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

my restrictions

I was told to apply for reinstatement here on March 1st. I am hopeful that enough time has passed and my actions since my probation will allow me to be a fully functioning member of the community again.--Levineps (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of these restrictions are you finding to be a major hindrance to working in wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be off "probation" so to speak and be able to edit categories again. I made some mistakes and I am sorry they happenend.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, your judgment with respect to editing categories was suspect, to say the least. Can you point to something that indicates that your judgement has improved? Certainly the incident a month ago didn't show that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have abided by my restrictions of not editing categories and using the summaries. Since that incident a month ago, which was a honest mistake, I have been a positive contributing member of the community. I think I have served my time.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions being -

Levineps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from creating new categories, and re-categorizing either existing categories or articles. Levineps is required to not mark his edits as minor, as he has used this flag disruptively. He is also required to use manually written edit summaries for all of his edits, outside of the talk space. He is not allowed to remove warnings or notices from his talk page, or anywhere else they are posted. A 1RR per day restriction is also imposed, due to his disruptive reverting. If he fails to comply with these requirements, he will be blocked indefinitely and his edits can be reverted without question. Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. He is also reminded that he can appeal this sanction only via a formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom.

The restriction were imposed via this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also pertinent: User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake I made over a month ago and I explained it there and I have had no reported incidents since.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely unfamiliar with this situation but just took a quick look through the previous discussions and the editor's recent contributions. Levineps: have you made or attempted to make use of the suggestion that you can use talk pages to request category maintenance? I think the thing that would immediately make me convinced of your ability to use that functionality responsibly would be some evidence of your having tried that route. I haven't found any yet but I didn't dig all the way through the past month's worth of your contribs :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not attempted to do this via talk page as I don't think this is the most effective use of my time when I can directly be helping out.--Levineps (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page, it would be better for you to avoid editing categories, moving/renaming articles and that sort of thing for a while. There are an infinite number of improvements that can be made to content, and good research and writing is needed everywhere, so there is plenty to do without working on this administrative/organizational stuff. If you disagree with an article's cats or name, you can always say so on the talk page; if there is a consensus to change it, other people can do so. These types of changes should always be made with caution anyhow. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are plenty of ways to help out and I agree I shouldve used more caution. I was told to reapply at the first of March, so I feel that I have already served my time. I am sorry if you disagree.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you were told to re-apply on March 1. Can you provide a diff for that, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

[1]- Resolved: User will re-apply in March. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)--Levineps (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that link. In that discussion, User:BrownHairedGirl wrote: I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. But isn't that, essentially, what you've said here? "I've served my time, I don't want to be on probation anymore." Since your restrictions are indefinite, there's no question of whether you've "served your time" or not -- the indefinite part means that the restrictions stay in place until you can show that they're no longer necessary.

Can you make a clear and cogent statement of why you were placed on restrictions, and what has changed since then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats essentially what I am asking to edit categories again. I was placed on restrictions because I was careless and made stupid comments when confronted about this. I learned that this was not the best possible course of action. I believe I have grown as a person from this experience and will not repeat the same mistakes I made.--Levineps (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I'm reading this correctly, from your talk page, then you seem to have been responsible for this SNAFU, and looking at your log, you seem to have changed your focus from moving categories to moving articles. Since your judgment in renaming categories got you into trouble, why did you think it would be a good idea to start in renaming articles? What was gained, for instance, by renaming "List of Penn State residence halls" to "List of Pennsylvania State University residence halls"?

I think there's a case to be made here not for lifting your restrictions, but for extending them in such a way that you're limited to editing article and not doing any meta-work in regard to rearranging things. I would suggest that an admin take a closer look at your move log, because from the comments on your talk page, it seems to me probable that the majority of your moves were done without discussion or consensus.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think thats a bit harsh, I feel that I deserve a second chance. I have abided by the terms set by me. Everytime I have gotten feedback on my talk page, I have followed it.--Levineps (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly "harsh" to be restricted to editing articles, since that's what the encyclopedia is all about, the content of the articles. The rest of the stuff surrounding it is very necessary, but not central. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Levine, what has changed since the last time you asked besides the calendar? Auntie E. (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good question and I have already answered that question I believe above. May I ask you if not now when should I reapply? I think now is a perfect opportunity to put all this behind us.--Levineps (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not one of exact timing - it's that your page moves do not show that you really understand the problem that led to the restrictions in the first place. Get to where you understand that, and show that you do, with talk page discussions leading to consensus - then ask for removal of restrictions. LadyofShalott 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's history, I would think it inadvisable to lift any restrictions on him right now. "Parole" is an option on WP, but an editor must prove him/herself worthy of this; it's not automatic because you just became eligible for it. Waiting out the restriction and then reapplying without displaying evidence of true understanding of your restriction seems like "going through the motions" to me... Doc9871 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe I should be re-instated. I understand the reasons I was banned as I have said here and before. I can't change the past, but believe I can be a more productive member in the future. Again please accept my apologies for my past behavior.--Levineps (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that you "sincerely believe" you should be "reinstated"; there's no question there. Have you truly demonstrated that you should be, though? It doesn't seem to be going your way right now, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's true as anyone can tell from reading this, your absolutely right and there's really no need to remind me.--Levineps (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor who says about discussing changes, "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time", has predicted his future approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you can cherry pick a quote here and there from everyone. What I was trying to get at is I would rather be directly involved the leave suggestions on a talk page.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I would rather be a millionaire. I'm not, but I can still edit wikipedia articles, and so can you. That's direct involvement. Why are you so hung up on categories and specific names of articles? Those are of minor importance compared to actual article content. And your unwillingness to discuss with others indicates you intend to return to what got you banned from categories in the first place. If you make some useful suggestions on the talk pages, it would help your case. But I get the vibe that you simply waited out the suggested time and figured you would automatically get to create categories again, the way you want to, rather than discussing with other editors, and then you'll be right back here again. How would that be "an effective use of your time" or anyone else's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I were a millionaire to, I guess its good we agree on something. How has not making suggestions via talk page "hurt my case." Thats one of the most ridiculous arguments. I have hurt the community by not doing this and I think if you think deep inside about this, you would agree with me. On a separate, if you look at my talk page, you will notice I have respond to comments. I never take anything for granted so I didn't just figure I would be able to again. Please take a look at the whole picture and you will see I interact with others as I have here.--Levineps (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain again how you have "hurt the community". I'm not following that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I omitted the word NOT(Just like the person below here misspelled believe). It should have went like this, "I have NOT hurt the community..."

OK, so it's, "I have not hurt the community by not doing this." I don't get that either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I bleieve that the mass of article moves you have made since your restriction, as well as the statements you have made here, show quite clearly that you have absolutely no understanding of why those restrictions were put in place. You seem to believe they were instituted strictly because of your talk page demeanor or general failure to communicate, but that is far from entirely the case. The underlying problem was your lack of judgment concerning re-naming and re-arranging categories, the same lack of judgment you continue to exhibit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I might not be articulating it as well as I should but I didn't realize I needed an attorney for this. The reason I was banned was because of my poor judgment with regard to the editing of categories among other thing. I realize this, understand, and wish it hadn't happened. This is not a fun experience at all. I have learned from this by not making the same mistakes, reviewing feedback from other editors, and taking a closer look at my own edits among other things.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely agree with Bugs above: you thought you could "serve your time" and then return to what you were doing before. I think you'd be far better off if you forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter -- and found some other way of contributing to the project, if you're really interested in doing that. That's something you can do right now, and would demonstrate your value and, I would hope, your good judgment. At the moment, I'm just not seeing either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you expected me to give up, you definitely picked the wrong person. To quote the Gloria Gaynor, "you think I'd crumble, you think I lay down and die, oh no not I." There is no quit within me. I believe that I should be allowed to contribute fully again. I think saying "sorry" a million different ways hasn't done any thing nor has explaining my actions. However, I am not giving up on this without a fight (a civil one I should add).--Levineps (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were the culprit who left the talk pages of the snafu named above [2], which it seems you were, I'm for adding page moves to you ban as well. There was no logical reason for doing those moves, and it shows you are not yet ready to be trusted with options than can cause major headaches. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

irrelevant bit

Urgent Comments Requested - The last part of Levineps's edit above is,a possible lega` threat against WP, and should fe dealt with ackordingly... Doc9<71 ([[User talk:Doc9871|talk]U) 07:06, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) �::Wow, didn't mean to set off a$firestorm. Is tdis wikipedia's equivalent of "ymlling fire in a$crowded theatre"" I didn't know$my first amendmant rights were zevoked.--Levineps (talk]U) 07:11, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) 2Are you daft or(joking? He said(a civil fight nct a legal one. W[User:Heironymo}s Rowe|Heironymcus Rowe (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) S[Mea culpa]]... Hoc9871 (tmlk) 07:37, 2 Iarch 2010 (UTC) No worriew, we all make mistakes!--Levineps ([[User talg:Levineps|talk]U) 07:41, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) 6:::Thanks for ubderstanding! I misread it that you meant a "ciril" action or liwsuit, and I feal pretty damned stupid right about now. Sorry 'bout that again(:> Doc9871 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2010 (UXC)

I've no prior involvment in this, so can probably view things objectively. A number of points:

• Levinsep sees nothing to be gained by proposing changes and gaining feedback rather than proceeding on his own.
• When pressed on the question of, "what is different," Levineps cannot quite answer clearly and becomes excited. This suggests to me that there is no real change in behavior.
• From the discussion it seems clear that Levineps' troubling behavior has spread from categories to articles.
• "I am not giving up on this without a fight," makes it sound like Levineps has been wronged or injured somehow.
• Seeks to become "fully functioning" again. Almost as though he were crippled by the restrictions.
• There is such desperation to have the restrictions removed. Sees no value in the many other things he can be doing.

Mix it all together and squeeze it dry, and I think you are left with the realization that Levineps does not have sufficient insight into the undesirable behavior to prevent its reoccurence. I feel that nothing is lost by continuing the restrictions for an indefinite period, and much to be lost if he proves the community mistaken by a lifting of the restrictions. Beyond My Ken puts it quite well, that Levinsep would "be far better off if [he] forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter. Dlohcierekim 08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above summary. I will note that I had a brief look through the user's contribs, and beyond the questionable article moves (although there are some good ones in there), there is quite a bit of good gnomish work going on there. I would suggest that if Levineps is interested in being an asset to the project, he continues on with that sort of work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose lifting restrictions per BHG and BeyondMyKen. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support extending restrictions to include page moves. - Kittybrewster ☎ 05:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also oppose and suggest closing. And suggest that Levineps try vandal-fighting or something that doesn't require collaboration. And because he doesn't see the need to respect the opinions of editors on the talk pages of the articles' titles he unilaterally alters, I support extending the ban to article moves without prior consensus exhibited on the relevant talk page. Levine needs to learn to work with his fellow editors. 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) posted by User:Aunt Entropy
• Oppose lifting the ban, but support extending the ban to include page moves. It's clear that the problems caused by Levineps' recategorisation have simply been displaced to article-moving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Did you mean to say lifting (Not listing)? –xeno^talk 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I did indeed, and have now corrected it. Thanks for spotting mi typo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "my" typo. But I wasn't expecting differently from you, so not surprised at all from you. I have not made as many "moves" as I did categories. Exactly when will you get off my case?--Levineps (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given your previous history, you really should have known better than to make any page moves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to that as religiously followed the guidelines set out by me and that was not one of them. I am very proud of the page moves I made and acted in good faith.--Levineps (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your good faith has not been in question, and I do not doubt your pride, but that is irrelevant. I don't think you're really getting it, as you don't seem to be understanding what people are telling you. You followed the restrictions (but not "religiously" as the earlier incident shows), but even after all this discussion you still show no understanding whatsoever at the reason those restrictions were imposed, which had to do with your poor judgment in the moving and re-arranging of categories. Having no insight into that, you jumped right in and began moving and re-arranging articles, the core of the encyclopedia, and considerably more important than categories. If the community didn't want to to move categories around, why ever would you think it trusted you to move around articles?

In any event, the community called you on your bad judgment once, and seems inclined to call you on it once again. I believe it will need to see some token of better judgment from you before it considers allowing you to do that kind of work once more. That doesn't mean that you should bide your time and come back and make yet another request in X months time, as if by right. You really are going to need to demonstrate some semblence of clue about what's going on here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good summary of the problem. I don't that Levineps' remark above asking "Exactly when will you get off my case?" demonstrates a huge degree of clue. Levineps still seems to think that the problem consists of some bad people being horrible to him, but it's highly improbable that everyone commenting here is motivated by some sort of malice against Levineps. It's not true in my case, and I don't see any reason to suspect it in anyone else ... and Levineps still seems to be a long way from grasping the principle that since Wikipedia works by consensus, he needs to ensure that his actions have consensus support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you say with a straight face its not true in your case, every comment you have made has been negative. You never look at the positive contributions I have made or pointed them out. Why don't you work with me instead of against me. Also, why do you spend so much time on my case, am I that fascinating for you?--Levineps (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Levineps, I spend very little time "on your case". A few short post in this thread take only a few minutes, and is a valuable investment of time if it helps avoid a repetition of the hours it took to play my part in cleaning the mess you made of the category system.

As to "why don't I work with you?", have you forgotten that I was one of a number of editors who did try, repeatedly, to engage in dialogue with you on you talk page (see here), but like the others I got absolutely nowhere; no response at all from you until your edits were bulk-reverted, when you denounced me for "vandalism". You still haven't shown that anything has changed since then, and that's why I support keeping the ban on you until you can show that you really have started working with other editors. My support for the continued ban is preventive, not punitive: if and when you can demonstrate that your approach really has changed, I'll support your return. But the more you protest that you are being persecuted, the less I'm inclined to believe that you understand why this ban was needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a conflict of interest in your case and I would like it if you recused yourself from all my cases. When I make comments on your page, you delete them after all.--Levineps (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Based upon the above discussion, I agree with others above in keeping the restrictions in place and adding page moves. --Kbdank71 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to that as religiously followed the guidelines set out by me and that was not one of them. I am very proud of the page moves I made and acted in good faith.--Levineps (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't: Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. You admitted above that you have not done this because it is a waste of your time. All you have religiously done is sat on the sidelines and waited for March 1st (and even that was not done religiously). As others have said here again and again, get consensus for category and article renaming using talk pages. Only then will I change my mind. --Kbdank71 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear from my earlier comments, I think we should keep existing restrictions in place and extend them to page moves. Levineps, if you want to do category or article naming work, discuss it on the talk pages and get consensus for proposed changes. LadyofShalott 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch--Levineps (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Levineps, it seems you are not really helping your case at the moment. No one is personally attacking you or has anything against you(not that you are alleging such things, just seems to be the general gist of your latest comments in my opinion). The community has reservations about your ability to make the right decisions concerning moves of cats or articles, based on your past actions with such moves. Arguing here now will not change this concensus, but will probably drive more of the community into the entrenched position of not giving you those abilities back. Please be patient, your restrictions were left open ended, with the provision that they are lifted when the community feels they are no longer needed, not a jail sentence with a definite date to end incarceration. Your best option at this point would be to follow the advice given above for talk page suggestions and gaining concensus. If you show an acceptable track record, the sanctions may be lifted in the future. I hope this helps, good luck. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Both Proposals I don't think the user is ready to get back to cats yet, and I also think that the user had an expectation that renaming articles should have been avoided. I think applying some good faith shows that Levineps wants to get to the point of being a good editor. This person has the right idea just some poor execution. I do think that Levineps should be reminded about civility and assuming good faith in others. this removed comment is certainly not in the spirit of the project. In summary lets not prematurely sanction this user for the article renaming until there is a problem.--Adam in MO Talk 08:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that Levineps wants to get to the point of being a good editor. The problem is that despite repeated pointers from many editors, zie has shown no sign of understanding one of the critical aspects of how to be a good editor, i.e. discussing proposed changes to seek WP:CONSENSUS. Near the top of this discussion, Levineps dismissed seeking consensus for proposed changes, saying "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  That's not true, saying it is not "the most effective use of my time" does not mean I do not want to get consensus from others. I am simply saying, I feel less useful that I am restricted. As a result of my probation, I have used the talk pages much more now. I think being restricted has made me have a great appreciation for wikipedia community. I know I was non-responsive in the past and while I respect your opinion, it's just flat out wrong in this case in terms of consensus.--Levineps (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could provide some diffs that would demonstrate consensus building you have participated in.--Adam in MO Talk 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  "...And Bingo was his name-O!" - Solid evidence of consensus-building goes a lot further than, "I've done my minimum time and I therefore should be released." Showing this evidence to everyone is even better. Saying and proving are so very different... Doc9871 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (again)

Resolved

 – Socks blocked, DNFTT Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retaliated against his block off wiki on the youtube channel he has with two new videos, here and here, and in at least one case calls out ALR. I thought someone should be made aware of this, just in case no one noticed it yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to police the internet or to support the National Health Service. He is indeffed I presume? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing we can do but ignore him and hope he gets bored. deny him recognition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole 'call to arms' thing is a little worrying. We might want to keep an eye on the articles he is calling on people to go and storm. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Worth keeping an eye on relevant pages however, at 9:25-9:48 on the first video he calls for others to help him out on Wikipedia. Other than that though, best to ignore and move on rather than let a fuss be kicked up. --Taelus (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The pages are indeed being watched (and RAF Rudloe Manor is still protected for now). Any meat-puppetry can be dealt with as and when it surfaces. EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of views those two videos have, I wouldn't worry. Youtube, allowing the people with important things to say, say them without fear that someone might actually listen--Jac16888^Talk 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an unfortunate situation, as he truly doesn't understand why he was blocked nor why his edits were reverted. Granted, there are instances where people attempt to whitewash controversial information in articles here, but there's no government conspiracy in this particular case to redact his edits as he believes. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

From one of the Youtube postings: "Its clear to me Wiki is just a stitch up government job. The two main antaginists against me are military and freemasons." OMG you guys, I had no idea you were all military and freemasons!!! Please don't repress me! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I swear, this guy sounds like the Sanders vandal. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah don't screw with us; we'll shoot you and make walls from your corpses. Or something. I dunno. Whatever masons do. HalfShadow

Oh, man, those videos are comedy gold! Though I do feel sorry for the specific users who are the targets of his conspiracy theory–induced harassment. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously nobody ever told him that the candy sucking during the video is really annoying. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or that posting a video on YouTube isn't likely to get you a response more intelligent than 'Ernk ernk, I eat poo'... HalfShadow 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, one person has attempted to help him, as professed under the comment section. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm writing to the bloody government, bastards haven't sent my money yet. Rather the other way round, in fact, since I note from my payslip that they have stolen thousands from me again this month. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, now I'm pissed. Where is my check? Is it only UK editors who get paid by the government? And as an admin I think I should be granted some serious status with the masons. Grand Wizard or Imperial poobah or whatever system it is they use, which I should already have been informed about since I am apparently working for them. And I want my very own tinfoil hat with tassels denoting my rank. Now dammit. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, I actually work for the Ministry of Defence and I haven't got my cheque! Is this payment only for MoD employees who are Freemasons as well? If so, how do I sign up? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The second youtube video was posted on St David's Day and there seemed to be some hint of a Welsh accent. Curiouser and curiouser. Mathsci (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Update I've just declined his latest unblock request/rant and revoked talk page and email access. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would everyone mind looking at some concerns/links I've posted at Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor#AMSCPC. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose block - I favor unblocking Truthseeker. First - Truthseekers666 has a few friends who watch is videos. No big deal. The other hundred viewers are Wikipedia administrators pissed that they haven't been called out yet. Second, his "call to arms" has been described as a DNS - but that's gross hyperbole. He asked his friends to look into the situation possibly edit the article. He doesn't ask his friends to vandalize the article. I've counted two people who may have joined the discussion as a result of his "call to arms". Big whup. Third, he has been willing to engage in dialog - especially with editors who assume good faith. His talk page history clearly shows that he's trying to understand our policies and how he can work within them to get his point across. He makes all the usual WP:BOLD mistakes new editors make, but if we didn't put up with that, then we wouldn't have any old editors, would we? Sure, he's a conspiracy theorist nutter, and I as a Freemason am bound by blood oath to marginalize him, but as far as conspiracy theory nutters go, he's pretty tame, and I think he's willing to work within the rules just as soon as he fully grasps them. And to that end, he needs our help, not more paranoia. Rklawton (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you were aware of part of the reason for the block, the thread has been archived. He posted an appeal on the commons account ALR asking for more information from others about me. That account isn't mine but someone else drew it to my attention, not realising that it isn't me, although quite useful to know. That has been removed through OTRS as far as I'm aware.

I've already commented elsewhere that I've never worked at Rudloe Manor, although I was in a nearby location and lived in Box, about 5 miles away from the site towards Bath, for a couple of years. I'm also aware of some of what these "alien hunters" did do to some of the site security staff at Rudloe; pepper spray, postal harassment etc so while it's not a significant threat, there is the potential. There were three groups that routinely tried to break into Rudloe and nearby locations, one of which wasn't a big issue, the other two were.

ALR (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread is still growing after Fences and windows closed it, I have commented out her/his edit. My only input into this contentious issue is that if RAF Rudloe Manor has been the center of the RAF's investigations into UFOs, mention it -- even if this is only a wide-spread misconception in the UK. If this is not the case, & Rudloe Manor has nothing to do with UFOs (especially the ones from other planets, although if they simply investigate miscellaneous phenomena which can not be satisfactorily identified there's no harm making that distinction), then please remove Timothy Good's book from the list of "Further Readings." I think that association is notable if it is something in the public attention. (And if it is an assertion limited to the tedious rantings of a few who Need To Get a Life, then please remove all reference to it.) Once this is done & when all posts to this thread cease, then this matter can be closed. (FWIW, I'm assuming F&W was acting in good faith & simply made a mistake about the status of this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's widespread, then someone should be able to dig up some reliable sources that address this widely heard of story. I would have no objection to including references to the subject in the article. What I wouldn't want to see are a bunch of links sending unsuspecting readers off to terribly unreliable sources. I'm thinking we could use Area 51 as our model (based only on my quick scan of the article's table of contents). Rklawton (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was actually nothing to see and the thread had descended into silliness. Account fairly blocked, person making toothless threats on YouTube, case closed. You lot can go on talking about it if you must. Fences&Windows 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any threats on YouTube at all. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So, calls to meatpuppetry don't count in your book? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've lived within ten miles of Rudloe Manor for the last twenty years, and my only comments are "WP:OR" and "WP:REDFLAG". There's bollocks, and there's this, which make crop circles seem plausible. Close this farrago, please, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia using reliable sources Rodhullandemu 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To F&W: sometimes one must endure a little drama on WP:AN/I in order to avoid a lot of drama. Seeing how this thread has continued to grow, the drama hasn't ended. Sometimes the best thing to do with threads is to simply sit back & wait for them to get archived. (And again, for the record I have no interest in what ALR's off-Wiki identity is, & an attempt to learn what it is, whether ALR is a Mason, or whom ALR voted for in the last election is reasonable grounds for blocking -- if not banning.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So, ZERO threats on YouTube or on Wikipedia, and ALR outed himself. Truthseekers666 expressed his opinions about his experiences editing here on Wikipedia - but that's not against policy, and it isn't causing any problems here. In fact, what he has to say on videos is just an extension of his dialogs here. By explaining himself in a media in which he felt comfortable (video in this case), he was giving us what we needed to know to help set him straight on our policies. If more of us had assumed good faith and taken the time to explain our policies, I don't think we'd here on AN/I. So in the final analysis, Truthseekers666 didn't make threats, he didn't say he planned on editing against policy, and he didn't out ALR, either. So tell us again why Truthseekers666 was indef blocked. Rklawton (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This may help. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't help. The diff was oversighted on commons, and the YouTube videos which mention ALR are a far cry from harassment, and those are the only two justifications presented in your link. Keep in mind that ALR told Truthseekers666 he worked in the RAF at RAF Rudloe Manor - which actually translates to ALR having a conflict of interest in this matter (or it translates into baiting if ALR wasn't being truthful). I've been following this matter from the outset with an eye toward blocking Truthseekers666 as yet another conspiracy theory nutter. However, unlike the usual assortment, Truthseekers666 has been willing to engage in dialog and has taken an interest in learning what is and is not appropriate. This is not the sort of editor we indef block. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify what Truthseeker interprets as outing myself. I stated that it didn't matter whether I'd worked at three places, Rudloe itself, Henlow which is now the HQ of the RAF Police or the DIS which is another organisation that he was burbling about. He's expressing that as confirming that I've worked at them. It was a rather misguided effort to illustrate the primacy of the content policies, unfortunately I didn't bank on the fairy tenuous grasp of the english language and how this group tend to twist everything to support their own theories. As you may be aware the conspiracy theorist fraternity prefer to focus on individuals, rather than evidence, hence his enthusiasm to concentrate on my credibility, or otherwise, rather than present evidence; He's convinced himself that I'm paid by MoD to censor Wikipedia.

I'll state again, I have not worked at Rudloe, although I have worked nearby. There are about 20 military establishments within 15-20 miles of the place; RAF, Army, Navy and predominantly Civil Service. I have been in the all ranks bar in Rudloe, once, I've driven past Henlow, that's about as close as it gets.

He stated repeatedly that he wasn't wanting to edit in accordance with policy, arguing for the inclusion of partial primary sources, rather than credible secondary. fwiw I'm not sure there are many, if any, since it tends to be the preserve of the conspiracy theory fraternity.

As I've already stated, whilst this is not a significant personal threat, there is a risk to me.

I'd also suggest that it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that anyone in MoD has a conflict of interest in writing about MoD related topics, particularly stations or establishments that they've never worked at. There are some 200,000 uniformed personnel, and a similar number of civil servants in MoD. There are about another 100,000 civilians directly engaged in delivery to MoD locations.

ALR (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, as one of the few non-admins who saw that post, and the person who asked for a deletion and block on Commons, what happened is this. Truthseeker666 vandalised the page of a commons user called ALR by posting a request that other people find out the real life identity, location, occupation etc of en:wikipedia's ALR, dig up any dirt on him, also find out whether "our" ALR was a Freemason - because Truthseeker is convinced that the opposition to him is a military-masonic conspiracy. That's a permablocking offence. There's no ifs and buts about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ALR, although your clarification is helpful, please don't feel you need to justify yourself here. Rklawton's reading of events is out of step with Wikipedia policy in this case. There's no doubt that Truthseeker was on a fishing expedition, and you haven't outed yourself by any stretch of the imagination (any more than I have by revealing on my user page that I currently live in South Wales, and from the beach photo in the Swansea area). Rklawton, note that Truthseeker had WP:V, the difference between primary and secondary sources, WP:ELNO, and WP:RS explained a number of times, and dialogue was underway when they shot themselves in the foot with the attempted outing. I do agree that we could have been more courteous to them at times (myself included), but that's the only thing in this episode that I think we need to reflect on and learn from. EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So we goaded a new user until he broke a big rule and then indef blocked him? I never saw the outing page (why would he do this outing on Commons and not Wikipedia, anyone know?), so that's affected my view - nor have I read any policy against "outing." Got a link so I can catch up? Rklawton (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I just read WP:OUTING. If Truthseekers666 only asked for information about ALR, then it doesn't fit our definition of outing. Our definition is comprised only of publishing accurate or inaccurate (known as attempted outing) private information about an individual. Because we should not confirm information as accurate, we should refer to all such activities as "attempted outing" so as to leave doubt about accuracy. Attempted outing is NOT the same thing as attempting to learn personal information about an individual. Attempting to learn personal information may comprise "harassment", but that's not an automatic indef blocking offense. Rklawton (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we didn't goad him into breaking a rule and then ban him, the problem was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. He's engaged in systematic self-promotion, tendentious editing, WP:FRINGE issues, WP:OR, WP:C violations and is generally impervious to Clue. I have no problem at all with him requesting an unblock once he's given some indication of understanding what Wikipedia is for (and that not every attempt to resist fringecruft is the result of sinister Masonic plots). Guy (Help!) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Curious as to why "attempting to learn personal information about an individual" editor is helpful to WP, yes? Would this information necessarily benefit the improvement of the encyclopedia? "Asking for information" about other editors isn't normally necessary at all, you understand. There are administrators with checkuser who can verify any problem editors. Please, if I've jumped into something that I'm wrong about, let me know. I'm sorry, but I don't like the looks of your last argument at all, Rklawton... Doc9871 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't appear to have a rule about requesting information - so it doesn't justify an indef block. Also, I was not aware that anyone ran checkuser. If this has been done, please provide a link to the checkuser case. Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again @Rklawton, posting "he's definitely someone high up in Tesco and I'm pretty certain he's a a closet dressmaker" is attempted outing, even if the allegation is bollocks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tesco" and "dressmaker" were obvious jokes and not an attempt at outing. Especially in light that he usually repeats what ALS has already told him. If you'd post a link, it would help. While he doesn't use our vocabulary, his concerns are along the lines of ALS' conflict of interest (having admitted working for the RAF at the location in question, it appears that the COI concerns are valid). And while it's true that he's butted heads against a lot of our POV pushing related rules, the CLUE charge isn't valid - as some of his more recent edits have shown appreciation for patience and advice regarding how to edit constructively. Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually point to where I've admitted anything?

I'm also starting to become somewhat disturbed by this persistent suggestion of a COI, which I've addressed several times, yet is continuing to be mentioned.

ALR (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not tell Truthseeker you worked at Rudlow Manor? If so, then I retract, but I want to hear it from you first. My point about COI isn't that there is a COI but that if you did work at Rudlow, which Truthseeker says you have claimed, then it's fully understandable that he would be concerned about a COI and would wish to discuss it. Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already discussed it upthread. I used the comment that it doesn't matter if... as a means of indicating the primacy of the content policies. He's interpreted that as an admission. I've already stated several times that I did not work at Rudloe.

ALR (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reread Truthseeker's last week's worth of edits. The editor was clearly trying to work within the system and learn how to contribute usefully - especially following his first block. During this time following his first block he did not engage in *any* OR, POV, RS, or 3RR related activities. Instead, he was clearly seeking to understand how to work within the rules and fully demonstrating he was trying to get a clue. Second, I have seen no evidence that Truthseeker vandalized a page in Commons. More importantly, he denies this accusation, and so some evidence is important. Third, the vandalism (apparently a request for information about a user) was not an "outing" as described by Wikipedia's policies and as claimed by other admins, (and they need to retract this claim). Fourth, while cross-wiki harassment is a blockable offense (assuming Truthseeker really was responsible), a first offense doesn't rate an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rk, I suggest you bow out of this particular race. Truthseeker wasn't just "requesting information," it was encouraging other users to dig up dirt on ALR to discredit him. That is why it's considered outing. Second, if you can't see the Oversignted edits on Commons, how can you say it wasn't an outing at all? And finally, a first offense most certainly can result in an indef block. Indef does not equal permanent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also contest the assertion that he was trying to work within the system; I think that was true only to the extent that he was trying to find a policy-based argument that would convince editors to keep his primary source-based original research in the article, and didn't want to accept that there was no way it was going to happen unless he produced reliable secondary sources. EyeSerene^talk 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else here think Rklawton is acting kind of odd. Like he's actually trying to 'out' ALR also, by throwing up a whole pile of stuff and seeing what sticks????? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I Second that emotion. I don't want to cast any stones but it seems that he would have moved on by now. Nefariousski (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given my edit history of fighting and blocking conspiracy theory nut jobs at every opportunity, if you perceive my behavior as strange, perhaps that's reason enough to go back and revisit Truthseeker's edits following his first block. I don't think defending a user with multiple points amounts to "a pile of stuff" - and attacking my behavior does little to justify the block. Rklawton (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My Great Grandfather was a Freemason. I had his apron in my possession and a while ago I sold it on Ebay to a private collector in France. Clearly, the nation of France is behind this vile conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our natural bodily fluids. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the real Rklawton may have been abducted by aliens XD. Seriously, you are acting as if you believe that ALR actually is working for the MOD to cover up the truth about Rudloe Manor, and this justifies Truthseeker's attempts to find out who ALR really is, and it's very strange, because all ALR ever said was that he has been in the area - not anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish people would stick to the facts and not mock user RKLawton. What RK has stated is that user truthseeker was trying to find out what position of authority or knowledge user ALR had in order to back up his ability to alter information on Rudloe Manor. User truthseeker seemed concerned that a user who is simply known as ALR who alludes on his page that he has a connection to or interest in the military may infact not be military at all. If this were the case then user ALRs opinion would carry about as much weight on Rudloe Manor as anyone else. However if ALR did work at Rudloe Manor provost service then he would indeed be in a good position to know if the type of information on the Rudloe Manor page was correct. Sticking just to the facts here, truthseekers asked what was ALRs "authority" to know these things and could user ALR prove he knew these things first hand. User ALR alluded in a deceitful way (sorry but this i how it seems) to say that it did not matter if he did indeed work for provost or rudloe manor of Intelligence staff. This suggests, deceptively, that user ALR did infact work for those departments. This would tend to make truthseeker then back off and have to accept his word on things. Now we see above user ALR agree he made these statements but they are infact all not true as he had only worked near these facilities and "drunk in some bars" near Rudloe Manor and is in no position or no official rank to know their true functions or secret workings. This exposes a problem with user ALRs motives. So truthseeker was right to have pointed this out. As we are meant to work away from PRIMARY which would have been what user ALR was apparently offering his personal feelings on the editing of Rudloe Manor page is based on what backup? User truthseeker was correct to point this out. It is not outing. For example if someone claims to possibly be prime minister and then starts posting about the UK government on WIKI I am sure many would ask the very same questions that truthseeker did, for the person to prove they are really the Prime Minister. RKlawton is therefore doing the sensible thing in pointing out these discrepancies. RKLawton should not be mocked as if he has lost his senses. Far from it I think he shows a lot of sense on this discussion. Back to truthseeker. His manner of dealing with things was at first awkward and aggressive but I am sure we all made a lot of mistakes on Wiki when we first came on board and truthseeker was starting to fully understand the process of wiki editing. He was making offers to provide SECONDARY information for the page and should be allowed to continue under guidance and coaching. I am saddened to see a lot of mocking of his position as a UFO researcher. I understood Winston Churchill, the Royal Family and some American presidents have either seen or have a keen interest in UFOs. If no evidence is provided that he vandalised Wikicommons then this should also be disregarded as a reason for his ban. J from Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.174.121 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Truthseeker666. You know, socking really isn't the best way of trying to get your block reversed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your intepretation of what ALR said is based on what he said here, not what he said in the original page, Elen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.174.121 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Besides just because your wiki admins does not mean there are not bigger wiki admins. I have been banned from emailing anyone on Wiki so cannot take up my points in any other way. What do you expect. Kick a man when he is down and keep kicking and then try some stabbing and if that doesnt work some punching. This is how Wiki works. To hear you all mocking anyone who even slightly brings up the fact truthseekers might be correect is sickening. You really should listen to yourselves before mocking those who are interested in UFOs.

Truthseeker asked to be unblocked several times and was promptly denied each time. Since all his Wikipedia edits following his first block were oriented toward figuring out how to work within bounds, I think an indef block was uncalled for, his request for unblock unfairly denied, and my request here for a review here treated inappropriately. The only possible evidence that Truthseeker might have rated a 2nd block can be found on another wiki and it isn't accessible to admins here. Since block reviewers did not have access to this edit or evidence that he even made it, they can't possibly know whether or not his 2nd block was justified - yet they denied it anyway, and that's plain wrong. I'm always happy to block unrepentant conspiracy theorists - per my block record, but I'm not happy about the indef blocking of anyone who consistently shows an interest in learning how to edit constructively. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still on about this. Look, in case you haven't realised, Nuclear Warfare is an admin here and on Commons. He saw the post, and would have blocked Truthseeker in both locations if another admin hadn't done it here at the same time. I saw the post. It warranted an immediate indefinite block - and it doesn't matter what else Truthseeker was doing at the time. If Truthseeker wants to come back, he can stop socking, recognise what he did wrong, and then maybe he'll get a standard offer.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need the formality of a WP:SPI filing, or can we cut the red tape and ban 88.110.174.121 as a sock right now? If it isn't already obvious by the posts above, the language of a Truthseeker revert here is quite similar to a revert by the IP here. Block, mark this section resolved, and move on IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jac16888 took care of it. — Satori Son 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Could someone take a look at the gibraltar page. There seems to be a long term attempt to impose a foreign POV on the article by means of long tendentious arguments about small points on the talk page, and to remove content describing significant events in the history of Gibraltar. There is also the potential for edit wars and general nastyness as a result of the above. It might be beneficial to lock the page for a few weeks to let tempers settle. Gibnews (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We've looked. A lot. Trust me. It's probably better now than it has been for six months. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Nice. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just seen this thread, having already locked the article because every time it pops up on my watchlist it's a revert (not to single anyone out because there's fault on both sides, but the cognitive dissonance in this edit summary was the final straw). I think it's reached the stage where any editor who reverts at all can expect a block without further notice. EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the page lock on either version, however the 'Ayone reverting in future will be blocked' strikes me as problematic. With the definition of vandalism being so narrow, it means a great deal of changingcould be done before one stepped over that line with little ability to respond. Might I suggest the imposition of a 1RR instead? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree that its better now than its been for months, it got quiet because so many decent editors have quit because of the constant villification you get there if you disagree with the most minor of points. The tag team reverting to impose a preferred version by a cabal of editors that occurred a month ago had people tearing their hair out in frustration and should have been dealt with then but wasn't. It has needed a firm admin hand to stop the disruption there and an even handed one at that. The article has suffered at the hands of a civil POV pusher that has tied the talk page up with tendentious argument for too long. Justin talk 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I propose article probation, 1 month of full protection so all changes to be discussed on Talk and managed via {{editprotected}} then once people have got out of the habit of talking past each other go for a period of 0RR and all changes to be discussed first. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would work for me; reading the talk page activity since I locked the article, I believe positions have become so entrenched that something more substantial than a short period of protection is necessary. With mediation apparently having failed, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the last opportunity for editors to resolve their own differences before things escalate to Arbcom. Feel free to amend my admin action if this proposal gains consensus. EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that suggestion, may I also suggest that comments are limited to content not editors. Any misconduct should be raised here. It was only through protection the last time that mediation got anywhere. Justin talk 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd suggest arbitration, with a mind toward Digwuren-style sanctions. Even on the briefest of acquaintance, WP:PLAGUE seems appropriate commentary on Gibraltar articles currently. I doubt forcing Talk page discussion would be useful, as much of the problem is, as Justin says, civil POV pushing disrupting Talk as well as article edits. What the article needs is freedom for outside editors - ones who aren't hot about whether Gibraltar gets to be Spanish or British - to work without the constant kvetching and disruption from nationalists on either side (though a topic ban on User:Gibnews would be the single most useful move forward). WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the need for a topic ban on User:Gibnews, he can be very reasonable if you approach him civilly but more stubborn than the stubbornest mule if you don't. There seems to be a definite lynch mob mentality around him at the moment, I've observed an attempt at outing that I wanted to bring up. I know Gibnews' real identity and it doesn't correspond to what is being claimed. See User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Gibnews and User talk:Atama#Advice, from my knowledge of Gibnews' identity none of that appears to be correct and I've tried to be diplomatic about it. Justin talk 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely not on. I replied to Ecemaml (talk · contribs) on Atama's talk page and removed some speculation, but then I noticed they've been posting elsewhere too after being warned to drop it. Attempted outing is serious; I've blocked Ecemaml for one week. Review welcome. EyeSerene^talk 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you ask Gibnews he'll not agree with that block I'm afraid. A warning not to persist from an independent party would probably be sufficient. May I suggest you ask him, his real life identity is lodged with Wikipedia anyway. He doesn't really make a secret of it, however, there has been a get Gibnews campaign for a while. Justin talk 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, personally I think any form of harassment should be given very short shrift. An editor shouldn't need multiple warnings before they start taking them seriously. Although it's sometimes possible (and perhaps not even very difficult) to dig around, connect the dots, and deduce an editor's identity - which is what Ecemaml seemed to be trying to do - I believe that's very different to simply repeating something that's open knowledge. If Gibnews has voluntarily revealed their identity on the site I'll unblock Ecemaml and apologise to them, but I saw nothing explicit (for example, a disclosure on their userpage). EyeSerene^talk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well Gibnews has a thick skin and he isn't vindictive, I really do doubt he'd support a lengthy block. In answer to your question, no he hasn't openly declared his identity but a number of people who deal with him regularly know it. It was the "Get Gibnews" campaign I'm more concerned about. Justin talk 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short block is in order, because the comments on my user page were turning into a personal attack. For my part I've been trying to keep a low profile on wikipedia. Ecemaml is a good and productive editor but does have a blind spot about Gibraltar. I don't think I have been unreasonable on the topic, however as I live there and have first hand experience of things, its hard to put up with things I know to be untrue which others wish to include because it supports a foreign claim to my homeland totally rejected by its people.

I also find deleting what I consider important things which are referenced and have international interest, like the IRA shooting and its conclusion. Particularly as this part has had been discussed at length with the Irish republican element who hold different views to the Gibraltarians about this event.

What I do feel is that there has been a campaign to get me banned and aites with information about Gibraltar discredited in order to remove content that does not fit in with the Spanish view of Gibraltar. The personal attack is a continuance of that. I have at no time stated my name on wikipedia or sought any personal promotion and only reluctantly mentioned that I design websites.

I've also created and extended some articles about computer languages and contributed a number of images but Gibraltar has taken up a lot of time, however I think my contributions to that have been worthwhile, as when I started it was wholely untruthful and there was an attempt to get the whole of Gibraltar banned from editing ! --Gibnews (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I declare my interest as a former regular editor of Gibraltar-related articles. Regardless of whether Ecemaml got the details right or not, attempted outing is harassment and must be taken very seriously. I've never seen Gibnews give his real identity on wiki, and in any case, Ecemaml was (as EyeSerene says) trying to dig around and connect the dots here. Even if Gibnews had declared his identity publicly, I think it's clear that what Ecemaml was doing is different from simply repeating it.

I appreciate what Justin says, but I don't believe we should unblock. I see clear evidence that this Ecemaml was not acting in good faith, and WP:OUTING is very clear. As such I consider this block to be entirely appropriate to prevent this harassment from continuing. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I half seriously suggested a topic ban for anyone with more than ten edits to any article on a British overseas territory and fewer than a thousand mainspace edits on articles not in any way related to them. But this has gone on for a very long time, and maybe it is time for arbitration or robustly enforced article probation. Toxic is a great word to describe that talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really a helpful suggestion Guy, I edit on several BOT related articles. The Falklands for example could be poisonous but they're not because the editors there work together. Argentine and Brit editors collaborating to find sources and generate NPOV articles, you should drop by sometime and you might well be surprised at the editors you labelled as "POV Warriors". I'd agree with 0RR and insisting edits are agreed in talk, part of the reason for the toxic atmosphere is tag team edit warring to impose an edit. Funnily enough that was reported to AN/I at the time, as was the get Gibnews campaign. What I was disgusted with at the time, was how quickly it was possible to manipulate a lynch mob mentality to get Gibnews. Not AN/I's finest hour. Justin talk 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just keep editing other articles as well. Read WP:PLAGUE to see why people who have broad editing interests are less likely to be a problem than those who edit only articles on places where there are nationalistic disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would love to but it doesn't help when people wade in not knowing the facts leaving more mess for the productive editors to clean up. Does it? Justin talk 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem WP:PLAGUE addresses: when insiders get so problematical that it's better to use outsiders. The assumption that only insiders know the facts is part of the syndrome; they may well know less, but can cut to the chase because they aren't locked up in some Swiftian Big-enders vs Little-enders feud. Look at the verbiage expended here: 6000 words to dicusss the inclusion/exclusion of two words; do you think insiders are doing a good job? You want editors who are more concerned that the article is informative than what undisclosed regionalist angsts are invoked by mentioning some town. It's great that consensus is working at the Falklands article, but here it clearly isn't. Frankly, the whole existing editor base for Gibraltar topics needs shipping out in favour of completely fresh editors with no previous partisan involvement in the topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No thats an essay and lumping all editors into the same pot ain't helpful. What about WP:CPUSH, another favourite of yours I believe. The question I would ask, is why an editor would devote so much effort trying to minimise the degree of self-government in Gibraltar to the absolute minimum, rather than working with other editors to explain it better? Did you think to pick up on that example, or select the evidence to fit the picture and conclusions you'd already jumped sat? Admin action to sort out the problem a long time ago would have been preferrable to allowing positions to become entrenched. But thats where we are and jumping to another solution, which isn't addressing the actual problem won't solve it either. Justin talk 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read far enough back to see that particular discussion; but if I had, I hope I'd be looking at the portrayal of it neutrally, rather than getting hot under the collar at the thought of it not matching some worldview of how self-government in Gibraltar should be portrayed. If Gibraltar stays British till the coming of the Cocqcigrues / if Spain takes over tomorrow. They're both the same to me. This kind of regionalist topic needs editors who similarly don't care. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there we violently disagree, it actually needs both. One has the knowledge to be informative, the other has the detachment to keep things cool and where editors from both sides can work constructively the project benefits. People who don't care or have no interest in a subject have no incentive to write quality articles. Where it falls apart is when someone with a narrow nationalist agenda works the wiki system and are disruptive but no admin is prepared to take the time and effort to deal with a WP:CPUSH problem. I actually think this is one of the really fundamental issues that wikipedia has not really cracked. A CPUSH editor will drive productive editors nuts trying to move the article forward, they'll provoke them into making rash comments that they would never normally do, then the productive editor is blocked for "incivility". Also simply quoting essays like WP:PLAGUE don't help and yes I appreciate the irony given I've referred to another essay. Address the issues. Justin talk 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As it happens there was a link posted on AN yesterday which perfectly illustrates why your "violent" disagreement is a problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkiGORmirRU. You make a good argument for local knowledge in the compiling of primary and secondary sources and an equally good case for standing back when it comes to tertiary sources such as Wikipedia - it is almost impossible for someone who is involved with a topic like this to be truly objective. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found that pretty funny, was that the intention? Babies and bath water spring to mind immediately, as in flinging the baby out with the bath water because its too difficult to deal with problem editors. Just to provide some information, I'm actually half-Spanish, live in Glasgow and don't give a flying fuck about Gibraltar. Curious about what you assumed? Justin talk 10:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

One has the knowledge to be informative, the other has the detachment to keep things cool

That's fair enough. But it doesn't work when those people who assert the knowledge to be informative expect also to micromanage all discussion, and make outside editors have to put in ridiculous amounts of effort mediating instead of just writing articles. Wikipedia recognises that there's a point beyond which we don't have to deal with problem editors: that's what user RFCs, arbitration, community bans, etc are for. As I said, I think this subject area has reached arbitration stage.

People who don't care or have no interest in a subject have no incentive to write quality articles

I didn't say "no interest"; I said "don't care" = no emotional involvement in the regional issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The flaw in your logic is that people who don't care, usually don't have any interest; interest and emotional involvement are synonymous. The problem your essay is missing is WP:CPUSH, editors who learn to game the system to get the nationalist edits they want but in doing so drive away the productive editors you actually want and need. Justin talk 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. One can be intellectually fascinated, as a historical topic, in why (for instance) the Big-enders don't want any mention of the Little-enders being chased off to Wankleville. It just doesn't mean you have to side with the Big-enders or Little-enders to write about it, and the best editors to do so are those who are neither and think the whole thing is, well, WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've come to the conclusion what you need are an infinite number of monkeys, sitting at an infinite number of typewriters. Either that or editors who have reached the point of WP:DGAF. You have an email detailing why and when I get as stubborn as a very stubborn thing. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here goes my opinion for whatever it may be worth (I haven't been for very long in WP as an editor: only 7 months and most of them -sadly- inside the "toxic cloud" of Gib articles so... here I am: not very experienced and an implicated part).

I think that the main problem in the specific case of Gibraltar related articles is the very emotional implication from some usual editors and (possibly) the fact that they show a very strong rejection and lack of trust towards certain other outside editors. Please let me underline that I'm not blaming anyone. Probably everybody is acting in good faith, the emotional implication from those "usual" editors has probably helped them make a big effort contributing to Gib articles, and outside editors are sometimes hard core nationalists and POV pushers not to be trusted. The flip side is that this attitude can make them very mistrustful towards the occasional trustworthy outside editor (of course, myself I am one ;) ) and can push them to resisting changes in certain "sensitive" parts of the articles (like, for example, the ones that Spanish nationalists have used to attack Gibraltar). Usually those sensitive areas, as a result, are more tilted to one side than the other.

My own personal experience (if it has any value as an example): I have tried to change that tilt (mentioning some issues that were avoided in the article, giving some qualification to some statements in the lead of the article...) but I have to admit that I have raised a very strong opposition from the usual editors (who probably in good faith think I am a hard core Spanish nationalist trying to vilify Gibraltar - I wish I had some way to prove this is not the case...). From that point, any new suggestion from my side (or from people supporting my side) has been very difficult to implement: we have spent SEVEN months discussing just about THREE sentences.

As a consequence of the tension (although the offenders have already repented and apologised, so they cannot be blamed any more), some of the usual editors launched legal threats and used expressions like "you are advancing a fascist racist agenda" or "I see no difference between you and that fascist fuckwit" or "You have single mindedly set out to minimise the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government and using wikipedia as a propaganda weapon for a Fascist irrdentist dream and wounded macho pride". I quote these not to blame anybody (I repeat they've already apologised) but to get an impression of where does this tension drive editors.

My recommendation:

• I think that restricting the edits in the article until consensus is reached can be a good tool: it will stop edit wars and force us in the toxic cloud to reach consensus.
• Mediation (from Martians, probably) is a very good tool too: the main problem (I think) is emotional attachment, misunderstandings that can give rise to strong confrontations, and deaf ears to other editors' arguments (probably caused by the heat of the discussion and mistrust). Mediation has given very good results helping us structure the discussion and making all of us pay attention to other editors' reasons: in fact the only progress in the last 7 months has come when a couple of mediators (User:Atama and User:Richard Keatinge) have mediated to lower the emotional tension.

I hope this verbose comment does not bore anybody and it can help. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Outing Threat

Sorry but this is getting ridiculous, Red Hat is continuing with the threat of outing - diff [3]. I'm not calling for a block but a smack around the head with a trout would help. Justin talk 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not threatening anyone with anything. It is a serious conflict of interest if an editor is a member of a highly partisan group, he does not declare this to other editors, and he (a) adds information about that group to Wikipedia (b) operates a series of sites to which he links on Wikipedia but claims no editorial control over (c) is highly economical with the truth (I later discovered) when responding to editors' questions on his COIs. I have deliberately not provided any information which might reveal his real name, even though he has already effectively outed himself on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing discussion here about the matter [4]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you, Ecemaml, Imalbornoz, Justin, Pfain, JCRB and whoever else do a full register of interests? List all poitical affiliations, donations to any groups, registered properties and residences? I am reluctant to have us delve into that level of our life. Personally I self censor myself in which articles I edit to avoid COI but at the same time I don't really want to have to monitor the personal life of every editor who strolls along to articles to find out if they are COI so....no Red Hat, I reject the concept of increased watchdoggery. If GibNews is wrong, then he is wrong whether he is GibNews, Jesus Christ, the King of Spain, Prince Philip or the head of the Basque Seperatist Movement. Deal with the contet rather than the editors and we needn't worry about such things. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I, like the vast majority of WP editors, am not using sites I operate outside of Wikipedia as sources, I'm not updating articles on organisations I am a member of, and I'm not updating an article space I have been actively engaged in the politics of in real life. In the list of examples of COIs [5] we have problems with self-promotion, citing oneself, close relationships and campaigning. That's a check against almost all the boxes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Case in point. Look at the information added to Wikipedia about the Voice of Gibraltar Group by the alleged member [6] which sat there for years, untouched. "The VOGG is a long running group which has the objective of defending the rights of Gibraltarians against external threats. It engages in public debate, and protest action where appropriate. As a non political group, its members represent a cross section of the community. It was particularly active in canvassing a 'NO' note in the 2002 referendum, when it toured the estates with a loudspeaker van and invited guests from all parties to address the residents, culminating with the Chief Minister after the result was announced." Not only is this self-promotion, but it's unsourced (who says its members represent a cross section of the community), and untrue (of course it's political). It gets worse when we find the Government of Gibraltar has been critical of this organisation's activities [7]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Red Hat but you seem determined to self-destruct with this vendetta against Gibnews, will you please just back off from trying to out Gibnew before you end up with a block. Ecemaml has already been blocked for it, despite trying to have him listen to reason and you seem bent on going down the same path. Justin talk 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked rather rashly, I feel, by someone who is not aware of the details, not to mention gleefully encouraged by you. I've requested a review of that block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, in 2006 the spokesperson for the VOGG was Peter Tunbridge, as I've already pointed out to Ecemaml, when the edit you're so excited was made. I know Gibnews' real life identity and he is not Peter Tunbridge. Now will you please stop this before you end up blocked. This has all the hallmarks of a vendetta and harassment. Justin talk 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I too know his real life identity - as does Ecemaml - we both uncovered it by accident, and I've been scrupulous in not posting anything which might reveal it even though the editor himself has done so on Wikipedia. In fact, in some off-Wiki emails with certain admins I've made my position on that extremely clear: I did not state it even in my emails to them, and I gave forewarning that by clicking on certain links in the email they may inadvertently discover it, so they had the choice as to whether to do so. NB: linking an editor with the VoGG which supposedly has members who "represent a cross section of the community" is not singling out any one individual, so I really fail to see what the outing issue is here. Suggesting that an editor who is editing the Labour Party article is also a member is not outing them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You could have just asked him, instead of trying to make an edit from 2006 into "evidence" of the Gibnews conspiracy. Clearly you're not rational about your detective work and drawing attention to material that can identify an editor is clearly outing. Will you just stop it. Justin talk 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did ask a series of questions [8]. The reason I am persisting in this is that evidence has been uncovered which suggests the answers were not completely truthful. However, it's a Catch 22 situation. Provide the full evidence, and you will out someone. Don't provide the evidence, and it's difficult for others to understand where the COI lies. Regardless, noone has revealed any personal information and noone has threatened to. So please stop coming here and deviously trying to get people blocked. There's enough abuse from you on my talk page to land yourself in a block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'd simply emailed an admin your concerns that would have been one thing but you and Ecemaml have been taunting him on his talk page and that is completely different. You've also been taunting him on article talk pages as well and you Red Hat were also quick to voice sockpuppet allegations that you knew had already been investigated and found to be false. Persist if you must but if you end up blocked, don't blame anyone but yourself. Justin talk 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was so gleeful I asked him to unblock. Fine, self-destruct if you must, I give up. Justin talk 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My view at the moment is that Ecemaml was speculating about Gibnews's identity in a manner akin to fishing so warranted a block per WP:OUTING. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick is pointing out that based on information he has, Gibnews may have a COI, but I haven't seen him actually seeking to confirm his suspicions or name Gibnews on Wikipedia. The diff given by Justin is slightly concerning in that it could have indicated Red Hat was starting down a rocky path, but he's gone no further and hasn't in my opinion crossed any lines. For me the difference revolves around digging for, or releasing, personally-identifiable information. Evidence-based concerns that someone may be a member of an advocacy group obviously pertain to any investigation into their editing patterns (relevant examples include the Scientology Arbcom case and the current Transcendental Meditation case), but actually trying to pin a name to an individual who hasn't explicitly released that information is, I think, where the line is crossed. Of course there's some overlap, which makes this such a delicate balance to tread, so I'm open to reviewing Ecemaml's block. Based on Red Hat's post to my talk page I will be doing so later today when I have email access, although if in the meantime a consensus forms that Ecemaml should be unblocked I have no objections. EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short block would be beneficial as I certainly feel abused and threatened by the comments on my user page. I also find the sustained personal campaign by RHPF rather tedious and shows a lack of good faith. His latest claim is that I have censored a press release from the Government of Gibraltar dated 2001 on gibnews.net, which started operation in 2005. I don't mind contribution content to wikipedia, or arguing about it being self-governing, but continually defending myself for creating websites with other people's content and against claims that I've spammed wikipedia about a long established pressure group can be described in one word used by Roger from Viz. I'm not into self-publicity keep a low profile and would like things to stay that way. --Gibnews (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Dropping the COI stuff completely might be a good idea for now. The allegations have been noted, but since we have no way to establish their truth (or otherwise) without going into dangerous territory, continuing to press them may begin to look like a vendetta even if that's not really the case. I think if this does go to Arbcom they may need to be examined, but that can be done off camera to protect editors' identities which we can't really do at ANI. EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While probably dropping the COI issue might be in order, I can't but point out that there is an editor currently blocked for attempted outing because of it. User Ecemaml's behavior has been directed either to out Gibnews or to try to unravel his alleged conflict of interest, but not both. Provided that the aforementioned user has not effectively outed any editor and that it is not possible to unintentionally attempt something, I think he should be unblocked. Just my thoughts. Cremallera (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That the name Ecemaml apparently had in mind may have been incorrect doesn't excuse the policy breach (note that Wikipedia recommends editors neither confirm or deny the results of attempts to guess their identities, and Gibnews has followed this advice). Your argument is semantically correct - one can't attempt something one wasn't trying to achieve - but the terminology at WP:OUTING is fuzzy. Basically I think that in the course of pursuing the alleged COI, Ecemaml went too far - unintentionally perhaps, but they were warned about the direction they were heading in. I believe, semantics aside, that I've followed the spirit of the policy properly. Again though, if a consensus forms to unblock (especially in the next few hours because I'm off to bed now), please don't stand on ceremony; I won't object :) EyeSerene^talk 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read this thread and the relevant talk pages and looked at contrb histories, etc and I think EyeSerene's block of Ecemaml is entirely correct. Several times they were warned that their behaviour was not acceptable, and still they carried on. They were explicitly warned that if they did not back off that they would be blocked, and even after this they continued as they were, so a block is more than appropriate. I don't believe that their behaviour was acceptable, but even if it were, when editors in good standing ask you to modify your behaviour them you should stop doing what it is they have commented about. If you do not agree with them that your actions are problematical then you should discuss it with them and, if necessary, others, and come to an agreement. The worst thing you can do is blithley ignore the complaints, as Ecemaml has done.
Previously I have commented that The Red Hat's behaviour was bordering on harrassment, and I'm sorry to note that they have not taken my advice to back off and are continuing to sail very close to the wind, and unless this changes there will come a point when they get blocked and that will hardly be without warning.
For the record, apart from a single request for a citation I've been entirely uninvolved with Gibraltar articles. I'm British and currently live in the European Parliament constituency that includes Gibraltar, but I don't have any opinions either way regarding it's status. I do have a Gibraltarian acquaintance who is a passionate supporter of Gibraltar remaining British, but to the best of my knowledge she edits Wikipedia only infrequently and only in the areas of contemporary popular music and renaissance-era sculpture. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still frustrated that I've now approached a couple of admins, including you, who are all very quick to pontificate here, but who then say they're too busy to look into the details of my COI worries - which because of the risk of outing I have gone out of my way to keep the exact details off Wikipedia. Lest anyone be unaware, I only started researching these sites after he threatened me with legal action twice for suggesting they were not reliable sources (since retracted). One of the two sites was deemed by the community to be a reliable source on the basis of answers which I believe were incomplete and misleading and - this is the frustrating bit - I can't say why. Now, if someone uninvolved was willing to donate some of their time to look at the evidence rather than pontificate here, and then they tell me it's not an issue and I should back off, that's fine. But noone is willing to do that - including you. So please don't throw around harassment claims when you don't know all the details. (I do however admit my Mr VOGG comment which started this subthread [9] was a silly response to a post by Gibnews on my retirement from the Gibraltar article space that I should not have risen to). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only state that I have carefully read the various emails I've received and looked at the other available evidence (including the discussion which concluded that gibnet.com does not meet WP:RS and the discussion that concluded that gibnews.net does). Your's and Ecemaml's concerns are now widely known. If you want my personal opinion: is Gibnews editing with a pro-Gibraltar POV? Almost certainly, although I'm sure they'd argue that this serves to balance an opposing POV. Do they have a conflict of interest due to their off-Wikipedia activities? Perhaps, although this is unconfirmed speculation and the lengths we can go to on this board to investigate it are limited.

However, even if the COI suspicion is justified (and I believe elements of it may be), WP:COI doesn't actually prevent editors editing in those circumstances as long as they can recognise their bias and remain relatively neutral. For example, having looked at the evidence, I don't believe your objections to the use that's being made of gibnews.net are entirely justified unless you're also alleging that the site is hosting falsified documents; at some point you do have to accept consensus, even if you think it's wrong. I think the concern about potential WP:OR where primary sources are used is valid, but where secondary sources aren't available we have to do the best we can with what we've got.

In some ways I think the alleged COI itself is peripheral - while it might explain the cause of certain behaviour, as admins we can only really address the effects. As such, the article has been locked to prevent further edit warring; editors are reminded of the likely consequences of reverting each other when protection expires (possibly with a WP:0RR restriction as proposed above); WP:NPA will be enforced where necessary; and the importance of WP:OUTING has been underlined. Without community consensus to impose more sweeping restrictions (topic bans and the like) - which no-one has called for - that's about the limit of what we can do here.

Red Hat, as I understand it the issue you and Ecemaml want to see addressed is basically: Is Gibnews, perhaps due to a COI, pursuing an agenda on the Gibraltar article(s) with no regard for Wikipedia editorial policy? I believe this is beyond the scope of this board. It touches on both content and behavioural issues, I'm certainly no subject expert, and admins have no business adjudicating content anyway. I really am coming to the view that opening an Arbitration case to examine the behaviour of all editors may be the best way forward. EyeSerene^talk 10:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews is very open and honest about his views, he doesn't sugar coat them, he displays his opinions openly, honestly and frankly. His personal bias is on display but it doesn't enter article space. If it did there are others, myself for example, who can edit to redress the balance. What I think makes the difference is he will listen to another's opinion and agree to compromise. I'd be disappointed if this goes to Arbitration as User:Atama has done an excellent job in the main of keeping things level headed. I just don't know, I rather suspect all the editors involved will not come out ofArbitration very well. I have suggsted in the past a temporary topic ban to allow external editors to sort out the article problems, perhaps now is the time to try that? I did suggest it on the talk page earlier. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Justin that Gibnews is a useful editor. With a strong POV, but he's prepared to listen to encyclopedic argument. He has also done us a service by making primary documents available online, though of course we need to use these with appropriate caution. Whatever groups he may belong to seems to me irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene: thanks for the thoughtful response. You have summarized the concerns well and the Gibraltar page is so disfunctional that arbitration really is merited so that all involved parties' behaviour can be scrutinized (mine as well). Richard: the point is not whether he is a useful editor - he has done more than anyone to ensure Gibraltar has good coverage in WP. It's that he does hold a strong POV, he is not a "real life neutral party" in the matters he writes about on WP and we are all relying on him to self-police his own website off Wikipedia. I wouldn't have a problem with that if he had demonstrated he understood the RS and NOR policies but he has a consistent track record going back several years of not doing so, including his reaction to the initial gibnews.net blacklist proposal (instigated by an admin here, I should point out, not me). I also would not have had an issue had he come clean to the full extent of his ownership of both sites which he portrayed as being owned by companies and he is just the IT guy but that is totally and utterly false. He IS the man behind that company. Now, I shall say no more on the matter unless asked to substantiate that claim on my talk page and will be taking this page off my watch list so I'm not tempted to break that promise. Bye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) ps arbitration for Gibraltar yes please - with or without the COI issue.

For whatever reasons RHPF has been attempting to discredit me since he showed up on the Gibraltar pages, where his activities there have been limited to removing content and complaining about my actions. He has falsly accused me of sockpuppetry on a number of occasions and attempted to get me banned by claiming I am user:gibraltarian. He has been active in forum shopping to try and discredit gibnews.net and gibnet.com which are sites I have built, but which the content referenced on wikipedia is generated by various credible organisations and reproduced there with permission.

I note his recent edit summaries on the politics of Gibraltar regarding the Voice of Gibraltar Group where he has removed the link to vogg.gi Claiming this was 'self-promotion' for the record I have not registered that domain, designed its website or hosted it ever his claims are totally unfounded and dishonest, as is his labelling me 'Mr VOGG' on the talk:Gibraltar page malicious. He has also removed content about the 2002 referendum campaign. which was a major pivotal point in Gibraltar history and attempted to remove similar significant content on the Gibraltar page.

This is all very negative. --Gibnews (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

gibnet.com being added back despite community decision

No admin action needed; section collapsed for readability. EyeSerenetalk 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There were various discussions re gibnet.com relating to its reliaility. As it is maintained by an editor here (Gibnews) it was decided at the spam blacklist page that this site is not reliable [10]. It is now, however, being added back [11] by a user who appears to be letting personal issues override our policies. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this with him, but the community decision was unanimous on this so something needs to be done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC) This is enough to make a saint swear, honestly :) I've locked that article too (on the wrong version, naturally), and have asked Dirk Beestra to review the situation with that link in the light of MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#gibnet.com. I'd blacklist it myself, but I think the more admin eyes we have on this the better. EyeSerenetalk 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) See my reply to Red Hat [12], if there is a community black list I was unaware of it having taken an extended wikibreak for the last month. A reply made at 14:06, some 8 minutes before it was posted here. It would have been helpful to have referred me to it, not immediately go with the nuclear option at AN/I. On the face of it, faced with removing a cite to replace it with a citation needed would seem odd to most wikipedians. You can unlock it as I definitely won't be edit warring over it, if there is a community black list fine but I would urge Red Hat not to be pointy about removing cites and replace them with another cite rather than just removing them. Jesus, this is just getting ridiculous, not only enought to make a saint swear but also enough to turn them to drink. Justin talk 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) There was no consensus to blacklist links to gibnet.com although some editors were uneasy about it, there waqs a consensusit was NOT spamming. RHPF took it upon himself to remove links. I restored one, as did others - RH then assumed bad faith and accused me of being an IP editor. He has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetry without any basis in fact. I'm getting fed up with his continual harassment, time wasting and forum shopping. --Gibnews (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) UNINDENT Damn edit conflict. I just checked and the request to blacklist that site was quickly denied and a quick read shows the issue was Gibnews adding the cites but not other users. Now before adding it back I did actually review those cites. Could someone actually tell me what the problem is, because now I'm just confused. Justin talk 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) To be fair, the main reason why the blacklist was denied was because Gibnews was really the only person adding it. If multiple editors add it, I wouldn't object to a blacklist and I doubt that others would have either. The relevant discussion about its use, by the way, would not be the blacklist discussion but would be the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't expect that Justin would have been aware of that and other discussions in his recent break from Wikipedia so I hope that nobody holds his recent contributions against him. -- Atama頭 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Fair enough - this all seems to have been a misunderstanding. The reverting was unfortunate, but I can appreciate that Red Hat believed he was enforcing a consensus and Justin that he was restoring sourced material. Maybe it's best if we overlook it, though I think keeping the lock on the History of Gibraltar article might be prudent for now. I will however amend my post to Dirk. EyeSerenetalk 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Next steps

Apologies for the new section, but I think it might help to draw a line under some of the above. Firstly, I've now unblocked Ecemaml based on their unblock request and an email exchange where they acknowledged the seriousness of WP:OUTING and undertook to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Secondly, we have a number of suggestions for remedies above that are worth considering, ranging from article probation through a limited topic ban to arbitration. My personal feeling is that ANI is a blunt and haphazard instrument for tackling this kind of deep-rooted dispute, and the repeated threads here are a reflection of that. To a certain extent we can manage the article, but we've been unable to find any long-term solution and each time a new thread appears it seems as though we're applying sticking plasters to a gaping wound. I think perhaps it's time to refer it to a more formal venue where the dispute will get undivided attention and private issues can be examined privately. However, I agree with Justin that arbitration should be a last resort and that Atama has been doing a fine job of consensus-building on the article, so maybe something else is worth trying first. Thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I have observed that it only seems to stay stable whilst the article is protected. When it isn't "solutions" are imposed by WP:TAG. Secondly there is a real problem with WP:CPUSH on the article. Thirdly there appears to be a vendetta by two editors against another, which I think some admins have picked up on. So:

1. Article stays protected for now, edits only to be added by an admin once agreement is achieved in talk. Though I'm not sure it will go anywhere unless there is an enforced break to allow tempers to cool.
2. As suggested by Gordon, there needs to be an effort by the uninvolved to resolve the issues, without being lobbied by the involved. Say a month, a topic ban in the intervening time. I would be happy to leave it down to Willdow for now, as he listens and gives due weight to all views.
3. It needs to be monitored by a neutral admin. User:Atama has achieved the confidence of all concerned. But it is a lot to ask of him. WP:CPUSH is a difficult problem to deal with, it is acknowledged that arbitration finds it difficult to deal with.
4. Further acts of harassment need to be stopped in their tracks with an immediate block and an escalating scale of blocks. This includes the frivolous complaints about editors, I believe that there has been an attempt to manipulate AN/I to block certain editors.
5. I'm not convinced that 1RR will work, there is evidence that some of the editors have co-ordinated their activities by email. Interested to see how this problem can be dealt with. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene - there are far more deep-rooted and long-running problems at that article than the present content dispute. What would be beneficial, I believe, would be a review by editors with the ability to enforce blocks/topic bans (is that ArbCom? never done anything like this before) where anyone who has a concern or bugbear gets to list it and ask for it to be reviewed. (Justin might put as one of his items "I think Red Hat harasses Gibnews" and "Imalbarnoz is a tendentious editor" and provides some supporting diffs; I might say...no, will hold my tongue). As well as reviewing these "complaints" to see whether they are legitimate, the editors also look over the talk page history etc to get a general sense of who has been doing and saying what. Then everyone gets behavioural feedback (important because some people can't see what they are doing wrong, me too sometimes) and instructions to stop/start/continue certain behaviours, which if not followed will result in a topic ban. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that "a review by editors with the ability to enforce blocks/topic bans" is a pretty dead-on definition of what arbitration does. My concern is an echo of Justin above, however, that arbitration will probably end poorly for a number of people. We can still try it and trust in the process, it can and does help for people. I'm more inclined toward a community-based article probation if we can do it. I know that it was attempted before, by Justin (see here) but didn't get attention at the time. -- Atama頭 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to say this without sounding like I'm trying to score points, but that link you provided, the first time I'd seen it (I had been on a several month self-imposed exile from the Gib article at the time) just illustrates the problem, as do the suggestions from J above. An editor proposes a series of suggestions which are perfectly reasonable, then proceeds to break virtually every single one of them, and then proposes it all over again. One gets the feeling he thinks everyone else is the problem. I'm not trying to get him into trouble here for that, I'm just saying feedback on behaviour is seriously needed and the threat of a topic bans may just be enough. If I've deemed to have done something topic- or WP-blockable (I don't think I have) I'll accept the consequences with good grace and work on the feedback provided. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if you were right, and Justin did break all of his own suggestions, what does that matter? If those restrictions were in place, Justin would be subject to the same penalties as anyone else for breaking them. It would still have the same effect. If those restrictions were in place then the cycle you describe would be broken because violating those restrictions can lead to blocks. I'd like to say, too, that if probation is given for Gibraltar topics I don't have a lot of interest in playing "cop" on those articles. I do feel that I'm rather uninvolved with those articles, as I've done no editing to them (that I can remember), haven't taken sides in any disputes between editors, or given opinions on any of the article talk pages about what content I'd prefer in the articles. I've only acted as a mediator of sorts, and I've advised most of the regular editors about different issues they've had (and I think I once removed article protection when a dispute ended). I don't feel a need to recuse myself, and I would enforce probationary sanctions if I felt it absolutely necessary, but I feel like the first time I block someone at those articles I'm no longer on the sidelines in those disputes. -- Atama頭 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I could post a few diffs but no I don't think my own behaviour is above reproach and have said so. I think you'll find that I am in fact one of the few to have apologised for crossing the line and if you look, more than once the bad behaviour was out of frustration but also in response to some pretty serious bullying going on in that article. Red Hat forgets that in our own disputes, who was the bigger man and made the first move to putting the past behind us. I could post the diff but you'll find I've tried to do it with all of the others involved with Gibraltar as well. I could also point fingers and say that it was all down to Red Hat, baiting Gibnews and harassing Gibnews, for which I think you can make a compelling case and if investigated at Arbitration would lead to a rather lengthy block from editing wikipedia. If one were so inclined you could also make a case blaming AN/I for not intervening before it got so bad, it has been raised here often enough. There is a lot of finger pointing all round and not enough reflection on some pretty bad behavious by all parties. But was is the point of apportioning blame? Wikipedia doesn't have a blame culture and raking over the past and bringing up issues long forgotten and in many cases apologised for is not going to address fundamentally the atmosphere has gotten so toxic that there will be no progress with the current protagonists involved. There needs to be a clean break and repeated pleas for a voluntary break are falling on deaf ears at the moment, just as they have in the past.

I really don't want to see this going to arbitration, a number of very good editors have been sucked into what became a very bitter dispute and the project would be the one to suffer. My personal view is that the whole article has been held hostage by an editor with a nationalist agenda that fits perfectly with the profile of a WP:CPUSH. So for a while it needs very close admin attention to put an end to that disruption. To allow the article to move forward it needs fresh eyes. I'm also of the opinion, this is just about the last chance to avoid arbitration and the loss to the project of some productive editors.

I would also say that I think User:Atama does himself a disservice when he says that the first time he blocks someone he will be no longer on the sidelines. I have been very impressed with the even handed way he has mediated in a very charged atmosphere. It would be nigh on impossible to claim he had taken sides. If that became an issue where he was accused of taking sides, not for one second that I believe he would, then I would hope that other admins at AN/I would give him their full backing. The project really does need more admins like him. Oh and to put that into perspective getting praise out of a Scotsman is marginally more difficult than to get him to part with cash. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin - may I politely ask you to step aside for a moment please? You've made your suggestion for the next steps now please let me make the case for mine.

Atama - unfortunately I don't think you are the right person for this and nor is your approach the right one. You see this all as a content dispute that admin intervention and blocks can handle, but as I said, the problem is more subtle and deeper rooted. For what it's worth, I'm half Spanish and half British, living in neither country, I'm with the 99.99% of Gibraltarians who think Gibraltar should be British but I'm always finding myself on the side of the Spanish editors in these arguments against Justin and Gibnews in these POV matters because there are always a multitude of reliable sources which agree with the edits the Spanish editors want to make. That alone should ring alarm bells - that we have editors blocking edits on the basis of their political views and not what the sources say. Latest case in point: [13]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Mostly) outside comment: as I suggested it, I'd better expand. Arbitration is complicated and stressful: but on balance I still think it's the way to go as other options haven't worked. The Digwuren arbitration decision is a model for how it might work.

As The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick says, I think there are deeper problems. The current, and proposed admin/blocks, setup doesn't really address the problem that we shouldn't have an article solely guided by what's mutually acceptable to two hostile factions. It means, for instance, that what's a sore point to both - e.g. San Roque - will end up with vague anodyne coverage that's more about appeasing these factions than informing the uninvolved reader.

Getting editors to talk nicely doesn't alter problems of strong bias - often affecting opinion on topics in unstated ways - that really needs attention at editing level ("neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability" as the Digwuren summary says) rather than just discussion level. Having skimmed the discussions, I'd have to conclude that "pro-Gibraltar" bias is far more of a problem here than pro-Spanish.

I think there are also a number of other unresolved issues around the Gibraltar articles: unresolved conflict of interest; and sourcing (general current focus on primary sources and/or not terribly reliable ones, rather than reliable secondary sources such as mainstream newspapers and books). I don't know whether anyone here remembers the whale.to discussion; this concerned a site hosting historical documents (each reliable in itself) about 19th century vaccination issues - but the documents archived were selectively anti-vaccination, and the site itself framed the material with an anti-vaccination slant. So it was decided an unreliable source. This seems very pertinent to one of the sourcing issues here.

As I've said, a creative solution would be to ban any editor with a stake in the regional issue; I think there are some regionalist editors whose bias is so deep-rooted that I don't have any faith in their ability to work in a way compatible wth the aims of Wikipedia (see WP:PLAGUE). But failing that, arbitration. This needs knocking on the head. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No Red Hat I will not step aside and allow you to villify me yet again, I am utterly fed up with being villified for having the temerity to disagree with you and refusing to be bludgeoned into agreement by tendentious and circular argument. You're misrepresenting my opposition to certain edits as POV, when I had very different objections to Gibnews. My suggestion that information peripheral for an overview of Gibraltar is not included is a very reasonable position to take. Your own user page makes the same point Removal of "true" or "sourced" material from Wikipedia is not unconstructive/vandalistic: one of the purposes of Editing is to ensure that the text being edited is of appropriate length. This may mean removing irrelevant information or a level of detail that is not required.

But having made that suggestion I was villified as "suppressing" any mention of San Roque and of "censoring" the article. What rings alarm bells for me is when an editor is harangued for a suggestion, instead of it being calmly and rationally discussed, and the labelling of POV is used to justify ignoring reasonable argument. Alarm bells ring like crazy when an established article is labelled as POV, when what they really mean is that it doesn't favour the POV they prefer. Equally those so bent on including certain information are so bent on it, for entirely POV reasons, equally fixed in their position by POV concerns as Gibnews. The difference being Gibnews states his objection openly but they conceal theirs and to me that makes them the greater danger to the project. See WP:CPUSH

You portray it as myself and Gibnews against the world, when that is far from the case. There were a number of other editors who this mess has driven away from the article. In they main, they agreed that I put forward a reasoned argument but one by one were driven away by relentless circular and tendentious argument. I note that a completely fresh pair of eyes this week acknowledges that there is merit in what I had to say. And for what its worth, I'm half-Spanish as well, an inconvenient fact for those that accused me of racism as another excuse to ignore reasoned argument.

You are persisting with trying to imply that only two editors are the problem, when there is a great deal of problematic behaviour that has resulted from a basic failure to assume good faith. You're just as guilty as anyone else but the fact is you just can't see the problems in your own behaviour and that for me is worrisome. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on much of the above and some hard thinking overnight, I've now filed a Request for Arbitration. I fully understand that this won't be welcomed by everyone, and I'm quite prepared to be castigated for doing so, but I feel Arbcom rulings in other contentious areas (the Balkans, the Middle East, Ireland etc) have proved helpful in resolving such deep-rooted disputes. I also don't want to give the impression that I've short-ciruited other dispute resolution; Atama has clearly earned - and deserves - the respect of everyone involved, and one of the reasons I made this decision was their perfectly understandable wish not to have to police the article if community sanctions were tried. I think finding other admins that want to step into the firing line will be difficult (I have no desire to do so myself either), and because this thread has had limited participation I believe that interest in voluntarily dealing with this perennial issue, after so many unsuccessful attempts, is low. In short, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that most of us are fed up with it and just want it settled - including most of the article editors, I suspect. EyeSerene^talk 14:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou EyeSerene. And thankyou Atama too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree and say that you've been premature in this action. Not that I'm suggesting you be castigated for it. You say there has been no success in dealing with this by AN/I, well I counter by saying that is hasn't been tried yet. Great to get it settled but not this way, its a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and of course I respect your position. I believe there are issues here that can't be settled by ANI though - it's proved a pretty tough walnut :) EyeSerene^talk 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

'Evening. I tend to agree with EyeSerene and Red Hat on this. After a lengthy mediation attempt, a proposed moratorium, 2 (or 3 already?) requests for comment and several AN/I threads we've achieved little. It may be true that arbitration is a last resort, but at this point we are in dire need of a last resort. Finally, may I suggest informing Guy about the existence of the request for arbitration? If I recall correctly, he is an administrator who was drawn to this whole Gibraltar dispute a month ago via AN/I thread, and filed an RfC. He was pretty active on the talk pages for some time. His input may be useful to the process we are about to initiate. Cremallera (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any strong objection to arbitration (not that it would change anything if I did). I think that multiple dispute resolution steps have been attempted without any lasting success, and what's needed is something along the lines of discretionary sanctions or probation. Doing something like that requires either community consensus or arbitration. Either ArbCom or the community has such a power, and I suppose it doesn't matter who does it. If EyeSerence is going to take the initiative and bring this to arbitration, then I say go for it. Hopefully some lasting fix can come from this now. -- Atama頭 17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Guy as suggested - thanks Cremallera. EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this action, maybe it will finally settle all of the nonsense on this article that seeems to bring a thread to ANI on such a regular basis, nothing else has or even seem to have come close. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting AfD

I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) as a temporary measure because of renewed off-site discussion about it, this time on reddit, Y Combinator, FriendFeed (and probably a few more places). Everything that could be said about that topic has been said. If an admin wants to make a different decision, he can do so based on that AfD and the previous one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm, which was closed under similar circumstances just before the 2nd one opened. Together these have about 125Kb already. There's no point in having another insanely long repetitive discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM (175Kb). Pcap ping 00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I love your reason for closure. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something... but... how can you have a speedy no consensus? If there is no consensus it should be left unclosed. Whilst canvassing does seem to be happening, how can consensus ever be gained if discussions are speedy closed? Personally I would allow it to run, and have it closed after a full 7 day period. It may be a tough close which takes ages to trawl through, but dodging the issue by closing discussions due to canvassing isn't really a solution. Please do fill me in if I am missing something here. --Taelus (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR. If you just plan to count votes, there's not going to be a consensus. If you just plan to read the arguments, you can do so already, they're already in triplicate at least. Participants there disagree on what's a reliable source for open source software. You can choose to buy one side or the other of the arguments, but having them repeated ad nauseam won't make the discussion any easier to parse. Feel free to reopen it if you think consensus is likely to emerge, but I just don't see how that's gonna happen. (This is the 2nd week, as the previous AfD was closed just before this one opened.) Pcap ping 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having participated in the AfD for JWASM, I would say that any action that prevents another AfD from going the same route is a good one. What a waste of electrons that was. -- Atama頭 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... But the close result of the previous AfD was to restart the process, thus it just strikes me as odd to close the second nomination early. I won't re-open it however, probably best for administrators who were involved in the previous close to take a look. --Taelus (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something too. Meatpuppets don't get to muddle AfDs into no consensus. I'm having a quick look and I'm not seeing anyone arguing for keep actually providing anything credible and based on policies or guidelines to actually keep it. This is pretty cut and dried. The only source that seems discussed at the top was written by a member of the project. So either they provide significant coverage by reliable third party sources, or its deleted. This is the equivalent of showing up at an AfD and screaming "KEEP - I'M WEARING BLUE PANTS!!!" admin - "hmm..there seems to be serious opposition to its deletion". I'm going on record as saying this is a terrible close which basically rewards someone for off-site canvassing. There wasn't a single shred of evidence provided to defend keeping that article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one else has gotten to this in an hour or so, I'll give it a whirl (I'm busy for a bit). I'm completely uninvolved. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Keep: Typical Wikipedia Faggotry" comment sums it up best. Nefariousski (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm undoing the speedy close and making a stab at determining consensus. I should have it by April 1 ;) -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's best to let the AfD run its course and then determine consensus. I realize it's likely the same opinions will be trotted out over the next couple of days. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever closes it will see a lot of "it's teh notable because I says so" and a lot of "there are no reliable independent sources". Only one of these is a compelling argument :-) Guy (Help!) 08:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I almost feel like we need a policy or guideline for this kind of stuff. It comes up on a fairly regular basis where we get some non-notable something, and they run to their forums or teh blogs! and rally the troops and it turns into a storm of garbage. I think there comes a point where any objective reasonable person can realize that side just has no point and it needs to be shot and put out of its misery for the good of everyone involved.--Crossmr (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• We do have a policy, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. "It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion to sway its outcome. Such comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but may be tagged with {{spa}}, noting that a user "has made few or no other edits". In extreme cases, a deletion debate can be semi-protected." Fences&Windows 13:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't really do much though. I still turns into a dramafest as countless people who have never edited wikipedia or who haven't edited in a long time come out of the woodwork to make the same argument "Wikipedia sucks, this is totally notable, #$## you, keep it!". I think when its very obvious this is happening, an admin should just have a look and see if they've provided any evidence at all and if not, short circuit the process, cut the drama before it gets out of hand, delete it, salt the earth (because they often get recreated by a meat puppet) and be done with it. We've already seen them rewarded twice for their behaviour so obviously the current process isn't working. They got a new deletion discussion, then they got an admin who came along and made an early no consensus close based on their "MY PANTS ARE BLUE KEEP!!!!!" arguments.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So now it's also old wikipedians who get shut out, if it were up to you? Oh dear. I'm an old wikipedian... I'm getting kind of worried here. :-/ Who *will* you still listen to, if they tell you they think maybe some processes are getting a little out of hand? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how a topic that is considered non-notable can rally so many people to its defence. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Imagine the consequences if a deletion discussion makes it into to the dead-paper press.

• What is so interesting about it? Social networking trends are epidemic. If a YouTube video of a dancing cat can get hundreds of thousands of views just because someone mentions it on Twitter, rallying shouts like "the Wikipedia deletionists are at it again" or "you need to put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts" can certainly attract some attention. — Rankiri (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the fuss we used to get before we blacklisted YTMND? Every single meme was edit-warred in multiple places. Not just YTMND either, here's one that's been in place for over four years: [14]. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you're arguing that something can be non-notable, even if large numbers of people are passionate about it? I'm not sure I can accept that as it appears self-contradictory. Am I missing something? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:N and WP:NOT. It stands to reason that encyclopedia articles must not be based on fleeting fame or hearsay sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:N and Wikipedia is not paper actually are in balance with each other. In cases like this one, I think current best practice for Notability somehow breaks down and fails to work properly. What can we do to fix that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take that many people to make a drama fest on wikipedia. So even if it looks like a "large" number of people like something, it doesn't mean its notable. See WP:BIGNUMBER its why we require reliable sources to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, just because there's smoke, there doesn't need to be fire. But still, I'm starting to see suspicious amounts of smoke around. I'm just worried we might be going about things the wrong way, somehow. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "Imagine the consequences if a deletion discussion makes it into to the dead-paper press." How about 20 of them?[15] The sky didn't fall. Fences&Windows 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Raptor Jesus may disagree. — Rankiri (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it means we can write a notable, reliably sourced article about the deletion discussions, even though we can't have an article about the subjects ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy Problem

We can all agree that there needs to be some rules for notability. Like WP:N states, having a page for every garage band that starts up isn't feasible.

This is not the case in this specific situation or with many of the other informative pages that have been deleted. There's nothing on this particular page that is wrong or misleading, just that there is no traditional media coverage of it. It will probably never be covered by traditional media. This doesn't mean it's a "flash in the pan" any more than contentious and hence media-covered projects like OpenOffice are.

The wiki entry is informative, neutral, unbiased and fact-based.

When such good encyclopedic entries are up for deletion, there must be something wrong with the system. That's what's causing the current outrage, and for people who have supported Wikipedia with time, effort and money the discussion-stifling methods and censorship tactics some Admins use seem particularly offensive.

There are likely several acceptable solutions to this problem, but I don't have any experience with the Wikipedia bureaucracy, so I don't know the proper procedure for getting a policy changed. Can someone suggest the right way to go about this, please? --Wicked247 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ArneBab

He seems responsible for the 2nd, even more massive round of off-wiki canvasing links here. See what happened to #User:Mclaudt above. Pcap ping 01:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you keep closing and restarting the discussion, the canvassing will never stop. Let it run its seven days, let them complain because they refuse to actually provide a secondary source, close based on actual policy not votes, let the slightly more sophisticated complain to WP:DRV and lose there, and then finally, let the craziest whiners start vandalizing and get blocked. Then some blogs will be out ranting about the horrors of wikipedia because their random obscure thing isn't kept here. It's the normal pattern and what can be expected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sensing assumptions of bad faith on both sides, once again. This is very similar to what happened at the Foswiki AfD. The fundamental problem is on our side: The General notability guideline is an approximation for identifying articles that (1) are worth having in an encyclopedia because enough people are interested in them, and (2) can be written neutrally. It's good for most purposes, but in the case of open source software there are special circumstances that make it harder to prove that enough people are interested and easier to write a neutral article without significant third-party coverage. (The article Dwm gets 100 hits/day, Foswiki gets 50 hits/day. That's not so much less than e.g. MediaWiki and significantly more than Erwig and Naman Keïta or any other random article which has no notability problems at all.) The German Wikipedia takes them into account, we don't.

The general public doesn't understand the GNG, and it doesn't know about our off-site canvasing rules. Experience has shown that both are surprising to open source software developers, i.e. to some of the people most likely to become valuable editors once they have found their way to Wikipedia. The current situation is optimised towards attracting and then alienating these people. Hans Adler 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was going to wait until the end of the AfD discussion but I guess it doesn't matter now. In particular, see [16] ([17], [18]) and [19]. Some of these messages were posted three days ago when the user should have already been aware of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not saying that all the canvased/canvassing people are angels. I am saying that at least half of the fault for these incidents is on our side and it's up to us to fix the problem. Think of it this way: Suppose the article Dutch Wikipedia was nominated for deletion based on the (hypothetical) argument that all press articles about the Dutch Wikipedia are indiscriminately about the English and Dutch Wikipedia as if they were the same thing. The only thing that would prevent a drama similar to what we are seeing with open source projects is the fact that the editors of the Dutch Wikipedia have a much better idea of the norms of the English Wikipedia than do the members of a typical open source software community. But it's not their fault that they don't understand our norms, and it's in our interest to educate, not punish them. Hans Adler 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I only disapprove of the actions of this particular user, not the ones who were dragged into the discussion. As an active participant of both WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm and WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination), he should have known that his attempts at off-site canvassing weren't appropriate. And it's not like he even tried to sound neutral: his last message on [20] violates WP:PERSONAL (I'm entirely indifferent about this but see User talk:ArneBab) and is tagged with biased "!fs attacked". Personally, I'd welcome an influx of new users who were reasonable, but the problem with cries for help such as these is that they generally bring in ones who are not. [21], [22], [23], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I find it strange how much of those editors have accounts long ago registered, largely inactive for months or even years and just popping in for that article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it strange at all. Open Source programmers write free software, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. A lot of F/L/OSS coders will likely have wp accounts on general principle.

Alienating your natural allies is probably a bad idea. So even if we agree that policy is perfectly correct, we still have something of an obligation to explain it to these people. This isn't siegenthaler; but if continued, this trend is likely to have rather nasty consequences. Can we figure out how to be nicer? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked ArneBab indefinitely. He's been here since 2004, so it's absolutely inconceivable that he doesn't know votestacking on AfDs is unacceptable. Blueboy96 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh. Maybe don't do that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To wit, I don't think an indefinite block is warrented, by a fairly large margin. Please unblock. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it. Two complete messes of an AfD. He absolutely should know better and this massive disruption on their part. What happens when the next AfD comes along that he doesn't agree with?--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it too. I don't see how open source communities are special enough to warrant kids glove treatment that we wouldn't provide to others. Frankly, I'm somewhat tired of all the arguments in AfD and on article talk pages that nobody should even be allowed to edit articles about open source software unless they're developers themselves. It goes against the whole spirit, the whole purpose of Wikipedia. When we have people creating Sourceforge projects, then creating Wikipedia pages to advertise their products (generally with positive POV, as expected), then trying to own the articles by reverting edits they don't like, then bringing in meatpuppets when the articles come to AfD... Why should we be kissing their feet? -- Atama頭 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... we're a prominent member of that community. Anything we say or do in this context reflects back on us. Why should we cut off our own nose to spite our face? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes cutting off your nose is the best thing to do. -- Atama頭 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that comparing the good faith attempts at participation by the 3rd parties (from Y-Combinator, Reddit, etc) is crossing some sort of line that probably shouldn't be crossed. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support an indef block, but if he requests unblock in a few months and it seems legit it seems reasonable to do so on a trial basis. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You support an indef block because some AFDs didn't go right? :-O --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No. its supported because someone tried to game the system and disrupt the process. --Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Meatpuppetry is intolerable, it sabotages any attempt to reach consensus in a discussion. -- Atama頭 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus between who and who in this case? Who does wikipedia serve, and who has rights to contribute to wikipedia? Meta:Founding principles. I agree that forms of puppetry are not good. On the other hand, if one of the the communities we live in symbiosis with attempts to participate and bring procedural issues to our notice, we would be wise to listen. Because if not to them, then to who? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Page Protection tools

I have left Wikipedia. I think I have the right to say this on my user page, and mention why. However, because I left pretty much solely over abuse heaped upon me by Durova, her friends keep deleting the message, and have now protected my user page. Here's the message:

This user has left Wikipedia due to harassment by Durova which attempted to prevent free discussion of her featured picture candidates. Long story short, polite criticism of her work there was met with disproportionate attacks, and, thinking back, I realised that more subtle forms of this bullying had been going on a long time. Having had it made very clear that noone cared about harassment by her, I have left Wikipedia. Evidence available through e-mail to anyone I trust to have my e-mail.

Durova, meanwhile, is evidently constantly complaining about how few people capable of working with historic material there are.

The incident in question involved her repeating "Fuck you, troll" on Skype over and over, because I politely pointed out in a FPC that one of the images was upside down, this looks like a mistake, and even if it wasn't, it's not something that you should go without mentioning. I offered ways around this when she began berating me over it, such as offwerin two versions, so that people don't have to turn their monitors over, which is much easier with a book.

She continued to berate me, threatened me, and then began acting to remove all connections I had to people that might give me material for Wikipedia that had any connections through her, even in media where she doesn't do things.

This was not the first time, I doubt I'm the only person she's bullied into doing what she wants, or into deleting comments about her restorations that she disliked.

I don't want anyone else to get into the position I was put in, where they are bullied and harassed for months for not living up to Durova's ideal of perfect yes-man, all the while being used for propaganda purposes by her. And whenever I complained about ANYTHING that was being done to me by anyone, she swooped in and encouraged people to close the thread, because I hadn't talked to her first.

I supported her goals, incredibly strongly, but, in the end, the goals were less important to me than getting out of a relationship where, days after telling her I had just experienced a massive personal crisis, she was brutally attacking and bullying me over trivial matters.

Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova notified. I don't know the circumstances of this conflict, but in any event, retired or not, expressions of derision with a specific editor on one's userpage are usually removed per WP:UP#NOT. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:03, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Some diffs would help. Otherwise it's a fishing expedition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Shoe. :( Not great to see you under these conditions, but hey anyways. Some diffs: [24], [25], [26]. As per Equazcion it's not unusual to remove this kind of stuff. Plus your last edit prior to this was this vandalism of a Signpost story about Durova. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Equazcion. Let's call this water under the bridge; this goes back five months. If Shoemaker wants the semiprotection taken off his user page I've no objection. Shake hands and let bygones be bygones. Durova⁴¹² 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the rant is inappropriate. Feeling harassed and being harassed are very different, though the difference is not obvious to the victim at the time (I have had both, with on-wiki disputes escalated to off-wiki crank calls and the like). To say that they left because of a dispute with a named user is fine, left due to harassment with no name is OK, but the Wikimedia Foundation's resources are not really here ot be used to pursue grudges from beyond the grave. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say, if Durova, does not mind, take protection off. I more worried about the user than his user page. The user is clearly very upset, and needs some understanding and help. Durova, I would like to appeal to you please. I know the two of you used to be the friends. Maybe it is possible to have a talk or to have a meditation to bring Shoemaker's Holiday back to Commons and to Wikipedia. If I could be of any help to bring the two of you together, I will be happy to do so. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for being considerate, Mbz1. He's welcome to return at any time. I'd work with him onsite or maintain polite distance, per his preference. Although yes, I would prefer if the personal attacks stopped. Let's put it in the past. Durova⁴¹² 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Via Skype? Woogee (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. So Durova forgives me for... her having harassed me off the site. But I'm welcome to return to being harassed any time. How kind of her. 86.138.86.138 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• What?! *The* Shoemaker's Holiday hounded off Wikipedia? The world is going to hell in a handbasket. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shoe, buddy, you really need to calm down. I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of what happened between you and Durova, but I do know I've seen you get really angry over small things before (like whenever people would start trolling you about global warming denial and things like that). If you want to edit Wikipedia, awesome, come back and the project is better for it. But if not, what exactly do these occasional returns complaining about the same issue accomplish? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is another example of a contributor feeling unappreciated & suffering WikiBurnout for all of the hard work she/he has contributed to the project. (And if you agree that this phenomenon exists, then you might consider that Larry Sanger is the first significant example of this phenomenon.) Without taking sides, I have to wonder if any of us (including me) had extended more appreciation for SH's contributions, matters would have reached this point. -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have said what it was: Durova had been continually hounding me over tiny issues: writing an article on sound restoration for the signpost, when she wanted to do one; making a joke page with another contributor she disliked, and then, when I politely pointed out a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination, here, she cursed me out for 15 minutes on Skype, said "Fuck you, troll" about 10 times in said conversation - I'm not exaggerating, people have the log, and, indeed, it was posted to Wikipedia for a while, until Durova had it oversighted in direct violation of WP:OVERSIGHT. (Oh, sure, the oversighter in question claimed the policy didn't reflect standard procedure, but they could have edited it any time in the last 5 months to make it permitted. That they never did means they were clearly ignoring policy, or had no consensus to act in the manner they did.) - In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice:

• To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Wikipedia grant, which was necessary for me continuing work.
• To keep me from working on Tropenmuseum items.
• An implied threat to keep my name out of a Tropenmuseum exhibit, for which she had got large numbers of us to do major restoration work. Of course, this exhibit was never talked of again once she got access to archives she wanted, because she's a manipulative little bitch that way, but we didn't know that at the time.

In short, this was harassment, threats, and was part of a chain dating back about 2 months, if not farther. Durova is completely unrepentant, as seen here. Note that the harassment was explicitly in order to subvert the Featured picture candidates voting, by suppressing politely stated dissent. I might have gotten around this, but when I pointed this out, it was made very clear that noone wanted to hear anything wrong about Durova, and I was explicitly told no evidence could convince anyone of any wrongdoing by her.

If you want me back, Durova needs to face consequences for her actions, or at least be warned, or, in a far more unlikely event, Durova accepts wrongdoing, apologises, and promises never to use harassment to suppress free commentary of her restoration work again. Barring that, I'm NOT coming back. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, had she merely pulled this stunt at a neutral time, it might've been bad enough. What she actually did was pull it three days after I had confided to her a severe trauma that had just happened to me. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I highly doubt most of this. Since she's been nothing but nice to be despite any disagreements we've had and given what I've seen from you, Shoe, exploding at the slightest provocation on numerous occasions. Again, I don't know the details (despite your yelling at me on my talk page that I know the full details), but this was supposed to be an ANI thread about page protection, not a far-reaching conspiracy to deny you a scanner or whatever. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You were there for the discussion when the event happened, as far as I'm aware. Why not ask on Wikivoices whether anyone remembers when Durova went crazy? Because I made a point of putting people into that conversation so I'd have independent backup of what I was saying. If I recall correctly, Juliancolton was one of them. Why not ask him? This isn't a conspiracy theory, if you had the log you'd see that Durova revelled in taking back every half-baked promise she had made regarding me in the previous six months, just to rub it in.

For the record, my scanner broke, which I used for almost all my Wikipedia Featured Pictures work. I knew it'd be a while before I could afford a new one, so Durova stepped in and promised to sort out funding. about four months passed without a word from her, until she brought it up again to rub in my face what I lost by daring to politely question her FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'll go post the log somewhere and give a link. Hold on. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

<link redacted by Rlevse> Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoe, without getting into the merits of the ongoing long term issue btwn you and Durova, your links to the blog are merely exacerbating the situation, stop it now. I've removed them from the current versions of the pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sanam001 requesting redressal of grievience

This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123 in Malayala Sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution. [27]. The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here [28]. I realize that it takes two to create edit wars and there seems to be active recruitment of content disagreeing users to initiate edit wars with me by User:Anandks007 :Neither am I able to take the dispute resolution to formal mediation while simultaneously being dragged into edit wars by User:Anandks007 and User:Suresh.Varma.123 in bad faith.I have been continuosly trying invain to address the root cause [29] What options do I have to redress my grievience and stop this mobbing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear admins, first of all it is very difficult to assume good faith when facing racial abuse from someone. User Sanam has been pushing POV in articles related to my caste (Nair) for more than 3 months now. Wiki users like me have repeatedly asked Sanam to refrain from POV pushing and sort out the issue through the Talk page, but so far he ignored our requests. This is not my personal opinion, but the opinion shared by more than half a dozen other users as well. Sanam is repeatedly inserting the derogatory word Sudra in to Nair related articles, although users like me put a lot of evidence against this desperate act by him. Even yesterday one of the users put evidence against his racist views here. But rather than responding to the questions asked to him, he was again and again avoiding them and using diversionary tactics. We don't have anything against Sanam in personal, but the ethnic abuse he is hurling at us is making a lot of users like me quite angry and emotional. Well... I don't have much more to talk about this edit war going on. But if any admin happens to review the edits made by Sanam, then he will understand what is his real aim. Axxn (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a few things to what Anand said above.

• The word Sudra is a pejorative word like "Negro" and "Kike" and is seldom used nowadays in newspapers or media of any kind. For example, during 1910s and 20s, Black Americans were termed as Negros by a section of the non-Black population. But this usage was termed racist and was discontinued. Similarly, Nambuthiri Brahmins used the term "Sudra" to describe each and every Hindu caste as they thought common people will pollute them by their touch. Nambuthiris are around 0.01% of the Indian population, and there fore, 99.99% of the Indians became Sudra. But this orthodox Nambuthiri definition was deemed racist and remained out of use in most of India. If you go to the Sudra wikipage, you can see that the vedic definition is used rather than the Nambuthiri definition. Therefore, you can never find the word "Sudra" in any article relating any Hindu caste here in wiki. Still user Sanam insists that this derogatory term should be added to the Nair article. (Nairs are regarded as Kshatriya by most of the Indian historians, as can be seen from the links provided in the Nair talk page).
• User Sanam is unwilling to listen to others and this makes other users like me quite frustrated and angry. The biggest advantage he is having is that he is online 24 hours a day, as he does not have any other work. But common people like me reach home quite tired at around 9 o'clock in the night after having done work for 12 hours continuously (I am a blue collar/ semi blue collar worker and does not have net access at my office). And when I reach home, all I find in wikipedia are posts made by Sanam abusing my caste. Whatever we write in the talk page gets swamped by tons and tons of lecture typed in by Sanam. (Also, he always uses the bold character, which is sometimes removed by other users).
• Even after all these efforts made by other users, user Sanam still argues that we are not willing to take the issue to admins. (Actually we have done so at least 3-4 times). The real reason is that as people having a job to worry about, we are not being able to devote much time to wikipedia. Even now this futile argument is costing people like me quite a lot of energy and time.
• Another factor is that Sanam accuses others of being emotional and trying to lynch him. When someone is abusing someone else racially, the abuser will have a huge advantage over the victim. It is the emotionality. The victim will get quite emotional and start doing things which he will never due under normal circumstances, while the abuser will stay calm as he has nothing to worry about. If the admins check some of his earlier posts in the Nair and Ezhava articles, then they will be able to find the racist language he used.
• The sources he is citing, like those by the Kanippayyur Nambuthiri reminds me of the propaganda by Joseph Goebbels against the Jews during the Nazi rule.
• The most important thing which I was trying to convey through the talk page is that even by Sanam's own definition, the interpretation he gives out is completely wrong. I had posted it a few times in the talk page, but Sanam was never willing to discuss it.

I don't have anything more to say about this. I hope the admins will take a neutral and unbiased decision. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Sanam001 (talk · contribs) and Anandks007 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring. I would encourage Sanam001 not to try to get around 3RR by logging out in the future. In addition, I have protected the page for 1 week. Discuss on the talk page. Follow WP:dispute resolution procedures. If you have references that establish the present-day offensiveness of the term, supply them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple google search (Sudra + derogatory) is enough to ascertain the present day offensiveness of the term, as can be seen here (Note.6), here, here, here & here. And regarding the colonial POV pushed by Sanam, I have put up a section here to prove that his points are not even supported by the biased sources he is putting up. (As ususal, he used diversionary tactics and never directly answered the questions asked to him). Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his recent meatpuppetry is here [30]. I am myslef a nayar and being classified as sat-sudra has never been a shame for me but rather a matter of my natural dignity and has never affected my judgement of analysing anthropological material pertaining to my own community. I beleive in a POV free nayar image. The usage of sat-shudra in the specific context of the Kerala-society is not derogatory, it simply means clean-serviles by hereditary profession and includes lpeasants, soldiers, land-holders and even the ruling elite- vis a vis – a sudra king (see Ref1-[31]. Ref2- [32] )

No one here asked about your ethnicity. You are stating ten times a day that you are a Nair, and at the same time you are hurling racial abuse on Nair community. The term Sudra is derogatory in any occasion, and government of India never uses this term and considers it usage to be racial abuse. In fact if you call any one "Sudra", then most probably you will spend some time in prison for racially abusing that person. Only your anonymity is preventing other users from taking legal action against you. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The effort is by a cabal who are a subset of my own community armed with inadequate information trying to supplant the natural dignity of my community by peacocking to generate a POV nayar image. This same subset of individuals accusing me of using the term without understanding the terminology in the specific cultural context of kerala is simultaneously actively engaged in incorporating the same epithet on to other sub-divisions of my community !!!. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20. User: Anandks007- – [33] User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [34] If their definition for the term is derogatory why are the incorporating it on other clans within the same community ? I hope you understand the wider objectives of these set of users.A few references along with authors background is given to administrators to the legitimacy of term Malayala sudra and for the maintenance of the original version of the article which includes nayar in this category.

1. It is mentioned in other encyclopedia by Author- Edward Balfour- Balfour's works on collating information about various aspects of life in India led to the publication of the Cyclopaedia of India, the first edition in 1857

His documentation

“the malayalam sudras of which the better class are called nayars (or lords) are the bulk of the respectable population-the landholders, farmers, soldiers, officials…….…”

Link for verification: [35] In addition specifically within the context of Kerala society, it simply means depressed ritual status although in pan Indian scenarios the word has been sometimes mis-used by caste fanatics for discriminatory puposes. The word sat-sudra in Kerala society needs to be understood within it own jurisprudence.

2. Author- Edgar Thurston- He wrote the seven volumes of "Castes and Tribes of Southern India"; these volumes are the standard reference on the subject

His documentation

“The original Nayars were undoubtedly a military body, holding lands and serving as a militia, but the present Nayar caste includes persons who, by hereditary occupation, are traders, artisans, oilmongers, palanquin- bearers, and even barbers and washermen. The fact seems to be that successive waves of immigrration brought from the Canarese and Tamil countries different castes and different tribes; and these, settling down in the country, adopted the customs and manners, and assumed the caste names of the more respectable of the commu- nity that surrounded them. This process of assimilation is going (Ml even yet”

“The Travancore Nayars are popularly known as Malayala Sudras — a term which contrasts them sharply with the Pandi or foreign Sudras, of whom a large number immigrated into Travancore in later times”. Link:[36]

3. A spurious peacock claim exists in Wikipedia called Malayala Kshatriya with a version stating that Nayars are known by the term Malayala Kshatriya in an effort to peacock. The content of Malayala Kshatriya stating Nairs as part of it is debatable when you read in detail those manuscripts in its entirity . References and manipulating the interpretation of the inference of the reference to make this spurious claim.

A. In support of this I provide Author- Walter (M. R. A. S.) Hamilton- The east india gazeteer vol 11

“The next most remarkable caste are the Nairs, who although Sudras are at once the chief landed proprietors and principal military tribe of Malabar”

“All Nairs pretend to be soldiers but they donot all follow the martial profession, many practicing the arts of husbandry, accounts , weaving, carpentry………………….”

Link:[37]

B. The following PhD thesis from the Department of History at MG university. It describes Nayar regulation Act, Travancore Kshatriya Act etc and provides extensive information of the legal distinction between the two communities Nayars and Malayala Kshatriya. POV pushing of Nayar image as Malayala Kshatriya,

The PhD thesis is titled History of Social legistlation in Travancore state'

Link: [38]

In addition they intent to push a POV image of the entire nayar community as ruling elite. Nayar is an umbrella term for a variety of distinct lineages professing multiple professions. Furthe references.

1. Changing kinship usages in the setting of political and economic changes among the nayars of Malabar by E Kathleen Glough in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 82, No. 1 [39]

2. The internal structure of the nayar caste by C.J Fuller in the Journal of anthropological research 1975 [40]

3.Nayars of Malabar by Fawcett [41]

I am still open to dispute resolution and have provided two neutral options The caste-terminolgies are either to be totally abandoned to avoided. Kindly see my neutral solution. [42]. However instead of addressing the neutral solution of completely removing all caste-terms both sudra and kshatriya (in all forms and derives) I am faced with meat puppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User Sanam is using a very specific, orthodox definiton of the word Kshatriya (according to Brahmin POV) to claim that Nairs are not kshatriyas; this is clearly wrong and a POV from user Sanam001. Here is the (general) definition of Kshatriya according to Enclyclopaedia Britannica:

"second highest in ritual status of the four varnas, or social classes, of Hindu India, traditionally the military or ruling class.

The earliest Vedic texts listed the Kshatriya (holders of kshatra, or authority) as first in rank, then the Brahmans (priests and teachers of law), next the Vaishya (merchant-traders), and finally the Sudra (artisans and labourers). Movements of individuals and groups from one class to another, both upward and downward, were not uncommon; a rise in status even to the rank of Kshatriya was a recognized reward for outstanding service to the rulers of the day. The legend that the Kshatriya were destroyed by Parasurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, as a punishment for their tyranny is thought by some scholars to reflect a long struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers. Brahmanic texts such as the Manu-smrti (a book of Hindu law) and most other dharmashastras (works of jurisprudence) report a Brahman victory, but epic texts often offer a different account, and it is likely that in social reality rulers have usually ranked first. The persistent representation of deities (especially Vishnu, Krishna, and Rama) as rulers underscores the point, as does the elaborate series of ritual roles and privileges pertaining to kings through most of Hindu history. These largely buttress the image of a ruler as preserver of dharma (religious and moral law) and auspicious wealth. In modern times, the Kshatriya varna includes a broad class of caste groups, differing considerably in status and function but united by their claims to rulership, the pursuit of war, or the possession of land " [43].

The Nairs clearly match this definition; here are some refs describing the Nairs as a Noble/Ruling/Military/Kshatriya caste:

• Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 5 By Asiatic Society of Bombay,Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Bombay Branch page 40: "... to aid the Kshatriya (Nair) rulers,..." [44]
  
• Three-quarters of a footprint: travels in South India By Joe Roberts page 221: "... a Nair (the Malabar equivalent equivalent of the Kshatriya)..." [45]
  
• Fragments of a life: a family archive by Mythily Sivaraman: "... headed by his majesty with Nair (kshatriya) officers" [46]
  
• Indian classical dances By K. C. Balakrishna Menon page 32: "After the decline of Perumal rule in Kerala, the Nayar Kshatriya rulers became powerful" [47]
  
• Comprehensive Dictionary of the World, Volume 5, Part 1 By Thomas Wright page 428: "The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras." [48]
  

User Sanam001 is using books based on colonial era POV & a very specific, POV definition of the word Kshatriya to assert his claim. He absolutely refuses to acknowledge evidences shown to him by other users. This is intolerable & can't be accepted by other (honest) wiki users. The use of the word Kshatriya in Nair wiki article is not at all a peacock contrary to what user Sanam001 claim. Please have a look on Nair talk page and take the appropriate decision.90.46.32.29 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If the administrators are willing they are most welcome to send my earlier mentioned citations to reserach articlles, PhD thesis claiming nayars as sat-shudras as well as the citations of User: Suresh.Varma.123 and IP 90.46.32.29 to an expert committee to make an evaluation of whether nayars were classified as sudra or kshatriya. (I can even prepare a specific more elaborate collection towards this on request). The internet and wikipedia are being widely manipulated [49] for pretentious propaganda and this specific issue of Nayar being Kshatriya is a classical example and should not be acceptable in an collaborative collective information resource such as Wikipedia.For instance the encyclopedia brittanica ([50]) does not use the term Kshatriya to define nayar unlike the peacocking of the above editor. Interestingly, these individuals accusing me of using the derogatory term sudra is simultaneously actively engaged in incorporating the same epithet on to other sub-divisions within the nayar community !!!. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20.

By User: Anandks007- – [51]

By User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [52]

You can clearly see that I was reverting your section blanking, as the article was reverted to an earlier version. The term Sudra was added to it by a different user and needs to be changed to a more politically correct term. But as editors like me are busy in fighting your edit wars, there is no time to properly modify the article. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If their definition for the term is derogatory why are they incorporating it on other clans within the same community ? I hope you understand the wider objectives of these set of users. Infact I have made a neutral solution offer where the word sudra is not used at all provided nayar and all nayar related articles avoid the peacocking with the term kshatriya or any sentences that may infer so and removing the name of my community (nair) from under the malayal kshatriya article. Meaning a caste terminology free definition of the community- but these offers have been not even been entertained by these users making their motives very clear [53]. Anyways I would like to re-focus on the primary issue of my reason for beseaching the administrators notice board – (1) addressing the content dispute at the level of formal mediation by experts in the field (2) addressing the meat-puppetry perpetrated on me by user Anandks007 [54] recently. I would also sincerely wish that if at any point in future time that i may get to a point of being blocked permanently by an administrator due to strategies of these concerted users, then the blocking administrator may sent my entire edit summary and data to any part of wikipedia foundation that may be interested in taking up studies on how to improve the wikipedia system from cabala related problem. I sincerely wish that my experiences may be useful for improving the regulatory practices that can be developed in future.--Sanam001 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the users are wondering about the "wider objectives" of your edits. See the list of users who have protested against your POV pushing (Suresh, Anand, Keraleeyan, Zero.vishnu, 116.74.15.88, Linguisticgeek, 90.46.32.29). Most of these users who have protested against you are editing Wikipedia for many years and are disturbed by your attitude and behavior. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I urge the admins to issue a topic ban to Sanam, as he has started edit wars on at least 25 occasions on the same set of articles. Axxn (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what i am implying.If you carefully read my above post in good faith you will understand the need for (1) formal mediation of this dispute by experts who will judge my citations and yours without any prejuice (2) Avoid coccussing tendency of a community of users with well established agenda to mis-represent information on a web-based encyclopedia (3) The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So do go through the middle solution I have recommended least i am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article whether the disagreement is with 1 or 10. Remember that it takes two to cause an edit war and meat puppetry is strongly discouraged by wikipedia--Sanam001 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User Sanam001 placed an {{adminhelp}} on their talk page; I nulled it, and advised that the matter was already noted here.  Chzz  ►  04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate attention.--Sanam001 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)

According to WP:DGFA#Rough consensus, closing admins decide whether to keep or delete after AfDs based on "rough consensus" -- a mix of consensus and policy that each closing admin comes up with in his or her own head. Although unlikely, it is possible for a large proportion of editors !voting one way to be overturned by an admin deciding that policy goes the other way. Under these circumstances, WP:SNOWBALL closes are out of place unless the case is obvious (usually when no one objects).

After less than two days, opponents of my position at the "Climate change denial" AfD are in a large majority, but the more recent voting is much less lopsided, which I think makes it reasonable to think I have more than a snowball's chance in hell here. Yet two editors, Tony Sideaway and William Connolley, both of whom are participants in the AfD discussion, have tried to shut it down. I reverted once. Another editor reverted another time. This article is likely under the general sanctions for AWD articles, although it's uncertain. In any event, it would be better if the decision to close were left in the hands of admins and that it is only closed early if the discussion is viewed as disruptive. From what I can tell, it's simply a normal AfD, and I haven't seen evidence of disruption other than Sideaway's and Connolley's disruptive actions. Rather than some kind of edit war over closing the AfD. Please decide it here. I think normal procedures should be kept to. Apparently more editors want to participate and the discussion is certainly not all going one way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Much less lopsided"? I don't see that. The SNOW close was correct and would have saved all of us time and drama. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SNOW was correct, and should have been applied earlier to this bad faith nom. JWB's edit warring over this is regrettable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "edit war". I reverted once and immediately brought discussion to the editor's talk page and then to here. But I repeat myself. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the last 12 !votes, five were for my "Delete" position. If that rate continues until the normal seven days are up, it becomes much closer, making it much more comfortable for a closing admin to close against a majority, if that admin feels policy is the other way. Serious policy arguments have been made. Apparently other editors, as they come across the AfD, want to participate in it. I think it's pretty clear which route is the disruptive one here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith in the nomination, especially since it's been over a year since the last AfD. However, the statement above that "more recent voting is much less lopsided" disturbs me, considering that that's _not_ what I saw when I went over there. I'm generally opposed to snowball closes, though, so I see no harm in letting it run the full length. (Note: I just unarchived the discussion -- I don't think that we're quite done here yet.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to articles that have multiple passed AfDs, isn't there some sort of 'Cut it the fuck out' clause you can invoke? HalfShadow 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in policy. Not when the last one was over a year ago. That's measured in months. And thanks for demonstrating that there's a high degree of tension and rudeness associated with the AGW topic area. Thanks so much. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I could care less about the subject. It just seems if it's passed at least three AfDs, it's probably gong to keep passing them. HalfShadow 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@Sarek: 7 one way, 5 the other in the last 12. Simple counting. Did I get it wrong? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Depending on when you looked, probably not. I think I looked too quickly. Striking above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the trend was pretty rapid, and it surprised me, too. (It happened right after I added a better nominating statement at the top, even though it was long). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why would Tony Sidaway close this discussion? I'm worried that if two participants have tried to close the AfD, then more will. If no further attempts at outside-of-policy closes occur, then everything is hunky-dory. But it would probably be a good idea for admins to watch this, and I'll post a note over at the AGW General Sanctions page as well, but frankly, the more eyes the better on this one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SNOW closes are for uncontested and uncontroversial closures, or for those unlikely to be contested or controversial. Since this one is obviously being contested and is also likely controversial, given the topic, there is no harm in letting it run for the full 7 days. I personally see absolutely no chance this will get decided in any other way than "keep", but if it makes people happy to believe that they can comment on the discussion, there's no real harm, and following the 7-day procedure is useful in proactively preventing silly drama like this thread. --Jayron32 21:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Early closes invariably lead to eDrama-fueling shitstorms. Let this train-wreck run its course, it doesn't really matter if it crashes at turn #2 or turn #7 since the crash itself an inevitability. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Has no one here ever seen an AfD consensus reverse? I have. Has no one here ever seen a closing admin close against the "raw" consensus? Haven't we all seen this? AfD is always a crap shoot. All we can do is offer our best arguments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, there are serious, policy-based reasons behind both keep and delete votes. In order to establish a clear consensus to delete, which is required for actually deleting the article (since both a "no-consensus" and "keep" conclusion result in maintaining the status quo) would require a preponderance of delete votes which also had policy based reasons. The current debate would require something like 100 more people to show up, all with valid policy-based arguments, to overcome the current weight of the existing keep comments, and there would have to be no further keep votes at all. Yes, consensuses do change, but this one has zero chance of being deleted. Zero. This analysis isn't based on vote counting, its based on weighing the strength of the arguements. Even if we don't count votes at all, and just look at the points being made by the "keep" side and the "delete" side so far, this one is at best a "no-consensus" If we do start to count votes, even only counting those with valid rationales, the Keep votes so far have enough to make it a clear "keep" if closed today, and no worse than "no-consensus" if it is let run for the full seven days. So, have your fun for the rest of the seven day period. But don't barring some record-setting turnaround, I see absolutely no chance of this being deleted. Given the keep votes already, your best option is a "no-consensus" close, which has no functional difference from a "keep" one. --Jayron32 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

...this one has zero chance of being deleted. Zero. WP:BURO should apply in this case then... -Atmoz (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I addressed this above, 21:50. I don't need 100. I need 1. If I get 100, I'll still need 1. If I get that 1, it goes to DRV, where I still won't need 100 to prevent a consensus to overturn. I don't happen to like these rules (I'd prefer less power for the closing admins), I just try to play by them. Since my arguments are golden and far outshine anyone's, I'm willing to invest some more time in this, and nobody else is forced to spend time on it, anyway. WP:BURO can't apply any more than WP:SNOWBALL for the same reason: I only need 1. I find it amazing how a simple discussion that anybody can ignore is somehow so very important to shut down. It makes me suspicious. It also makes Wikipedia look biased. Wikipedia has been criticized by commentators before in relation to AGW issues, so avoiding normal procedures we'd use for every other article doesn't really seem like such a burden. Unless there's some kind of an intolerance around here for simple differences of opinion about anything related to global warming. If that's the case, then that's yet another good reason to let the discussion continue: If done right, it'll promote tolerance. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD is not a random crapshoot, and its not about getting "lucky" by finding a "sympathetic admin" who either is biased towards your opinion or willingly ignores the basic principles of how AFD works. Merely because the closing of an AFD is based on the opinion of the closing admin does not mean that such a close is necessarily arbitrary. If you are only nominating the article, not because you believe that consensus would lie with you, but because you believe that some arbitrary admin would be willing to make a bad close, that is a WP:POINT violation of the worst kind. Also doomed to failure, but if that is your meaning here, it calls into question your entire motives in the nomination in the first case. If you are only banking on getting the article deleted because you believe some random admin may ignore all of the votes and all of the arguements contained therin and randomly delete it, well, that calls into serious doubt the entire AFD from your nomination, and strains anyones good faith in your behavior in this. If this is NOT what you meant, you had better clarify, because it does not appear you are holding the correct attitudes towards Wikipedia... --Jayron32 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stand down. WP:DGFA#Rough consensus is policy. I referred to it in the first line I wrote. The close isn't arbitrary in the closing admin's head, but the closing admin you happen to get in a particular AfD is about as arbitrary as a crap shoot. From what I've seen, the more controversial the AfD, the more likely a wildcard closing. Happens all the time. it does not appear you are holding the correct attitudes towards Wikipedia There are no "correct attitudes" toward Wikipedia. Only correct behavior.

Now you've made me angry, so I went back to the policy I referred to and reread it. It hasn't changed (get settled in your chair, because your head's about to start spinning): Administrators must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. [...]Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. 1. Q. What is the meaning of "consensus" if it is determined by looking at "strength of argument"? A. Whatever the closing admin says it is, as long as WP:DRV confirms it. I'm following policy to the letter and spirit. And I'm (very idealistically) arguing my case hoping for open-minded people to consider it fairly. Under Wikipedia policy, my case is not hopeless because I might get enough support that a conscientious admin who actually thinks WP:POVFORK policy should be enforced will find enough rough-consensus support in the AfD to close it the way I think is right. Exactly what is wrongheaded about that? And I'm even making some progress. Of course I'm cynical about Wikipedia's odd policies. Because I've read them. (I'm much more cynical about admin conduct outside of policy. Because I've seen it.) I'm idealistic about what I'm doing and certain that it's in the best interests of the encyclopedia and it's readers. Nor am I doing it disruptively. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And another thing: Also doomed to failure How the do you know that it's doomed to failure? A discussion is disruptive because your crystal ball tells you it's hopeless? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you start an AFD without the expectation that people will support your position, but under the belief that admins behave arbitrarily, and are actually counting on an admin ignoring a discussion and simply deleting the article randomly or without any reasonable connection to the discussion, then such a nomination is doomed to fail. You have stated repeatedly to don't expect your AFD to garner enough support to delete it, but are instead counting on your presumed opinion that some reasonable percentage of admins will behave unpredictably enough to make it possible it would be deleted anyways. That shows a surprising assumption of bad faith in the good judgement of administrators at Wikipedia, and to expect that the only way you can get the result you personally want is to have an admin who is either incompetant or malicious and to still maintain that that is somehow a valid way to proceed in a situation like this. I don't even know where to respond to that, the rediculousness of that position is so self-evident it defies further comment or elaboration. As I said, have fun for the rest of the 7-day AFD period. If you find the discussion entertaining, then fine. But its not going to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you start an AFD without the expectation that people will support your position [...] Not so. Why would you say that? randomly or without any reasonable connection to the discussion You're not reading what I wrote. Not the first time you've failed to do that in this thread. a surprising assumption of bad faith in the good judgement of administrators at Wikipedia the quote I meant to put here wasto have an admin who is either incompetant or malicious Ditto. Are you deliberately misreading my very clear statement to the contrary? I'll spell it out for you just one more time: I filed the AfD because I thought and still think I had a chance. I don't know how the participation will pan out and neither do you (personally, I find spurts in participation from one side or the other pretty suspicious, but who can say what's going on there?). I hope an administrator will take both factors, consensus and policy, into account in figuring out this wierd thing WP:DGFA calls "rough consensus", as the admin is supposed to do, and I hope the admin agrees with me. I've said all of this before and it's policy. I've got no reason to say it again and you have every reason to understand it. Nothing I've said contradicts it, especially ChrisO's quote below. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)edited this post -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Just to note, there is no particularly strong trend towards deleting the article. Just counting !votes, not evaluating rationales, in the first 24 hours there were 19 Keeps and 5 Deletes -- thats 79% / 21% for keeping. In the last 24 hours, there are 14 Keeps and 8 Deletes, which is 64% to 36%. Considering the small sample size, that's not a trend, it's a burp: the last 10 votes (since the "random convenience break") are 8 Keep / 2 Delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very obvious how that AfD will end, regardless we might as well let it come to it inevitable conclusion if someone insists on going through all the hoops. We could save time and energy by closing it now, but that time and energy would be lost ten fold dealing with those complaining about the close. I suppose we let it finish and then end up closing it the same way. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I borrow your crystal ball? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't need a crystal ball to say the sun will rise in the morning. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And the numbers continue to support the expectation that the article will be kept: the last 12 !votes have been 11 Keeps and 1 Delete. I believe that makes the current totals 44 Keep (76%) and 14 Delete (24%). There's only one trend to be found there. A closing admin would have to find the delete arguments to be terribly persuasive and the keep arguments to be totally devoid of content to close this as "delete", and since that's not the case, I have little doubt that such a close would be overturned at DRV.

I agree with the choice to keep it open for the full time, even though it's clearly eligible for a WP:SNOW closing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned from the outset about the good faith of this nomination. I note that just before nominating this article for deletion, JohnWBarber wrote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration (which closed as a deletion):

I think Bigtimepeace's and TS's comments could also be made about that other AGW-related op ed piece masquarading as an encyclopedia article -- Climate change denial -- and it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold. (And, please, nobody throw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me -- this is the kind of argument that that essay suggests is a valid one.) [55]

He then posted the deletion nomination for Climate change denial - the article's fourth AfD nomination - with the following rationale, in its entirety:

This is an obvious POV fork. A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia policy on POV forks. [56]

I have to say this looks very much like an attempt to prove a point, specifically "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other." Numerous editors have commented on this in the AfD, criticising the nomination as frivolous, tendentious and POINTy. For what it's worth (not much IMO) JohnWBarber has posted a rather vitriolic response to these concerns here [57]. Since the same issue is being discussed here, I'd be interested to know what others think. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can still assume good faith with respect to JohnWBarber's nomination. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration and related discussion a number of editors pointed out that if Climate change exaggeration was to be deleted then Climate change denial should be as well since they were two sides of the same coin. Of course one can disagree with that, but it's a legitimate view to hold. I actually suggested to another editor (not John) that they nominate the "denial" article for AfD if they were concerned about it. While I can see why one would read the comment above about watching "editors sail through the sky, defying gravity" as a prelude to a a pointy exercise, I think it's better to read it as a side comment and assume that the main reason JohnWBarber nominated the article was simply that it needed to be deleted in his view. But this issue is already being discussed here so I don't think duplicating it on ANI is helpful. Also I think this thread is basically resolved at this point and should probably be marked as such. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've answered this same attack [[58]].

Of course, my statement was directed at POV pushers of any side and very broadly (hypocrisy is the other side of the same coin that POV pushing is on -- you can't POV push without being a hypocrite). No one was named, bad behavior was the target, and it was prospective, not pointing fingers at past actions. It was meant to get real POV pushers to stop in their tracks and think about what they're doing to themselves and to the encyclopedia -- something useful for this project.

ChrisO seems to like straining logic to see bad faith. He can't quite prove the bad faith he wants to prove, but it doesn't seem to stop him from reposting the same flawed argument in a new forum. It's obvious from the AfD that I have sufficient reason to be concerned enough to want to delete the article -- whether anyone agrees with me or not. I've said so very clearly, including at the earlier discussion referred to above. If I have sufficient reason, I have the right motivation -- obviously. And yet he repeatedly insists my motivations must be bad. He mentions the first one-line rationale I posted for the AfD (which itself showed proper motivation) and ignores the comment immediately below it (and all the other comments I made). Who's exhibiting bad faith here? From ChrisO's and other comments at the AfD that called for it to be shut down, from the attempt to close it early and from parts of this thread, it's obvious that there's a desperate, desperate yearning to shut off discussion about at least this part of the AGW articles. If the AfD is inevitably going to fail, and if no one needs to participate in a normal AfD, why this desperate need? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree it is getting more and more difficult to assume good faith, I still think it is possible to do so. Lets just let the AfD go on to its inevitable conclusion so that all doubt can be removed from John's mind as to what the result will be. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to correct myself about saying it is still possible to assume good faith. Despite my years of practice at AGF, this comment "and it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." makes it clear what his intentions are. I still think we should let it go to the end, if only to leave nothing to claim unfairness over. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's glaringly obvious that a person with good faith could make that statement and also simply believe the article is a POV fork. What part of This is an obvious POV fork. [59] don't you understand? Since the context of my comment, in terms of my motivations for the AfD, is obviously the reasoning, evidence, quotes from policy, other research I've given at the AfD, as I've stated over and over and over again, you're assuming any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, making an ill-considered accusation of impropriety, and quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. Clue. [60] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a paradoxical situation. These AFD nominations are clearly motivated by climate change denial. Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that I'm not a denialist, so quit the ABF. I'm not even a skeptic. I just believe in NPOV articles that don't violate WP:POVFORK. I'm actually a believer in AGW, although my belief is tepid, based largely on the scientific consensus. I don't claim to know the science, but I see no reason why most scientists would lie or be biased to the extent that the consensus seems to extend. I trust them. My trust is shaken a bit by the shenanigans at the IPCC and CRU, but that hasn't destroyed my trust. I supposed if I looked into the issue deeply enough and found enough evidence to call AGW into question, I might be a skeptic, but there seems to be a lot of data and scientists out there. People I respect, like Megan McArdle [61], David Frum [62] and Walter Russell Mead believe the same. What I don't favor is WP:POVFORK violations. Or biased articles. And this one is a lulu. I don't mean to soapbox, but you made the ABF accusation. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism accusation

Undefeatedcooler, a pure single purpose account (see user contributions), who has been stubbornly reverting the Bruce Lee article for the past two weeks has directed a racist tirade against me and some other users who were guilty of disagreeing with him:

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese":

• "His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Lee#Lead and categories:

• "“Bruce Lee was not Chinese”, that’s ridiculous. He was surely a Chinese person, I know there were a lot of anti-Chinese in America, but please put your bias and racism away." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Those were the key points for the lazy and stubborn people to read clearly. You are the one being immature, bullheaded and racist (anti-Chinese) with your insults and ignorant attitudes to this discussion page." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Editor notified of this discussion. -- Atama頭 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have informed him on the article talk not to call anyone racist or engage in personal attacks. I have also informed him that he can't use Wikipedia content to support his side of things, but only third party reliable sources and so on. SGGH ^ping! 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor has been warned twice about 3RR and has reverted four times in the past 24 hours (from 13:26 and 14:28 4 March, 12:59 and 13:18 5 March). I think a block is in order, because he's clearly not stopping, but I really don't want to file a 3RR report, because those things are time-consuming and I recall sometimes the backlog gets so huge that sometimes no block is issued. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked now (not by me), because of the 3RR breach. I responded to an earlier edit war complaint but at the time he had only reverted twice in 24 hours. Now that he has been blocked I hope that he realizes that he needs to cut it out (we'll see). -- Atama頭 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not up on the latest about Bruce Lee, but has anyone seriously argued that Lee was not Chinese? (I'm assuming here that Taiwanese=Chinese -- which, based on what I know of Lee, might be the case.) Even, I'm willing to accept in this case, an argument at the "Barak Obama is not an American citizen" level of seriousness? If no one, except this person, believes that to be the case, an indef block is the proper response. We have better things to do with our time than to deal with people who live on a world where the skies are not blue -- like this person. -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument was about citizenship, not ethnicity. The dispute was whether or not adding "Chinese" categories to the article was appropriate, when such categories are meant for citizens of the People's Republic of China. Bruce Lee was born in San Francisco and lived in Hong Kong for much of his life (including his formative years) at a time when Hong Kong was a British colony. I don't see anyone providing sources that show that Lee held citizenship in any country other than America. Bruce Lee is called a Chinese American in the lead of the article, and that certainly hasn't been a point of contention in these debates from what I can see.

However, that's not the problem, the problem is the characterization that those who deny adding these categories to the article are racist anti-Chinese, in violation of WP:NPA. That's frankly intolerable. Content dispute aside, taking such a stance against fellow editors is not allowed. -- Atama頭 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Um. This is one of those cases where it would have been nice had a little more information been supplied. (What I do know about Bruce Lee can be written down on the back of a 3x5 index card; it simply seemed obvious to me that he should be considered Chinese.) That way when an incident seems to be black-&-white to an outside party -- like me -- we can understand that it is a far more nuanced problem. (And keeps us from adding comments for which we feel foolish & apologetic about afterwards.) Nevertheless, I agree with your second paragraph, Atama: even if one disagrees with an existing decision -- such as in this case limiting "Chinese" categories only to citizens of the PRC -- it is not proper justification for calling people racist. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nabbing User:ScienceGolfFanatic

Well you all may know that I've gotten over 300 messages from this troll/sock puppeteer. In an effore to get rid of this guy, I;ve got a list of the ranges that he likely uses. (This is an exact copy of an old version of User:Soap's Sandbox.

IP ranges likely to have been used by ScienceGolfFanatic

• 65.92.124.0/22 (probably the "home" range)
• 69.156.124.0/23
• 64.231.200.0/22
• 64.231.11.0/24
• 209.221.64.0/18
• 67.68.33.0/24
• 67.68.34.49 (still unblocked and recently vandalised almost every sub-page of mine)

With the exception of the 67.68 group, the vast majority of edits from these ranges since May 2009 show all the signs of SGF's favorite editing behaviors. Prior to that, few if any are, as he was apparently using accounts with usernames during that time.

I'm requesting that a CU be done to actually determine if Soap's hunch was correct. If so, perhaps we can get rid of him (and his e-mail spamming habbits) for a while (at least until he finds another range or the block wears off.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The 67.68.xx.xx range would be a tough block, as it contains many legitimate users. The other ranges had virtually no other anonymous users besides SGF as of November, and although that could change any time, my understanding is that most of them are still blocked. But still, I think it would be a tough sell to try to get the bottom one blocked for any substantial length of time because it would trap others in. —Soap— 01:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For example (not a great example, I admit), this IP has SGF-like edits today, but 5 years ago there was somebody writing about Brahmins. —Soap— 01:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How can it be a tough sell when I've got over 300 (yes 300) messages in my inbox that are telling me that he knows where I live and what my birthdate is? I'm tired of being stalked and harrassed by the idiot. Time to end it once and for all. The very last IP needs to be blocked as it remains unblocked and all of it's edits are vandaliseing my pages. At least block all of the other ranges so he cannot create an sock and send another 300+ messages to me about how crappy my spelling is and how he thinks I'm a duche bag. And if someone can go over all of SGF's comfirmed socks and block their e-mail as well that would be nice.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the email harassment issues goes, might I suggest creating a new email account specifically for Wikipedia? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I know your birthdate and where you live. Your birthdate is a Wednesday and you live somewhere else. HalfShadow 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, HS it's not a Wednesday. And as for the e-mail. I have several e-mail addresses. The one that I use here is almost entirely for this site. Regardless, it gets really annoying after the 300th message.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he has a new range. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please get some administrator action over here. He's attempting to out me on my own talk page and it was deleted from the history. I want this to stop. NOW.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can count myself lucky to have received only 200 messages and he's obsessed with the idea that I have a pet-unicorn. In any case, I think the only way to make this stop is to permanently block all of Southern Ontario. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What total crap is he sending you? And If we need to block all of southern ontario to nab this guy, I'm all for us takeing this to the authorities. This is going way too far. Posting personal info about me (OUTING) and calling me a duche for 70+ e-mails should count as internet harrassment.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot recall what he sent me... something about unicorns again... but apparently he thought nv.wiki was an easy target with only 2 admins (one of them yours truly). On nv, I did block all off all of Southern ON (well, almost), but that's because the chances of someone up there speaking Navajo are infinitesimal. Chances of someone in ON speaking English are... well... reasonably high. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this is just great. We've got some loser of a Canadian in Ontario somewere who's taken a habit of pointing out my spelling mistkes and thinking that you love unicorns. God you must be some sick minded fool SGF. I'd bet that you waste your time here cause you cannot get a girl. Take my advice and actualy make something of your life rather than act like a dork.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 05:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Such comments aren't particularly helpful to getting anything done on this problem (if anything can be done, that is). Coldplay, as his email harassment seems to most directly affect you, I'd advise just disabling the email function. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, im not going to let this guy make me back down. I use that e-mail everyday for things about wikipedia. I can't disable it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to keep your email available, then it seems you'll have to deal with this. I'm no expert on IP ranges and the like, but if I understand the comments above correctly, you can't just block Southern Ontario. We love the Canadians too much. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism from User: Jonbobsmith

Resolved

 – User given final warning. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor, who was last blocked for vandalism in 2007, is now back and repeatedly vandalizing the Hall High School (Connecticut) article. Can someone check into this? Thanks -- Danieldis47 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has no block on his record and no current warnings on his talk page. His edits are a bit childish but exactly what do you want us to do? Maybe you could offer to help him. JodyB _talk 02:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Help him what, vandalize articles? Jonbobsmith has such helpful edits in his history as [63], [64], and [65]. I have left a warning on his talk page for the vandalism to the High School article. Being a child does not excuse vandalism. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that he was not blocked in 2007 - just warned. Hopefully, the new warning now on his Talk page, plus this mention here, will be enough. Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've elevated his warning based on his history from a 2 to a 3. Given the fact that this user has been warned in the past, he/she should know better. Interesting situation here, though. Does anyone share the thought that may be a possible compromised/shared account? Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty standard AIV. The elevated warnings will be visible to Hugglers now too, so this issue should be handled for now. Shadowjams (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their fine work on this! Danieldis47 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Gilabrand

Despite my warning him, Gilabrand continues to insert irrelevant, defamatory anti-Palestinian material sourced from hate sites (such as the Kahanist Masada 2000) into an unrelated article that I am working on in a nasty attempt to provoke me (I am Palestinian). Edits: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]

In one of the edit summaries he states "this is not any more disruptive than the rest of the article". He is well aware that what he is doing is wrong but he is proving a point. Factsontheground (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in the few differences you refer to. I do see incivility on you part for not notifying the user about this post.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be patient. I was just dealing with another matter. I notified him within ten minutes of writing this.

Please explain the relevance of Gilabrand's edits to that article. Factsontheground (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that it is hard to explain the relevance of any edits to an absolutely irrelevant article. What Gilabrand has done was just a reaction of a normal person at yet another anti-Israeli conspiracy theories article. In any case it is not the matter that should be discussed on AN/I.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So, because you don't like a given article that gives you carte blanche to spam in irrelevant hate propaganda? I guess I must have missed that rule when I read the Wikipedia guidelines Factsontheground (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whap!

Factsontheground - you have a long history of pushing this general agenda. You have an obvious and well known bias on this matter. Most of the time, what you are doing falls within our policies and the purpose of the encyclopedia, despite the bias and agenda. In this case, You were pushing outside the lines, and this has become disruptive.

I am torn between wanting to slap you with a trout, and seeing if there's support for a topic ban for you.

My immediate conclusion is: The Trout.

Please don't do this again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you want to do, George. Go ahead and block me again. I'm sure other admins will come along to undo your block as per usual and you'll just look bad. Your personal attacks on me for having a "obvious and well known bias" are simply not true, but as in the past I imagine you will repeatedly refuse to substantiate any of your accusations against me and simply threaten me with blocks to silence me.

And no, George, I will do this again the next time someone starts posting irrelevant, obscenely racist hate propaganda on an any article that I am editing and refuses to stop. You may think that Masada 2000 is a reliable source but most people would not agree. Factsontheground (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Factsontheground, first of all I do not believe that what was added to your article by Gilabrand is "hate propaganda". There's no more hate than in the article itself. IMO the edits that were done by Gilabrand were as relevant as the article itself, which means they both the edits and the article were irrelevant. The sequence of events was like that:first you wrote an irrelevant article, and then Gilabrand added irrelevant edits to already highly irrelevant article, which IMO is a reaction of a normal person to yet another Israeli and 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you don't like an article, use the AFD process. Don't spam in irrelevant hate propaganda. Factsontheground (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is reasonable evidence on hand that both the article topic and the added material are biased, albeit in opposite directions.

What you do often pushes the envelope towards WP:BATTLE - using Wikipedia to advocate for anti-Israeli positions. This is not new and not news. Gilabrand acts in an equivalent and diametrically opposed manner, as I am sure you will agree - also, not new, not news.

It is not appropriate for either of you to go beyond advocating a point, within the Wikipedia system and editorial goals and mission, and to escalate to either outright issue advocacy war (as you two both did on the article) or personal attacks (as you have done here on ANI).

You have - in those personal attacks - repeatedly insulted Gilabrand, and all the administrators who are responding to you here. This is at the very least unwise, and counterproductive.

Again - see the Trout above. What you did here was not acceptable. You are welcome to take the "...and please don't do it again" resolution. If you insist on escalating it, then you need to be aware of and prepared for the consequences. Neither Gilabrand nor you was in the right, but the actions so far don't breach the level that admins should have to take action. If you keep pushing here, you will breach that level.

Again - please stop. I have no wish to see you blocked here. But if you keep abusing us here, and Gilabrand, that's what's going to happen. You can hold any opinion you want on the admonishment here and my impartiality. But if you keep pushing buttons, one will be pushed back. Please take the opportunity to step back and move on to other topics without any lasting repurcussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

George, I don't agree that I and Gilabrand are equivalent. I strive to follow Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and I often write in advocacy of Israel or Israelis. Like many Wikipedians, I do write about Israel and Palestinian topics. I don't see that as any worse than writing about Greek or Italian or American or British topics.

I certainly didn't mean to personally attack anyone and I will happily remove the personal attacks if you point them out to me.

I also agree that no admin should have to take official action here. What I wanted was for an admin to politely ask Gilabrand to stop doing what he is doing, particularly during the AFD process. So is your advice just to put up with it, then, even when people are criticizing the article because of Gilabrand's edit and I can't remove them because of WP:3RR?

The irony here is that Masada 2000 is probably one of the most anti-semitic pages on the web. Factsontheground (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

George, this is the second time that you have come into an ANI I've filed against a disruptive user and claimed that I should be blocked just as long as the perpetrator. This is the second time your opinions have been rejected by your fellow admins. This is the second time you've attacked and threatened me without providing any constructive criticism as to what I'm doing wrong. Please don't let there be a third. Factsontheground (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict) About Masada 2000. The site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, so the user had the rights to refer to it. I read at least some info that the user added to your articles in published books that have nothing to do with Masada 2000. IMO the user was very hurt by the lies and propaganda provided in your article. Please do not worry about anti-Semitic sites, you have enough to worry about already, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example. Could we please mark that thread as "resolved" now before somebody is blocked?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If Masada 2000 is not blacklisted then it ought to be, as it's basically a far-right screed sheet. Even ignoring the fact that it's an ultra-right-wing propaganda piece, it does not appear to satisfy the Reliable Sources guideline. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but in any case this board is not the right place to request it to be blacklisted.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am marking a matter as resolved now, if somebody disagree, please feel free to remove the template. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Info:I did mark the matter as resolved, but User:Factsontheground has chosen to remove the template, which is of course his/her right to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both should let an uninvolved administrator do that in this case. I see nothing wrong with discussing whether a source is reliable or not here, as it seems to pertain to the central discussion. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not look at Gilabrand's edits and so am not commenting on them. I'm just struck by the appalling comments of Mbz1 written above. The fact that an article is in poor shape does not entitle anyone to break the rules in editing it. And the statement "The site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, so the user had the rights to refer to it." is in complete contradiction to policy as given by WP:RS. Zero^talk 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand refuses to respond to us so we can assume that he is going to continue being disruptive. And GeorgeWilliamHerbert has come out of the blue to make a great number of threats/allegations against me without explanations or supporting evidence. He did this last time he blocked me (which was rescinded after other admins stepped in) so he needs to answer my questions before this is resolved. Factsontheground (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@zerowithzeros :)I did not say that the article is in "poor shape". I said that the article is full of bogus, original research, lies and propaganda, and I said that I could understand Gilabrand wish to have his/her say on it. I repeat one more time, if the site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia,the user had the rights to refer to it. It is for community to decide, if the site is or is not a reliable source.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What George said about the user is right. The user is here to fight WP:BATTLE--Mbz1 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that I agree that the site in question is racist, ultra-right wing, and most decidedly not a WP:RS. No one should be citing it for anything. I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to leave a polite note for Gilabrand about WP:POINT and WP:RS. Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at Gilabrand's edits, it is clear that they are entirely out of place, including describing accepted history of the Arab refugees as a scam on the one hand, and anti-semitic (anti-Jewish) screeds on the other. The idea appears to be that "this article is crap, so I will throw some completely irrelevant garbage because it smells just as bad as the other crap." This is not an accepted or productive style of editing, and Factsontheground has good reason to complain - just as others have a right to complain about the article itself by the ordinary AfD procedure. Of course Masada2000, a site that goes out of its way to be defamatory, will hardly ever be an appropriate source for an encyclopedia.John Z (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Gilabrand for disruptive WP:POINT violations in editing the article. I also agree that the article in the form written by Factsontheground is a disruptive WP:COATRACK/WP:OR piece; whether these defects are obvious and severe enough to justify a block of Factsontheground for tendentious/disruptive editing I'd like to leave open for further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, if Masada2000 is a defamatory in your opinion, you should nominate it for black listing, and this is not the right pace do do it. User Gilabrand has found the deletion request now, and voted there. The user stopped editing the article in question few hours ago. So any sanctions applied to the user at the moment are punitive.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not policy. Just because a site has not been blacklisted does not mean it is ok to be used as a source. If this were the case, then any blog or random website could be used also. Read WP:RS. That site you're referring to is a Kahanist-extremist and anti-semitic hate screed. It isn't any more reliable than Stormfront or the Westboro Baptist Church's website. Defamation has nothing to do with it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, thank you for taking action to resolve this so we can all move on. I must say, though, that it was my impression that only editors (and not articles) could be "disruptive", since WP:DISRUPTION is a behavioural guideline, not a content guideline. If I act inappropriately then I can understand being blocked, and I invite you to point out any disruptive behaviour by myself so I can correct it, but it seems odd to block me for writing material and then following Wikipedia processes to resolve the content issues. Factsontheground (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, writing bad content may be a mere error of judgment that can be corrected through normal editing. However, writing obviously bad content – i.e. bad enough that any reasonable neutral onlooker must recognise it is unacceptable in terms of NPOV or NOR rules – in fact is disruptive behaviour. Whether the bad content in this case rises to that level is just what I wanted to see discussed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd that you would consider this as a possibility, given that there are at least 4 votes to keep by experienced Wikipedians (not counting myself) in the AFD (which has only be listed for less than 24 hours) as well as a great deal of debate. Surely an "obviously" bad article would be unanimously rejected in the AFD dicussion without much debate? Factsontheground (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article but thought I'd note that almost anything politically inclined within the Arab-Israeli conflict will automatically get promotion and support from "the usual suspects". I don't plan on checking the AFD in discussion but I trust that if Fut.Perf. can see a problem, then there most probably is one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban of Gilabrad

I agree with the assessment by Future Perfect at Sunrise and John Z above. The cited edits of Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Israeli art student scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), notably [73], are in violation of WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, in that they add material that is (a) entirely unrelated to the subject of the article (which is incidents of alleged art fraud in the USA), (b) intended to advance a non-neutral point of view in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (c) with the apparent purpose of drawing attention to the perceived non-neutrality or other defects of the rest of the article. In WP:ARBPIA#Purpose of Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee held that "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." But this is exactly the sort of conduct that Gilabrand engaged in with these edits. He was previously, in 2008, notified of the abovementioned arbitration case. Consequently, to prevent continued disruption of this sort, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning Gilabrand from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.) This ban may be enforced with blocks or additional sanctions as necessary.

This sanction should not be construed as me expressing an opinion about the merits of the article, or about the conduct of Factsontheground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or other people, and does not prevent other uninvolved administrators from taking whatever action they may deem necessary with respect to the article or other editors.  Sandstein  22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Those edits were totally unacceptable. Fences&Windows 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Three months? Other consistently disruptive editors don't even get a slap. Gilabrand is actually a proven productive contributor to WP, expanding articles, improving them, and frankly, that recent edit so uncharacterisitc of her anyway. The 48 hour bblock was harsh enough, three months is absurdly disproportional. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because if an editor had used stormfront as a source for anything at all that editor would, rightly, have been banned. A racist propaganda site was repeatedly used by Gila as a source in an article, making absurd claims that are easily disproved by actual reliable sources. I agree with you that Gila is a proven productive editor, but this was ridiculous. nableezy - 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for user:Vexorg

I propose a topic ban for user:Vexorg for all the articles that mention Jews or Arab terrorist organizations. The user often edits music related or plant related articles, but as soon as the user touches articles on the above topics, it edit become disruptive, POV and violation WP:BLP Here's only few differences of the edit history of the user:

1. removing well sourced info from Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe
2. removing well sourced info from Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe
3. nominating the same article for deletion
4. removing well sourced information from a sensitive article
5. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
6. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
7. Pushing POV; also violates wp:BLP
8. POV pushing
9. restoring unsoursed info
10. restoring bogus quotes in Henry Kissinger in the violation of WP:BLP
11. removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic
12. and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic
13. the edit from today, which demonstrates that the user is seeing nothing wrong in it edit pattern

Those are only very few differences. I could provide many more on request, but IMO the picture is clear.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by veorg This user is clearly trying to mount a personal campaign against me. I have just reported him for edit warring here after I removed his POV edits on an article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mbz1_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 - The fact he has kept a record sheet and claims .... "I could provide many more on request" means he is clearly stalking me. Nearly all those issues he/she lists above have long since been put to bed. And some of them are absurd. 12. is in regards to a sensible discussion on a talk page and 13. is a comment about it here!!! The rest are mostly very innocuous. Is that the kind of editor you want on Wikipedia. Someone who seems more interested in vendettas against other editors? I won't waste any more time on this editor's personal hangups. The articles themselves deserve attention instead. Vexorg (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

just to add: I gave the user Mbz1 notice I had reported him for edit warring and he didn't take it seriously and deleted it by writing it off as a rant http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=347858549 Vexorg (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Him"?? - Alison ^❤ 06:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

'her' then. It makes no difference to me what sex a person is. Would 'it' be better? Alternatively please replace all instances of 'him' with 'him/her' and he with 'he/she'. Isn't it better to concentrate on the editing issues? Vexorg (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Him" is not a problem, no need to replace anything. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This conflict is getting really absurd. Unbelievable!! Mbz1, unless I'm missing something, there's no obvious indication of what sex you are of your page. Had there been I would have addressed you accordingly. Whatever. Is there an administrator out there who is more interested in resolving things than being worried about what sex people are? Vexorg (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of verbiage as a result of a one-word comment pointing out the inherent bias in one's perceptions and it's important to set the record straight, especially given that so few of Wikipedia contributors are women :( - Alison ^❤ 07:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

there was no intentional bias. It was simply an innocuous label because I'm more interested in resolving the conflict of editing than worrying what sex editors are. I would expect an administrator to resolve the editing issues before worrying about some hang up about a perceived gender inequality in wikipedia Vexorg (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 is one of the most prolific contributors of featured pictures at Wikimedia Commons. There she is often referred to as "Mila", per her user page. :) Durova⁴¹² 02:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) You and me both, sister. Someone called me him yesterday too.

Neutral Comment - "Keeping a record sheet" (as mentioned above) and being able to provide "diffs" is hardly evidence of stalking. It doesn't take more than an hour or two at best to fully explore an average editor's history on WP, as all edits that user ever created are quite available to the entire world, forever. A really good researcher can gain a great understanding of a user's behavior pattern pretty quickly on a totally unknown editor (even a longstanding one). Hope this clears some things up :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

none the less there is history with this editor and myself. I voted to delete an article that this editor had spent a lot of time on. it's more complicated than you might think. Vexorg (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing's simple, Vexorg, and I am neutral precisely because I don't know the history between you two (though I may look into it ;>) But, "The fact he has kept a record sheet and claims .... "I could provide many more on request" means he is clearly stalking me." does not mean he is stalking you. Other factors might, but not this... Doc9871 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I cannot support a topic ban at this time. I will admit the diffs provided are problematic, and I encourage User:Vexorg to consider adjusting editing behavior. However, what User:Mbz1 fails to mention is that Vexorg has been active in discussion on the articles' talk pages, while I fail to see that same evidence from Mbz1. Furthermore, I see little evidence of attempts to contact Vexorg regarding this problem outside of enforcement (i.e., WP:AN3). I cannot support a topic ban where the user's problematic behavior has not previously been discussed thoroughly in an attempt at reformation and while the user has been active on the article talk pages. If I am missing evidence please feel free to point me to it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No wonder you fail to see the same evidences from me. The only article I was involved with user was Rothschild family.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that only causes me to consider opposing further. If the active editors on the article don't have a particular problem with this user, and are communicating on the talk page to resolve issues, then I don't see how I can support a topic ban at this time. Even if you aren't active on those pages, if you consider these diffs to be problematic, then I would rather have seen some kind of discussion on the user's talk page, showing these diffs and asking for change in behavior. If that discussion goes south, then perhaps a topic ban can be considered, but I really can't support it as the first step in dispute resolution. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay how about that::I cannot understand where you coming from when you're saying "little evidence of attempts to contact Vexorg regarding this problem outside of enforcement" Have you seen the user talk page by any chance?

1. obsession with Al-Qaeda
2. BLP
3. edit warring]
4. Henry Kissinger
5. do not add "British Jews" category

and so on, and so on, and so on. Practically all the edits at the topics I mentioned are disruptive, involve slow edit warring and violation of common sense and WP:BLP --Mbz1 (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, however I don't consider this particularly problematic. Talk pages are going to have some dispute; that's what they're for – to promote discussion. If there were evidence of repetitive behavior and unresponsiveness to the problems after being contacted on his/her talk page, then I could consider a topic ban, but not right now. It is simply too soon. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah,Shirik, I am afraid you do not see what I am saying. The user talk page contains a warning over a warning over a warning. There's practically nothing, but warnings at the user talk page. There are warnings about wp:BLP, yet today the user violates it yet another time and time again [74]. If it is not repetition of behavior the user was warned about few times, what is?Still, Shirik, I'd like to thank you for taking your time to comment here --Mbz1 (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No I do see what you're saying, but I don't agree with how problematic you consider it. The editor is involved in controversial topics; there are bound to be editors that disagree and there will be problems from time to time. But the sheer lack of frequency of these "major problems" combined with the responsiveness to discussions like at User talk:Vexorg#AfD_nomination_of_Criticism_of_YouTube leads me to think that, should this topic ban be considered, the overall issue should have been directly discussed with the user first. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The following section is in response to User:Vexorg above, but its placement here is retained for continuity --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It has nothing to do with the user voting to delete the article, few others did, including, but not limited the user, who nominated it to be deleted. The post has also nothing to do with the user reporting me for edit warring. It is the user notorious agenda, which made me report the user here.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please take no offense to this, but you've just left me confused, and I think your edit conflict is to blame – was this second part meant as a response to me or a response to the section above? The tabulation and content seems to suggest it was a response to User:Doc9871 instead of me, contrary to where this comment was placed. I'm just trying to understand better. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry,Shirik, the comment you refer to was made in response to the comment made by Vexorg , when the user claimed I posted because the user voted to delete my article.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tying two back-to-back open AN/I's together? Will a third be created shortly? Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Was that comment inappropriate? Factsontheground (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't inappropriate at all; you've done nothing wrong there. I'm just wondering if the above incident isn't directly tied (same content content and editors) to this thread. You two are in conflict in the above thread. Opening multiple threads between similar editors and content before at least one is resolved is like "clogging the arteries"... Doc9871 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was inappropriate. Your comment has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You clearly have some kind of conflict going on with Mbz1 bringing your disagreement, and disparaging remarks down to this thread does nothing to further the discussion toward resolution. You are either part of the solution, part of the problem, or irrelevant. When it comes to this thread I would suggest that your comments are at best irrelevant to the discussion, and at worst baiting.--Adam in MO Talk 08:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I should've put a ;> after "nothing wrong there"... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see enough evidence here for a topic ban. You both are involved in contentious article disputes. I think more evidence is needed of disruptiveness. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The "well-sourced info" about Al Qaeda in Europe is actually sourced to opinion in a July 2003 analysis from "The Centre for Peace in the Balkans", a November 2001 editorial in The Wall Street Journal Europe and July 2005 comments by Richard Holbrooke. None of these are reliable sources for statements of fact. When Vexorg nominated this article for deletion in September, it was a stub. None of this warrants sanctions. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The user removed entire sections, they are now in the article.--09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will try one more time. Let's forget about Al-Qaeda. I cannot care less about them. Let's talk about the user agenda towards Jews. Let's for example take

Henry Kissinger article

Please see here the user was warned on it talk page in October

Please see here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few months later.

Please see here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few days later.

It is the same pattern for almost all the user user contributions at the topic including, but not limited to Rothschild family. I strongly believe the Wikipedia will benefit, if the user should be topic banned, and topic banned now.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not A "Vote" Here, but I would certainly "Oppose" - "Strongly believing" WP would "benefit" (not "would stop harming WP") a topic ban now needs a far better argument, I think. Demanding action without excellent evidence to support that action isn't the best way to win a topic ban, I'm afraid. Any other opinions out there? Doc9871 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed to have my own opinion, and to express it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Possible compromise - These issues obviously transcend what can be done here, a massive understatement in general. Insofar as these issues can be dealt with on individual articles, they should be. If they transcend those articles, or encompass a wide berth of similar articles, I understand the appeal to this forum. I'm not one to decide anything here, but I would suggest both parties try and at the least and determine where they disagree, on an article-by-article basis. If that process is totally broken then you should indicate that here, but ideally everyone will continue to discuss this on the appropriate pages. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - I absolutely think discussing these things on the appropriate pages is exactly what should be done... Doc9871 (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Not agree As I have proven on the example with Henry Kissinger article this approach does not work. Please also notice that I am involved with the user on a single article only.Everybody disagrees with the user, as it is seen from the user talk page, but the user continues to push it POV.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So, based on your experience on one article with this editor, you are requesting a topic ban. Is this correct? Doc9871 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (crickets chirping) Anytime on the topic ban comments. I shudder to think every time I had a disagreement on a page that warranted a "topic ban" (there have been a few ;>). But that's just me , ya know :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Practically every time user:Vexorg is touching an article that has some connection to a Jew, Jews, or the persons user:Vexorg believes are Jews there's either WP:BLP violation and/or wp:POV and/or edit warring, and/or vandalism". It is disappointing that nobody sees or does not want to see the problem with the user agenda, but whatever.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban A virulent anti-Jewish, bias seems to permeate user:Vexorg's work here, seems to have an overwrought anger as well...Modernist (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having a bias is hardly reason to topic ban someone from a contentious topic. Topic bans should be brought on for persistant and disruptive failure to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I have no familiarity with this case, so I cannot say whether or not Vexorg is being disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban, but I sure want to see better reasons than "he has a viewpoint that doesn't agree with mine". Buddy431 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buddy, may I please ask you, if you did not read or did not understand what I stated above? Or you do not consider WP:BLP violation and/or wp:POV and/or edit warring, and/or vandalism" as a disruptions? What more evidences you'd like to see?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly WP:BLP violations, WP:POV, and edit warring violate both guidelines and policy...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was refering exclusively to Modernist's comment directly preceding mine (though my post could probably be applied to some of the other comments in this thread as well). Like I said, I have no interest in this case, and don't care enough to find out. I do feel strongly that the rational provided for !votes should give reasons for topic banning that are actually banable offenses, rather than a generic "he's biased". Buddy431 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - The diffs seem to show good-faith editing, no worse than any editor trying to incorporate balancing material here and there. Many editors have biases, the key is simply working things out in the Talk page and ensuring that the content ends up neutral and balanced. It is no crime to edit articles on, say, England/Ireland with nothing but positive content on England. And it is no crime to edit articles on England/Ireland with nothing but negative content on England. (Disclaimer: as an editor that has done lots of editing on the topic of Criticism of religion I have frequently been accused of anti-Mormon, antisemitic, and anti-Christian bias). Many editors have limited time to work on WP, and simply choose to contribute in a narrow area. That area may be offensive to other editors, but the fact that the editing is limited to one area is no reason for a topic ban. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, could you please explain why you consider these wp:blp violations from a single article edit history to be a "good-faith editing" [75];[76];[77];[78][79];[80],[[81]--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

mbz1: can you double check those diffs? The ones you posted here are very benign. If those are the correct diffs, and you have concerns about their appropriateness, can you show the Talk page diffs where you tried to reconcile the concern? --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the differences presented here were reverting of other users. I got to the article only few days ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the offensive accusation of racism by Modernist above An accusation of racism is a serious one. I ask that Modernist retracts his/her claim that I have "virulent anti-Jewish, bias" - I have no prejudices against anyone becuase of their race ethnicity, etc and such a false claim offensive. I don't spend valuable time editing Wikipedia to be subjected to personal attacks by those who might have some political agenda I would also ask what agenda Modernist has for making such a false claim. Vexorg (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic[82] and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic[83] show Vexorg's agenda clearly enough. I'd support placing Vexorg on a 1R restriction on Jews, Zionist and Judaism, broadly construed, their edit warring has gone far enough. Fences&Windows 19:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Zionist Movement is a political organisation and not a race. The ZOG maybe a conspiracy, but it's ZOG not JOG and there not anti-semitic. It's worth noting Fences that Zionism isn't mutually inclusive with Jews and in fact many Jews a very against the ideology of Zionism. To accuse me of anti-semitism is false and offensive. My only agenda is accuracy on Wikipedia. Calling ZOG an anti-semitic CT is IMO wrong. t oaccuse me racism for that is below the belt. But then the race card is shown regularly by thiose who support Zionism. Vexorg (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Zionist Occupation Government" is most definitely an anti-semitic conspiracy theory and the term itself originated with and is associated with the Neo-Nazi movement in the US. Splitting hairs over the fact that "Zionist" isn't the same thing as "Jewish" in this particular context is basically akin to when the Neo-Nazis insist that they're not "White Power" but "just" "White Pride" - it's a meaningless distinction for all intents and purposes, except propaganda by these groups themselves. Having said that I have no idea if Vexorg is familiar enough with the history of the term or s/he's just engaging in some original research. It could be s/he just got confused by the terminology, since these extremist groups often do use "codewords" to obfuscate their actual ideology. At any rate, removing the fact that it is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory does raise one's eyebrows.radek (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but one of those diffs is a candid discussion on a Talk page, and the other was removing a qualifier to a link, where the linked article abundantly describes the qualifier. I see no smoking gun here. But, as you are proposing the milder 1RR rather than a more severe topic ban, the threshold is not so high. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remember those are only differences from a single article I was involved in. There are few more like those, for example, as the one I mentioned above Henry Kissinger article

1. here the user was warned on it talk page in October
2. here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few months later.
3. here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few days later.

I would agree for 1RR ban for the user to see, if the user edit pattern will improve.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

mbz1: can you double-check those diffs? On that Talk page discussion, I see no mention of the BLP policy at all. I do see some discussion of Quotation policy, and neutrality policy. Is that what you are referring to? But user Vexorg _did_ engage in a discussion on the Talk page, I think with just one other editor, and I don't see that any consensus was achieved. I may not agree with Vexorg's edits, but it looks like he/she was trying to add some (well-sourced) content into the article. Have you tried engaging Vexorg on the Talk page of the Kissinger article to try to achieve a compromise? --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The edits the user has added to Henry Kissinger are gone, were removed not by me, but few others, so there's nothing more to engage about. I am going to make a section break for a new proposal of 1RR edit restriction. There are more than enough differences to support that measure at the very least.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see the user Mbz1 is not going to give up on his/her obsessive personal vendetta against me. Obviously realising his original claim has been largely demolished by consensus, Mbz1 is now stating he/she will mount another, predictably long winded, attempt to have my editing restricted simply because my edits conflict with his political views. Vexorg (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear indication that the user Mbz1 is mounting a personal campaign against me here 1 Mbz1 has inserted the following reason [ #12 ] at the top of this section as part of his argument that I should be banned from editing certain topics 12. and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic for proposing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-Semitic - This is a discussion on a talk page, and not even an article edit, never mind disruptive editing, POV editing and violation of article editing, as he his claiming. The user Mbz1 clearly has both a personal and political agenda here. Far from recently being disruptive here I actually gave Mbz1 the last word on the Rothschild Article that caused Mbz1's current obsessive campaign and took it to the talk page. Mbz1isn't IMO interested in a better Wikipedia but more interested in chasing after those who make edits that oppose his political opinion. The amount of effort he has put in here in trying to demonize me speaks volumes Vexorg (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear indication that the user Mbz1 is mounting a personal campaign against me here 2 - now Mbz1 has added yet anotherindication of his/her personal agenda to his every growing obsessive list at the top of this section by adding a quote from my comments in this article ... 13. the edit from today, which demonstrates that the user is seeing nothing wrong in it edit pattern. I am finding Mbz1 political and personal campaign against me getting more and more obsessive by the minute Vexorg (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Analysis of two more non-arguments by Mbz1 - has two non-arguments to his/her ever growing list 5. and 6. respectively.

• 5. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
• 6. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there

Is anyone taking Mbz1 seriously any more? I am finding it very difficult and it is very tedious to keep having to defend myself against such an obsessive tirade. The only reason I added British Jews AND English Jews on these articles is becuase I'd seen the two categories together on many other articles and though that was a traditional Wikipedia thing. England is a subset of British so there's of duplication. same as, for example, describing someone as both European and French. There's NOTHING in those two arguments that supports Mbz1 charges of !disruptive, POV and violation!. Another example of him/her scraping the barrel to boost a personal campaign Vexorg (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg - to be sure I have no agenda except that I don't like bias of any kind, I am willing to take your word, I accept your explanation and your assertion that you are not anti-Jewish and I apologize to you if I have either hurt or offended you. I am willing to take you at your word, assuming your edits will reflect fairness, open-mindedness and lack an agenda of your own...Modernist (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted Modernist - if I ever make an anti-Jewish edit then feel free to report me for it. But I can assure you that has never happened and will never happen. I see no logic in being prejudiced against anyone for their race/ethnicity regardless of the immorality of it. I only make judgements based on people's behaviour. Vexorg (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Turian's Proposal

I have been keeping an eye on this ever since it started to erupt into a crazy war of "I'm right." From what I have seen and read, MBz1's intentions seemed to be based (and mired) in the fact that he has a severe disagreement with Vexorg. Yeah, I know, stating the obvious. Keeping in mind that I am a completely neutral party in this matter, here is my proposal:

1. Mbz1 is banned for one month from editing any article which Vexorg has edited. This includes anything to do with Henry Kissinger, the Zionist Movement, or any Israeli/Jewish topic. He is permitted to talk and discuss possible edits on the talk pages, but is placed on a strict no tolerance policy of name calling, accusations, or any other form of disparagement against any editor. (This is mainly due to the virulent nature Mbz1 has taken in his attempts to "resolve" this.)
2. Vexorg is permitted to edit articles but is strongly advised to cooperate with Mbz1 in an attempt to portray a neutral point of view on the previously named articles. Any remarks are to remain civil, and any failure to do so will place him underneath the same topic ban.
3. Both editors are prohibited from editing the other editor's talk page, especially in the case of handing out warnings.
4. After the month is over, Mbz1 is placed on a 1RR for any edits made by Vexorg (the same goes for Vexorg) for the following 3 months.
5. If any of these restrictions are violated, a block at the discretion of any administrator will suffice.

Of course, I am not an administrator, but the argument seems like a massive paradox of actions. If anyone has a better alternative, feel free to make your suggestions, but at the current rate, these two are going to gnaw at each other until something bad happens. These prohibitions are aimed at calming them down. –Turian (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just wonder, if you've ever realized that I was involved with the other party only on a single article, while the other party was involved with other editors on quite a few other articles over and over and over again? For example, there's nothing for me to edit in Henry Kissinger. The sanity was restored by others. As a matter of fact I have never edited the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm making sure you don't find a loophole in the process. I am well aware of the circumstances. –Turian (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • If you are "well aware of the circumstances" and propose to ban me on Jewish related articles while allowing the other party to edit, I have no more questions for you. Warm regards, and thank you for the nice laugh.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Your ploy has no ground here, I'm afraid, nor does you constant disrespect of other members. –Turian (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break: 1RR restriction on user:Vexorg

Few other editors suggested 1RR edit restriction for the user, so I'd like to put it in as an alternative measure.Please notice that the measure offered here is not because of edit-warring but because of edit-warring + wp:POV + WP:BLP

• Support The evidences of disruptive editing presented above, no need to repeat--Mbz1 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This implies you did nothing wrong, so I cannot support it. –Turian (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully things then settle down...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• exposing untruth by Mbz1 Mbz1 said "Few other editors suggested" - that's not the case: One other user suggested a 1RR on me. another user suggested a 1RR on both of us. Vexorg (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• user talking about 1RR on you only and here's one more. If we are to add to those two User:Modernist, who has supported the complete topic ban above and before, we will get "few users".--Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • no that's the one I have already mentioned. There is only two. Vexorg (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • NO! only two users supported a 1RR at the time you created this section break. It's easy to go back to the state of this discussion at the time you created this section break. Please stop telling untruths to make your point. They are easily exposed Vexorg (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support/Comment The user Mbz1 is not only mounting a personal vendetta against me, but the few legitimate instances of edit warring I've been a part of in the past have already been addressed and I have already received temporary suspensions for them. It seems Mbz1 wants me punished twice. the rest of his arguments listed at the top of this section are either really innocuous or absurd Vexorg (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are not allowed to vote here I am afraid. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support- It will be good for him in the end.., the edit 3RR report could also be actioned and they both appear to have violated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - At the very least Stellarkid (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Should give it some time to calm down. Although I'd like to see some measures taken against Mbz1 as well, as they seem to be almost as guilty (of edit warring if nothing else). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Turian.
• Support - looks like a sensible measure - Alison ^❤ 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a two way street. You can't seriously only sanction one member in a dispute that has erupted into something rather ridiculous, can you? –Turian (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Both editors have been edit-warring, IMO, but this editor also has POV and BLP issues going on. As I see it, Mbz1 saw herself as reverting BLP issues, action which is largely covered per policy - Alison ^❤ 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • and you are ignoring Mbz1's clear personal vendatta against me? It's also worth noting that User:Alison has amde a meal out of the fact I called Mbz1 a 'he' and ranted about male/female inequality on my talk page regarding it. Vexorg (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Good grief already. I need a rollseyes emoticon - Alison ^❤ 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I respectfully suggest you made yourself biased in this discussion. Vexorg (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It takes two to edit war. In response to Alison, Mbz1 has an unique interpretation of WP:BLP; yesterday she accused an editor of violating BLP on an article's Talk page when he described a political party as racist and proto-fascist. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Malik, it requires at least two editors to edit warring, but it requires only one to make such an edit: removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic. It requires only one editor to make the edits like those [84];[85];[86];please notice the edit summary;[87]. Needless to say that only those very few edits that BTW were all reverted, are rather a good reason for concern. Once again I would have never proposed neither a topic ban, not 1RR restriction, if there was not such a big history of the edits I linked to above.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• support The evidence presented here are quite disturbing. Broccoli (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• While this isn't a vote, I would oppose this sanction. In particular, I am unhappy that Mbz1 has chosen to come directly to AN/I without attempting to resolve the issues first on the user's talk page. In addition, while the link mentioned in the above comment is unfortunate, anyone clicking the 'Protocols' link in the article would clearly see the nature of the work in question; thus I believe the argument can be made that its removal, whilst likely detrimental to the article, is wholly insufficient to support the sanctions that Mbz1 is attempting to impose, and would urge her to discuss this with Vexorg on his talk page. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you by any chance seen the user talk page? If you did, and still believe that something could be resolved with the user, you are an optimist, I am afraid I am not.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Had you made a good-faith attempt to discuss with Vex, and failed, I would be more likely to agree with you. As you felt it appropriate to completely and arbitrarily bypass this standard step in dispute resolution, I'm not. I did, of course, look at the talk page, and see several messages from a user who seems to be in an ongoing long-term dispute, some notifications including an AfD (which failed), a long and completely irrelevant discussion about gender and a few other discussions where Vex has responded to every comment. Which one of the above demonstrates a blatant unwillingness to discuss issues? Ale_Jrb^talk 01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the user did respond to the comments, but nothing has changed, as I have shown on Henry Kissinger example. Few times the user added controversial quotations to the article, few times it was removed, the user responded the comments at the talk page, and... few months later posted the thing back to the article, and of course it was removed once again (none of the edits was done by me) BTW about engagement - the user reported me first to the edit-warring board. I have absolutely no problems with that at all. I believed and I still do I was removing the violation of wp:BLP, when I changed "were and are" to "were" and other things. If I am mistaking, I am more than ready to accept whatever ban, whatever sanctions I deserve. The problem I have with the user is not about edit warring, it is something much more serious than that IMO. Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from Vexorg to Mbz1's sinister comments above Mbz1 said "The problem I have with the user is not about edit warring, it is something much more serious than that IMO." - So tell us Mbz1 what is this much more serious thing? It is clear from this ridiculous tirade that you are COMPLETELY OBSESSED WITH ME!! You have not once attempted to reconcile your differences with me by talking to me. You start this campaign with THIRTEEN instances of edits at the the top of this article most of which either innocuous, untruths and ridiculously cite a well meant argument of mine on a talk page. What on earth is that all about? I made a well reasoned case on an article's talk page and you are using that as a reason to put sanctions on me? You are seriously making yourself look foolish here. Let's look at edit number 10. which you call "restoring bogus quotes" -The quotes are not bogus they were sourced. the contention on that Henry Kissinger article was about the inclusion of a 'Quotes' Section, not the validity of the Quotes. You are being severely disingenuous. Point 13. is a reference to part of my comments here!! What on earth is that all about? point number 9, was info that was in the TV documentary itself. When I get time IS shall watch the recording I have of it and restore that material sourcing it's position in the program. The program is already notable enough. it is quite clear your campaign against me is not in good faith. You have already admitted here that you support a 'cause' of POV editing on Wikipedia and even applauded another editor for getting a ban for it. To wit: OK just to add..... :Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause! Enjoy your break. Best wishes ... is pretty indicative of why Mbz1 edits Wikipedia. Mbz1 why cannot you be honest and tell what your real agenda is here. Because whatever it is it's certainly not for the good of Wikipedia Vexorg (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, one bran new revert from today [88] that was reverted (not by me) [89] soon after. Somebody would tell me there's nothing bad in that revert, and I would have agreed, if there was no that revert removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic and many others like that.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

comment by Vexorg in response to Mbz1 immediately above - Yes I reverted one time what was a removal of properly sourced information. When I reverted I added 'see talk' and [immediately created a discussion section on the talk page] explaining why I reverted. I since returned to the article only to find the the user who originally removed the material user:Plot Spoiler had reverted it a second time, ignored the talk page, and gave no proper rationale for his reversion in the edit comments. I have [contacted Plot Spoiler on his/her talk page] to make him/her aware of the situation and to please discuss the article on the talk page. I also noticed that Mbz1 has [recently contacted Plot Spoiler] in order to boost her personal campaign against me. Ask yourseves why she is contacting editors about articles where there is no problems ( I have gone through the proper procedures of initial discussion with no edit warring ) and which is nothing to do with her vendetta here. Vexorg (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, I think you should consider dropping the stick and backing away from the horse. Unomi (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as per Malik Shabazz, but maybe a two-revert rule restriction would be a lot fairer? Minimac (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support To say Vexorg has issues playing nicely with other children doesn't begin to describe it. He's a highly experienced edit warrior, and I don't mean that as a compliment (anybody who likes is invited to check his blog log, which is ginormous). My previous interactions with this editor have been uniformly negative, and frequently consist of damage control. A 1RR restriction is long overdue. Ray^Talk 08:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is ignoring the personal vendetta by [[User:Mbz1] becuase he/she is obviously more interested in pushing his/her own prejudices about me. User:RayAYang has a personal agenda. I am happy for unbiased editors to check my logs on Wikipedia. I have nothing to hide. I've always admitted to getting embroiled in edit wars in the past. But they were done with best of intentions for Wikipedia. I have already been punished for my previous infractions. It's unfair to be punished twice just becuase the user Mbz1 has an exponentially expanding obsession with me. All I ask is that other editors commenting here pay attention to Mbz1's seemingly unhealthy obsession. I have made over 3,500 edits on Wikipedia. All with the most sincere of intentions. it's sad to be faced with people who have a political agenda. Vexorg (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - 1 week block and long term 1RR - per my notes on the AN3,[90] and my review on Vexorg's commentary and activity in relation to the Protocols libel - and his extensive block history over edit warring. Mbz1 should probably be given a one week topic ban for both her tone issues and the edit-warring with Vexorg. I'd suggest a 72hr block on her but there is some real BLP concern that should have at least been properly discussed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC) fix 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Vexorg's commentary and activity in relation to the Protocols libel" - So you admit you are using personal reasons for supporting sanctions against me. That's OK. At least you are honest. My commentary here is necessary to defend myself. never before have I witnessed such an obsessive crusade by an editor user:Mvz1. What an I suppose to do, laydown and this editor make all kinds of allegations and launch personal attacks for let's be honesty here because I have made edits that have been contrary to her political agenda. Vexorg (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure it is a personal issue to object your activity in relations to this topic. I've also put into consideration that you did, in fact, make quite a lot of reverts against multiple editors and broke 3RR while knowing full well the implications of doing this. With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • this proposal by Mbz1 is steeped in a personal agenda. No one can truly read through all this and claim there isn't such a personal agenda. It's also obviosuly obsessive. Look I haven't got a problem with being pulled up for getting embroiled in edit wars ( it always takes two to edit war btw ) and I have been punished and accepted the punishment in the past for it. I don't vlaim to be a perfect editor. What I strongly o0bject to is thinly veiled personal agendas. it's obvious that the problem Mbz1 has with me is that I make edits that go against her political cause. And you of all people know it. I wish people could be honest and just say if they don't like someone else's viewpoint instead of trying lamely to try and hide it behind some kind of Wikipedia editing protocol with the agenda of sanctioning them. I'm not stupid, I can see the political agenda behind MBz1's obsession here. her 13 points reveal it. The following reveals it. "The problem I have with the user is not about edit warring, it is something much more serious than that IMO." - Mbz1 above And I notice she hasn't the courage to come back and tell us exactly what that 'serious' issue is. Although we all know don't we? Frankly I find her behaviour childish as well as obsessive. Vexorg (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support It's a start and will give this user an opportunity to relax before he reaches a possible block or ban. --Shuki (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

are you suggesting my lack of relaxing about the being the subject of an obsessive personal campaign against me by another editor with a transparent political agenda is a reason to sanction me? Surely not? -- I'm actually very relaxed about editing Wikipedia though. Check my last edit and you'll see I've gone through the proper procedures on the talk page. Vexorg (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break: 1RR restriction on User:Mbz1

As can be seen above the user Mbz1 has been mounting an almost obsessive campaign against me and has dragged up a whole series of issues which have long been put to bed. Yesterday I reported Mbz1 for edit warring here [User:Mbz1 reported by User:Vexorg (Result: )] - Mbz1's response has been tpo mount tis long campaign against me. Points 12. and 13. in his ever growing last at the topof this article are absurd to say the least. Therefore I propose a 1RR on Mbz1 so I can go abut editing without being 'Wikihounded' by this user who is clearly mounting a campaign becuase some of my edits are against his obvious political agenda. Vexorg (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support as per whole article. Vexorg (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't really seen enough evidence to justify this measure and your tone is no better than Mbz1's. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • All you have to do is read this extensive diatribe to see Mbz1's obsession here. Look at the 13 points at the top. many of them are nothing more than personal vendettas and nothing to do any wikipedia editing policy, especially 12 and 13. And regards tone, I am simply defending myself against this tirade. Vexorg (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Break: Back to the original complaint here

Just beginning to take a look at this user's contributions, and must say that despite his noisy protestations to the contrary, when it comes to edit-warring, he is second to none. This is his history at the Rothschild article just today. The following appear to be all reversions - March 5: [91], [92], [93],[94],[95], [96], [97].

Will check out the allegations of POV-pushing in a bit. Stellarkid (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the point of my proposal. –Turian (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit wars that the Rothschild are Zionists, I was surprised to hear this, I googled it and there is nothing reliable, wikipedia is there and a lot of opinionated places, David Ike is there a pretty motley crew. Its a fringe position being given a mouthpiece through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

the edit wars are nothing to do with the Rothshild's being Zionists, but some of the family being involved in Zionism Vexorg (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no question that (some of) the Rothschilds helped finance the purchase of land in Palestine on behalf of early Zionists. See these sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MalikS is quite correct. Financial support from certain members of the Rothschild family was very important to the success of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine starting in the 1880s (or maybe it was 1890s). This is very well known and not disputed, and there is a large academic literature about it. If that is all this dispute is about, fixing it is just a matter of choosing good sources from the many available. It is also the case, but much less known, that a few senior Rothschilds (such as Lord Nathaniel Rothschild) were opposed to Zionism. The historical importance of the latter was very liitle, but it means one should be careful to assign actions to the correct individuals and not to the family as a whole. Zero^talk 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The category probably belongs on notable Zioinists among the Rochilds rather than tagged on the entire family. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Break: Vexorg says Enough is Enough now!!

I've expended far too much time and energy on what is nothing more than a personal vendetta by the user Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reported this user here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mbz1_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 yesterday and as a result the user has replied with an obsessive campaign against me using arguments that are nothing more than scraping the barrel. I have been involved in edit wars in the past. some of them a long time ago. I have already been punished for them with temporary bans. Yet this user is dragging up a past history simply as a retort to my reporting this user for edit warring. Some of this users arguments are ridiculous ... Look at this at the top of this article ...

• # [12.] and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic
• # [13.] the edit from today, which demonstrates that the user is seeing nothing wrong in it edit pattern

this isn't the argument of someone genuinely interested in making Wikipedia better, this is the actions of someone with a personal vendetta

I've spent much of the day defending myself against this personal tirade. No more. I've no intention of edit warring with this user. My reverts to the Rothschild article yesterday were simply to correct what I saw was an unnecessary series of edits by user:Mbz1 - You can note that I was the one who bowed out of the edit war before it got silly and took it to the talk page. Mbz1 didn't bother until today and seems more interested in having me censored/restricted/punish than editing wikipedia.

I've got better things to do wit my life that keep up with the constant obsessive and innocuous arguments put forward by user:Mbz1. So I am bowing out of this absurd debate which is built upon nothing more than a personal vendetta. If I am punished with 1RR, 2RR3RR or even 69RR whatever. user:Mbz1 as won. but if user:Mbz1 gets away with this scott free then it's a sad indictment on Wikipedia IMO. Vexorg (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK just to add..... :Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause! Enjoy your break. Best wishes - .-- Mbz1 08:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) ]] ... is pretty indicative of why Mbz1 edits Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

'ZOG' is indeed antisemitic-inspired terminology and it is not heart-warming to see arguments (read: sophistry) to the contrary. Mbz1 made violations as well. No doubt both of you should be sanctioned but the extent and the possibility of reform is in question. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To say it's sophistry is very disingenuous of you. Although I can see your motivations for slipping that one in. There is nothing racist in ZOG itself IMO even if racists have used it as one of their arguments in the past. I am just not afraid to broach these issues, despite running the risk of offensive accusations against me and obsessive campaigns as we see here. JOG would be racist, not ZOG Zionism is a political movement not a race and doesn't speak for all Jews. None the less these differences of opinion in politics should NOT be the basis to campaign to have other editors sanctioned but this is CLEARLY what Mbz1 is doing here. Her political Agenda is transparent. She even applauded another editor who got a temporary ban because it was 'for the right cause' In contrast I have no obsessive campaign against Mbz1, I am simply defending myself here Vexorg (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request from a college to block access

Not sure what to do here. An IP left this comment on my user talk, purporting to be from a college which would like to have editing blocked. Is there a process for this, and who handles it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What college does the IP resolve to? I would think to contact their administration to confirm it before issuing a block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should we police the schools students? I say we find out what school the ip goes to and then mark the page. Other than that it's not our problem.--Adam in MO Talk 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Adam, we have in the past blocked school IPs because technical staff contacted us and specifically asked for it. While usually through OTRS, someone oblivious to its existence would likely request a blocking thru an administrator's talk page instead. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the request is valid, are they requesting the block because they have a bunch of misfits who are likely to be disruptive (giving the school a bad name), or are they requesting the block because their students waste time and resources here? If the reason is the first then it's in wikipedia's interest to implement the request. Impeachable (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Come again, Impeachable? "Bunch of misfits"... Doc9871 (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As to what to do here; some students at a college edit responsibly on WP, and some choose to vandalize. Block the entire college, of course! What else can be done? Don't listen to the college's administration... just block the college, depriving all editors equally. Very simple to me ;P Doc9871 (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really want Wikipedia to consume administrative resources enforcing the acceptable-use of-the-internet policies of schools? There must be hundreds of thousands of schools around the world, and if even 1% of them ask for this sort of bock, that's tens of thousands of blocks.

And what do we do if the relevant school authority is acting on behalf of the local security police dude in some totalitarian state which says its aim is to stamp on unlicensed speech and unauthorised dissemination of knowledge? Is wikipedia going to happily act as the proxy of a totalitarian regime? If not, how do we establish criteria for which block-requests to accept?

I agree with Adamfinmo. Just mark the page and let the school do its own policing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was involved as the blocking admin in a similar situation a couple of years ago but only after speaking on the phone with the school's IT department. As I recall it was a high school setting. Looking back on it I am not totally comfortable with it. But not necessarily opposed. The school could add wikipedia to its own internal blacklist but that would blocking the viewing and research he speaks of. I think I would tell him that we will leave the ip account open for now and deal with disruptions on an ongoing basis. While Jeremy is correct that we have done it before I am not sure that's a precedent we want to continue. Under no circumstance would I block without better communication. My two cents...JodyB _talk 12:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular issue with blocking schools on request - given that the alternative may be that the school blacklists Wikipedia entirely, preventing people from reading it. I would ask for an OTRS request from a staff email address, though. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's the school's IP connection, they can blacklist whatever they like; but that no reason for us to act as agents of their censorship. If the school doesn't want to block its students to either editing or view wikipedia, that's none of our business. I don't see any difference in principle between a school saying block-our-students-from-editing-or-we'll-cut-all-access, and a government saying exactly the same thing about its citizens; both are attempts to persuade wikipedia to enforce somebody else's policies.

This is supposed to be "the encyclopedia which anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia which excludes editors when someone asks us to cut off their access". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Let the school handle it. Wikipedia need not be a censor for someone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. If the school contacted WikiMedia in writing and in a much more official manner, I think it could be considered. As it is, nope. Tan | 39 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with BrownHairedGirl, and would be strongly opposed to implementing such a request, even if made officially and in writing. Let the schools deal with their own disciplinary problems and technical issues. And if they foolishly choose to completely block Wikipedia from being accessed, their loss.

As always, if an IP address is used persistently for disruptive editing, we will block it under our existing anti-vandalism policies. But we should never preemptively block. — Satori Son 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond sometimes reverting its own vandalism, and today's discourse, there has not been a single constructive edit from this IP address in the 2½ years it's been editing. That alone would make it ripe for a lengthy schoolblock IMO. I don't see why an official request would make any difference. If it does nothing but vandalism then block it. There's nothing preemptive about it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing requests from school administration for permanent removal of editing privileges for their IP range, not semi-temporary blocks for vandalism. Obviously, we should always block for persistent vandalism. — Satori Son 14:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Zzuuzz is right, and I canned it for a year. In addition, given the grammar of the "request", I highly doubt this came from anyone in a professorial profession. Tan | 39 14:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Tanthalas39. I have no objection to a block for vandalism if that is merited, whether the IP belongs to a school, a national parliament, or anyone else. But per zzuuzz, a block-us request from the school is irrelevant to that decision, even if it is delivered in a sworn affidavit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I find this interesting. What if a (mischievous) student or nutty professor sent a "block us" request from a school network computer? Or another organization did this? Could/would a Wiki admin block a IP or IP range on such a request? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We block users and IP addresses if a large proportion of their edits are vandalism and there is a good probability that the vandalism will continue if they're not blocked. We allow especially IP editors some slack, to allow for new/testing editors and addresses shared with constructive editors, but when there is nothing but vandalism over a long period of time on a static IP then we have very little to lose. It doesn't matter who reports them or asks for them to be blocked; we are usually grateful to anyone who brings them to our attention. Admins will independently evaluate the edits before taking any action. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said. — Satori Son 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Over the past few years I have found more cases where one must register in some way to use a library or school computer which at one time could have been used in complete anonymity. As a technical question, is it possible for a technician at the school to tell which terminal a particular edit was made from? Maybe by seeing which terminal of a limited number was connected to Wikipedia at a particular time? If a particular student uses his ID to log onto the schools computer and vandalizes the school's article with BLP violating attacks on faculty or students, it is possible that the school can identify and punish the offender. That seems a better outcome than us blocking all editing by students at the institution. Edison (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for good sense to zzuuzz and Tan. Durova⁴¹² 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Im coming a bit late here, but I believe it's possible for the school to block editing without blocking reading. They do that by blacklisting "/w/index.php" and/or "&action=edit" but not blacklisting the rest of Wikipedia. It's not entirely foolproof but anyone with enough determination to get around a system like that would probably be vandalizing outside of school anyway. —Soap— 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Did I miss something? I thought the request was to block the ability to EDIT, not to read. Blocking the IP (like it currently is) is much different than blacklisting isn't it? And registering accounts for projects etc. would still be available to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the blacklisting comments refer to the fact that most schools are likely to have proxy filters installed on their networks, so they can block any URLs of their choice. If you complain to schools that they have been vandalising, with scary emails and a name-and-shame policy, instead of just softblocking them, then this is likely to be their response - blacklist the whole domain. However as Soap explains, if a school wants a block then it should be possible for them to set their filters to block editing, without blocking reading. That's really for the school to decide though; from our perspective if they do too much anonymous vandalism then we generally just softblock them so they can still edit with accounts. It isn't possible for mere admins to block read-access. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • As someone who works at a uni in IT, I'd also point out that the school should be able to correlate login ids or dhcp logs with the ip and timestamp for an edit and identify the person who made the edits--if they are concerned about vandalism, they should be able to handle this entirely on their own. Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I'd note that a lot of schools (such as my own) allow "classroom" logins that don't keep track of who's done what. —Soap— 21:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation of blocked User:Yzak Jule/User:Zengar Zombolt

User:Yzak Jule renamed himself User:Zengar Zombolt[98] and was then indefinitely blocked for being a general arse, and socking. User:Yzak Jule has just been created. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) User:Yzak Jule, a previous account name of the indefinitely-blocked User:Zengar Zombolt has just re-established the Yzak Jule account. This appears to be block evasion. User notified: [99]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note re: what Elen said. The block was not for socking, as the account rename was legit. But this time, it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's either block evasion or impersonation. Either way, I've indefinitely blocked the account. Fences&Windows 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has sweet talked Tryptofish on his talk page. Meanwhile, I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone randomly came along and recreated a previously-renamed account of an indeffed editor by pure chance. I think the account ought to be left blocked and this block looks good to me. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to Fences and Windows: It's not just block evasion, it is ban evasion, so I'm pleased you blocked it. I also thank Tryptofish for reverting Yzak Jule's only contribution to the article. Minimac (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, silly me for being sweet talked. It turns out that Checkuser proved that AGF only goes so far. The block stands, as it should. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point the user has confessed to intentionally trying to deceive and evade the block, in such a way as to imply a desire to find other ways to evade it. So I just want to ask if there are any remaining loopholes that need to be closed to make that difficult. I ask because, when the Zengar account was blocked, the older Yzak one wasn't because the account name had been changed. Since account creation was blocked for Zengar, I'm guessing that more than one IP was used. So maybe someone should take one more look and make sure that, now, nothing that should be taken care of has been overlooked. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 6 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)

24.18.45.110

That IP above ^ received warnings on his talk page for vandalism, but has repeadatly removed them.

Should this be on edit warring? I don't know. But anyway, I'd like something done, like temporary protection, or something, since he doesn't seem to be doing anything now except blanking his talk page.

Jimbo Wales NEKAMI!!! (Talk to her) 00:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing warnings from one's own talk page actually isn't against the rules. It's permitted (though 24.18.45.110's bogus edit summaries aren't a good sign). It's usually taken to mean that they've read the messages. (Altering the messages is another matter.) -- Why Not A Duck 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you come across a user that's repeatedly removing warnings, just act as if the warnings are still on the page with respect to any future warnings. I recently came across a vandal that had removed a recent level-3 warning from its talk page right before vandalizing again. I didn't bother caring about the deleted warning, and simply issued a level-4. A level-4 warning is a level-4 warning, regardless if the user has left the other 3 on the page or not. Like Why Not A Duck said, removing warnings basically shows that the user has read them. WP:DRC and WP:CAIN offer other arguments. —LedgendGamer 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC problem brewing - need an uninvolved admin to straighten things out

There is currently an RfC running which is really tangled. the RfC has one statement on Talk:Ghost - Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference_at_NPOV - and a different statements at wp:NPOV - Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference and yet the proponents are treating it as though both were the same RfC. As far as I can see, the current RfC on NPOV will not answer the question asked in the RfC on Ghost and vice versa, yet I don't know how to disentangle or rationalize the two without causing a huge stink.

I'm happy with whatever way this is clarified; I just don't want the outcome of the RfC (whatever that is) to be ambiguous because it's not clear which question got answered. thanks in advance. --Ludwigs2 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for clarification or rationalization. The results of both RfCs are going to be entirely consistent, so there's no danger of competing decisions. I realize that's not the result you want, but it's nonetheless the case.

I see no need for admin action here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prejudge the results, only pointing out that we have two RfCs with different question being combined. For instance, I will be inclined to say that the result of the NPOV RfC (either way) has little to no bearing on the Ghost page question, and I don't really see any reason to assume that it's transferable. We'll just end up with a separate question over whether the results are transferrable, which will lead to yet another RfC... pure silliness.

I've already asked (several times) on the ghost page that we have an RfC on the issue of disagreement. so far we've had one RfC on a different issue, and a second RfC that is apparently trying to piggyback on a different issue of a different page - what's up with that? I'm certainly not going to get confused by what the issue of disagreement is, and I'm certainly not going to accept an RfC about one thing as though it were an RfC about another, and I'm certainly not going to go away because we've got editors throwing off-topic RfCs around like they were rice candy at Chinese New Years. This is just going to add an extra layer of obfuscation which I will have to slowly and methodically peel back, and that will just prolong things that much more.

At any rate glad to see that you're so confident. why don't you go ahead and separate the RfCs so there is absolutely no confusion about the results. that can only work in your favor, no? --Ludwigs2 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, I'm not an admin. Secondly, as there is no entanglement, there's no need for seperation that I can see. I believe you're seeing a problem where none exists, or, perhaps, setting things up so you can ignore the results of the RfCs once they've concluded with the outcome you do not desire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no entanglement, even if there is a lot of overlap in subject matter. The NPOV discussion is related to Group 2 of the Psi ArbCom's four groupings regarding how we are to describe pseudoscience. It's about using the NSF as a ref there, with no change of NPOV content at all. In short there is no problem, only fear of a problem. - Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The one in the Ghost page is just an announcement of the other one. I have added "announcement" to the section title. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This can be marked as resolved, one of the sections had a misleading title, and that has been fixed. Next time take care not to use the exact same title for two sections that have different purposes. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Ludwigs2 meant to link to this, an actual talk page RfC, rather than this, an announcement of the NPOV RfC. At least, that's what I took the complaint to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He may have meant to, but he made the same mistake at the NPOV talk page before repeating it here. I put a hat on it with this message "Misunderstanding archived". Whatever the case, this thread can be marked as RESOLVED. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see that the RfC about adding the NSF quote as an example on the NPOV page will have any bearing on the use of the NSF quote as a source on the Ghost page. They strike me as two entirely different issues. perhaps someone can clarify? --Ludwigs2 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to explain it, but I can't guarantee I'll succeed. It is conceivable that the results of both RfCs could have some impact on various applications of NPOV and the Psi ArbCom decision, and thus the application of how we reference pseudoscience matters. I haven't really thought about this much since it wasn't my intention, but some commentators have alluded to the possibility. I'm not currently interested in that angle and haven't been giving it any thought. The two RfCs obviously have much in common, but their intentions are quite different. The one at Talk:Ghost was about using the NSF as a source on that article. I then noticed how it fit perfectly in the Psi box on many pseudoscience pages. That led to me creating the RfC at NPOV.

The one at Talk:NPOV can be likened to taking two puzzle pieces that have been found in different places and fitting them together, sort of like one person (myself) finding a girl walking down the street in NYC who has a unique half charm hanging around her neck, and that same person finding a guy in LA who has the totally unique other half hanging around his neck, and they don't know each other exists. I then bring them together and the match is perfect and everyone benefits. That's essentially what's happening here. The Psi ArbCom decision resulted in several decisions, including the formulation of four groupings that describe how we are to describe pseudoscience in an NPOV manner at Wikipedia. The second grouping has a unique wording which uses astrology as an example, but otherwise has no references. While references and examples aren't required in policies and guidelines, they do occur because they are considered helpful. The NSF reference happens to be the type of thing the Arbitration Committee would have eagerly grabbed and used (except for one member who happens to believe in certain pseudoscientific things) to document an exact example of what they were describing, if they had had it at hand during the proceedings. If the RfC at NPOV succeeds, there will be absolutely no change of wording, at least I don't currently see any need for it. Only the reference will be added to grouping two. That's all.

The one thing the two RfCs have in common is that the RfCs establish beyond a doubt that the consensus of the Wikipedia community considers this application of the source to be correct, and that the NSF is an authoritative source to make exactly the statement they made. Disagreement will correctly be labelled as the OR and disruption that it is. All opposition to those RfCs can then be dealt with by warnings, topic bans, blocks, or banning editors who persist in vandalizing the content by deleting it or tagging it as OR or SYNTH. Those questions will have been settled, and disagreement, while it may be held as private belief, if expressed in disruptive ways will result in sanctions. (What has been happening at Ghost will already have consequences, as the disruption is documented and can be used as evidence. Disruptive editors will be watched and possibly banned if they don't bow to the decisions of the community.) The RfCs can always be referred to as authoritative decisions, and will set a precedent for future decisions. (Wow! Just writing this has given me insights about how this works out. I hadn't really thought about this, but it deals with very fundamental issues, so of course it can have far reaching and positive consequences related to how we deal with the presentation of pseudoscience, and how we deal with those who push and defend it in spite of our policies.) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is actually an excellent explanation; thank you. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with the NSF quote being used on the NPOV page. It strikes me as being a bit irrelevant to the topic, and I think it will create more confusion in the long run that it's worth (which is why I oppose it) but on the NPOV page it's not such a big deal. My concern here is that the confusion between the two RfCs will be used to leverage a debate on the ghost page (as well as, I assume, other pages) to force the quote to be used to imply something the quote was never meant to imply. This qote does not mean that every Madam Zelda with her crystal ball is a pseudoscientist, nor that every poor, bereft client of such Madam Zeldas is a believer in pseudoscience. I can understand why we want to point out that (scientifically speaking) there's no evidence for ghosts, but I don't think we should be stretching the statements of the NSF well beyond what they could possibly mean just to make that point. isn't there a better way to do it? --Ludwigs2 03:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. There are probably multiple ways that can all complement each other. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comment at community de-adminship discussion

User:Brews ohare has just been banned for 48 hours by User:Sandstein because Brews violated an Arbcom restriction of posting on such venues. While this seems to be a routine Arbcom ban, I see two problems here:

1) Sandstein's previous block of Brews on similar grounds and his subsequent unblocking by User:Trusilver is still under discussion at Arbcom. Is it proper for Sandstein to act again while the previous case has not yet been settled?

2) This is a more general objection. The RFC is about Admins. If in this RFC we cannot allow in some comments by editors who are under sanctions, it seems to me that the RFC omits relevant comments and is thus biased in an essential way. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As for 1, while it is still under discussion, the Committee does not take issue with any of Sandstein's recent actions, so I don't see any issue with him acting here. As for 2, Brews's restrictions as laid out at the bottom of this page state that he is not to be editing the Wikipedia: namespace; this has not been rescinded. Most users under sanction would not be forbidden from commenting there. If you feel as though an exception should be made for this case, you should file a request for amendment with the Committee at WP:RFAR. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If Brews ohare had, in the past, wanted to see that his comments would be heard and his opinion aired, he would have altered his behavior to within acceptable limits. It is the reasonable consequence of the violation of acceptable behavioral norms to have restrictions placed to curb those violations. If having his opinion be part of discussions was a motivation for Brews ohare, then he shouldn't have done what he had done to earn his sanctions. --Jayron32 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any scope for ambiguity in the restriction and I don't see any problem with the block. Brews has to learn that you can't just ignore sanctions, if you want them varied you have to go through the right process. If people don't stick to sanctions then we have no hope at all of keeping Wikipedia on the rails. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From a purely Wiki-procedural POV, there indeed doesn't seem to be a problem. However, the "ban is ban logic" doesn't lead to good outcomes without proper independent appeals procedures in which the facts of the original case and how that's relevant to the latest complaints can be brought up. The situation Brews finds himself in now is similar of that 17 year old US citizen is who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Her angry dad complained and the boy was found guilty of "sex with a minor", branded a pedophile and is now in jail for violating the restriction that bans him from being within one kilometer from schools (the dad of the girl complained when he saw the boy near a local school). Count Iblis (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? *Cringes* Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Consider e.g. the way Brews was hit with the namespace ban. That had no basis in the orginal Arbcom case and was motivated purely by a few other involved people in the SoL case who had refused to drop the stick in an effort to get him permanently banned.

Brews was sticking to his topic ban when he was editing my essay WP:ESCA with the approval of me and all the other main editors ( and he he had already contributed to this before the ArbCom case). It were a few editors involved in the original ArbCom case who were following Brews' every move, including his contribution to the essay and launching frivolous AE requests time after time again. ArbCom decided to appease these editors and agree to a requested namespace ban. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've hesitated before involving myself in this, but I have some concerns relating to Count Iblis' point number 2. The comment at the CDA RfC was completely reverted, as opposed to being indented to remove its numbering. I would have no objection to doing so if it were clear to me that this comment had been a violation of the restrictions. I have no prior familiarity with this dispute, but I read the link provided by Hersfold, and I find the wording there confusing. "Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views." The CDA poll is in no way related to physics, policies etc concerning the editing of scientific topics, or minority views about science. On the other hand, it clearly is about "policy, guidelines...polls, RfCs and the like" in general, and the wording of the restriction is unclear, at least to me, about that. The first sentence of the restrictions places the Wikipedia namespace off limits, seemingly in its entirety, but then the sentence I quoted seems to restrict that limit to science-related material. So, I'm asking, was the comment at the RfC, in fact, precluded by the restrictions? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai's restriction of 07:33, 24 November 2009, contains two independent prohibitions:

• (a) Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces.
• (b) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to [make physics-related edits].
• [Exceptions.]

In this instance, the first prohibition was infringed, not the second.  Sandstein  23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This type of harassment should be stopped--- Sandstein is an adminstrator, and needs to be held to a higher standard. He could have let other administrators deal with the problem, if there was one.

As for Brews' block--- it was never justified to begin with. The political circus is distracting.Likebox (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• As a general comment, it should be clarified that the restriction in Wikipedia namespace was brought up by Brews repeated refusal to disengage from battles that stemmed from the ARBCOM/SoL case. This was done for two purposes. 1) So dead horses would stop getting beaten. 2) So Brews could get back to productive editing. Brews giving his opinion here is clearly a continuation of the recent developments of various ARBCOM/SoL-related issues, which again prevents him from being productive. I'll have to admit I'm stunned by the level of cluelessness displayed by Brews' by trying to test the limits of his ban once again, especially after being served a ban not even one week ago for the same reason (although last time it was physics-related as well, so that was a double-violation). I have no opinion on the appropriateness of this block however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since my concern expressed above was with respect to reverting the !vote at the CDA poll, and based upon the answers provided by Sandstein and Headbomb, I now consider my question to have been answered to my satisfaction, and I have no objection to letting the reversion of the CDA edit stand. Obviously, I am not in a position to comment knowledgeably about the other issues here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer David Tombe's question to me below, it was simply that I AGF that these two users are answering honestly, which I still do. But, given that there seems to be ambiguity about whether there really was a sanction that applied to the CDA poll, I have stricken part of my comment, until I can find out what is really the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been far too much weight attached to Tznkai's phantom sanctions. To begin with, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the original ARBCOM sanctions that allows Tznkai to make any sanctions in the absence of a transgression. Hence Tznkai's sanctions are ultra vires. Tznkai was acting beyond his powers. Secondly, Tznkai expressed his intention to end his phantom sanctions in January. You can see the relevant diff here.[100] Thirdly, Tznkai doesn't write in clear English, and most people have difficulty trying to figure out what he means. Tznkai submitted this statement to the ongoing arbitration case against Trusilver, relating to Trusilver's unblock of Sandstein's last block of Brews ohare. Here is the statement. [101] Despite the fact that it is very hard to understand this statement, it should nevertheless be at least clear that the phantom sanctions have expired. The most ridiculous sentence is where Tznkai states that he was intending to lift the sanctions but that Brews didn't seem to be interested! What sort of a ridiculous thing is that to say? Who is ever going to object to sanctions against themselves being lifted? Of course Brews wanted the phantom sanctions to be lifted. It is a straw man argument if ever there was to say that the sanctions would have been lifted if Brews had wanted them to be lifted, but that he didn't seem to show any interest. Fourthly, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept Tznkai's phantom sanctions to be intra vires, there can be no possible reading of those ambiguous sanctions that would say that Brews could not vote in that poll. That poll had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physics. Sandstein's blocking of Brews was a vindictive act of bullying, and it is sad that no sooner had Count Iblis opened this thread when three apologists stepped forward to endorse Sandstein's act of bullying, and that one of those three is a serving member of the arbitration committee. And it's further sad that when Sandstein blocked Brews ohare that he chose to put up a banner to intimidate other administrators from lifting the block, by claiming that it was an ARBCOM sanction that had been breached. It wasn't an ARBCOM sanction that was breached. It wasn't even a phantom Tznkai sanction that was breached. No sanction was breached. So now we have a situation where any administrator can block anybody and claim the lie that the block is for breach of an ARBCOM sanction, and that means that the block is secured. This is a dreadful state of affairs that needs to be reversed. There is no mechanism in place to review the legitimacy of a claim that a block has been based on an ARBCOM sanction. And to Tryptofish, it sure beats me what it was that Sandstein and Headbomb said that makes you now happy that all is well. David Tombe (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to unblock

I placed this unblock request for Brews ohare on his talk page. It was declined, because I am not Brews ohare (although Brews ohare, who I have been in email contact with for a few weeks, is currently on a trip and has limited access). I place it here to get review, and if nothing happens, I will have to ask ArbCom to intevene:

This unblock request is NOT FROM BREWS OHARE. I have placed this request for him, because I am outraged by this block:

1. There is an ongoing ArbCom case involving Sandstein block Brews ohare. Why is he blocking him again? Couldn't he wait for another admin to do it instead? It doesn't look impartial. User:William M. Connolley was desysopped for this exact reason.
2. The sanctions which are being enforced are seriously out-of-date and seriously misinterpreted by Sandstein. The namespace ban, if it exists at all, does not apply to voting on these sorts of motions. The intended scope of the sanctions were clarified by the sanctioner Tznkai at the Arbitration just a few days ago. They were a temporary measure, never held up for vote, never reviewed, and instituted for silly reasons. They have nothing to do with the original case, or the original complaints against Brews ohare.
3. It is essential that administrators get together and stop abusive blocks using this template. Just because you claim to be enforcing ArbCom restrictions does not mean that you are in fact doing so.
4. I am not happy with the way things are going politically here. The template above was designed to intimidate administrators from reviewing ArbCom related blocks. I am hoping at least one administrator has the courage of conviction to undo this.

If this is not the proper place for asking for an unblock, where is?Likebox (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's funny, I spent quite a bit of time over the last few days explaining to Brews' friends that hyperbole, anger, aggression, assumptions of bad faith and assertions that the sky is falling have, in my not inconsiderable experience, very close to the lowest success rate of all ways of resolving contested issues. Seems you don't believe me. I suggest you do a little reading around, because I would venture to suggest that many admins are going to dismiss the statement you make above based simply on its tone and the number of repetitions of the same or similar stuff in recent days. You might want to give some thought to what Einstein said about repeatedly trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When I did the original unblock of Brews, it was under the rationale that the block was excessive and under circumstances so vague that no rational person would have expected to get blocked over. I feel that Brews needs to address the heart of the issue - the namespace sanction itself, which Tznkai himself clearly said that he never intended to go on as long as it has. While this block does smell suspiciously like WP:POINT to me (it doesn't take much more than a shred of common sense to conclude that this sanction is being enforced for reasons completely contrary to the reasons it was implemented to begin with), the last block should have made it clear to Brews that his namespace block is still very much in effect and he needs to act accordingly until the sanction itself is removed. Trusilver 00:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, I concur with most of what you have written. But I do think that the validity and the meaning of Tznkai's additional sanctions needs to be fully investigated impartially, because abuse arises in the absence of clarity. See the statement that I made further up a few minutes ago. David Tombe (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are methods to contest sanctions you do not agree with. Violating the sanction because you don't agree with it and then claiming that the sanction shouldn't apply is not one of them. I note that Tznkai had attempted to communicate with Brews to work out terms for the topic ban to end in january, but it didn't work so well. (from the RfArb discussion, and the statement by Tznkai). Brews kohare knew that the sanction was still in effect from the last time he got blocked. While I have to say in my personal opinion that I would have preferred someone other then Sandstein have done the block, as we are working on the motions for that one currently, I don't see any issues with the block itself. SirFozzie (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, The issue with the block is that Brews's edit wasn't physics related in any way. Let's see a bit more assumption of good faith please. You must know fine well that Tznkai doesn't write clearly. And you must know fine well that it was a total stretch to interpret his wording such as to make Brews's edit into an offence. In fact, if we were to take Tznkai's wording literally, it would mean that Brews isn't allowed to edit wikipedia at all. And you do know fine well that those supposed sanctions had lapsed if they ever existed at all. On your other point, you are wrong. There is absolutely no mechanism in place whatsoever to defend against false interpretations of ARBCOM sanctions. In the aftermath of the ARBCOM case last October, additional sanctions were heaped on Brews by a pincer process. I'll explain it to you, as if you don't it know already. Brews could be stating opinions perfectly legitimately on policy pages. The physics topic ban would have had no application. But it only took any editor with a grudge against Brews to take offence at the fact that Brews had the cheek to be expressing opinions at all, and they would then abuse the ARBCOM process and take out an arbitration enforcement action on the basis of a false allegation, for the purpose of settling a private score. It then only took an administrator to sign the false allegation. That is how it was done, and the administrator in question would justify himself on the grounds that since somebody else had made the allegation in the first place, then it must be true. It was a case of passing the buck of responsibility between two people, so that neither would feel any guilt, as like the ten men on the firing squad. Well if I hadn't pulled the trigger, the other nine would have, so it didn't make any difference. SirFozzie, this is called corruption and there is absolutely no appeal mechanism to investigate whether or not 'Tznkai type' sanctions are ultra vires or not. And so any admin who acts boldly on such a weak premises is clearly assuming bad faith. The original ARBCOM sanctions are quite explicit that a transgression needs to occur before the likes of Tznkai can issue a decree. And Brews's opinions on policy pages did not breach his topic ban. They only breached the decrees which Tznkai himself created. That is called moving the goal posts. And SirFozzie, the fact that you can see fault in Brews ohare's activities and yet not see any fault in Sandstein's activities indicates clearly that as a member of the arbitration committee, your bias is appalling. Sandstein blocked an editor with whom he is involved in an arbitration case. There is already a precedent for that kind of behaviour indicating that Sandstein has basically put himself forward for desysoping. I would imagine that if Sandstein is not desysoped that William Connolley will feel somewhat angry. David Tombe (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)\

David, even Trusilver, who did the unblock at issue in the case currently before ArbCom, says Brews should have been aware that his sanction was still in force, and he's not surprised that Brews was blocked for violating it again. I reiterate, if you disagree with a sanction, there are ways to have it reviewed. However, violating those sanctions and then again complaining that the sanctions "shouldn't count" isn't going to be one of those ways. As for your last couple of statements, I'd say that the "dispute" in the ArbCom case is not between Brews ohare and Sandstein, no matter how much you say it is (the better to disqualify him from taking actions in the area, right?). So I wouldn't quite be holding my breath for hoping for Sandstein to have his mop revoked. SirFozzie (talk) 04:05, 7 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,[102] 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)

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)

User:Maureenpfleming

Maureenpfleming (talk · contribs), apparently Maureen Fleming, edited her article to mess up the formatting and sourcing and to add a huge quote in the middle of the article. I reverted back to the last version, and tried to explain COI to her, suggesting she discuss her edits on the article's Talk page. Instead, she took her version of the article and posted it on her User page. Not only does this appear to be a copyright violation, since she didn't retain the article's edit history, but even if it is about her, it's fully of unsourced claims. Is there anything that should be done here, or should we just leave it alone? Woogee (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied the above to User:Maureenpfleming/Maureenpfleming and noted same to the editors talkpage (which I had *cough* unuserfy...) while suggesting they familiarise themselves with the WP ethos. I didn't mention that I also {{Noindex}}ed the page, just in case, as they can learn about that when they learn about COI, verifiability and the need to list contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that address the copyright violation and BLP sourcing problems? Woogee (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

List of empires

Resolved

 – user stopped after being warned; nothing to do unless problematic behavior restarts--Jayron32 06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackay 86 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes citation tags while not responding in article and user talk pages. Please interfere. - Altenmann >t 02:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs? Woogee (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI Mackay86 appears to be starting similar behaviour at British Empire - initial edit - he gets reverted with the edit comment "why?" - Mackay then puts it back with no talk page discussion or edit comment . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And, this is not usually a good sign - a warning I placed on their talk page has just got immediately removed. [103] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed his contributions since he was warned. He has (as yet) not returned to the problematic behavior. So apparently the warning worked. --Jayron32 06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Other Problem with Mackay 86

He marks many of his edits as WP:MINOR which are not [104]. I asked him not to do this [105], again immediately removed, and he continued to make three more non-minor edits marked as minor. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance with repeated personal attacks

User:Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me by starting a thread about me entitled "Deletion campaign of Delicious carbuncle - advice requested" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. The thread misstates my position and actions. Ash goes so far as to suggest that I am "on an admitted deletion campaign against gay pornography articles (as well as some gay articles)" which is not something I could "admit" to since it is completely untrue. This thread was started shortly after similar accusations were made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio and I asked Ash to stop doing so. This is not the first time I have asked. WP:NA is clear that such accusations offered without evidence are personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."). I have no objection to Ash making a complaint at the appropriate forum, but I consider this latest attack to be deliberately provocative and deceptive. I have taken pains to explain my actions and motivations, but Ash seems intent on assuming bad faith regardless of what I say. Can someone please deal with this seriously as I have had quite enough of these attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not very nice. I asked for advice on how to positively handle your pattern of deletions (see pattern of past deletions) and raised the question on the LGBT project page for feedback, a forum I would think ideal for such a discussion. You have responded there, raising this ANI was unnecessary. My statement about your behaviour on that forum is supported by evidence which was under discussion until you squelched the discussion with this ANI. If evidence is supplied then this does not fit the description of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

As for your statement in the January ANI thread where you attempted to gain support for your actions, saying you are not on a deletion campaign when the evidence and your own statement of intent shows otherwise is hardly sufficient to prove that there is no targeting of your deletion requests.

I am unclear if this could be considered an "accusation" if the consensus is that there is nothing theoretically wrong with targeting gay pornography articles for deletion. It would only be a statement of fact. I could substitute the word "campaign" with "programme" or "drive" if that is the problem here. My illustration that someone doing the same thing by persistently walking through Category:Christianity and raising deletion requests on articles they don't like the look of (rather than tagging for improvement in accordance with ATD) is an interesting parallel to imagine if an editor would receive more resistance and complaints about their behavior compared to the topic of Category:People appearing in gay pornography.

As for your characterization of "Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me" perhaps you would be kind enough to supply diffs of these "attacks". I must have missed the discussions where my edits were demonstrated to be personal attacks on you. Ash (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, stating that I have "admitted" to something which I have clearly and repeatedly denied is, frankly, lying. That I have nominated articles for deletion is not in question, but your statements ascribe motivations and intent which I do not have and can only bias other editors against me. You are free to start an RFCU if you wish, but otherwise, stop making any assertions about me. These are personal attacks and unacceptable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No diffs to support your claim that "Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me" then. Unless you are prepared to support your case, there is nothing for an admin to do here.

Looking at your edit history, you have made quite an astonishingly large number of contributions to ANI for a non-admin. 493 edits to ANI plus 88 to AN out of a total edit count of just over 14,000 of which just 552 have been to article talk pages. This means that you are more likely to turn to ANI or AN than attempt to resolve your issues on article talk pages. Perhaps you should try collaborative discussion on article talk pages for a change before it becomes obvious that you are persistently using ANI inappropriately? Ash (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Carbuncle, just know that not all members of that project feel that way. As long as you're doing it out of a desire to improve the wiki and not out of some sort of agenda (i'm assuming the former is the case), then keep doing it. Sometimes going through topic at a time is easiest, and not indicative of an agenda. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wordsmith, you are off-topic. This ANI was a request for admin intervention due to a claim of personal attacks. This is not a discussion about whether a program of deletions against gay pornography related articles is a good thing or not. Ash (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it relevant then: stop attacking him and making insinuations about his motives. Further AGF and NPA violations maybe blockable. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes your opinion clear. As you appear to be taking responsibility for claiming I have been making personal attacks, could you please supply relevant diffs showing where I have actually made personal attacks as per the subject of this ANI? Ash (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

here you go The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. You may be misinterpreting something so I shall explain what I see when I read this text.

What I read in this diff is a summary of the points raised in a previous ANI (created by Delicious carbuncle) and my statement "Such deletion requests are not just poor judgement, they are a deliberate and sustained mis-use of the DELETE guidelines and process". My summary of the ANI or my claim of a mis-use of the DELETE guidelines may be debatable or later proven to be incorrect but does not fit the description in PA of what might consitute a personal attack. For example a threat- I made no threat, an ad hominem attack - I made no argument based upon the person, or an unsubstantiated accusation of personal behaviour - my summary of Delicious carbuncle's edits has been supported with evidence and Delicious carbuncle has been free to challenge that evidence if it was incorrect.

I took the matter to the LGBT project talk page to ask for feedback on my viewpoint, a forum where you have already provided feedback. For my efforts, Delicious carbuncle has now claimed this was a personal attack rather than taking it in good faith as merely a genuine better alternative to her/his own suggestion of escalating to RFC/U. My words you provide in this diff appear to me to be genuine concern about an apparent unjustified deletion campaign without sufficient attention being paid to the guidance of BEFORE, the same concern that was then raised on the LGBT project talk page. Could you please explain how you the diff you have provided proves I have "recently stepped up" my "personal attacks"? Ash (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you two get a mediator? I think having someone truly neutral on the issue might help. IronDuke 18:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Delicious, you've expressed clear opposition to an RfC on your editing of Gay Porn Star Bios with this edit and this edit. But now you say, "I have no objection to Ash making a complaint at the appropriate forum", and suggest he open an RFCU. And you are now upset that Ash is "requesting advice" from WikiProject LGBT studies. It doesn't seem you are willing to WP:AGF nor WP:CONS. (Oh, and please don't accuse me of trolling again as I am interested in this topic and am simply participating, not trolling. Any such accusations would only be evidence of my comment in bold.) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Resolved

 – User was blocked by User:Materialscientist for "Making legal threats". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Aetempleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user, a new editor, posted a LARGE amount of uncited and frankly incorrect information to radio station page WVAB. I notified the user about the rules of citing your sources and that papers and knowledge in your head wasn't a reliable third-party source. With no response and almost instant revisions, I began to mark for vandalism, something I didn't wish to do. After issuing two warnings, I received this on my user page (not my talk page). Amongst the spelling errors are accusations that I am "libelous" and the user needed "contact information for legal disputes". This sounds like a clear legal threat or one that is proceeding into one. Could an admin take a look at this? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

After further vandalism to my userpage by the user, I received this post with "Pleae remove the inaccurate info or this will become a legal matter."...clearly a legal threat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjosë

Resolved

 – Megistias and Athenean blocked by Tiptoety. Appeals should go on the appropriate user talk page. NW (Talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Sulmues has been warned on add/removing non-RS material and references in the article. But he has done so more than 4 times of this particular one. diff , diff diff, diff, Megistias (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Is this the right page for this? Doc9871 (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Its not about the rate of readding them, its about ignoring RS & talk and just doing itMegistias (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) "...more than 4 times..." (your words) was not about the "rate" of re-adding them? Is this an edit-warring/3RR report or not, please? Doc9871 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) taking it thereMegistias (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Good man :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Logic Historian

Logic Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy canvassing about something zie was going to raise at WP:AN.

I was one of those canvassed [106], so replied on my talk to say "stop canvassing" [107].

I then looked at Logic Historian's contribs list, saw there was lots of it, and posted a "stop canvassing" msg to User_talk:Logic Historian.[108]

The canvassing continued after the warning, so I placed a 3-hour preventive block on the account.

The subsequent posts to User talk:Logic Historian suggest that there is some issue of a ban and/or socking involved here, but I don't know the history. Can someone else take a look? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they admit to being a whole whack of Peter Damiens...I'm extending the block to indef, and will being looking further into this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, no objection to the block-extension, and you obviously know more of the history than me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Only slightly :-) Note that one of the accounts that he claims to be was blocked by Jimbo himself. Based on editing intersects, they could very well be the same person (single-minded focus on the History of Logic) - however, if a CU could verify that it's the same IP ... that would be the finishing nail, methinks... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Its worth mentioning that Peter Damien was a very strong editor, and highly valued in article space. Wikipedia eats its young. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is enough for this identification. This is clearly Peter Damian, who also expressed a desire shortly ago to bring one article to FA.

I remember that ScienceApologist wrote an article on another website while he was blocked, and then the article was ported here. Maybe Peter could do the same thing? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

as always, I oppose proxying content for blocked users. If they want to edit wikipedia, they can behave.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else Peter has done his content contributions, so far as I'm competent to judge, have generally been of very high value, and ought to be preserved. Paul August ☎ 12:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is more than a just a little irony at play here - Peter canvasses, outs himself, all for the sake of writing and bringing to FA the History of Logic which clearly is illogical....or is it? I think we should let Peter do his work - perhaps on a limited type track, - only work on articles, no talking and no pestering...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. Paul August ☎ 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to Crossmr above) Here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose Peter offered to donate a thousand dollars to Wikipedia, would you accept it? If so why not accept his valuable content contributions? Paul August ☎ 15:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The system is automated, he can donate or not. Its completely irrelevant. He has found him in the position of being blocked because of his behaviour. That means at this point in time his contributions are not welcome. If at some point in the future that changes, he's free to contribute.--Crossmr (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By what logic are his dollar contributions acceptable but not his content contributions? Paul August ☎ 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested in the last AN thread that Peter could be unblocked, but limited to only article and article talk pages outside his own userspace. I still think this could work - it's strict, but I doubt anything else would work. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If banned or blocked editors are still willing to contribute featured content, we should be able to find a way to allow that to happen. However. We have several precedents in other editors, and the behavioral disruption in some cases outweighs the content benefit by causing a drain on the time other productive editors could be spending in article work, as well as a drain on FAC morale. If the arbs and admins can find a way to make it happen, good luck, but take care not to set precedents that will bite us in the butt with other cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal. Peter Damian just doesn't seem to be able to stay away from Wikipedia, and his article contributions seem to be valuable. The disruption he causes is outside articlespace, e.g. the Established Editors fiasco. Let him edit on one account in his userspace and in articles and their talk pages. Fences&Windows 15:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Ryan's proposal. And I'd volunteer to monitor Peter's edits and revert or block where appropriate. Paul August ☎ 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know the history that led to Damien's block, but in terms of other cases, where the precedent concerns me, "unblocked, but limited to only article and article talk pages outside his own userspace ... " may be too broad. I do know Damien contributed some rather underinformed commentary as a sock on the Catholic Church FACs, and prefer restrictions be placed on previously disruptive editors in terms of exactly which articles and talk pages they may edit, so disruption doesn't spread (thinking more of other cases). Also, if the door is opened on similar cases, I hope FAC delegates will be notified, and someone will monitor for disruption at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding. I do not know the extent or nature of Damien's disruption, other than the frequent socks and underinformed commentary at Catholic Church. I do know that FAC morale was seriously deteriorated, and many FA reviewers and writers put off by other disruptive editors. I don't want to see that spread, just as rebuilding FAC morale is (hopefully) underway; we shouldn't allow one editor's content contributions to sideline other productive FA writers and reviewers. If the arbs can find a way to account for that, I'm on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he'd be banned from FAC discussions so hopefully that should eradicate your concern. Peter would solely be allowed to edit article page, article talk pages and user talk pages. Perhaps 6-12 months down the line that could be reduced slightly, but there would have to be a consensus to do that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How could he participate in a FAC if ... banned from FAC discussions? That implies someone would have to proxy for him, or all FAC discussion would have to move to article talk. Why not allow him to participate only in that FAC, with the stipulation that the FAC will be archived at any sign of disruption? Or something like that ... again, I don't know the nature of the behaviors that led to his block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't need to participate in any FAC, in order to contribute content. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But he stated he wants to bring History of logic to featured status, so that bridge would eventually have to be crossed. Anyway, you all know the history here better than I do; my real concern is that we take care with precedents regarding other editors. I'll leave it to those who know the case better to resolve, but if the article heads to FAC, I hope someone will let me know what the conclusion was. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because he wants to bring an article to FAC doesn't mean he needs to be allowed to. The key thing here is capturing the very valuable content that Peter is willing to contribute. Whether or not an article gets a gold star is wholly secondary. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an approach that was tried first with ScienceApologist and afterward with Piotrus during their sitebans: assemble a team of three editors in good standing, and seek prior approval for them to proxy a specific article improvement drive (including DYK and GA pages). Wikipedia gained good content on both occasions and ScienceApologist has been uncontroversial since his ban expired. In theory that type of approach might be viable with Peter Damien, if Peter is willing to abide by the terms of the restriction and focus on content. It's one potential solution worth considering if Peter is amenable and if three capable editors are willing to assist him. Durova⁴¹² 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to me involving sockpuppets

• User:Logic Historian put this message in my user talk page:-

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated. ===Request to WP:AN=== "I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows: User:Peter Damian (old) User:HistorianofLogic User:Logicist User:Here today, gone tomorrow User:Renamed user 4 I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else"). Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The users listed seem to be sockpuppets of the same user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• See discussion starting in User talk:Fram#I've reinstated the contents edits by HistorianofLogic that you reverted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• See three sections up. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I combined the two sections, since they were about the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you that this is the same person that wanted to introduce subtle vandalism as part of a plan to destroy Wikipedia, and then started carrying out step 1 of his plan? (Diff here). Oppose any motion to allow his contributions, even in article space. The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, that's not a "Diff" but a "link". A diff would show that he actually introduced some kind of vandalism - you know, two versions of Wiki article DIFFerent from each other, as opposed to a comment on an external forum. What the LINK shows is just some random "what if" musings, complete with a statement that he would be "uncomfortable" with vandalizing Wikipedia to make a point. This smacks a bit of thought-police and character slander.radek (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that he has abandoned that plan. He was lately planning to use a sock to bring an article to FA status, and then reveal the sockiness just when the article was entering FAC. This way he could see the fights between those wanting to remove all his edits because he's banned, and those wanted to keep high-quality content. This looks like the same plan but with a tweak. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think using a proxy is fine, no harm really if the FAC article is good enough. Its would be a pity to become myopic and put process before content. Which are we here for. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good content or not, if we have to have other editors watch and confirm edits(because how can someone whose stated goals seem to be to fuck with this community be trusted to not put hoax material into their article?, it will be gone over with a fine tooth comb), why the hell do we want him around at all? This whole fiasco seems like an extention of his earlier plan to destroy Wikipedia. And he's just admitted to using 4 socks, and it seems to be confirmed. If someone one were to propose a permanent community ban, I'd be all on board. When you know your holding a poisonious snake, you dont put it in your pocket for safe keeping. Heironymous Rowe (talk)

"of his earlier plan to destroy Wikipedia" - do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? What is he, Dr. Claw or something? I actually chuckled when I read that but now I just think it's sad that a perfectly reasonable request which would potentially benefit the encyclopedia is being rejected on the basis of some comments made on an external forum which, according to Peter himself were "tongue in cheek".radek (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SkyBon

Reverts the page to version with his disputed addition after the protection expires (and no consensus on the talk page was reached) and then asks to reprotect it ([109], [110]). Is that appropriate behavior? vvv^t 10:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "Also an administator of Russian Wikipedia was desysoped for being a domestic partner of vandal and for splashing one of the administrators with a glass of water at one of the Wikimeetings." an "appropriate" edit? Probably not; you may be on to something there, vvv... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Skating on thin ice. If this persists, there will need to be sanctions against SkyBon. Fences&Windows 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev

Dilip_rajeev (talk · contribs), whose disruptive editing behavior has been noted in a previous arbcom case [111], has resumed editing the FLG related articles. He has returned to edit-warring in the 6-10 Office [112] and Persecution of Falun Gong articles [113], restoring long deleted materials several times despite concensus amongst other editors, as well as making personal attacks[114] [115].--PCPP (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is without a doubt the most disruptive, tendentious and point-pushing Falun Gong/anti-Baba editor I have ever come across anywhere on WP. If my reading of the AE case I filed against him before his last opportune disappearance, he would have received a six month FLG topic ban like asdfg and HappyInGeneral. had he been around. His MO is one of hit and run, but he is also known to disappear for months on end. He has been very busy of late within articles about the Chinese Communist Party, Propaganda of the PRC, 6-10 Office... His actions in PRCverse should be seen as part of his agenda to precipitate the downfall of the Communist Party of China - the declared objective of the Falun Gong. I request a site ban. It's about time we said one last 'thank you' to him for his 'invaluable (sic) contribution' to wikipedia. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) While I'm uncertain whether or not this is the right place to bring it up (could be an ArbCom matter, or whatever other bureaucratic venue), dilip's latest drive-by-rampage at Persecution of Falun Gong (see above) does raise concerns... he throws in 57,000+ characters in one sweeping go (w/o bothering to fix the reflist), and then says something along the lines of "explain in detail which of these sentences/words you contest"... after others had been debating and finding consensus since, like, November last year... *sigh* As far as I recall, that was exactly the point of last year's ArbCom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions apply to Falun Gong articles, so there is no need to involve ArbCom or ArbCom enforcement. What remedy would be best here? 1RR? Indefinite topic ban? Fences&Windows 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Because of Dilip rajeev's habit of hits and runs, and of disappearing for weeks and then reappearing for short bursts, I request an indefinite site ban. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I certainly wouldn't mind his editing articles on strawberries or goosebumps, but I doubt dilip will suddenly start developing an interest in, say, hunting techniques in Papua New Guinea. Anything that distantly relates to Falun Gong is where he pulls his stunts (SPA). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment For a long time I have refrained from weighing in on the various iterations of this dispute. Here I just want to point out that, while Dileep rajeev's "hit-and-run" editing is clearly not conducive to building a better encyclopedia, PCPP (the editor filing this complaint) is not above reproach either. The diffs he posted above and called "personal attacks" don't really look like personal attacks to me, and he appears to be just as guilty of edit warring as Dileep is. Specifically, on 6-10 Office, PCPP twice[116][117] reverted Dileep's edits without any explanation whatsoever (and I see no discussion on the talk page until after that all happened, so he can't say that Dileep's edit violated existing consensus). I also notice that he has selectively notified only editors that would support him after opening this thread—clear votestacking. Extremely poor behavior from both parties here; if any disciplinary action is leveled against Dileep, it ought to be done so against PCPP as well. This childish back-and-forth has gone on far too long. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling other editors "CCP propagandists" and "Wikipedia's worst vandals" not personal attacks? In fact, Dilip [118] just charged in and edited the entire intro to 6-10 Office and removed all references to the PRC official statements which he routinely dismissed as "CCP propaganda" [119], and did the same with the Persecution of Falun Gong article, which you overlooked. And how am I votestacking? I've left a notice on Dilip's own talk page, and the users I notified (Seb az86556, Ohconfucius, Mrund, Colipon) are all regular editors of the FLG articles. Dilip's history of POV pushing, edit warring behavior and personal attacks have all been outlined in a previous arbcom case [120], and almost the entire group of FLG editors have issues with his edits, so blanketly associating me with Dilip's long term is grossly generalizing the issue at hand.--PCPP (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Need I remind people that this is the same person that wanted to introduce sneaky vandalism into articles, as part of a plan to destroy Wikipedia? Oppose any attempt to let him contribute. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This was put in the wrong thread. Striking my comments, no opinion on the situation in this thread. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this "Case" is a concerted attempt to keep me from contributing to the articles. All my contributions have been highly sourced - and these have been repeatedly blanked by the same user raising the case. Not just on 6-10 office were my contributions bluntly reverted but pages of well sourced material ( there was no discussion or explanation for days from PCPP's end for the blanking) I had added to the Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. The set of users chase me around, blank out all my contributions, which I always ensure are centrally relevant and highly sourced, then raise such attacks against me. I have not done multiple reverts, I have not added poorly sourced info, I have not violated a single wikipedia policy. PCPP is supported by a set of editors whose backing he calls for when filing cases like this. There is systematic evidence of blanking of highly sourced material from wikipedia pages related to the human rights violations of the CCP, by PCPP and a group of editors supporting him. Here, in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, for instance, it has been made to seem, through blanking of sources, and distorted write ups, that hte persecution is a fairy-tale invented by practitioners. While sources ranging from the Congressional Executive Reports, AMnesty International, UN CAT reports, HRW, Schechter, Ownby ,etc. all discuss the persecution in depth.

• I most humbly request the reviewing admins to kindly compare at least the intro of this page with the current doctored version ( the one after it has been run-over by PCPP and his supporters). You can see how every single source mentioning the persecution is blanked out.

• In the 6-10 office article you can see how PCPP reverts my edit out three times, refusing to give any explanation for his blanking and distortion of material. A paragraph he simply keeps blanking is here: "According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."" Recent instances of the blanking: [121] [122][123] Kindly also compare the leads of the article after his blanking. As it has been done in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, it is made seem that the 6-10 office is a "supposed" judiciary. The "Supposed" claim is not supported by any source. Throughout these articles, the sources have been distorted out by the same users attacking me here: Like, for instances, on the Persecution of Falun Gong article. Source: "Some were taken at or on their way to protests in Beijing and brought in groups to psychiatric hospitals, others were brought by family members who felt threatened by the authorities." In the wikipedia article: " "Some were taken at or on their way to protests in Beijing and brought in groups to psychiatric hospitals, others were brought by worried family members." PCCP's real contributions outside of white-washing CCP crimes are minimal, and there can be seen in it a pattern of making himself look like a non-SPA.

• Another recent instance of blanking, with no explanation offered, by PCPP, can be seen here: [124]

• I would also like to point out this case RfC against PCPP [125]. Here, he, again, piles accussations on me of everything including sockpuppetry. Despite it being repeatedly explained to him that i had not engaged in any such activities. The dust and smoke thus created, through attack on contributors, serves as a cover for the systematic blanking of material taking place in these articles. And those contributing are given labels, cornered and attacked down. The editors attacking me here are staunch supporters of PCPP ( As can be seen in the comments made here:[126]) That speaks much about their stance and belies their claims of neutrality. They present their voices as "outside opinions", when they have throughout

supported the user and closely worked with him in the removal and distortion of content. This I point out, not as a personal attack, but as a fact for which am willing to present any amount of evidence. Given a few days time, I can compile and present systematic evidence of this. A quick glance at the history of many of these pages could also reveal a lot of evidence of this.

I have, whenever contributing to articles, systematically presented my sources, as here and made sure the contributions are based on good research. It involves days of effort, during hard earned free-time, and then when am blanked out like this [127], and then attacked, it can be quite frustrating.

If any editor had raised any concern with any specific contribution of mine, I would have clearly and fully explained myself. I do not understand why am being accused of "hit and run," now - for I sincerely believe it cannot be based on any of my recent contributions. The accusation orginates from the same group of editors supporting PCPP. These are labels the set of editors attempt to put on me - Here I contrute with Brittanica, Schechter, and Ian Johnsons - the material is blanked out, my edit labelled a "drive-by" shooting [128]. Such accussations are repeated throughout on the same users' talk pages, etc - in a pattern that comes across as a miniature version of the Big Lie strategy, trying to make my contributions appear so to admins and other editors. While planting such attacks against me, these editors have always failed to present solid evidence to back-up their claims.

Also, I would like to point out that while I have repeatedly raised my concerns, I have not engaged in personal attacks as the user claims. The current AN/I is but an attempt by the set of editors, who'v ebeen chasing me around, to keep me from contributing to these pages, which would allow them to further advance their goal.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass production of music articles of questionable (or absent) merit.

Resolved

 – wrong forum. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

JackShestak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created an incredible number of articles is a very short time. I'd appreciate some help sifting wheat from chaff. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a matter for the Administrators' noticeboard. Consider asking for help at WP:WPMU. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 6 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 [129]. 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)

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)

Cliché Online

Resolved

 – Both editors warned against edit-warring. No admin intervention required, nothing to see here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cliché Online (talk · contribs)

I've had a few disagreements with this user in the past - they usually stem from my editing of an article, or piece of information in said article, which Cliché takes exception to. Latest of these run-ins is a disagreement over the Ferrari Challenge: Trofeo Pirelli article - I feel there should be less detail on it, he feels there should be more. Normally this wouldn't be a problem and I would be able to just discuss it with the other user, but its incredibly hard to assume good faith as Cliché is habitually over-agressive and uncivil, choosing to move off on tangents and brand me as having an "agenda" (pro-Microsoft/Xbox, anti-PS3/Sony), examples of which can be seen on my talk), rather than actually calmly discuss something. Anyway, he's breached 3RR on the aforementioned article and I was going to bring it up on the noticeboard, but his incivility is so wearing I decided to bring it here instead. If needs be I can dig up the run-ins/previous aggression/incivility I've experienced with him in the past (which resulted in him getting blocked twice, if I recall). Much thanks! Fin©™ 18:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the article history. Civility issues notwithstanding, you both appear to be edit warring and are both in blockable territory for that. I would suggest you each stop editing the article and seek outside input or third opinion immediately. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Implying that I edited one article but not another as I have an Xbox bias, general aggression, simplification of edits, accusation of vandalism, incivility, accusation of bias, accusation of bias, sarcasm, accusation of bias, accusation of bias, personal attack ("don't have a clue"), accusation of bias, accusation of bias, aggressive/personal attack. They're all within the last hour. I can provide diffs from the previous disputes if necessary. 3RR: 1 2 3 4 - the first two have antagonistic/aggressive summaries. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the edit warring on either side (and as I've hit 3RR, I've stopped editing) - the issue I brought here is about Cliché's general conduct and attitude. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, you're past three reverts:

• 1 (reverted portions of this)
• 2 (reverted portions of this)
• 3 (fully reverted this)
• 4 (fully reverted this)
• 5 (fully reverted this)

These were all within the past 8 hours.

As for the 'attacks', personally I don't see anything blockworthy there. Calling your edits "random" is saying something about your edits, not about you personally. Saying you're "agenda-pushing" may be incorrect and is certainly not the best way to communicate, but it's not the kind of terrible personal attack that people get blocked for. Perhaps someone else here might deem that a warning is necessary, but there's certainly no admin action necessary, and you should both consider yourselves lucky you haven't been blocked for edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, to call edits I make that revert part of another edit a full reversion seems excessive. I don't dispute the last three are reverts, but the first two are edits that happen to include reversion of material. The personal attacks I linked to were those stating that I (personally) "don't have a clue", and as you say, is nothing something that's blockable - I was providing diffs like you asked. Calling my edits "random" was aggressive/uncivil (I felt), seeing as I had provided this edit summary. Again, I'm not asking for a block, or indeed administrator intervention, but to class Cliché's accusations and comments as "incorrect" and "not the best way to communicate" without mentioning WP:CIVIL seems to be missing the point. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Woah, I've just realised you linked a single edit of mine to one that contains 62 revisions by Cliché, the other one includes 24. To call my edits to an article a "reversion" when it reverts part of some of these 62 revisions is incredibly misleading. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" (emphasis mine). And you can argue all you want about whether you made three reverts of five, but it's still clear edit warring behavior regardless; WP:3RR clearly states that you can still be edit warring even if you haven't made 3 reverts.

Since you aren't requesting any admin action, I am closing this thread. For complaints about behavior where admin intervention is not needed, WP:WQA is a better outlet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In closing, I'd just like to say that I opened this thread because I personally was finding Cliché difficult to deal with due to his constant incivility, aggression and accusations, and found his attitude was making it very difficult to assume good faith and keep cool. This issue was effectively ignored and instead edit warring was made the topic of discussion. This thread makes me less confident in the ability of WP:ANI to resolve problems I might be having and in future I'll directly approach an admin instead. That's all. Thanks. Fin©™ 20:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because this is not the kind of problem ANI is meant to resolve. Try WP:WQA instead.

And, as for edit warring...well, edit warring is a more serious offense than the other things brought up here, and you have only yourself to blame for doing it. If you hadn't been edit warring, I wouldn't have focused on that. Don't think that being the first person to file a complaint somehow makes your own actions immune to criticism; any time you come to a noticeboard, you yourself will be scrutinized as much as the other editor is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally, finally, finally (and for what I think is the third time): I don't dispute I was edit warring. I don't dispute you should have acted on the edit warring. I was pointing out that the reason I opened this thread was effectively ignored. Thanks. Fin©™ 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not ignored. As I said above, I looked at the diffs and deemed them not a problem needing administrator intervention. I pointed you to WP:WQA. Don't blame other editors for the fact that you brought your dispute to the wrong venue. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Eva Golinger

Can BLP knowledgeable admins please keep an eye on Evagolinger1 (talk · contribs) at Eva Golinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apparently it was once created by that editor and deleted as a copyvio. I'm not an admin, so I can't see deleted content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The deleted version looks like it was copied from here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, she basically added false information published by herself or her cronies at Venezuelanalysis.com, and since she's an attorney, she should know better. The Daily Journal existed in Venezuela long before this Chavez-funded venture, and anyone and everyone in Venezuela knows that, and she's Venezuelan-- so we have some POV-pushing going on as well as the COI. She seems to think that "first under Chavez" makes it relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please not bite the newcomer? Talking about "cronies" of a living person on this noticeboard is not civil. There's surely nothing here that needs immediate admin attention, so why did you post this here? Looks like you're a bit ANI-happy, there are other steps in dispute resolution before dragging your opponent to the dramaboard. Oh, and you should know by now that you should notify an editor when you post a thread about them. I've now done so. Fences&Windows 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Newcomer? She previously (2008) created a copyvio, and since I can't see deleted versions, I have no way of knowing how long she was around or how many edits she made. I do know that, as an attorney, she posted false information to her article, and the org she writes for headlined that same false info. Kind of you to notify her; now chill. There's nothing that needs admin attention? So, who has verified that the person editing as Eva Golinger is Eva Golinger? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's only two deleted edits. F&W's response here is a bit puzzling; this is a perfectly valid notice to post here. Copyvios are serious issues and do require immediate attention. Tan | 39 20:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Tan; I'm not much worried about F&W-- occasionally, ANI works for its intended purpose :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So, back on topic after the baseless distraction below and peanut gallery response above, since no one has yet addressed the most important matter of the ANI report; how do we deal with WP:REALNAME? How do we verify that the editor using the name Evagolinger is really Eva Golinger? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, please remain civil and refrain from calling other editors' responses "baseless distractions" and "peanut gallery" responses (whatever that means). If you had wanted to discuss how editors could determine who User:Evagolinger1 is, then perhaps you should have started out the discussion with that question. You are criticizing other editors for not focusing on that question, which you didn't bring up initially, but are now claiming is the "topic" of the discussion (which to me appeared to actually be "watch this user" because they made a copy vio in the past"). Additionally, you haven't focused on this topic yourself, bringing up criticisms of Venezuelanalysis.com, discussing past copy vios, and insulting other editors. Again, pot --> kettle. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try to find another place for your lectures; it's not my job to do admins' jobs for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks, avoidance of discussion, rheotoric, incivility, sarcasm. Try again. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting away from the point, pontificating, holier than thou attitude and plain obtuseness. Try again. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really. What is "the point"? The OP has started discussions on several "points". Which one are we choosing? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of my name being SandyGeorgia? I'll never tell ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the one point only line for ANI discussion? BTW I've corrected you effectively interrupting yourself --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Every party has a pooper ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia -- You focused on the newcomer aspect of Fences and windows's argument, and ignored the point about being civil, which I think was more important. Name-calling against living people and other editors in unconstructive and unnecessary.

I've been exploring many of your heavily biased edits to Venezuela related articles. I'm surprised that you are complaining that "we have some POV-pushing going on". Every one of your additions that I have seen is wholly negative, and all of the removals seem to be anything that could be seen as positive. This seems a bit disruptive, and inappropriate. Try to maintain a more neutral viewpoint when editing, and definitely don't come here as a "pot calling the kettle black", talking about how we have "POV-pushing going on".

While I realize that you might not like the things on Venezuelanalyis.com, due to the fact that they aren't wholly negative in their representation of the events taking place in Venezuela, it is a totally reliable source, with an impeccable record for fact-checking (which is why Harvard, Cornell, and many other universities have it as mandatory reading for several of their courses...). Using language like "cronies" and "false information" doesn't change that. Generally, when people have to resort to using language like "cronies" to dismiss something they don't agree with, it is generally a sign of a weak intellectual position. A person that has a strong position can generally objectively present facts which will speak for themselves, rather than having to resort to weaselly and dishonest language.

Another problem is that you are often taking things completely out of context, selectively reporting information, and choosing language which skews things to try to support your viewpoint. If you had a stronger position, you wouldn't need to be misleading. For instance, you have claimed here and on Eva Golinger article that the work is "funded by the Venezuelan government" or is "Chavez-funded". Some of Golinger's work is funded partially by the Venezuelan government which has given out millions of grants to democratically run media cooperatives, including many that are openly hostile and critical of the government. You are presenting a partial truth, taken out of context, in order to make people believe that this paper is just some government propaganda outfit, rather than the work of someone who freely supports some of the social changes taking place in Venezuela. US-AID and the [National Endowment for Democracy]] have given tens of millions of dollars in funding to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela, including many of the backers of the 2002 coup attempt, but I highly doubt you go around to their Wikipedia articles yammering about "cronies" and stating that they are "funded by the U.S. government". The United States government gives grants to print media all the time. Do you go around and insert commentary on their Wikipedia page about how they are a U.S. government funded outfit? If not, why?

You do have a point about the copyright violations, and that was worthy of being brought up here. But that's all you should have brought up here. Your removal of the comment regarding being the "first English-language paper, etc...." was totally appropriate. But it didn't belong here -- removing it with an edit-summary was sufficient. Please calm down when discussing Venezuela-related articles, and try to be a bit more balanced. It seems as if you are pushing a very strong agenda for whatever reason, and your comments here seem to be an outgrowth of that. Maybe you should take some time to cool off, and go work on a subject-area where you can be a little more objective and calm?

--Jrtayloriv

Please sign your posts using ~~~~, thanks Jrtayloriv. SGGH ^ping! 23:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, no diffs, of course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I said requires diffs, since all but one (the second) paragraph refered to comments you've made here on this page. As far as that paragraph is concerned, I wasn't taking action against you, and am merely trying to help you improve your editing -- thus I don't need diffs since I'm not trying to make a case against you. If I was talking to someone else, I would have provided diffs, but you already know what I'm talking about, so I didn't waste my time. But I'll humor you -- here are two examples of the types of inaccurate, biased, misleading statements and weasel language I am describing:

• [130] -- "no evidence of improvements in the literacy" ... except for UNESCO which has stated that since the beginnings of Chavez presidency, literacy rates have skyrocketed ... also note that you have dedicated two paragraphs to a single factually inaccurate and biased source entitled "Empty Revolution". ... interested that you would have all of that anti-Chavez vitriol sourced by a single partisan author, and then turn around and claim that it is inappropriate to have a section sourced by a single pro-Chavez partisan editor ... how does that work exactly? Everyone is "partisan", and to allow only partisans that support your point of view is inappropriate, and leads to a one-sided inaccurate presentation of a topic.
• [131] -- "Fringe" source ... or just a source that you don't agree with because she's probably just lying through her teeth along with all of the "pro-Chavez" "cronies" in her "Chavez-funded" publications? I've noticed that you have a knack for replacing sources that are perfectly adequate, but don't mesh with your POV, with sources that still support the fact being referenced, but generally take a much more negative slant. Instead of replacing reliable sources, why not just add another source, so people can get a more diverse range of viewpoints? Certainly, you'd like to have people able to get more information about a subject, rather than limiting it, right? ... And you said you removed this video: [132] because it was "controversial" and "already had it's own article". Please show me a Wikipedia policy that says that videos that are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and has won a dozen film awards, should be removed from the External Links section because you feel that it is "controversial".

But, as I said, you already know what I'm talking about. Rather than avoiding a discussion by claiming that something is "too long" to read, and that there weren't any diffs showing you your point of view, why don't you work on improving the issues mentioned above? Basically, (1) try to maintain a neutral point of view, (2) don't censor/remove accurate information backed by reliable sources because you don't agree with it, (3) don't take things out of context and use weasel words to mislead people about a topic. (And SGGH -- sorry about not signing my name last time -- oops!) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another diatribe: try this link for your "factually accurate" Venezuelanalysis.com, and FYI, it's already been to WP:RSN, where the consensus was pretty clear. End of story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, avoiding responding to arguments and resorting to ad hominem attacks. And don't lie. That ongoing WP:RSN discussion has reached nothing approaching clear consensus. You are being misleading again. Please stop. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted distraction. Standard OP when no cogent argument is forthcoming. It's always worth throwing in the occasional "ad hominem attack" just to be safe eh? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And when you don't take the bait, 'cuz this isn't the place to address the misrepresentations in his posts (this is the place to deal with the username issue, which still hasn't happened :) they just get longer winded! Must be sooooo frustrating ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth throwing in "ad hominem attack" when ad hominem attacks are being made. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Please calm down when discussing Venezuela-related articles, and try to be a bit more balanced. It seems as if you are pushing a very strong agenda for whatever reason, and your comments here seem to be an outgrowth of that. Maybe you should take some time to cool off, and go work on a subject-area where you can be a little more objective and calm?" And, btw, it would be nice if you took your issues elsewhere, so the real issue here (THE USERNAME) wouldn't get lost in the largely inaccurate verbosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No ad hominem attacks here, move along. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, light bulbs! It's all coming through my thick, chocolate-befuddled brain now! If JrTaylor isn't worried that someone else is editing as Eva Golinger, he must know Eva Golinger! That would explain his editing POV ... so Jr, would you mind figuring out and explaining to her how to clear this up, so she isn't blocked for COI, username issues, and inserting false info into her article? Thanks so much-- most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, Evagolinger1 is in effect a newcomer as they have made very few edits (two deleted edits, of which one was the deleted copyvio and another was a talk page comment asserting permission in 2009; 3 articles edits and 2 user talk edits). Tan, the deleted copyvio (a common mistake for new editors) is from November 2008, hardly what I'd call an urgent problem. The issue at hand is that SandyGeorgia has brought a novice editor to ANI over a very limited content dispute after making no attempt at dispute resolution. The two edits to Eva Golinger that have SandyGeorgia so exercised are this one to add some information that SandyGeorgia disputes and another to remove a COI tag. SandyGeorgia's response is wholly out of proportion to these edits. SandyGeorgia, please stop treating articles to do with Venezuela as a battleground, and in future try to resolve your content disputes calmly by way of discussion before seeking other remedies. WP:ANI is not the first port of call for resolving editing disputes. Unless an editor has evidence that admin action is required, this thread no longer serves a purpose; it has merely descending into bickering. Fences&Windows 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good lord: another ANI circus where anyone can say anything. It's the internet. I don't *have* a dispute: I have a concern about a username, COI, and an editor editing as Eva Golinger inserting false information into her article. Deal with it. I'm not an admin, it's an admin issue, and it belongs here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Exercised"? Let me guess, it was the iPod+Nike stuck on her arm that gave the game away? And as I understand it, new editors can still be demonstrating CoI, POV pushing and username malpractice. Perhaps a seasoned editor should be given as much respect as you seem to be showing the newbie and looking into her point instead of harping on about biting new editors. Some of them just scream incisor action! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an IPod or a Nike: what's a willy? Anyhoo, next time I see a COI editor name issue, I'll take it to the grownups :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a couple of them very, very close. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here--based on Evagolinger1's edits, it doesn't appear that she's the real Eva Golinger, so I have usernameblocked her. Blueboy96 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Blue boy ! One would certainly hope that an attorney wouldn't insert false info into her article, commit a copyvio, or respond in the ways she has responded. Apparently this has to be spelled out in illustrious detail to Jrtaylor and Fences :) Let's hope they learned something. 1. It's not up to me to make admin decisions. 2. That is PRECISELY what this board is for, and Jr derailed the thread with a completely unrelated and inaccurate diatribe. 3. Let's suppose I were an admin, and had effected the block myself ... of an editor I'm now accused of being in dispute with-- oh, that would be a dandy mess, wouldn't it? Yes, another ANI circus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protection for Kunta Kinte

Could an administrator please look into page protection for the Kunta Kinte article? The page has been protected several time over the last year, and seems to be in need of it once again. I don't know if a block for the offending IP would be easier, since the user seems to switch IP addresses rather easily(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).Thanks. DD2K (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sprotected it for one week. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. DD2K (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

71.246.35.80

71.246.35.80 (contributions), aka Ernie A. Smith Ph.D. (contributions), has strongly held views on Ebonics and related matters, and on those who disagree with these views. So far so good. However, he may have mistaken the article or the talk page for his own lecture podium, he lectures at some length, and he has a taste for canine-themed and other contumely. The main object of the contumely is me. I don't mind the latter aspect of it at all -- indeed, it's quite a novelty for me to have a previously unimagined neurological disorder diagnosed in Wikipedia of all places -- but the fact that it's me who's the main butt of the doggy metaphors and claims of mental disorder, added to the possibility that somebody might claim that I'm attempting to gag the other side in a content dispute, makes me leery of taking measures I'd take in a twinkling if I'd suddenly arrived at this article and its talk page. I shan't even specify the measures here, and instead leave the choice among them to the discretion of whichever admin cares to look at Talk:Ebonics. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Smith's views on this topic are apparently very WP:FRINGEy -- see this NYT article -- and he's definitely here to push that POV, and nothing else. He also seems to be incapable of collegial behavior, and is apparently of the sort that thinks it's OK to call someone an asshole if you do it in 150 words (12 of which you have to look up to be sure of what they mean) rather than 4. So, he's an uncivil, POV-pushing, OR-adding, logorrheic WP:TRUTH-warrior who's not here to help build an impartial encyclopedia - for what reason do we need this person around? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one point to avoid a potential misunderstanding. WP has an article on African American Vernacular English. A little controversially, it also has an article on Ebonics. (I'm fully in favor of the existence of both articles and defended the latter at its AfD from charges such as that it was merely a fork of the former.) The views of the real-world Ernie A. Smith are of particular importance within the Ebonics article (though of minor importance within the AAVE article). I now think that this user is indeed the Ernie A. Smith that he claims to be. His POV is very important -- but it should be added to the article in the usual way. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and were he capable of editing in the proper manner, and within the recommendations of WP:COI, he could potentially be a big help -- but it's clear that this is not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, this editor does indeed seem to be Smith. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I added a reliable third person source [133] for Vic Mackey and other articles and it keeps been removed I don't believe trivia without sources should be allowed. [134] other shield characters need additional sources too. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with the editor who reverted your edit? Have you informed them of this thread? Fences&Windows 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NO because I am fed up with dealing with idiot fanboys of article particularly of fiction on wikipedia who scream something is notable when you try to remove but don't provide reliable evidence to show its not worthy in the case of Shane Vendrell this a reilabe source I added about the character [135] and this is what I removed its triva an has no sources[136] the same here Vic Mackey [137] [138] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already had a word and yet the problem fanboy inclusionists can't be reasoned with see evidence. [139] Dwanyewest (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the first step in dispute resolution is to assume good faith and try to talk with the other side and see if you can reason with them. This should've been brought up on the IP's talk page before bringing it here or to a relevant noticeboard/wikiproject if that method is exhausted. And it is always polite to notify an editor, however distatseful you may find them, if you are bringing them to ANI. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to square one with the edits been changed I warned you it was a waste of time debating Dwanyewest (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hacked account?

Resolved

 – Blizocked --Jayron32 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okthen123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just posted the following [140] on my talkpage, following a warning for an amusing but nonetheless vandalicious edit. Hi,I am very sorry for what the vandalism on some of the wikipedia articles. It appears that my account has been abused and hacked, as I did not write these things. Would it be possible for me to delete this account so that I could create a new one? Thanks. Apologies for any distress caused.

Could someone take appropriate action. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I blocked it. The block reason I listed was "compromised account" per your link, but he's patently lying. If you check the contribs history, the account was created : March 6 23:18 and started vandalising at March 6 23:21. I'm not sure anyone has ever hacked an account in 3 minutes before. --Jayron32 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, let's see if he pops up elsewhere in that case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweep needed

Resolved

 – IP blocked 48hr for reasons not related to CU. Is there an oversight goof, since the link here works but no edits shown on IP's history?

Could any available checkuser do a sweep on IP 83.134.114.10? The user just tried to make an ugly death threat at NuclearWarfare's userpage, which the filter caught. Not likely that this is a new user. Blueboy96 02:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a /b/ meme, checkuser is unlikely to reveal anything interesting. –xeno^talk 04:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

CU or not, I'm going to mark as resolved since the IP has been blocked for the rather obvious reason and xeno explains the rest. For future reference, a quickie checkuser request can be submitted at WP:RFCU. The page is a little hard on the eyes, but use the menu and you'll be pointed in the right direction. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of Malleus Fatuorum by Moni3

Most editors of this board are aware that Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of incivility and of making personal attacks; some of this history is reflected in his block log. Subsequent to an unprovoked and clear personal attack ([141]) calling Chillum "a waste of space", I blocked Malleus for 24 hours. I did not feel that a warning would be required, as he has received a number of blocks for similar violations in the past. A reasonable person would conclude that he has been amply reminded of WP:NPA and WP:CIV already, and we don't actually offer the one-free-insult-per-day deal that would be implied by some sort of mandatory-warning-before-block framework.

Twelve minutes after I placed the block, Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked with the somewhat cryptic comment "ineffective block". At the time, Malleus had not posted an unblock request (or made any response to my block whatsoever). Moni3 did not attempt to communicate with my on my talk page or via email. Moni3 did not post any comment to Malleus' talk page prior to his/her unblock. Moni3 did not post here (the appropriate venue) seeking comment or outside review before taking action. Moni3 does not have any significant history of involvement in administering blocks/unblocks (having blocked/unblocked exactly three times this year), so this strikes me as a very unusual place for him/her to suddenly get involved.

I have asked Moni3 to immediately restore the block which s/he removed inappropriately, and to participate in some sort of discussion before overturning my block. (Update — Moni3 has rejected that request.) If s/he does not do so, I would ask that another admin restore the block — I'm not going to return fire in a wheel war. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A ridiculous block. At least three admins have agreed with the unblock. In my opinion, you should be reprimanded for this. Civility police admins are fucking this place up. Tan | 39 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TenofallTrades, what did you hope to accomplish by blocking Malleus? --Moni3 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and User talk:Moni3 as well. Several editors/admins jumped all over this egregious block, myself included. Way overboard, in several opinions. Keeper | 76 04:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of making light of abuse. Well, it drives people away. I don't give two shits what mall says t me, it is the outright endorsement of his actions in the form of unblocks(and this is not the first time) that gets me. Well I for one have standards and if such behavior is sanctioned then I will not be using this website anymore, I don't need this shit. You go ahead and allow all the nasty comments you like and eventually only the thickest skinned folks will remain, so much for a neutral point of view. I don't think people realize just how many Wikipedians are lost by not reacting to abuse, and even worse the admonishment anyone attempting to prevent the abuse receives. I am one of them. Bye. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bye. Tan | 39 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

*sniffle* Keeper | 76 04:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

... Xavexgoem (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Is this how we want to present ourselves? Really?

why are you whispering? Keeper | 76 04:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want to interrupt you whilst in the middle of your grieving? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, I have a lot of respect for you, and I apologize for my exasperated role in this whole nonsense. My snarkiness is perhaps unwarranted, but I've seen, as I'm sure you have as well, so many "I'm taking my ball and going home because you aren't playing by my (made up) rules" knee-jerk retirements, that I don't know how else to respond. Good riddance. I'll surrender a wiki-paycheck if Chillum isn't back in a week. Keeper | 76 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now if only Malleus would follow... I reiterate: I'm willing to offer donuts. HalfShadow 04:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very grown up everyone. Fucking unbelievable. RxS (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Helpful commentary. Thanks! Keeper | 76 04:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen, folks, we're not all in on the drama. So I do get pissed, like RxS is now (he says in two sentences what it took me three dots to say, effectively), when I think what it would be like for a new user with an actual problem coming to AN/I and having admins mock a user retiring in frustration. It doesn't matter if that person is expected to return, because I (as a new user) would not know that. I would want to stay the fuck away from here. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, X; it's true! Something must be done about admins who persistently attack and provoke other editors. Then we won't have these circuses :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• What I love about wikidrama is how quickly it escalates, and always with excellent diction. Look at this. Apparently Chillum removes a comment from a banned user from someone else's talk page. That someone says 'hey why are you removing edits from my talk page, rude boy?'. Chillum takes affront to that, and they go back and forth a bit, and someone writes a haiku. Malleus witnesses this silliness and makes a wisecrack, which probably should have earned a wristslap. But he's blocked right away. And then unblocked. And then the unblocking is portrayed as a grave abuse. And then AN/I raises it specter, as well as the rage-quit. We all realize how stupid these things are, right? (and everyone contributes to them.) Let's all have a pint instead? Oh, my popcorn is ready now. (No offense intended to any, I WP:AGF always)--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't endorse what Malleus says to you. I don't speak that way to other editors. But blocking an editor for 24 hours after making a pissy remark to you in not effective. It will not change Malleus' nature. Your entering a dialogue with him and trying to understand his points might. Both of you working together might. Blocking will not. --Moni3 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I seriously can NOT find myself participating in three ANI threads in one day. Goes off to the nut house muttering ... It's a Kodak moment, like, this is not my life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an overzealous block, in response to a rude comment. Warn/discuss before blocking. Diminish DRAMA. Why are some editors free to make rude comments, but others get blocked without a warning? Edison (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF! EC. Overzealous, premature, preemptory archiving. Edison (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Has been unarchived now, but I generally endorse Durova's closure. Don't think anything productive will happen at ANI. –xeno^talk 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, though, once you've been around here long enough, you really shouldn't need a warning before blocking. Malleus knows what the community norms for civility are here, and chooses to ignore them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about the original block, but Malleus' comments in the thread at his talk page following the block were quite incivil and, IMO, deserving of a block in and of themselves. Here are a couple of pearls: "Blocked again by some half-assed willy-waving clown. Sad"[142] and "Morons do what morons do"[143]. Nsk92 (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the block was wrong, and I agree probably it would not have changed anything, but Chillum actually left for a whole year according to his/her moonbook. If somebody left Wikipedia because of my actions I would have felt bad for that person. I would have apologized even, if I were sure I was right, and I would have definitely complied to 24 hours block. Just think about that: 24 hours versus a year. Everybody is different. Some people do not take incivility close to their hearts, others do. IMO we as the community should try to understand, and to help a party, who needs our help the most now, and that party is Chillum. The user needs understanding, and needs it now. It could be decided later on who is right and who is wrong. That's why I would like to ask Malleus Fatuorum to consider an apology in order to bring Chillum back.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• The problem that Xavexgoem and RxS have raised has been a concern of many users in this community, and it has been increasing with time. Even the concerns with blocking or unblocking over civility issues have also been a problem. ArbCom have demonstrated that they will repeatedly deny its existence in the hope that it will go away, or on the odd political occasion when they accept something needs to be done, they will refuse to address the issue in a remotely effective manner. Until the community has a more satisfactory binding mechanism of reviewing and addressing the manner in which certain administrators conduct themselves, admins really don't have any incentive in voluntarily changing their approach for the better. I pity the situation that Wikipedia is in today. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. Can we make a list of those incivil editors who are protected from blocking? There seem to be a lot of them. Woogee (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When your contributions parellel other editors, then yes - we can make a list. To deflect the inevitable responses: yes, all wikipedia editors are equal, and yes: all Wikipedia editors deserve respect and admiration for even simply showing up here. Yes, yes. That said, there are some that keep coming back again and again and again. Why? Not because of the drama, but because of the dream. Of free content. Accurate, sourced, and free content. You are but a rookie, Mr. Woogee. Tread carefully. Keeper | 76 06:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a rookie. Why does someone who called another editor a "waste of space" not deserve a block? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:35, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly mild insult by Bad Fat's standards. He should remain unblocked, though, until he's got everyone mad at him. Then it will be easy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "morons do what morons do"? I don't really understand how he's not getting blocked for this stuff... Can someone explain it to me, seriously? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:54, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Really? Is that a threat, Keeper? Woogee (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. No threat implied or intended. Just a caution. I'm a big fan of Malleus' content contributions (and a lesser fan of his off-the-cuff commentary, although I've always been adamantly in favor of seeing Malleus (and several others) protected despite his being his worst enemy. Off to bed for me. Be careful with whatever "list" you make, whether literal, rhetorical, or hyperbolic....Keeper | 76 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeper, that was a really low thing to say. Woogee has no more reason to "tread carefully" for making a snarky (and in my eyes, harmless) comment than I do. Characterising him as a "rookie" and that he should be careful because of it is also out of line. I'm really at a loss for words with this whole thread. To be perfectly blunt, I often have the exact same thought as what Woogee said above. Perhaps a list of those untouchables would be useful. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

^Agreed. Keeper's comments to Woogee were totally out of line. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:02, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, I agree that my comments went over the line. Apologies, Woogee. My intentions were pure, my delivery less than accurate. I'm a firm defender of any editor that builds wikipedia content, whether they happen to enjoy cotton candy and smiley faces or are generally grumpy and rude fucks. Wikipedia has historically had room for both types of content contributors, only recently developing a rather incessant need to be really really nice to each other. I don't care about nice. I care about accurate. Encylopedia. Keeper | 76 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Calling another person "a waste of space" is incredibly rude. From serially incivil editors, it deserves a longer block than 24 h. The unblock was not only wrong, but disruptive, as it violates policy: "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion" (WP:Administrators#Reversing another admin's action). I would support sanctions against Moni3 for this misuse of her administrative tools.  Sandstein  06:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. Bad unblock. Silly drama has ensued, and a small victory for the stupid and harmful idea that there are certain contributors who are immune to the civility rules. Wikipedia is not Usenet, thank goodness, yet. --John (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In case it wasn't apparent, I agree. Moni's unblock was against policy, and Malleus's behavior is definitely block-worthy. Being a fan of his content is not a valid reason to "protect" him, in Keeper's words (which I'm still amazed at having read). Wikipedia isn't a store where you can buy the right to be uncivil by making enough good content contributions. You can contribute only if you remain civil. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:10, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

User:125.164.3.249

I would love some assistance with the mess that this user has caused with their vandalism today...They've been adding random (and mostly non-existent) categories to articles for the past four hours without anyone catching them. I've issued them a level 1 warning, but given that this user has been relatively inactive over the last hour or so, didn't think it was appropriate for me to hit them with multiple warnings all at one time. I'm trying to revert as much as possible, but would like some help with that too! Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some of their category contributions actually do exist, and for the most part they seem to be adding things in good-faith, but have messed things up a bit by adding all sorts of fictional categories that don't exist. Frmatt (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, have fixed the problem now...but would appreciate someone looking at my actions and just making sure I did the right thing here...now having second thoughts about it! Frmatt (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

216.56.34.18

I believe this is the correct place to ask an admin to block someone? User:216.56.34.18 has been running rampant vandalizing some SCOTUS pages recently, and his talk page shows that he was warned as far back as May 2008. Roscelese (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a dynamic IP and since the user hasn't made any recent edits (within the last few hours), I'm not sure what an admin could do...I'll keep an eye on the user though! For future reference, any reports of vandalism should be taken here. Frmatt (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Roscelese (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Angie Y.

I'd like some help reigning in a user dedicated to adding fan-cruft to various articles (unsourced, fan-driven drivel). She doesn't seem to understand the our position on notability our opposition to original research and our insistence reliable sources, nor does she appear prone to listening. Her approach is simply to avoid 3RR by "patient (persistent) editing." In short, she figures she can wear people down. I wish to prove her wrong. She has been literally sitting on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - related articles for five years now and has fully developed largely unsourced, original research articles on each of the various characters. Admins wishing to get involved could begin anywhere, however the article on Veruca Salt would make a good start. I propose we attempted to convince Angie of our standards. If this should fail, I wouldn't object to an indef block until she changes her mind. At that point, we can go back, gut these articles of OR, and merge them as appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging would seem to be an excellent idea. Are there any other similar articles that treat characters in multiple adaptations? If not, merge immediately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many articles that threat characters in multiple adaptations. Lord Voldemort is one example. My gripe is that most of Angie's work is unsourced and original research (and she has resisted attempts to conform), and it is Angie's approach to editing I'd like to see addressed. Cleaning up her articles and possibly merging those with minimal sources is secondary. Rklawton (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Block needed

Wantsvictory (talk · contribs) has been in an ongoing edit war on the articles for two fictional lesbian characters. He has violated the three revert rule by a lot on both Olivia Spencer and Natalia Rivera Aitoro, changing the text "committed relationship" to "Twisted Lesbian Relationship" on both articles. I left a note warning him about vandalism and alerting him to the NPOV policy. He has since edited my comments and has moved his talk page to article space at Nagging West Coast Lesbian Supporters Get Their Way. Because of my opposition to Prop 8 (stated on my user page), Wantsvictory doesn't believe I'm being neutral, and since I'm involved here I'm not using my tools. I could definitely use a hand cleaning this mess up though. AniMate 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've issued an indefinite block. I don't see anything in the edit history that suggests he won't leave the propaganda out of it. I would like another admin, if necessary, to confirm the block since I doubt he'll sit well having been blocked by an admitted tailraiser. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious SPI who resorts to edit-warring and, failing that, vandalism. I'd say you're in the clear. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Qpwoeial's continued harrassment

This is entirely out of line. This user needs a time out. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have not reported to this to Qpwoeial because of his demands that I stay off his Talk page. Woogee (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't require any action yet. I've since explained there what I think was Qpwoeial's misunderstanding of policy. Wouldn't really call this harassment, at least not yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:38, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Anti-IP bias

Realkyhick (talk · contribs) is allowing his/her anti-IP bias show, to the point of undoing warnings I've issued and informing me that s/he's going to be stalking my edits. Would somebody mind informing them that registration is not required and attacking IP editors is unacceptable? 24.4.248.154 (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

you were throwing warnings around that were not entirely warranted. please be more careful with that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not "attacked" this edit at all. I struck out two improperly-placed warnings that this anon-IP editor put on another editor's page. After this editor slapped a warning on my own talk page, I responded by informing him/her that there was no "attack" and his warning was improper and out of order. I also informed him/her that I would investigate his/her edit history to see if there was a pattern of improper warnings or other similar behavior. The anon-IP editor will not communicate directly, but only slaps warning tags. This IP only shows edit history for about the past 12 hours, give or take an hour. I am suspicious of this editor, given his or her penchant for slapping warning tags around - some correctly, others not. The fact that he or she has immediately posted a message here without any discussion or explanation of his/her actions makes me doubly suspicious. The anon-IP editor also exhibits quite a bit of knowledge about WP to only have a 12-hour edit history (yeah, I know about dynamic IP's and such, but still...). Something just doesn't small right here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)