artist home-country, although there is nothing in WP guidelines to support this point of view (compare with "4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Track listings and formats" for example, a recent featured article).
• He removes alternate cover in the infobox. Yes, these images are under fair-use, but this should be resolved by its proper channel, i.e. by PROD or "Files for discussion" in order to ask for other opinions and to reach a consensus. This should be more "friendly" than just removing them.
• He removes the chart successions, although they are allowed per WP:SBS ("Succession boxes are template-created wiki-tables that serve as navigational aids") and WP:SONGS#Chart performance, charts and succession ("If a song is a number-one single, a succession box can also be included in this section.").[40] (compare with "4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Chart procession and succession" for example, a recent featured article).
• He removes certifications table, although these certifications are properly sourced with WP:GOODCHARTS. (compare with "4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Sales and certifications" for example, a recent featured article).[41]
• He uses his own manuel of style, using improper capitalization in the subtitles.[42]
• He removes external links and stub template, even if the article is actually a stub.
• He removes templates.[43]
• He removes tags.[44]
• He made personnal attacks.[45]
• He has been blocked at least seven times with his two main accounts on a period of only two months.
• He continues to ignore image upload warnings. See User talk:KirkleyHigh
• Note that all this has been brought many times to his attention, but he always neglects advices, refuses to discuss with other users, and totally ignores warnings and messages left on his talk page, although his point of view is not shared and his changes are not based on WP guidelines. See User talk:86.162.18.140. I think this behavior can be deemed as a lack of respect for other Wikipedians. He has been doing it for months and makes work for others to fix his disruptive changes (he makes plenty of edits of this kind in many articles). Wikipedia is not the good place for people who want to do all what they like, regardless WP rules and the will of the community.

This user (including his IP adress) should be indefinitely blocked, as his behavior has never changed. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the indefinite block myself for the IP address, but I have given a new final warning and any vandalism in the near future from now on can be dealt with via a block. WP:AIV can be helpful in that should nothing further progress from here. SGGH ^ping! 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:RobbieLeBee08 sockpuppet of indef'd user

RobbieLeBee08 (talk · contribs) proudly proclaiming all of his sockpuppet accounts. Woogee (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore. TNXMan 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

problem on Ghost

Resolved

 – Classic WP:SHOT: Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) blocked for edit warring Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I keep trying to remove or {{Fv}}-tag a footnote on Ghost that has failed verification, but I have a number of editors consistently re-adding it and removing the tag. The statement in question is the bit about 'pseudoscientific belief' (in text, based on footnote 3) which refers to the 2006 version of the NSF's Science and Technology Indicators. the current (2010) version of this document - available here in html and in a more complete form here in pdf - supersedes the 2006 version, and makes no mention of either 'pseudoscientific beliefs' or ghosts. Note that I am not objecting to the NSF or the pseudoscience bit per se, just to this misrepresentation of their position.

I have made this point two or three different times in talk and edit summaries, but none of the editors involved in the page have seen fit to acknowledge it.

If you want to take me to task for being bull-headed about this issue, we can discuss that, but I am bull-headed and right in this case, and I am tired of struggling with non-communicative editors. someone please fix it. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted in an earlier thread, you have set yourself up to not accept consensus, expressed in several places, concerning the NSF report. There's nothing that needs to be fixed here except your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to bring edit conflicts. Woogee (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is, however, the place to report editors who are tendentiously violating wp:V. you've got three or four editors insisting on the inclusion of a quote that appears nowhere in the most current version of the document they are citing - how does that improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia?

to your other points, I'll simply remind you to comment on the topic, not the editor, and then I'll forget all about it. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to see my powers of observation and extrapolation remain in fairly good shape. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

well, BMK, I do think you misunderstand the nature of consensus. consensus is not a tool for getting what one wants, it's a tool for building an encyclopedia. I am not particularly concerned when a number of editors form a consensus that detracts from the value of the encyclopedia, and I don't mind standing up to such a group even if it causes me some trouble. The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right. I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right, because then I could leave this stinking, stupid, thoroughly irrational conflict and go do something more productive.

Now, if you would care to discuss this with me rationally and demonstrate that I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that. I'll be very surprised if you come up with a feasible argument, but I will appreciate it and accept it if you do. On the other hand, if you don't have a feasible, rational argument... what are you criticizing me for? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am criticizing you for ignoring a clear consensus when it is put in front of you, because it's not the result you wanted, and for continuing to attempt to manipulate things to get the result you want in the face of that consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right." ----> see WP:TRUTH, get bonus points from implying that other editors are using irrational perspectives. "I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right (...)" ---> us people have been trying to do that at Talk:Ghost and WT:NPOV. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really possible to demonstrate that someone is not right when they excell in the practice of not hearing what's being said, which is clearly what's going on here, and will continue to go on until Ludwigs2 is in some fashion compelled to follow the community consensus he doesn't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me - what part of "The quote being used does not appear in the source being cited" are you having trouble with? BMK, you can attack me personally until the cows come home (I really don't give a flying f#ck what you think about me), but you seem to be arguing that we should violate wikipedia policy because you don't like the person pointing it out.

Policy is on my side here - it's too bad that you're too blinded by your own emotions to see that to see that, but I really don't care. argue the point or go away. --Ludwigs2 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Hopeless. I suggest this thread be closed, as there's no admin action to be taken here, unless someone wants to look into L2's intransigence and deliberate ignoring of consensus; certainly nobody that L2 is complaining about has done anything against policy, no matter how often he pounds his chest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

so, in other words, you're not going to make an argument, you're simply going to ask to have the thread closed without due consideration? yes, hopeless is a good word: complete incapacity to understand policy or engage in rational discussion. very sad. Honestly, you'd server yourself better by taking the time to explain your position than by continuing in this kind of... heck, I can't think of a polite word, so I'll leave it hanging. go away, and allow someone who is willing to discuss the matter to explain it to me.

Unfortunately, you may have a significant wait, since no one is willing to discuss it with you, because you don't hear them. Toodles! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm patient, that's fine. it's not like the problem is going anywhere. thanks for contributing, at any rate. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated willful copyvios

Resolved

 – User blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jgcena (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading copyrighted images with no information or incorrect information. Many of his uploads have been speedied already as they are blatant copyvios of WWE promotional images. The users talk page was filled with warnings about uploading images and deletion notices. Today, he has blanked his talk page without responding to any of the warnings and resumed uploading images, including some of the same ones already deleted or tagged as copyvio. Warnings clearly have no effect. Someone needs to block this guy and delete his copyvio uploads. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to indef him, but CambridgeBayWeather beat me to it. *sigh* Looks like the third time in a week I'm gonna have to help nuke the images of a serial copyviolator. Blueboy96 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. SGGH ^ping! 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and told that they can be unblocked if they acknowledge what they were doing and promise to stop uploading images. If they do and someone thinks they should be unblocked then go ahead. Please don't wait for me. something lame from CBW 23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks all. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mac520

This user repeatedly posts on my talk page [46] [47] [48] [49] after I have deleted the comments and he was warned [50].

I've repeatedly posted on your talk page because you decided to follow my user contributions page and revert my edits on articles outside of the one that you were originally watching. I find this to be stalking.Mac520 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is do to his attempting to promote the paleolithic diet [51] [52] [53] against consensus [54].

"Against consensus" is blatantly false. There was 1 person that disagreed with my edit even when I included proper citations for everything that I added.Mac520 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Has reverted another of my edits without justification [55] due to my and other editors removal of his content at ghee [56] [57] [58].

Yes this was probably wrong I was trying to make a point to Doc James but it did not work. I knew that I would not "harm" wikipedia as I knew he would simply revert this edit immediately I only did to annoy him and get my point across that he was annoying me just as much. Mac520 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Marks all his edits as minor. [59] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked an anon that spammed at bot like speeds

I can't quite remember what else to do with this Special:Contributions/78.138.169.146. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! I've reduced it to a 1 year block, because blocking IPs for more than a year is usually not necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I decided to block first and shorten later. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist is the ultimate "big hammer" solution. Every edit anyone submits is checked against this list, so it should be used only as a last resort and suggests some other alternatives. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rick, that's what my fatigue poison clogged brain forgot. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if this is how fast bots operate then I must be a very speedy editor at four edits a minute. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support blocking Kevin as an obvious unauthorized bot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@ KevinAlright, how do you do 4 a minute? I can get 1 per minute with Twinkle, and this anon was out pacing me. :). Dlohcierekim 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Psst... most anyone nowadays can pull 4 edits/minute without being a bot... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do that... :-) Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• 1 year might even be a bit much, looks like a broadband provider: "Kazan Broad-band access pools" so IP might be dynamic. –xeno^talk 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Posted an overview to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#IP adding a handful of domains. Not sure if blacklisting is helping here, looks all like throwaway domainnames and document names. Some of the main-domains (1.vg, etc.) have been used otherwise as well. Maybe those subdomains qualify to be blanket-reverted by XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up - block evasion and disruption by User:Orijentolog / 93.142.0.0/16 93.143.0.0/16

Orijentolog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on a block evasion and disruptive editing mini-rampage with IPs in the ranges 93.142.0.0/16 and 93.143.0.0/16, which are a large Croatian ISP. I have all of semi-protected the articles involved for a week, blocked a new sockpuppet indef and several specific IPs for 3 months (after shorter blocks yesterday, and a couple of weeks ago, and a couple of weeks before that, and...), and finally blocked both of those IP ranges in toto for 31 hrs to end the IP hopping repeat engagements.

This is a bigger IP range than we typically like to see blocked, but this guy just keeps coming back when he gets in these moods.

Hopefully no other admin intervention necessary, but posted here in clear disclosure given the large rangeblocks and in case anything else new pops up, for context. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone should also check User:Mehrshad123 whose edit pattern is quite the same [60] and might be his sock-puppet. Alefbe (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Catholic Church straw poll

See:

• Canvassing by Xandar (now blocked)
• Canvassing by NancyHeise
• New (indirect) canvassing by NancyHeise

After a neutral notification was

• posted to WikiProjects by Karancas

I removed two instances of canvassing and engaged both NancyHeise (talk · contribs) and Xandar (talk · contribs) on talk, and this has also been discussed at Talk:Catholic Church. Xandar is blocked, but Nancy persists. The article has been mired in cavassing and edit warring for years, for precisely this kind of behavior: Nancy and Xandar call in "votes" any time a decision is being made on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia reverted my neutral edit that supplemented Karanacs non-neutral post. Her post gave editors a link to only one version of the article and offered no link to the other version being considered in the straw poll. I have summarized the situtaion below: NancyHeise ^talk 02:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting for opinions is one thing, is that what we are talking about, or is something else going on?--MONGO 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is way beyond soliciting for opinions. The above users are trying to influence the opinions of others before those people take a look at the straw poll and the underlying issues themselves.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my post before SandyGeorgia deleted it [61] - it is a completely neutral request that provided the appropriate links to both articles under consideration that Karanacs non-neutrally omitted. NancyHeise ^talk 02:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No it's absolutely not neutral, given that you write: "oppose vote rejects that proposal in favor of keeping more information in the article" with no comparable explanation for the support vote (ie. something like "support vote makes the article more compact and readable").UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@ MOngo, Nancy and Xandar have a long history of soliciting "votes" on CC and its FACs. Because Nancy was unpleased with Karanacs' very neutral WikiProject post, she added a non-neutral post. When I removed that, she added another post requesting editors come to her talk page (where she can directly influence). In the meantime, back at the ranch, over at User talk:Xandar, he's engaging in all kinds of personal attacks, like calling YellowMonkey "LoveMonkey", and .... gasp ... claiming that PMAnderson is my ally :) Oh, my ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Xander is blocked now apparently...blocks can be extended if even user talkpages are being used to launch attacks.--MONGO 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mongo, SandyGeorgia accused me of canvassing at Arbcom - an arbcom that was denied. Karanacs accused me of canvassing here [62] but as you can see, the editors who came to the page defended my notifications and provided evidence that I knew they would not be in favor of my preferred choice. I am tired of being accused of canvassing for simply calling the interested editors to the page to discover their thoughts about improving the article. In the recent successful mediation over the name issue, mediated by user:Sunray, I was asked by Sunray to notify the other participants when we conducted polls in that mediation to find consensus. My actions on the Catholic Church page have been no different but Sandy constantly accuses me of canvassing. NancyHeise ^talk 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, understanding of canvassing on your part would be helpful. I'll ask again: have you ever read WP:CANVASS? Do you not understand that you shouldn't attempt to influence "votes", either on talk or at FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If its just to alert folks to a discussion then a gentle request for comment is fine so long as it isn't a plead for something. If we're talking about any kind of solicitation for a vote on something, then one has to be careful not to violate canvassing provisions...it oftentimes is a matter of opinion regarding the type of solicitation...if it's any consolation, nothing on this website is truly permanent...in a second or over a period of a year, an article can truly transform...imagine writing a featured article and come back to it a few months later and have it altered beyond recognition, even though a new consensus supported the changes...even published works get changed by newer editions.--MONGO 03:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the instances where I have alerted users to come comment on the CC talk page are neutral and invite all of the editors, including the ones I know do not support my preferred version. What happens is that in each situation, I never really know how people will vote because they often vote in ways that surprise me, sometimes supporting what I would like and sometimes opposing. The point is that asking knowledgeable and interested editors to come to the page and offer comments is not a violation of WP:Canvass. Sandy accuses me of canvassing but provides no diffs to anything that violates Wikipedia rules. My posts are neutral. Here are some of my past posts: the poll being taken at the time [63], my standard message placed on all of the involved editor's pages including this one who has a history of opposing my positions [64]. This is what Sandy is calling "Canvassing" and what she says I do "all the time". She is constantly making this accusation against me without providing diffs to the accused behaviour. NancyHeise ^talk 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, focus. Did you see the diffs that I started this thread with? Do you deny those are canvassing? Let's start with basics. Could you please answer, yes or no, in one sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what those diffs are [65] this one is a neutral post that provided the diffs that Karanacs left out of her non-neutral post that provided a single link to only one version of the article instead of both versions being considered. This one [66] is a complaint about your abbherrant behaviour in removing my neutral post. NancyHeise ^talk 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, still no straight answer. Well, I rest my case ... Tom is going to need more admin help on this one, since the arbs won't take it. Another "vote" influenced by Nancy and Xandar (who's still launching attacks on his talk). G'night all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Red herring again, again, and again. We don't care what happened on the 22nd archive of the Catholic Church talk page. Your actions now are inexcusable, but you persist with your intransigence anyway.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this edit by Nancy Heise...I have seen far worse...I don't have a problem with that sort of canvassing so long as ALL regular contributors, regardless of opinion, are notified...however, I think just the first sentence..."A straw poll is being conducted on the Catholic Church talk page here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church#Cryxic_is_done]" really is enough notification.--MONGO 03:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mongo, thanks. The reason why I posted the links in the note instead of just telling them there was a straw poll is because the straw poll itself does not provide the adequate links. I can not change it because it is UberCryxic's creation. NancyHeise ^talk 03:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

IF we have regular contributors, then they can probably find the discussion page without being canvassed...the key is patience...not all contributors can contribute everyday, nor can we do much about the fact that we have a lot of different time zones on the planet...since this canvassing issues seems to be an issue, maybe not doing it for the near term will eliminate complaints regarding it.--MONGO 04:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And we do have plenty of regular contributors, nearly 15 of which have commented in the poll on the first day without ever needing to be canvassed.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of power by SandyGeorgia

The Catholic Church talk page is conducting a straw poll here [67] to decide on a new version that will drastically eliminate about 50% of the information on the page including the Origin and Mission section and the Cultural Influence section and much of everything else. The new, shorter version is here [68] and the older, more informative version is here [69] A support vote will make the page become the shorter version, an oppose vote will reject that proposition.

I attempted to convey the above information to the folks on Wikiproject Catholicism and Wikiproject Christianity so they could understand what was happening there and could see the two versions and come to the page and offer their comments. Karanacs had posted a note on that page already but did not provide any information at all in her post about the two differing versions, offering only a link that provided one version. I felt that this was not neutral so I attempted to correct the oversight. When I did so, SandyGeorgia reverted my edit. These are my edits [70] [71] (the second one is a complaint about removal of the first) and this is the non-neutral note posted by Karanacs.[72]. NancyHeise ^talk 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for removing the faulty section heading, but I've restored it as perfect example of NancyHeise's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No amount of anything will get through to her that 1) I am not an admin, 2) Karanacs is not acting as FAC delegate on the article, and 3) Karanacs is not acting as an admin on the article. We constantly deal with these bad faith attacks because Nancy simple DOESNTHEARANYTHING. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Darn it! That's no fun ... I thought I was ad-min-si-trating with PMS or something :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, now that Nancy may (not holding my breath) understand that I'm not an admin, I'm still wondering what sort of power or admin tool abuse she alleges against either Karanacs or me, because I'm sick, sick, sick of the drip-drip-drip of the toxicity, her failure to AGF, and the constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repetition of false info-- the section heading here is a great example. She exhausts patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• 1)Karanacs took a disputed issue that was being discussed on the Catholic Church talk page and placed the issue on the FAC talk page to gather a consensus that would put the issue to rest. The problem with that is that Karanacs is an admin who is also the FAC assistant, the editors on the FAC talk page are beholden to her decisions to get their articles passed at FAC. Her action crossed the line, it was an abuse of power and influence to gather support for her preferred position. The link is posted below in 2
• 2)When Karanacs, the FAC assistant and admin, decided to become involved in the Catholic Church article as an editor (an article that is being prepped for FAC), no one placed a notice on the Catholic Church talk page to let the other editors know that Karanacs was "just another editor" instead of "FAC assistant coming to the page with very one-sided opinions". Here's the link to where I complained about this to the FAC director, Raul654 and provided the links [73] NancyHeise ^talk 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, nancy, nancy ... admins are a busy lot, and you shouldn't make them chase their tails. Are you honestly bringing up something that happened weeks or months ago and has utterly nothing to do with this issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy: how, under what possible definition given by any reputable guideline in Wikipedia, were the comments from Karanacs "non-neutral"? They were exactly what they needed to be: brief and to the point. By contrast, you and Xandar were hinting (sometimes subtly, sometimes not) that editors in the Wikiproject should lean in a certain direction regarding the straw poll.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

She only provide a link that leads to your version. There is no link to the version of the page that they would be supporting if they rejected your version.NancyHeise ^talk 02:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That other link is not necessary because anyone interested can go to the straw poll and check everything out. Plus, if that's why you were really concerned about all this, why would you not just contact Karanacs and tell her to post every relevant link?UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The new version is linked in the discussion; the existing version still exists and simply needs to be looked at. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of constant changes in the article, whenever we have had a straw poll, we link both versions clearly for voters to see. The new straw poll does not do this so it is unclear what version is being supported if they vote "oppose". My edit on the Wikiproject Catholicism page provided them with links to the poll and each version under consideration, it was a neutral note - here it is before SandyGeorgia deleted it [74]NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really unable to understand that a message that gives an argument for one version is not neutral? Ucucha 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not your job to explain what a vote means. Just provide the link to the straw poll and that's it. If people really care about it, they'll come. You don't have to entice them through other methods.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Uber, you're right, it is not my job, it is your job because you opened the poll. You need to provide Reader with the appropriate links. If you had done so, none of us would be wasting our time here. NancyHeise ^talk 03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My job is to fix an article that you've botched and nearly destroyed over the past two years. That's why I come to Wikipedia: to improve articles, not to start intrigues over straw polls.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is that I have botched the article but the 25 supporters of the last FAC (summarized here) may not agree with you. [75]. I have been working to incorporate the comments of the 9 opposers via talk page consensus ever since. One of those opposers comments took us to a successful mediation which regrettably lasted over 9 months. We have been moving forward ever since. NancyHeise ^talk 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A minority with better arguments should always override a misguided majority on Wikipedia, per WP:CONSENSUS (The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority.). As someone who has written two FAs yourself, you should easily realize the fundamental problems this article has. But this is all a digression from the topic at hand, which is your poor demeanor as a Wikipedia editor.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of those support votes are from experienced FAC writers, many of whom had opposed the article in the preceeding FAC. In that FAC, I provided a summary of the religious beliefs of the article's creators that showed a vast range of people including some Catholics like me. My point in providing that summary was to show the FAC reviewers that this article is not a POV creation by a few staunch Catholics but a collaboration of many experienced Wikipedia editors of varying faiths. NancyHeise ^talk 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So? What happened since? Slow and steady deterioration in quality, to the point where some parts read like they were written from people inside the Vatican.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Which parts are those? The ones cited to the university textbooks and scholary works printed by university presses? NancyHeise ^talk 04:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Minimize meta-discussion

I'm suprevising the straw poll at Talk:Catholic Church. At this point, everyone interested probably knows about it, so there should be no need to post any more messages to project pages (it was my suggestion). It would be good if discussion of the topic at issue could go forward with a minimum of meta-discussion about the straw poll. The article page is protected. Xandar is blocked for edit warring. He's asked to be unblocked. I recommended the blocking admin (YellowMonkey) consider that; Waiting to hear from him, content with what he decides to do. More eyes are welcome at Talk:Catholic Church, experienced editors as well as admins, but I'm not sure any admin action is needed right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. I've watched this article for months and actually read all the previous reviews. You've been doing a terrific job recently. As SandyGeorgia isn't an admin, there doesn't seem much reason for this thread, though I agree with SandyGeorgia's post below that the canvassing is problematic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Separately from Xandar's intransigence on edit warring and canvassing, can someone please remove Nancy's subsequent canvassing post (linked above)? She's clearly trying to influence opinion, as she always has, after Karanacs' neutral post, because this time Nancy was requested not to post to individual talk pages-- instead, she's asking them to come to her :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Which I think is necessary since the note posted by Karanacs provides little relevent information about the situation under consideration. We want people to come and participate, not be so confused that they don't know what is going on or what versions of the article are being compared. NancyHeise ^talk 02:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The information is where it's supposed to be, when they come to the article. Nancy, have you ever read WP:TEND? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Emotionally strong opinions make NPOV difficult to achieve in articles where emotionally strong opinions are prevalent.--MONGO 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise (and I can't locate the archived arb request, but Tom is going to need more than one admin on board to handle this one, since the arbs won't :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy has been upset since the arbs rejected her and Karanac's arguments. Her response has been to trash the arbs [76] instead of considering that maybe she and Karanacs are wrong. As long as SAndy is going to provide the link to the RFC that Karanacs opened against me, I would like to post my response to Sandy's comments at the Arbcom which lists her complaints against me (which had no links to the accused behavior) and my response (with links proving her errors in judgment).[77] NancyHeise ^talk 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up material irrelevant to the subject at hand? Like red herrings much?UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, please do not pretend to know my emotional state. "Sandy has been upset since the arbs rejected her and Karanac's arguments." I have certainly been upset at seeing your continued attacks on good faith editors, but at this rate, you will end up back at ArbCom anyway. The issue here and now is canvassing; would you like to remove your post from WP Catholicism so someone else doesn't have to do it for you? And how many times do we tell you that people do not open cases against you? They are normal parts of dispute resolutions. Oh, I've said that ... about 500 times already. Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You should reverse your removal of my first edit that provide the much needed links to both versions of the article. The arbcom opened by Karanacs that was denied by the arbs made complaints only about me and Xandar - am I wrong to think that it was "against" us? Your complaints about the arbs on your talk page here [[78] after they denied it are indicative of your emotion and bias about the article and persistent violation of WP:assume good faith toward me and Xandar. NancyHeise ^talk 03:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked NancyHeise 1 week for canvassing, harassment, and tendentious editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Her refusal to see the point here was extraordinary. Ucucha 04:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support block, and here's her response: I believe this block is another abuse of power by an admin who has a longstanding friendship with Karanacs and SandyGeorgia ... Sarek, have we met? Apparently, the party line is that Karanacs and I have the entire admin corp in our back pockets. I wish ... would come in handy elsewhere :) Nancy is as unrepetentant as Xander, and they are why that article has been mired for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically not, but that case of Frangos you sent me was very convincing ;-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They'll believe it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's kind of like Freemasons running the world. Anyone still believing that is welcome to take a ride in my 13-year-old minivan with the leaky power steering...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

For the record, I do not think that Nancy's comments linked at the beginning of this section are canvassing. Technically, neither is Xandar's as canvassing requires sending messages to specific wikipedians to influence the outcome. Messages on talk pages to influence an outcome are not canvassing, and, outside of the "more information" clause, the two messages by Nancy do not indicate significant bias but focus more on the two possible versions that may result depending on the choice. -- Avi (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please realize that if this wasn't canvassing, a defensive reaction would be understandable, even if inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS#Campaigning. Ucucha 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is for canvassing on USER talk pages; remember, cancassing is defined as messages to users. Wikispace talk pages (article, RFC, or wikiproject) are the proper place to have discussions that discuss pros and cons. AND, in my opinion, Nancy's comment was maybe just barely indicative of her bias. I have to log off now, so I am not going to overturn and run, but I request that other non-involved admins carefully look at what happened, and I think there is reason for Nancy to have been upset. -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Ucucha, please read WP:CANVASS#Choosing an audience which states: To reach a wide range of informed, but uninvolved, editors, a discussion might be announced on the talk pages of a WikiProject, at the Village pump, or perhaps some other talk page directly related to the topic under discussion. -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The problem was not that Nancy placed that message (although it was unnecessary, as Karanacs had already posted); the problem was that the message was biased in tone. Ucucha 05:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just barely (the phrase "more information") unlike Xandar's. I do not think that it was biased enough to merit removal or blocking, but that is just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And they weren't neutral. They were designed to bring WikiProject Catholic members-- who support her as the article owner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to make things clear on Xandar: the user was not blocked for canvassing inappropriately, but rather for persistent edit warring.UberCryxic ^(talk) 05:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And Nancy for harassment and battleground; characterizing it as a block only for canvassing isn't correct. The arbs specifically rejected the case because they thought admins should deal with it; that's what happened, correctly, finally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with Xandar's block. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, she is allowed to bring in WikiProject Catholic members, this affects them, and posting the message on the talk page is the proper way to do so. We do not try and HIDE discussions on wikipedia, but we do try and inform neutrally. Her message was barely biased and directed to a group of interested people. That was not improper, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't neutral. And by asking them to come to her talk, instead of the article, it was so she could influence them. She is the known owner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

She asked them to come to her talk AFTER her initial request that they vote was removed by you. Your above complaint is thus not fair, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The original request was biased because it included an argument against the proposed new text (it removes information). Ucucha 05:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BARELY, and, in my opinion, worthy of at MOST striking through (and not even, we trust readers to be able to think) and not deletion. Teh removal was unfortanate overkill, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate before I get my four hours of sleep before I have to catch a plane that I do not think that the initial posts were canvassing, and I think that while the discussion here was tendentious, there should be some slack cut for the fact that the user rightfully felt "ganged up upon" by having what, at the very least is non-obvious problematic edits (as I see a bare minimal problem in the initial post for which I would NOT have removed it), removed and incorrectly (in my opinion) labeled as canvasing. Forbidding of posting issues on talk pages of wikiprojects that are directly affected by those issues is somewhat akin to censorship in my eyes. We have those talk pages for a reason, and they are specifically used to allow ALL interested parties to follow discussions and prevent the targted messaging that canvassing truly is. As I said, I will not unblock, as there were other issues involved and I do not know the backstory with this editor, but in this incident on its own, I do not concur with some of the decisions made. Of course, we all apply our own judgments, but I would have not removed the initial notice and, in that case, I am not certain the entire mess above would have happened. -- Avi (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you said it, Avi: you do not know the backstory, the extent of their influence over that article and at the WikiProject, and you have not watched this happen repeatedly for three years as they drive everyone else away in frustration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well as long as we're analyzing this to death, the following is what's wrong with what Nancy did:

• Her request was unnecessary as another user already canvassed for attention at the same talk page at roughly the same time (their threads were right next to each other).
• Unlike that other user, Nancy canvassed solely at Wikiproject Catholicism. This by itself would be completely harmless if it weren't for point three...
• She clearly describes one of the votes favorably.
• She was blocked as much for her tendentious editing as of late (especially today) as for the canvassing decision.
• Per Sandy, there is a vast and complicated drama here that has unfolded over the last two years. Some things are better left unsaid, however, and what happened today can be (and should be) analyzed separately.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Next

The arbs rejected the case, so I don't know how to find it in archives. One admin alone cannot handle the behavioral disruptions at that article. Here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise. Is it time to motion a 0RR or 1RR on Nancy and Xander, so the article can progress? If not, there are no other steps in dispute resolution, and anything tried is derailed by canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it is; thanks, Ucucha! They've both been blocked for edit warring on that article; they both canvass and frequently think Wiki is a "vote"; the article is constantly protected; and most significantly, any other editors who could improve the article give up in frustration and leave. This example tonight is hourly; it has had the five worst FACs I've ever seen, and about a dozen experienced FA writers gave up and walked away. Here are the Article history stats showing the extent of ownership, and it should be noted that NancyHeise is an advocate (sample) and an SPA. I started tying to track the blocklog of the Catholic Church at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#1e, but it was too complex for me to sort, and some of that may be wrong or incomplete. The arbs rejected the case, saying that admins needed to get involved. There is ongoing and pervasive misunderstanding about the role of admins, the role of FAC delegates, WP:CONSENSUS, the five failed FACs (Nancy repeatedly misrepresents them, saying some content has consensus because it was reviewed at FAC), and more. No one has been able to get through to Nancy and Xander about the ownership and battleground issues that are affecting the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The arbs rejected the case. Work on the talk page is continuing. It's not appropriate to put together a scratch team to do what the arbs would not. If nothing else, people on both sides need to have their behavior examined, but the partisans so outraged by Nancy and Xandar can't see anything or anyone else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Block is inappropriate

I think the block is inappropriate, and a week is too long. It's not to prevent canvassing; the article in dispute is locked; the straw poll is continuing. Blocking two major contributors to the article during the straw poll will look like unfair manipulation, and will make it harder to reach a durable consensus. This is a shut-the-hell-up block. That's probably good advice, but I can't endorse the block, and ask that it be lifted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So that Nancy can vote, or so that Nancy can participate in consensus-building? You ought to know by now that the chance of Nancy doing the latter is a big fat zero. And voting is evil. Hesperian 13:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The block is innaprpriate. I've seen worse blocks, but not many. The posts in question were nuetral and I saw nothing in them that would give me a hint as to what side of the issue Nancy was on. Seems that this is a shut the hell up blockUnblock Unblock Unblock.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Repetition does not make your argument convincing. Regardless, the block was for disruptive behavior following the posts, not the (potential) canvassing itself. It's not a "shut the hell up" block, it's a "quit stirring the pot while we're trying to gauge consensus" block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Agree with the Hand). The problem with ANI is so few people here actually take the time to study before opining. The block was not only for the canvassing; please read it, and then please also read the history, linked above, including mediation, RFC/U, an arb case, and plenty of evidence of the battleground issues. Please read before opining: the block was not for the canvassing only; there is a long pattern here, and the arbs have tossed it back to the community. It will take community consensus, community procedures, and more than one admin to bring the behavioral issues on that article under control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Plese try to actually read the extensive, combative five FACs, and the previous steps in dispute resolution, that led several arbs to asking admins to get involved; understanding how long this has gone on, and how pervasive the battle ground is will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It would help if responsible editors were able to see and willing to call out bad behavior on both sides. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It would also help if the wholly ungrounded and unsubstantiated allegations that amount to off-Wiki coordination and admins in backpockets also stopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Nancy did apologize for that line over on her talkpage, Sandy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I hear those allegations are making the rounds on other circuits :) There's a theme (which seems to amount to, it must be a cabal! It's not my behavior that led to the blocks ... ) And it's part of the campaign of harassment that Karanacs and I have endured: the next time she accuses either of us of abuse, because she won't read and understand policy that has been repeatedly pointed out to her, I do hope admins will step in. It's tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock of both Nancy and Xandar. Nancy and Xandar have been heavily invested in the Catcholic Church article for years; they have each spent hundreds of hours on the article. It doesn't seem to me that it would be in the best interest of the project for their voices to remain unheard during the current debate about the article's future. If an unconditional unblock is out of the question, then perhaps an unblock restricting them to the CC talk page could be agreed. MoreThings (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone read before opining? Their voices are heard. Nancy weighed in before her block, and Tom ferdarnsure has read where Xander stands. The question is how to stop them from the stirring the pot so consensus can form. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Are you saying they would post there too much? Personally, I think anyone who posts more than 30 times (note the non breaking space, by the way) to a single talk page or noticeboard in a calendar day probably is overdoing it and in serious need of admin action. I'm sure we could get some neutral admins to assure compliance.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Nancy has posted, but the debate is ongoing. Nancy and Xandar should be allowed to affect the consensus that forms, not gagged while it does so. MoreThings (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Given that they are major contributors to the page (which I have not read, I have better things to do), they would be within their rights not to respect any consensus that forms under these circumstances. Gagging opposite points of view is very convenient from a certain point of view. However, the gaggee is inclined to be resentful!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone needs to be able to use the talk page to present their arguments. To be fair, the process needs to be seen as fair. An unblock restricting them to the talk page would be help ensure that. If that unblock happens, it will be incumbent on Nancy and Xandar to use the talk page judiciously, to concisely and reasonably present their positions, and to read and consider what other people say - listen twice as much as you speak, and all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And I started a thread above about how the community can put something, anything in place to deal with the ownership and battleground issues, per the arbs' request that admins step in, and it has gotten no feedback. Who has a plan, any plan ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that anything other than SOP is necessary. We have administrators watching the page, and no crat has deleted this page recently, and a quick check reveals that it is currently unprotected and open for business. I decline to comment on article ownership issues, since I am aware views differ on that, but I see nothing that cannot be handled routinely.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• If people would like both users to contribute to the poll/discussion/consensus, then those people should use this time to persuade both users to make appropriate unblock requests. Some assurances might get the desired outcome; acknowledgement of the issues and assurances would of course end the drama pretty quickly. If people have concerns about the quality or quantity of such contributions, then those people should use this time to think/bring about a scheme (such as a temporary probation) where issues can be dealt with effectively and promptly, perhaps without needlessly removing contributions from other parts of the project. I'll emphasise that this is merely my view, and though I think it's neutral, that'll of course be subject to each individual opinion. I hope all issues relating to this are resolved effectively in the near future for all those involved (and the encyclopedia). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked up the edit history, and NancyHeise has made an amazing 4,412 edits to that article since January 2008, only 754 of them minor, and 2644 to the talk page in the same period. I would say that's not acceptable if she herself has a strong POV and is effectively a single-purpose editor. Would Nancy agree to confine herself to the talk page for an agreed period of, say, three months? My apologies if this has already been suggested or tried. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If she was a single purpose account, she wouldn't agree as that would defeat her purpose in being here. If she was not, but still had a strong interest in the subject, she'd be better off sitting out the week. Many people limit their edits to very limited areas. Doesn't make them SPI's. Note that Nancy also has strong histories in other Catholicism-related articles. Personally, I view people who seem only to chat here (not you) as more of a problem then self-limiting editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of info that needs to be studied and processes put in place. It is most frustrating that this has gone on for years, an RFC/U and mediation and bazillions of posts explaining Wiki policies and guidelines to Nancy and Xander have fallen on deaf ears, the arbs tossed it back to admins, and in spite of this thread, we can't get admins to put something in place to deal with this long-standing behavioral issue. We have an essentially SPA advocate for the Catholic Church owning the article, and turning it into a battleground. Others give up and leave. Something, anything, should be put in place. One admin can't do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just goes to show, Sandy, that you should be careful who you endorse for ArbCom :D --Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Convince me ! WWWD (What Would Wehwalt Do?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? All great Neptune's ocean (or the part around Aruba anyway) won't wash the blood from my hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is a practical suggestion, that NancyHeise be asked not to edit the article for three months. I don't know whether the same should apply to Xander, as this is the first time I've dipped my toes into this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

NancyHeise took a voluntary break from the article for several months at the turn of the year. We reached consensus on the talk page for several changes to the article during her absence (Xandar was still contributing). On her return in February she started changing the article back to her preferred version (see here, here, here, and here, and NancyHeise's comment "you ... have been going through the article and making changes that were not necessarily agreed to by other editors. I for one was absent from the page for much of the past three months when you guys did your trim. I think that your trim made a lot of sections say things that are not in the cited refs and I am trying to go through and correct that oversight. I appreciate your efforts but I also have to put in my two cents if I happen to have the refs. I don't think my edits are controversial. ") Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My own view is that the article is non-neutral and that Nancy's and Xandar's contributions are largely responsible for that state of affairs. They, of course, see it differently, as is their right, and it doesn't seem that they're transgressing policy, or they'd be banned by now. But all that is the larger picture--this is about the straw poll, and I think they should be allowed to make their case. MoreThings (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

if NancyHeise and Xandar are unblocked but restricted to only editing certain pages, then they should also be allowed to edit the recently opened GA Review. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

Re-summarizing from "Next" section above, to try to get focus from more admins than SV ...

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise (essentially ignored by Nancy)
• Declined arb case, tossing it over to admins
• Article history stats showing the extent of ownership
• NancyHeise is an advocate (sample, there is more)
• SPA
• I started tying to track the blocklog of the Catholic Church at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#1e, but it was too complex for me to sort.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On a personal note, and what caused me to engage this article, is how tired I am of seeing ongoing allegations of abuse aimed at Karanacs and me. I hope admins will see to it that Nancy learns Wiki policies and guidelines, works on her AGF-o-meter, or is dealt with the next time she makes such accusations. There has been no abuse, either of admin tools or FAC delegacy. She refuses to HEARTHAT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, we heard you say that already. We HEARDTHAT, thank you. Message received. Point taken. Return receipt issued.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lighten up :) Apparently some folks come here and only read the last thread, so I re-summarized. And Nancy and Xandar have not heard it, and someone needs to get through to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought this was AN/I, not their joint talk page. Ah, I see by your contribs list you've been there already. Several times. Today. And I assumed that conscientious admins, as I try to be, do read the entire thread. However, I will bow to your superior knowledge of such things (is this where I put the smiley face)?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

While you were there, did you notice all the false allegations about Karanacs and me? <insert smilie> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion to sever; motion of bill of particulars. Stay of proceedins until someone pays my bill.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Any temporary topic ban would need to include the understanding that she not revert when she returns, otherwise it's pointless. If that could be agreed, would that help, and would others support it? And does it need to be applied to anyone else too? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to be cautious about such things. I've yet to be convinced there is a need for a "temporary topic ban". And as I said, given the choice between sitting out a week and having one hand tied behind the back on an article one has made major contributions to, with an opposite side not so handicapped, I rather doubt she would accept such an offer or accept such a sanction.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There's discussion on Xandar's talk page that he be subject to a 0R rule; if that is in effect, I see no need for him to be barred from editing the article. From my experience with NancyHeise, IF this was implemented someone would have to make it very, very clear to her what is meant by "no reverting when you come back", because she honestly believes that she is simply correcting other people's mistakes and that her edits are not controversial (despite editors telling her on the talk page that her edits are controversial). Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. SV, it is not hyperbole to say this is the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever seen. Nancy and Xandar sincerely do not seem to understand. It's not merely a matter of tenditious editing and POV-pushing-- it's a genuine breakdown in understanding How Wiki Works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC

@SV, I haven't yet had time to review Pmanderson's contributions to the ongoing edit warring-- Karanacs would know better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec, for Wehwalt) She would have to accept it if there was an agreement that we should impose it on her, though it would be better if she would volunteer to do it. Over 6,000 edits to the article and talk in two years is clearly too many for someone who's striking up a strong position and edits in no other area. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, Pma has made 101 edits since 2006, so it can't be that bad. It's the 4,000 to the article in two years that's jumping out at me. That's something that can't continue if it's all from the same POV and contentious. As Tom is currently the admin dealing with this, perhaps he could say when he comes back on whether he'd agree to a three-month topic ban for Nancy (hopefully voluntary), with a no-revert agreement when she returns i.e. no reverting to any version, or part thereof, that preceded her mini-break. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that then, there will be disputes about edits she makes. She will see that it was not a violation of her agreement. The other side will say that though she used a different ref and the info is slightly different, that she really did. Then admins, to figure out who is right and wrong, will need an impromptu education in canon law and church history. Oy.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's another problem, too ... because of the article's history, I'm not sure three months is long enough to convince all those who were chased off that it will be "safe to come out" again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it might be difficult, but I think the key is to stress the spirit of the agreement, not the letter. Basically she needs to let other people shape the article for a bit, because her shaping of it hasn't worked. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if it has or has not, and will not engage in a discussion about that with only one hand clapping. Unquestionably, Nancy and Xandar would have something to say on that topic. @Sandy, by that logic, no set length of time would be sufficient, after all, the Big Bad Other Side would be coming back some day, zomg. And an indefinite sanction would become eternal, because any change would be bitterly opposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, how is your comment above regarding User:NancyHeise, "Yes, but I hear those allegations are making the rounds on other circuits :)" consistent with your objection above regarding what you deem to be "false allegations" against you of engaging in off-wiki coordination? Such as "It would also help if the wholly ungrounded and unsubstantiated allegations that amount to off-Wiki coordination and admins in backpockets also stopped."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't parse ... try rephrasing? In context, since I don't know how this is related to the current discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Wehwalt said "Why are you complaining about Nancy accusing you of off-wiki coordination when you're accusing her of off-wiki coordination?". Is that right, Wehwalt?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Too lawyerly, alas. Someone's got to pay that bill ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

*donates his monthly admin salary to Wehwalt*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, Sarek; Wehwalt, what part of my words gives you the impression I've accused Nancy of off-wiki coordination? Prior to the new development (see below), that wasn't in my mind at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Yes, but I hear those allegations are making the rounds on other circuits :)" is my guess at most likely candidate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, given that I quoted it! Complete with smiley face. Can you give an answer now?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

*headdesk* So much text, so little reading comprehension skill.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone asked for my opinion above. Please keep in mind I'm a very involved editor and you may want to take my opinions with a grain of salt. The most active people, recently, on the actual article are NancyHeise, Xandar (many of his contributions are reverts of other changes, although he can also do an excellent job of copyediting), Richardshusr (who is likely the one editor respected by everyone, and who does not edit-war, ever), Haldraper (whose edits are often disputed by NancyHeise/Xandar), and UberCryxic (a new arrival who is being very bold but is keeping in contact with Tom Harrison). Several others, myself included, have made a handful of edits each recently. Haldraper, PMAnderson, and Xandar (and a few others) have all edit-warred over article tagging. We may also need some type of consensus on whether tags should be placed on the article or not (and if so, what criteria must be met to leave them there) in order to nip those in the bud, although Tom's liberal use of protection has stopped these for now. IF there were to be a consensus for Nancy to be topic-banned, I'd argue for a limited amount of time (say 3 months), but that it could be extended if on her return the same behavior began again (to be determined by ....???). However, there aren't a lot of eyes on this right now, so talk of topic banning may be premature. I'd be happy right now to have more admins intervene on the talk page when they see personal attacks (even the borderline ones) or misunderstanding of wiki policy/workings. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is premature. An RfC did not recomend that. ArbCom, which is empowered to take such actions, did not take the case. The editors in question are blocked. I think that we should wait for more eyes and the opportunity for full participation by both sides before considering such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are both delegates now recused on this article? Is that a first since we added a second delegate?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, I seem to recall Raul having to make the casting vote on one article not so long ago. What I really wanted to say though is that I'm deeply saddened by these blocks, and speaking from personal experence I can state categorically that blocking only makes matters worse, it doesn't fix anything. One week is also obviously too long. Adults ought to be able to sort this out without resort to the naughty corner. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, RCC and its FACs have set all kinds of FAC records :) (I hold a few of those myself, but of the good kind :) I do wish people would stop worrying about the recusals; Raul can handle it, and if FAC had such a thing as a "quick fail", any Catholic Church FAC would meet that based on 1e alone. It has never been stable, and isn't even remotely eligible to appear at FAC, so its not a concern. By the time that article approaches FA status, we could all be long gone :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Malleus, none of your ummm ... illustrious blocks ... had anything to do with article content. These do, and it's the article that has been damaged. Neither of them yet shows any understanding of the issues raised, in their various unblock requests and statements on their talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

New development

... mentioned here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Darn, someone in Florida !voted in the poll. Talk about guilt by association. First, I really don't think any experienced Wikieditor is going to use a first edit sock in that manner. Second, it is just as likely to be someone trying to discredit her. More likely given the blatant nature of the thing. Florida's a big state. Proposal: Block Mickey Mouse as sockmaster. Why not? The evidence is equal.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

With Nancy and Xandar blocked there's no need for the straw poll (and little legitimacy in it at this point anyway), and no need for me to continue. I've unprotected the page, and the page can develops however the remaining participants want it to. I can already imagine someone preparing to cite this diff as evidence that Evil Nancy has driven the admin mediator from the page. That's not the case. It's disappointing, and at least partly my fault for not managing it better, that this has devolved into a (successful) campaign to get Nancy and Xandar. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally grateful for the integrity of your efforts. I once heard the job of a band's tour manager described as "herding cats", it is nothing compared to the job of an admin at Wiki, especially when he honestly and with integrity tries to clean up a mess like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BehnamFarid

After a previous thread started by him, BehnamFarid (talk · contribs) was given a short block because of confrontational behaviour and personal attacks. I have just checked his contributions again, and I've seen that, since he has come back, he has proceeded to whitewash, canvass (multiple times) on the issue which led to his original blocking (as well as reminding other editors to look back) and, worst of all, casually compare my actions to those of a facist state (and I don't think it needs to be said again how faulty those arguments are, nor how many times the issue has been explained to him by both the mediator he took it upon himself to appoint and I). Since returning, over half of his edits have been tied to the issues for which he was blocked. I am not confident that BehnamFarid has learnt anything from his block, or that he is the kind of editor we wish to involve in the project. J Milburn (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that while I agree with most of J Milburn's characterizations above, BehnamFarid's last contribution was almost 36 hours ago.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn: you are wrong on all accounts! What are "whitewash", "canvass", etc., meant to convey? Specifically, with regard to what you call "canvass", you are utterly wrong! I simply asked some relevant people to look into certain issues, and not to take sides with me! (You had a perfectly valid point if any of the links that you have provided would have shown that I had asked people, or even hinted, that they sided with my point of view, in which case they would have been the people rightly to complain and accuse me of treating them as though they were corrupt people, waiting to receive orders from me and act in my interest, whatever that may be.) Look for instance at my request addressed at User:Hekerui, and realise that as it happened he came down to suggest that the image at issue be removed, totally contradicting me. And that was fine with me. I am very sorry to realise that you clearly do not distinguish between seeking someone's expert opinion, and canvassing! Well, perhaps you should consult a dictionary before deciding to raise irrelevancies here or elsewhere against me, or someone else for that matter. What is actually your problem with me? After my second exchange with you, I explicitly told you that I wished that the problem with regard to the photograph of Michael Foot was considered by User:Stifle, however, and very strangely, you have proved incapable of capturing the meaning of my message and leaving me in peace. (I remind you that you kept commenting on the contents of my exchanges with Stifle on my talk page.) Frankly, your behaviour is incomprehensible to me. In any case, your extensive retrieval of my exchanges with others, all of which are to my best judgement utterly irrelevant (they contain absolutely nothing that would support your insinuations), is suggestive of something rather unwholesome. I cannot leave it unsaid that your bringing up of what you call "reminding" is absolutely puerile! Just look at what Stifle had written before my message (he had written "It is good to hear ...".), and then judge my message in that light! It is hard to believe, but it appears that you have come to convince yourself that it is up to you to decide what others should and should not write while communicating with each other here on Wikipedia. --BF 05:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I frankly don't care whether you wanted the issue resolved by Stifle; I was dealing with it. In any case, you refused to drop the issue when Stifle told you that my actions were correct, and continued to fratch about it. It's ironic for you to talk about "seeking someone's expert opinion" in this case. I've every right to comment on the comments you left Stifle, for a number of reasons- firstly, Stifle has explicitly said he is less active on Wikipedia than he could be. Secondly, this is an issue I was dealing with. Thirdly, this was an issue with which I have experience. Fourthly, you were discussing me. Fithly, Stifle is someone with whom I have worked on various issues in the past. I am not really surprised that you're again challenging my motives, and I'm not going to try to defend myself, again. As I said in my original post, I do not feel you are the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, and I hope that neither myself nor any other editor has the displeasure of working with you again. It's not alright to come back from a block for incivility and confrontational behaviour and make the comments you did, and, had someone seen them at the time, I can only imagine you would have been reblocked. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Per SarekofVulcan, this is  Stale; I don't see why you are bringing it up, J Milburn. If you want to raise an RFC against BehnamFarid, do so, but this discussion would, if I had less good faith, seem to me to be an attempt to needle him into responding and get himself blocked. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up the first time I checked his contributions. I stand by what I said, but if this is not actionable, so be it. I don't know the noticeboards well. I suspect myself and BehnamFarid will not encounter one another again. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment AIV is the venue for when there are current problems; matters which indicate either a pattern of alleged policy violations or alleged serious unresolved violations in the past belong here - "the editor is not currently active", especially when it is only a matter of days, is not a viable rebuttal. I suggest that the content of the complaint is looked at; what to do as regards any problem found with the contributor may then be determined on the basis of whether they are active or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

www.europeanbeerguide.net

There is an odd concerted effort from an indef blocked editor and his/her sock farm to try to get europeanbeerguide.net added to the spam blacklist. Per the reports, this is a vindictive campaign to get what has been considered a valid source/external link removed from articles. A previous SSP case had been filed and closed, but the CU request was initially denied. A request to semi-protect the affected articles was also declined. (Also see the related report at WP:RSPAM.)

Targeted articles:

• Beer in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think the fastest way to deal with the situation would be a quick CU to see if an IP hardblock/rangeblock would solve the problem. So if any admins with CU access would be willing to have a peek, it'd be appreciated. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed matches for each other:

1. British Beer Expert (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. English Beer Expert (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Therealfriggindeal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Beerfromeuropa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Europeanbeer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Smokefromtheoak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. Yerobeergyde (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. Oakfromthesmoke (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
9. Eurobeer4eva (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10. Eurobeerguide (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11. Beerin europe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12. Gorbachooff (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Looks like another checkuser has already blocked some IPs involved in this. User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/EBG may prove helpful watching out for more. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

heh, I fell asleep after blocking three IPs here. Thanks for picking it up. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added the url to XLinkBot. This will revert all new editors (all IPs, named accounts younger than 4days or less than 10 edits). Keep an eye on user talkpages in Special:LinkSearch/*.europeanbeerguide.net. I hope this will not result in too many innocent reverts (XLinkBot edits show up in recent changes, patrollers, please keep an eye on these). This is a good site, unfortunate that it is being spammed . --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Beerinengland (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Another one I happened to block a few days ago. —DoRD (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is another iteration of the Newcrewforu/Jojojohnson2 user. I was starting to wonder where he'd gotten to... --Killing Vector (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary blanking of closed AfDs

User:JBsupreme has replaced the content at Articles for deletion/Chioke Dmachi (2nd nomination) with an {{afd-privacy}} tag. I can see no reason for this; there were no BLP issues on that page (before, after). There is no explanation for the change in the edit summary, no aparrent involvement with the closing admin, and the user will not explain what issues are perceived. This was one of several examples all done at that time - see also: Brian T. Edwards: before, after; Scott Rasgon: before, after; Nagy Sadeq Shurrab: before, after; Jack Garson: before, after; Barrie Lynch: before, after; Bob Cockrum: before, after. Can someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I42 (talk • contribs)

From the template documentation, "As noted at courtesy blanking, AfD subpages may be blanked upon the request of any editor"' and given that the full archives are a simple click away, I'm really not seeing an issue with this, especially given that (AFAIK) those AfDs ended in delete. This is well within policy, so I'm honestly not seeing a problem here - Alison ^❤ 07:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon the request implies some form of discussion, as does the actual policy which talks about 'community' judgement. The policy also states this is generally not done except under rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation, which is clearly not an issue here. But regardless of the intricacies of the policy - I disagree with the editor's changes and rather than simply revert I have attempted to start a discussion with them, but as they refuse to engage I am dicussing it here instead; I would welcome opinion on whether the changes are inappropriate and may be reverted. I42 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy states that 'due consideration' be given and I daresay he's given it that here. Furthermore, it can easily be disputed that the potential for harm to a person or organization actually is an issue here. It's not okay to simply dismiss it by opining that it's 'clearly not an issue' - Alison ^❤ 08:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All BLPs, by the look of it. I don't see anything unusual about the courtesy blankings. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need people to bring the right kind of shrubbery before we allow courtesy blanking of an AfD, any OTRS volunteer can testify to the effect these debates can have on real people, courtesy blanking is the least we can do. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted outing of a user

• YoungGunzHavinSomeFun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Harassment, attempted outing, legal threat.

Reported at AIV also.

Presumably oversight needed.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oversighted - Alison ^❤ 08:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, checkuser shows the following socks as being socks of SuaveArt (talk · contribs), one of which was implicated in this harassment episode, as well as prior harassment of other editors;

• Louprothero88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• YoungGunzHavinSomeFun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 206.255.16.234 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) - per policy due to extensive harassment
• 94.136.35.108 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) - per policy due to extensive harassment

- Alison ^❤ 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from IP 81.136.205.56

Resolved

 – Blocked at SPI. British Army semi-protected temporarily. –MuZemike 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:81.136.205.56 is engaged in disruption on British Army around inclusion of an image and is now in breach of WP:3RR, warnings on the talk page are being refactored ( here)and there is no indication of good faith. I'd be grateful for appropriate action to be taken.

ALR (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could this IP be blocked immed please? They have now started vandalising my Talk Page. Thanks _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. They have already been reported in AIV, but I don't think it's been seen to yet _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

p.p.s. User:Alexboyo123 is more than likely a sock of 81.136.205.56 _Will^Dow (Talk) 12:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"12:00, 11 March 2010 JohnCD (talk | contribs | block) blocked 81.136.205.56 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Vandalism: and violating 3RR)" Woody (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep them in my watchlist for when the block ends tomorrow. _Will^Dow (Talk) 12:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has now jumped IPs to User:217.36.224.44 and is carrying on edit war at British Army. Can they be either blocked or investigated as a Sock of 81.136.205.56? _Will^Dow (Talk) 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev

Case initiated by Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) moved here from WP:AE#Dilip rajeev

I apologise for this, but this is highly confusing for me. I thought that Falun Gong articles were under the Arbcom watch, but I'm told that they are not. I don't claim to understand all the ins and outs of 'law enforcement' here on WP, but as this is a case concerning a very high profile area (in terms of drama and Arbcom) an involving very serious misbehaviour, I don't want it falling through the cracks. Therefore, I am bringing it here. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom action is requested:
Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Breach of Point_of_view_editing
• Breach of WP:3RR
• Breach of Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Diffs :

I really don't have the patience for this any longer; I have already given up editing Falun Gong articles. Nevertheless, I would re-open this previously filed request hoping that something be done about that user's persistent Falun Gong advocacy, NPOV editing and aggressive edit-warring. This is particularly important because the disruption has now spilled over onto, and threatens to poison the editing ambiance at, all articles which touch upon the Communist Party of China or the governance of the People's Republic of China - the central goal of the Falun Gong movement is contributing to the downfall of the CPC.

This renewed request is updated with the latest evidence of highly disruptive behaviour by Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), who has been editing almost exclusively Falun Gong articles, or those which touch upon Falun Gong - namely Propaganda on the People's Republic of China - since February 2006. In fact, my previous AE request was against him failed; the closing admin commented:

“ Dilip rajeev has mostly refrained from reverting and engaged in discussion. Since the reversions happen so infrequently (3 times in 2 months), a revert restriction would be of very little value. ”

In my experience, rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit Falun Gong article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as here) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like here) and weasel words are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg.

Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is unreliable propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and lawyer around citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a website which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute.

Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks or months on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. In view of his return and his manifestly unrepentant behaviour, I would reopen the case, seeking an indefinite site ban. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence.

Today, he hypocritically initiated an AE case against same (see above).

As this has been moved from AE, please refer to WP:AE#Dilip rajeev for further details. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev has been alerted to the opening of this case. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Slightly complicated 3RR/COI issue

An IP editor, 75.66.75.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), added an entry to List of people from Mississippi. Another editor removed the entry which was about "Jody Renaldo". The IP has now made their fourth revert ([79], [80], [81], & [82]).

This would be a simple 3RR report except that the IP is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Allstarecho. Allstarecho has previously self-identified as Jody Renaldo, so this would mean that they were edit-warring to include themselves on a list of notable people. Allstarecho "retired" in August 2009 but continued to edit as that IP and appears to have returned to their account recently. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the lunacy of why we allow users to declare themselves 'retired' when they patently aren't, he has edited over many months since then, so Spartaz (talk)'s fulfilment of his talk page protection request, [83], should now be lifted, per wp:talk. Right now, he can't even be informed that he is being discussed on WP:ANI! MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TechnoFaye

User:User:TechnoFaye has on at least two occasions, [84], [85] made statements, involving words such as "stupid" that are quite inflammatory. The user acknowledges that she has previously been banned from another online forum, so she is aware of the consequences of incivility [86]. The user states that she is autistic, and this is the reason for her impoliteness. I don't know about that, but all I can say is that wikipedia is better off without such inflammatory statements. Is there anything that can or should be done about this. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with them? Perhaps discussed it with a 3rd party at WP:WQA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already mentioned to the user that her tone isn't helpful [87]. Seems to have ignored it. But realistically, saying stuff like "Blacks are so stupid", in my opinion, is a blatant violation of wikipedia's policy on civility. Neither is wikipedia a forum nor a soapbox to express ones views in ways that will never make it into an article. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

unreferenced original research

IP editor at 203.45.58.46, continues to post additions of material to a series of various philosophy articles, consisting of a combination of unreferenced original research and speculative personal commentary without edit summaries. Myself and one other editor have added warnings 1-4, which appear to have been ignored, as the practice has continued. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If an editor continues disruptive behaviour in spite of a level 4 final warning, you just need to report them at WP:AIV (which I've now done). --McGeddon (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you McGeddon; I hesitated in doing that myself, as in the past I've been waved out of AIV in a similar situation, because it was deemed a "content dispute". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of the edits are obvious vandalism, so I have blocked the IP address for 24 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone's been given a legitimate level 4 warning for something, and has proceeded to do that exact thing again, it's fine for AIV. --McGeddon (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: 125.62.77.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a related IP. Compare this edit by IP 125.62.77.80 to this one by IP 203.45.58.46. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Article semi-protected. Khoikhoi 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 revealing personal information

Resolved

 – Non-issue, comment already removed, both users will be warned for incivility.

Unresolved

 – I do not think the closing admin applied the relevant sentence in WP:OUTING. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kurdo777 was repeatedly posting personal information about User:BoogaLouie, attempting to prove that BoogaLouie is a person running a website. Kurdo777's proof of this was through a disused user account which redirects to BoogaLouie, and through similarity of the previous account name to a Yahoo email address visible on the external website. Kurdo777 put these connections together himself to 'out' BoogaLouie, but he defended his action by saying "he has previously linked to that web page", referring to the previous account name, not the current BoogaLouie one. I have emailed a request for oversight, and I expect that the revealing posts made by Kurdo will be deep-deleted. Note that Kurdo777 has been blocked three times and is a confirmed sockpuppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tajik/Archive) associated with other blocked accounts. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment, contained no "personal information" whatsoever, I explained this to Binksternet in detail. I was just citing what User:BoogaLouie had himself posted publicly on Wikipedia previously, the content of the website, as evidence of his strong POV and lack of impartiality, and the comment did not involve any personal information whatsoever. Binksternet's description here, is the work of his own imagination, as the website in question has been posted on Wikipedia by User:BoogaLouie. If something was private, it wouldn't be posted and quoted on Wikipedia by the user himself. I removed the comment regardless, as I plan to use it as evidence later, in a formal setting, like a RFC or ArbCom. Note that Binksternet and a couple of other editors are involved with me in a content dispute, and he is trying to eliminate me from the dispute. He is just fishing here, as the issue has already been solved. His poor attempt at painting me as a "confirmed sockpuppet", when I am an established editor, and the issue he is raising, was a misunderstanding which was already reviewed and resolved by several administrators almost a year ago[88], should clarify what his real intentions are. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a non-issue, the comment had apparently already been removed by the author before this complaint was filed, and it did not reveal any personal information. Speaking about someone's publicly acknowledged sockpuppet/alternative account or website is not revealing personal information, although it may be uncivil. As an administrator, I have watched this dispute and the users involved for quite some time now. This is more about the ongoing content dispute than anything else, and Binksternet appears to be fishing. I have to run, but when I come back a warning ought to be left to both parties for their incivility, i.e. labeling one another "vandals." Khoikhoi 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not fishing! I had just filed a request for MedCom attention about the dispute at the Iranian coup page, so why would I jump over here and file this request about Kurdo777 specifically? The MedCom attention would have (may yet) answer all my concerns with content. I do not need to bother Kurdo777 personally, I was just trying to protect BoogaLouie, per WP:OUTING. The part of that guideline I was responding to reads "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." This is the case here, where User 'A' in 2006 posted in his very first contribution a note signed with his name and website. In July 2008 User 'A' changed his name to User 'B' with no reference to the previous username. However, that first message is still visible. It requires investigation and synthesis to make the connection, and I immediately realized that Kurdo777 was 'outing' BoogaLouie, which I understand to be a serious issue. This request for administrator oversight is not resolved. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the facts. In order to "out" someone, one would have to disclose something that has not been posted by the editor himself, or something that the editor has at least tried to hide or remove from public sphere here. Not only that's the case here, BoogaLouie has recently redirected that other user-name/sock to his current user-page, so your so-called relevant sentence " old identifying marks can still be found" does not apply here, as BoogaLouie himself has voluntarily chosen, and continues to, associate his account with the other user-name/sock which he was actually using in parallel to his current account, and anyone who goes to that user-name/sock's now, is redirected to BoogaLouie's user-page! This is a moot discussion, as the name of that user-name/sock has nothing to do with BoogaLouie's real-life identity anyways, it's the name of some artist who died years ago. You're a smart guy, you know all these facts too. But you're acting coy, and as the administrator above rightly pointed out, you're also fishing, and continue to beat a dead horse, trying to get something out of all this. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

attack account

The user account Sodaorusunni (lit. Soda is a c*** in Tamil) has been created to vandalise my user page and talk page. The user is mad at me for this edit. Seems to have created a sock for abusing me and is cussing me in my talk and user pages (in Tamil). So can anyone help a)protecting my user page and b) blocking this attack account?--Sodabottle (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The account you mentioned has been indefinitely blocked for harassment. Who is the other account involved? –MuZemike 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!. I don't who is the original user is. But he specifically mentioned that he is angry with me for this revert i did. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can't do much then if we don't know who is behind the harassment-only account unless you know somebody who harassed you in the past for something similar. –MuZemike 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Second attack account sodaoursunni1 has cropped up and started again. This is the first time i am getting harassed. Haven't had any fights/disagreements with anyone in my time here.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight notified. –MuZemike 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Numbers two and three also popped up, only to be blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

this IP is the same person I noticed one account that appeared to be angry in a similar way but won't mention the name here as I have only an educated guess. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and possible sockpuppetry: User:Elevendy and User:We Are Turtles

I'd like to request that an administrator take a look at the activity of users Elevendy and We Are Turtles. Both show a record of vandalism/personal attacks, which appear to be connected:

• //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Berardinelli&diff=prev&oldid=349060500 edit by Elevendy
• //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uncle_Dick&diff=prev&oldid=349064077 edit by Elevendy
• //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Davnor&diff=prev&oldid=349269245 edit by We Are Turtles
• //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:We_Are_Turtles&diff=prev&oldid=349270553 We Are Turtles user page

Thanks for your time! Davnor (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and blocked. –MuZemike 19:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Davnor (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Request semi-protect for Joe Mauer

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been a couple of vandalism incidents the last couple of days from different annon. addresses Rapier1 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:RFPP. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) is repeatedly misusing his rollback privilege by reverting edits which do not constitute vandalism. Could an admin please take a look. --88.111.48.107 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, a disgruntled IP at AN/I who is obviously familiar with Wikipedia. Who are you a sockpuppet of, to save us having to work it out? Fences&Windows 20:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a punt on this shall we [89]. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did everyone catch that the IP undid a complaint by Ncmvocalist complaining about him on this page as a supposed sock? Also admire the IP's use of the User template.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've already stated a previous CheckUser showed up that my IP is not related to that of Richard Daft, so Pedro I suggest you punt on somebody else. --88.111.48.107 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, does that mean we need to flag down a passing checkuser for another check? I find it suspicious you know what checkuser is, seeing as you are apparently a dynamic IP. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's one of the worst forms of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry and harassment; I've tagged 18 IPs already, and each of them has a primary agenda of either interacting with BlackJack on a common article or commenting on BlackJack at this venue. Now the question is what can the community do to address this problem.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: anonymous editors have been contributing for a long time under various dynamically-assigned IPs. Anonymous editors can certainly know what a checkuser is, what rollback is, etc. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Since the IP is familiar with Wikipedia practices, perhaps he or she would be willing to provide some diffs? AniMate 21:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but how many of them dive headlong into this kind of affair while also being knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Wjemather editing disruptively

Please. User:Wjemather came to Cobalt (CAD program) and slapped it with these two tags suggesting that the article was improperly cited. He didn’t even start a discussion thread on the article’s talk page. So I started one. Wjemather’s objections simply didn’t withstand scrutiny and the consensus from me and others on the page was that the author cited was an independent author and a reliable source. Wjemather then turned right around and changed the subject to something entirely new: that the $2995 major CAD package wasn’t notable. Given that there are a huge number of CAD packages on Wikipedia (as evidenced by this comparison chart), and the fact that we have plenty of articles on computer programs like WriteNow, which isn’t made anymore, worked only on the Mac, and cost under a $100), Wjemather’s new objection just isn’t credible. Then, before even allowing others to weigh in on his latest objection, he slapped the article with a {multiple issues} tag. I find this just to be sour-grapes, bad-faith editing to be disruptive and to make a point. His first argument (inadequate citing) didn’t gain traction with anyone so then he comes up with something new to try. There is no need for him to slap a tag on the article hours after he advances a new hypothesis in an active talk thread. Greg L (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It has no reliable 3rd party sourcing so I fail to see what the issue is. I also don't see why this issue is being brought here. Ridernyc (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What does your observation about sourcing, which the consensus is that it certainly does have third-party sourcing, have to do with notability? That’s the issue here that Wjemather has now raised. I note this edit you made only a few weeks ago on Wjemather’s talk page. Looking at what you wrote there, it seems you and Wjemather are quite familiar with each other? You know… wink-wink comments. I also see that amongst your last 500 edits, this is the only time you’ve visited this venue. Would you please tell us for the record that you didn’t just now receive an e-mail from Wjemather? Greg L (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please observe WP:AGF and not try to make accusations against me. And for the record no I did not receive an e-mail I saw the conversation pop up on my watchlist since I have his talk page watchlisted. Ridernyc (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AGF does not equate to “abandon common sense.” Your 2¢, above, don’t even touch upon his current, specious antics regarding notability. Try adhering to the issue, please, and stop parroting what you’ve been told to say. He is editing to be disruptive. Pure and simple. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope backing out of the conversation, your not going to bait me. Since you seem to think I'm here for some evil purpose of conspiracy I will back out of the conversation and let others deal with it. Ridernyc (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Update I will be deleting the tag from the article in a few moments since, given the consensus views on the talk page, Wjemather is simply editing disruptively to make a point after no one else there agreed with his views. If he will continue to debate in a civil fashion, forego slapping the article with {DEBATE}, {DISAGREE}, {I DON'T LIKE IT} tags, and actually give others time to weigh in and comment so a consensus can be arrived at, then all will be fine. BTW, that sounds wise, Ridernyc. Greg L (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple account problem

• TheThingy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor was improperly reported to AIV for a non-vandal edit earlier today and, while investigating their contributions, I noticed that they had redirected three other similarly-named userpages to their userpage. I mistakenly assumed that the edits were vandalism and reverted, then realized that they all contained similar material. One of the accounts was blocked a few times, then unblocked and one remains blocked. A strict interpretation of WP:SOCK would seem to forbid the current account to be used, but TheThingy has been editing for almost 3 years now, so I'm here looking for more input. I previously opened a discussion with the editor and have notified them of this discussion.

• The Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The-thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The.thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)