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

User:Man with one red shoe

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Move along. VG ☎ 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Man with one red shoe seems to have a habit of wiping his talk page, which I see has contained quite a few warnings relative to the amount he has contributed. I am currently choosing not to get into an edit war with him at Bucharest even though I think he is utterly wrong on the matter at hand. Someone who has not been in conflict with him might want to look into the pattern of his edits, I've seen just enough to tell me that I'm not willing to assume his good faith, which means I should stay out of the picture. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Without looking into the rest of it, any user has the right to blank their own talk page. See WP:BLANKING. Oren0 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, when an editor gets reported and an admin finds they have a habit of blanking their talkpages which just happen to contain many warnings regarding the same things... Well, it usually doesn't go well for that editor. However, if an editor becomes a well regarded member of the community - who needs those reminders of a less than savoury past cluttering up the page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with people looking into my history. As for blanking my page is not related to any warning, I don't let any comment on it. So, what is the complain about, my edits in Bucharest, or my blanking my talk page -- just to be sure that I understand what is this about. I'm pretty sure I didn't break any rule. So, what's this about? man with one red shoe (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I really hoped to just add a request for someone independent to take a look at your conduct, and reach whatever conclusion they might, and other than the request I intended to stay out of it myself, because I'm probably biased by how I crossed paths with you. But since you ask me directly:

1. I thought your removal at Bucharest was wrongheaded, so I reverted it with an explanation. You reverted me back.
2. I don't engage in edit wars, so I did what I usually do in a situation like this to try to work out whether to work this through with an unfamiliar editor on on the talk page of an article. My two quickest guides to someone's character on Wikipedia are their user talk page and their contributions. The short of it is, I didn't particularly like what I saw. It looks to me like you make a lot of contentious edits (and few uncontroversial ones), and have a habit of blanking your talk page. Blanking your talk page is allowed, but it is generally considered dubious conduct (I think pretty much any admin will back me up on that). Contentious edits are allowed, but a pattern of them does not suggest to me someone I want to deal with, and can indicate trolling or any of a number of other problems.
3. What I saw was enough for me to conclude that I didn't want to spend my time engaging you in discussion (though I guess I've now wasted even more time than that would have taken. Oh, well). It was also enough to make me wonder whether on net you are contributing positively to the building of an encyclopedia.
4. Taking off my editor hat and putting on my admin hat, I was a bit concerned about the combination of contentious edits and blanking the talk page. I felt someone should follow up and see if there was a problem here (there might or might not be, I really have no firm idea), but since I was already annoyed over the Bucharest matter I basically recused myself from being the person who would follow up.

In short, I've asked here for someone disinterested to look into the pattern of your edits, because what I saw concerned me. If they say "no problem", fine, at least from an admin point of view. That's definitely the last I am saying on this. I'm no more interested in having a fight here than in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1. So you didn't agree with my edit and you decide to report me to the Admin noticeboard. Nice. BTW, I explained my revert too, you didn't provide a reference that the nickname is still in use.

2. Why you didn't open this discussion on Talk:Bucharest instead of bringing this to ANI for two reverts on a trivial matter? Did I refuse to talk to you in the talk page?

3. So you decided that it's not worthy to discuss with fellow editor, but to report him/her to ANI... again, very nice.... are you an admin? is this the common attitude among WP admins?

4. Blanking my web page is well within my rights and it shouldn't be suspicious, this is a under-the-belt hit, it's like judging somebody for how they walk or how they talk not for what they have to say. If an admin will tell me that's against the rules I will stop blanking my talk page but till then I will do it and I don't like to be reported to ANI for something that's well within my rights.

BTW, I don't respond here because I'm afraid of any consequinces because I know that I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm a bit concern to see an admin behaving in this shameful manner. Basically you didn't like two of my edits and you reported me here with no basis bringing up arguments "blanking my talk page" that shouldn't have any weight. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Jmabel was perfectly right in reporting you here. It is not normal to blank your talk if you've been repeatedly warned. Just be honest and you'll get somewhere. Arguing, rather than negotiating/explaining what you did to everyone isn't going to get you farther. Just my 2 cents --Belinrahs (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See the history of my talk page, I've always blanked my talk page, is not related to any warning, and when Jmabel reported here I didn't have any fresh warning, and most of the warnings have been frivolous (or at least that's my opinion), Jmabel didn't post anything in my talk page, but again, my blanking the page has no relationship with any warnings and as far as I know blanking a warning is a sign that you got the warning, the warnings are in the history anyway, so this is not a cover-up attempt, it's just how I deal with my talk page and again this is well within my rights. Are you an admin? Is this an official position that I shouldn't blank my page? Is there a policy regarding personal talk pages that I've missed? man with one red shoe (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jmabel that there is a disturbing pattern here reinforced by the constant blanking of the talk page while making contentious edits, blanking legitimate warnings. One of Jmabel's comments was very interesting to read "but a pattern of them does not suggest to me someone I want to deal with, and can indicate trolling or any of a number of other problems.". This comment relates to it [1]. The comment shows going to an admin to fight for keeping "trollish" comments on a talk page that is for suggesting improvements to the attached article. While the user himself described the comments as trollish, he launched a whole campaign to keep and post them again and again, which included AN thread, talk thread, and the above qouted post to an admin all the while not explaining which guideline of Wikipedia mandates posting and retaining admittedly "trollish" comments on article talk pages. Hobartimus (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote block at least for a little while, per the findings of Hobartimus. The user clearly has no interest in doing anything constructive for Wikipedia. --Belinrahs (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in that dispute on the nickname for Bucharest, but it looks like User:Man with one red shoe is removing a nickname despite talk page consensus, which is also supported by plenty references. So, I'd say he's at least POV pushing, if not downright trolling. He only engaged on discussion on the talk page yesterday (Oct 26), before then he just kept reverting with no discussion. There's still some hope he'll give up without being blocked. YMMV. VG ☎ 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"he just kept reverting" - I reverted two times and each time I explained why. The admin who reported me here didn't even start a discussion on the talk page, I did, which shows that I'm willing to discuss my edits. I think your description of the events is misleading.

As for the issue that Hobartimus reported, I stand by my actions, people were trying to censor on talk:Hungary by removing comments that they didn't like -- no other reason. The conflict was solved when we got a third opinion that basically supported my point that we shouldn't delete content in talk pages unless there's a clear violation of the rules. Obviously I was on the right side of the fence, Hobartimus is not unbiased since he was part of that discussion which didn't end up the way he would have liked. Again, I'm not at all ashamed for that discussion against censorship, if you don't believe me take a look at the events and see what was the third opinion and the result of the debate. Why should I be judged and punished because I voiced my opinon against censorship when people eventually supported my position, not Hobartimus'? man with one red shoe (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole thread seems remarkably free of concrete evidence of any wrongdoing on MwORS's part. Nothing even remotely approaching blockable. Move on people, nothing to see here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Remarks by Everyme

I really hate to do this. I'm pretty thick skinned, and generally detest people coming here to complain of incivility or personal attacks. But completely unprovoked remarks about me by Everyme (talk · contribs) have left me speechless. I'm not going to say more, to resist poisoning the well, but I'd very much appreciate some admins to examining this comment and then this thread, and take whatever action seems good to them.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I tried to resolve this situation, unsuccessfully. See my comments here. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful to L'Aquatique for her attempts. Unfortunately, the user doesn't seem to get it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that Everyme has been made aware of this discussion, can I summise the concern is that Everyme has offended Scott MacDonald's sensibilities by inferring that an good faith difference of opinion by SM has been termed "intellectual dishonesty"? If so, I agree that Everyme should apologise for the lack of good faith shown and intemperate language used - different philosophies can produce different results from the same evidence; to label a differing conclusion as "dishonest" is both arrogant and incivil. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for not informing everyme, but I didn't want to be seen as baiting him, so I was staying off his userpage. If it had just been the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, I'd have let it pass. But he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade. An apology would be nice personally, but that;s not the point, it is more important from the project's point of view that we communicate that there are limits, beyond which we don't tolerate this attitude. I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Would Everyme been aware that use of that name (it means nothing to me) would have been particularly offensive to you, or to anyone, and is it possible that they still misunderstand that this is the case? I have to say that I missed this point when reviewing the links. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Em, his post doesn't make sense without it. But read all his remarks and draw your own conclusions.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that Ashley Todd is the name of the hoaxer... On repeat review I don't think that Everyme meant what you have taken it to mean (IMO, regarding concerns over the BLP considerations of someone who themselves are admitted liars coupled with the "intellectual dishonesty" language), but they have not made any effort to explain themselves better and certainly not taken the route of apologising for any misunderstanding - but rather simply requested you to review the past content and draw different conclusions. I would prefer that Everyme made some comment here before seeing if any admin action is required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe he meant something else? Maybe when he called me dumb, and stupid or dishonest, he was actually trying to say something nice as well?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the real issue here is that this is ultimately about McCain-Obama. In a couple of weeks, Everye will lose interest in this, and probably Scott as well. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not American, and have no partisan allegiances. I'm not sure that political stress excuses Everyme's behaviour.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What then excuses your behaviour? Concern about BLP? Hardly so. And for anyone who doesn't know: Yes, I'm for Obama and I despise vicious racebaiting, whether it comes from a confused young woman or from anybody else. More importantly however, I'm worried about encyclopedic accuracy and quality of discussion. Consider that the entire dispute began when Scott actually tried to argue against "Ashley Todd's mugging hoax" as the article title thusly. I responded to that by bitchslapping his comment, and I maintain that I was not only right, but doing the right thing. Everyme 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• First off, Scott, thank you for your honesty in not informing me about this ANI thread. Thank you so much. I'm not entirely sure where I gave you the impression that I might possibly prefer not being notified over being "harassed" (a favourite buzzword of BLP-policy-fans btw, oh the irony). Well, for the record: I would have preferred it had you notified me, which I personally regard as a matter of basic politeness. Maybe you, Scott, would interpret a simple notification of an ANI thread about yourself as "harassment", but, just to kindly inform you about it, not everyone would and certainly not myself. Thank you very much for being so very considering and honest there. Wonderful.
  
  As to the merits of the thread itself: I've explained my position and my reasoning over and over, without getting any reply as to the merit of my reasoning. For Scott to say that "[...] he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade" is yet another comment I can only ... marvel at. I made it clear, both in my initial comment, then again at my user talk, that what I meant was the perception of some extent of intellectual dishonesty (for the record: my according reasoning has not been responded to by anyone so far). Deliberately mixing it up with Todd's racebaiting (an entirely different point in my initial comment, mind you) is, well, a wee bit far-fetched to say the very very least. So far-fetched indeed that I yet again can hardly think of any other valid explanation for why he would do that (and Scott did it in his initial comment at my talk page already).
  
  Scott refused to respond to my explanations, instead chose to be "just rather stunned". Well, again, I ask you, and this is all I care about: Why, just why, would you, at that article talk page, produce an arbitrary definition of "hoax" which you must know is entirely made up by yourself and wrong on top of that — and, most ironically, serves your stance in the article? Why would you do that? There are not so many possible explanations I can conjure up for that. Please respond to my reasoning for once. You, or anybody else who feels up to the task. Consider that I also made it very clear that in saying that I perceived his comment there as intellectually dishonest, my intention was obviously (or so I think) not to personally attack Scott. It was merely something I arrived at as the imho most likely conclusion of my reasoning. I did not comment on Scott, I commented on his comment, and told him in no unclear terms what I think of his comment, and, more importantly, why I do. Everyme 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Just a footnote here, but I'd like to note that Scott's memory appears to fail him when he claims above that "I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before." Everyme 07:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This kind of comment about another editor is completely unacceptable: "I didn't assume for a second that you, Scott, might actually be dumb enough to believe your own bullshit, like your definition of what a hoax is. But ok, I'll leave the choice to you: Either you are intellectually dishonest, or you're stupid." The fact that you refuse to admit it was wrong or strike it is concerning as this is clearly a personal attack. (Full disclosure, I've had previous disagreements with Everyme) Oren0 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your explanation for his awkward definition of "hoax" at that article talk page? I merely summarised all the possible alternative explanations I could think of. Since I believe Scott is intelligent, that leaves intellectual dishonesty as the most likely explanation for why he would give an arbitrary definition that just so happens to play to his stance on the article. Again, and for hopefully the last time: It's not a personal attack, it's applied logic. Also, again: Prove me wrong and I'll happily retract. But right now it's just not in my hands, I feel like I've done my homework. Please respond to my reasoning, which concluded with me seeing some degree of intellectual dishonesty as the most likely explanation for Scott's initial comment. It's the most charming of the possible explanations I could think of: I was actually being polite and carefully weighed my limited knowledge of Scott. Everyme 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't currently have the time to get involved with this, so I can't give an opinion either way, but I have previously had to negotiate with Everyme over gross incivility after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash and I got the impression that was not the first time, either. Maybe, if we decide this was unsuitable (again, remember I haven't actually gone over this in detail), it's time somene dished out a block. How long are we going to leave this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a truly hilarious situation. I can either renounce, against my better current knowledge, what I assume to be flawless reasoning on my part, or face a block. Well, I'll have to go with the block then because I am unable to discover a flaw in my reasoning and nobody bothered to even respond to my reasoning. Nevermind that I felt insulted by Scott's way of POV pushing there, and how he insulted his fellow editors' intelligence. But at least he did it civilly, didn't he. And that's what counts. Fuck my reasoning, fuck encyclopedic accuracy. Right on. Everyme 09:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I'd appreciate it if the section could be renamed from the imho quite misleading "remarks" name to "Reasoning by Everyme", or alternatively "Flawed reasoning by Everyme", depending on a response by anyone who actually bothers to look at the situation at hand and doesn't merely respond on their own grudge. I am as civil as the situation allows me to be. No more, no less. And it's once again fantastic to see for how little valid reasoning counts on Wikipedia, and how zero effort to provide a valid reasoning is being constantly indulged if only the user follows the hivemind definition of "civility". Everyme 10:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"...what I assume to be flawless reasoning..." is beyond hilarious; it goes a long way to evidence Scott MacDonald's complaint. No matter how "flawless" you might consider your reasoning, you have a duty to explain yourself in civil terms to a query (and you are required to AGF as regards such queries); your responses are uncivil, and arrogant, and unconducive to engendering a consensual editing atmosphere - being right isn't enough. Speaking of being right, are we not supposed to use reliable sources when ascribing motive or characterisations to a living person? Verifiability, not truth, is the basis of complying with BLP concerns, so ultimately "flawless reasoning" or lack of is unimportant. I strongly suggest that the discussion is directed to how the reliable sources describe the individual, and take it from there. LHvU (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You do of course realise that Scott's reasoning there was based on his definition of "hoax" as "implying a deception over time, not claims made then quickly retracted." — To which, taking your edit summary cue re: WP:V, I responded e.g. by linking to the Merriam-Webster definition of the term. Now, why would an intelligent person like Scott make up that exact erroneous definition, on an article talk page where to me personally, he appears to be concerned more about the BLP policy than about encyclopedic accuracy? Why would he do such a thing? Why? What exactly is your alternative explanation, if you so decidedly disagree that it's intellectual dishonesty? At any rate, his wasn't valid reasoning, according to Merriam-Webster. He also displayed a less than neutral approach in inaccurately portray the situation as "Someone who may be unstable said some untrue things." — Which, come to think of it (and on top of Scott's downplaying the situation, i.e. Todd's lying to the police, the racebaiting and the self-inflicted injuries to make her story more believable), contains an actual BLP violation, namely his labelling a living person as [mentally, I presume] "unstable" without presenting a reliable source for that extraordinary and potentially libellous claim. As to "unconducive to engendering a consensual editing atmosphere" : Are you trying to make me laugh or cry with that? Everybody else disagreed with him, I just took issue at the way he insult his fellow editors' intelligence in making up that definition right out of the blue. I felt insulted, and I reacted by carefully pointing it out to him. Obviously, he didn't like that. But I'm pretty sure he knows deep down that my criticism of his comment was spot-on. That's why he didn't react to any of my reasoning. He didn't comment on that at all, not even reiterating his definition of a hoax. He knows I'm right, he's just pissed off that someone called him on it to the fuller extent to which his comment was unacceptable. Everyme 10:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not, of course, realise that the question over the correct interpretation is irrelevant; we should use the term only if it is applied by the reliable source. Whether they are using the term in the correct sense is unimportant. Deliberating what constitutes the correct use is therefore original research, a point which Scott MacDonald also misses. The matter of the "consensual editing atmosphere" is in relation to your continuing incivil manner, and not to who is wrong or right. You earlier commented that you were frustrated by the fact SM was - in your view - incorrect yet their civil manner meant that they were not being castigated for their error. You seem blissfully unaware that ANI is not a venue for dispute resolution but for questions on violation of WP policies. You were and continue to be in violation of WP:Civil, and are displaying a lack of appreciation of WP:V. SM has also not understood the application of WP:V, but he has conducted himself in an appropriate manner in this instance. I am uncertain if sanctioning you is going to improve your understanding on how editors are supposed to conduct themselves, so I see no further purpose in continuing this discussing this with you here. LHvU (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Google says hoax, not incident. Great dispute resolution, everybody. Let's move on. Everyme 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the suitability of the term hoax. I made a case, and two people quite civilly told me I was wrong. That's fine and needs no dispute resolution. However, you then came in with gratuitous personal attacks, and when asked refused to remove them and engaged in more. Since that reflects on your weaknesses rather than mine, I've removed them myself and consider the matter closed. You, perhaps should reflect on your aggression, because if you continue in this manner I predict your future with this project will be short. I grant you the last word, and just hope it will not compound your incivility.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyme: Why don't you tone it down about 5 rhetorical notches? Your excuse that you "felt insulted" doesn't hold much water, I have to say. Your own response, on the other hand, was remarkably insulting. Just like Scott MacDonald can be wrong and civil, you should strive to be both right and civil. A conclusion of "intellectual dishonesty" is not supported by what Scott wrote, and certainly your further evaluation of him as either stupid or dishonest is also unsupported by any evidence. The flaw in your logic is this: You assume that in order to be wrong in this instance he must be stupid, deduce that he is not stupid, and conclude that he must be lying. Your first assumption is incorrect - you can be wrong without being stupid. Therefore your conclusion is not as flawlessly logical as you believed. Avruch ^T 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not logical at all. It's simply rude, and ad hominems are a logical fallacy. If someone does something wrong, there are other ways to react than arrogant and accusative speech. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone stupid is a personal attack, even if it's true. You can't logic away the fact that your comment was insulting and that's why you should retract it IMO. Oren0 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott feels rightly insulted here. The comments by Everyme were highly insulting and should be withdrawn. Hobartimus (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite an outstandig example of wiki lawyering by Everyme, an apology is in order to insure that he understands that such insults wont be tolerated. Failiure to do so would most likly warrant a block as the user is well aware of our policies on civilty.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either person, it just happened that I was reported above this discussion and my eyes wandered down. Does the guy go about insulting people all the time? If he does he should be warned, the discussions should be about articles, not about the editors, but insisting in getting "apologies" and "retractions" looks to me a bit like kids having a fight, let's behave like grownups, the guy should be warned not to voice again his opinion about fellow editors because it's against the rules (even if he considers he's right) and that should be it, insisting in getting apologies is a bit silly (oh my, will I be banned from Wikipedia because I said "silly"?) And by the way, I don't really get this. How can we ask (and actually force) somebody to be dishonest by apologizing for something that he obviously believes in? (this is a bit scarry, you know like 1984 and thought control...) At most the admins could say: "delete that sentence because is against the rules or you'll be punished for breaking the rules and don't continue to discuss editors", simple as that. BTW, shouldn't things that deal with incivility be reported in another part of Wikipedia? Isn't there a process, you need to warn the person and if the person continues with incivilities then you report them to WP:WQA. Has this noticeboard become a place where "justice" is dispensed summarily? Why are people reported here instead of where they should be reported? man with one red shoe (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I dislike posting in these threads, it is probably relevant to mention User:Wizardman's conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dorftrottel#Conclusion. Also, an IP claims to be the individual under discussion as seen in this edit. --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A Nobody, I believe you posted in the wrong thread. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? It looks like Everyme was Dorftrottel. man with one red shoe (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SA on a WP:CANVAS tear

Uh, I'm an involved party, but geez. . . [2][3][4][5][6][7], etc. Ronnotel (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw it come flying through my watchlist, we appear to be at 13 project and usertalk pages so far. Maybe he could consolidate to a single noticeboard thread at Fringe or here? MBisanz ^talk 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw notes on OrangeMarlin's and MastCell's talk pages, and thought that was okay. But I think you're right that SA has overdone it a bit here. Has he been made aware of this thread? Probably just saying, "Hey, maybe not quite so much canvassing next time..." is probably all that needs to be done here. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that first but I've been invited to stay the hell away from his page. Ronnotel (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh... Fair 'nuff. I notified ScienceApologist of this thread and echoed my sentiments above, that I thought the scope of his non-neutral notification was a bit excessive. Full disclosure: I am very sympathetic towards SA's efforts in general, and am somewhat of a ScienceApologist apologist. :D I do think he goes overboard sometimes, as he did here. Hopefully this can be resolved peacefully. Cheers! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the anti-anti-science stuff so much. It's the methods I take exception to. From his user page, he seems to think Inquisition v. Galileo should be reversed on appeal. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel is a cold fusion sympathizer with a grudge against me that could eclipse the moon. The situation at Cold Fusion is dire and we need outside eyes to look at it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the root of SA's frustration is that wp:fringe, although theoretically part of Wikipedia policy, actually has no force. The real policy is "the majority rules", and if the editors attempting to implement wp:fringe are not in the majority, the policy does not help them in any practical way. For those of us who see the policy as an essential part of building an encyclopedia, this is a pretty disappointing state of affairs. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll say one more thing. If people think that made-up rules like "Hey, maybe not quite so much canvassing next time" make sense, then I can just as easily do it under-the-table from now on and just start e-mailing people privately. I thought it would be better to do things above the table, but if people are going to be dicks about it and entertain the complaints of heavily biased parties who have been nurturing vendettas against me for years, what alternative do I have? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems the test at wp:CANVAS is if the actions are disruptive. Does anybody see these actions as obviously disruptive to Wikipedia? These are short statements at neutral sights which illustrate a big NPOV concern (namely that fringe pushers are constantly reappearing to deconstruct valid previously established scientific consensuses... cold fusion is just one example). NJGW (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. The policy cites an ArbCom decision to the effect: "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." I guess the question is whether the people being contacted are regular contributors to the Cold fusion page or not. Some of the contactees certainly are regular contributors, but by cross-posting to the various project pages, it seems possible, if not likely, that the ArbCom test might be met. I agree that there is a gray area here but I would like to familiarize SA with this interpretation so his future actions are in line with policy. Ronnotel (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that ScienceApologist perceives a situation where the regular contributors to this group of articles on a fringe science topic don't represent a balanced, neutral POV. The purpose of WP:CANVASS is surely not to discourage new participation from a broader range of editors in such a situation. Requesting contributions from relevant WikiProjects is, in general, a good way to encourage article edits from editors with an interest (and ideally, expertise) in the subject area. In the future SA should probably phrase his notices with a bit more tact, however, and avoid bringing his concerns to AN or AN/I unless administrator intervention is sought. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As a general statement, posting brief requests for comments or notices of discussions on project talk pages is a good thing, in my opinion. It allows for all interested parties to be informed, and prevents the appearance of canvassing to specific of editors. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Posting neutral comments at WikiProjects is definitely okay. However, the comments of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) were definitely not neutral.[8] He also appears to have been canvassing individual "friendly" editors with similar non-neutral language.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] These actions are disruptive. --Elonka 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how the specific actions in this event are disruptive to the project or to the Cold fusion article. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is what WP:FTN was invented for. And it works OK - at least as well as individual messages on usertalk pages, and it raises a lot fewer hackles. I bet virtually every editor canvassed by SA watches the fringe theories noticeboard - just leave a note there. As a general principle I am uncomfortable with situations where dedicated proponents of a fringe theory outnumber more neutral editors, and I find this to be a recurring issue on Wikipedia. However, leaving a large number of individual talkpage notices is problematic for a number of reasons. Let's use the mechanisms we've designed specifically to address these sorts of issues - that is, WP:FTN. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who reads those boards? I was just informed yesterday that WP:STALK was replaced by....I don't even remember, nor do I care. Cold Fusion is utter crap, I was in medical research when it was announced, and it was utter crap then, and it continues to be utter crap. I intend to watch the article, and if it's still crap, I'll ask anyone I damn well please to help out. I keep a list of crap, fringe-theory articles on my User talk page. I'll add Cold Fusion I guess. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Elonka. So, according to YOUR rules of all this, the best way to keep fringe content on this project is to stomp down on intelligent, scientific editors and suppress free speech. I get it, make sure to keep the fringe articles secret, so we scientific types can't find it. That's not going to work, and that is a very bad idea. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I share OM's view and SA's of Cold Fusion, and I even share their view that the people with a less-than-scientific approach to it have dominated the article, but to send to multiple noticeboards is at best unsubtle. And what I see just above is a declaration of intent to ignore the canvassing rules. I consider the invocation of "free speech" in matters like this an analogy to Godwin's law. Mast Cell is right--we have a method that should eliminate the need for this sort of approach. DGG (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that well, considering that Pcarbonn (a tendentious WP:SPA who has openly admitted to coming here in order to "correct" the real world's dismissal of cold fusion) has not resulted in any kind of sanctions despite a clear violation of WP:OWN, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:BATTLE over many months. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn has made a rather large number of edits to the page, namely 869[17] and further 987 to the talk page. The article has been rolled back to the version that was featured at least twice, there has been numerous threads on many notice boards, a meditation effort... nothing has changed and the topic comes up regularly. I think a topic ban both on the article itself and on the talk page for Pcarbonn would not go amiss here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf block review

Resolved

 – Block was appropriate.

I blocked Damiens on Saturday for one week for violating 3RR immediately after coming off of a previous block for violating 3RR. He's trying to raise a stink on his talk page because I didn't notice another editor violated 3RR with him... (Admittedly, I just checked his contributions, noticed a ton to the same page and looked at the diffs - I didn't even worry or think about the other editor). Can I get a review of this block? --Smashville^talk 21:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been appropriate to have commented to Rebecca, warned even, regarding the edit war, but I don't see that it invalidates the block on Damiens.rf; An editor may revert once, perhaps twice, and then they should discuss it - and this editor should know that. Unless he is claiming vandalism, that is bad faith editing, there is no allowance for continually reverting. Valid block, but perhaps Rebecca might be invited to comment here despite the edit war issue being stale? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Block looks legit to me, procedure followed. MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed per MBisanz, legit block, User blocked should deal with it as it was way too soon after his first block for the same violation. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 03:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I'd reviewed this block when an unblock was requested on 26 October. Smashville, you really should've looked at the other side, because there's no doubt that Rebecca should've known better, and been warned. In this particular case however, I don't see an inequity or invalidity in the block because I consider it an early detection of a problem editor. The 10RR was a major issue (blocked), then ignoring 3RR again was another issue (blocked again), but then the editing itself was (imo) a bigger issue, although no one has mentioned it in this thread so far. To put it briefly; if he continues editing in the way he has been, I won't be surprised if ban proposals are put forward in the near future. I do hope that there will be a reform in his editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know...I was kind of looking at it single-mindedly and didn't notice the other edits...I'm going to leave her a note on her page...--Smashville^talk 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, this is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – User talk blanked and locked by MaxSem. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? Talking about obtaining information about Wikipedia's legal status? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It isn't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Just so that I'll understand in the future. Although your bald comment without any other explanation doesn't really appear helpful. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no threat here,just silliness. Even if he did look at the guidelines for "GUIDELINES FOR OBTAINING YOUR STATUS" as a charity, so what? He's quite entitled to.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about this little number an administrator put on his talk page. Seems extremely bite-y.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in reply to [18] which was a nine times repeated block capital attack peppering a user talk page. But I have softened it a bit... --BozMo talk 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This more recent one is more explicit, came about during a conversation following an unblock request. Noting for clarity. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In case the deletions that started all this winds up at WP:DRV or under review by the Foundation, I have reviewed the deleted articles and searched for reliable sources with verifiable information that would show if these meet notability requirements. A Google search for "BBrad's Kids Cancer Foundation" gave no hits. Google serch for "Brad's Kids Pediatric Cancer Foundation" turned up six hits. These include MySpace pages for the organization, pages for a partner, Literacy Volunteers of Illinois, and the Wikipedia article for that group. Google News searches for each turned up no hits. As did Google Scholar and Google Book searches. The articles contain no assertion of notability. The articles' only source is the group's MySpace page. The group does not appear to meet WP:N or WP:CORP. While the group's work is commendable, this is not sufficient for an article in an encyclopedia. The articles meet criteria for speedy deletion. Dlohcierekim 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research on Ryu (Street Fighter)

• An IP user keeps adding information to Ryu (Street Fighter) that is clearly original research. I would ask for the article to be protected, but I feel as though he's just not clear on the OR policies. But I can't contact him because his IP keeps shifting, and I have a feeling he wouldn't look at the talk page of the article. What's the best course of action here? JuJube (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it to talk anyway, which can't hurt. I don't see that the IP is being particularly aggressive, so it's not really something that needs administrative attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bbiw/TLF

Resolved

 – Sent to MFD.

Are the opinions expressed in this user's subpage appropriate and permissible? It talks about a "small group," gives their name, and says in part "A fairly unknown organization, operating in the US. They are NOT considered a terrorist group and currently they do not stand as one" ..."The government is twisted in its own lies and should be removed immediately unless dire changes happen."..."We are the savior. We are the destroyer. Stand with us or fall. The time has come."..."A night of terror will follow.." Is this a permissible use of a user sub-page? Edison (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like an article in progress. If the user page says Do NOT try to contact me in hope of retreving information about TLF what other purpose does he have than to distribute a message (and then claim not to want to distribute it)? Odd. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this is either a prank or someone who stopped talking their medicines. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor has done nothing in Wikipedia but to create this sub-page, and a userpage that says what Moni quotes above. I'd say this should go to MfD, stat. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

done --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Total Liberation Front is apparently a Cyber Nations alliance. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Shared Accounts and Meat Puppets and Computer Sharing

Resolved

Martha Erin (Marthaerin1888) and I (MDCCCXLVIII)-we happen being biological sisters who currently attend the University of Wisconsin La Crosse-are good hearted Wikipedia editors who are newcomers and amateurs.

Martha Erin-my sister-started Wikibreak October 12th and she has confessed to meat puppetry and shared accounts (that is, Martha Erin, 23 others, I did edits using each others' edit accounts AND used meatpuppets-me included). Also, we shared Martha's computer while editing Wikipedia-THIS is her computer I am typing this notice on.

My sister already performed last messages. Anyone can put messages on Marthaerin1888 or my personal pages at MDCCCXLVIII. My names' Linda Michelle (actual name Lindsay but I prefer if you call me Linda much better). Martha Erin plans returning to edit Wikipedia between August 2010 and November 2017; I prefer waiting until mid Autumn of 2012 at the very least or September of 2015 (after we finish University of Wisconsin La Crosse Issues). But however can we prove that we would never do the work of vandals while on Wikipedia?

And also informing that 12.210.198.245 shall be retired as of Sat November 1st 2008-in other words my sister will no longer need the IP address number that is given to her computer from an ISP serving the area of La Crosse and Winona. And also, is sharing the computer at the same time you edit Wikipedia not very smart?

Linda of MDCCCXLVIII

Until Martha Erin and I return, so long folks. I shall resume MDCCCXLVIII upon my returning. Miss Martha will resume under alternate account-please note, however, the talkpage is protected over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.198.245 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me who finds that complete incoherent? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? seicer | talk | contribs 15:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure all I heard was a lot of quacking. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Both registered accounts listed above have already been blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

12.210.198.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was able to post here because FisherQueen's 2-week block on the IP expired recently. Since this IP is evading a continuing block on a registered account I've reblocked the IP for one month anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's disturbing to think that UW-LaCrosse is producing students who write that way. Why take 5 or 6 paragraphs, when "please block me" would accomplish the same result? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the massive amount of vandalism we get from school-IPs, is it any surprise that users who state they are in schools are a little...off? HalfShadow 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading this, my brain felt like it melted into Nutella. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

At least Nutella has nutritional value, unlike the above. -t BMW c- 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nutella looks like the dessert equivalent to vegemite. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo....Nutella is good, vegemite is inedible. (imo) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nutella is the hazelnut equivalent of Peanut Butter ... with a little milk and chocolate added in for "health" value. -t BMW c- 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And Vegemite is what you get when a bottle of beer throws up. HalfShadow 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs and Shadow: You forget, 30% of high schoolers and 50% of college students never graduate. Probably because they spend too much time vandalizing Wikipedia and teabagging their roommate when he falls asleep. As both a semi-productive college student and a semi-productive Wikipedian, I'm shaking my 40 in anger at this sort of behavior. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 03:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

US Dept of Homeland Security

I just blocked 204.248.24.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which is registered to the United States Department of Homeland Security. While it's not in the list of IPs that we're supposed to report, I thought it was notable enough to bring up here. Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some of those boys don't have enough to do. And given that department's purpose, maybe that's a good thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Forward and reverse DNS for that address match, as "sbcp6.dhs.gov". The edits have politically related content, although they're not electioneering.[19]. They read more like something from someone who didn't get that Wikipedia isn't a blog. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More than that, this one is out-and-out vandalism. Hmm...when the organization who is charged with keeping America safe is doing some attacking, one has to wonder. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Back around the time of the first Gulf War (1991), I recall reading that the first people outside the inner circles of government to know that something was going down were the pizza delivery people in Washington DC due to the sudden increase in late night deliveries to the Pentagon. Thatcher 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Officially known as the Domino's Theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When blocking a sensitive IP, it's usually good to notify WP:COMCOM by leaving a note at the notification page on meta. - auburnpilot talk 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And don't ever forget this useful tool -t BMW c- 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User created a page with malware link

I just blocked an new user User:Jdeveaux14. He/she created a page now deleted that links to malware. I opened the page and was sent automatically to a malware site that set my anti-virus off. I deleted the userpage that contained the same link. I have attempted to delete the page he created but I can't. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Jdeveaux14. Beware the page will redirect.— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I finally got it but the deleted diff still redirects. — Ѕandahl ♥ 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ibaranoff24 and rollback

This user has been edit warring on multiple articles over the past couple months and is now using rollback to implement his changes. See herehere here and here he is using rollback to remove sourced information added by a user he has been edit warring with because he happens to not agree with the content personally. None of these edits are vandalism, and if you check out the contribs there are dozens more instances where this user has abused the rollback feature. Landon1980 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the intended use of rollback, user's right should be removed.— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Was gonna await feedback from the user in question, but I cannot think of a reason to not remove rollback. ~~

Removed. Tiptoety ^talk 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As disappointed as I am with Ibaranoff24 for misusing rollback in the first place (I, after all, did give him rollback several months ago, on the condition that he'd use it correctly), I'm curious to know why it was so urgent to de-rollback him when, as of this time, he hasn't been online for an entire week and hasn't even been given much of a chance to respond to this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless de-rollbacking was absolutely necessary (i.e. the user was warned and they continued abusing it anyway), I thought the user was supposed to have at least some time to respond first to explain their actions and avoid making the mistakes again. Maybe I'm missing something, or just haven't participated in many rollback removal threads...I don't know, but at any rate, I'm not going to restore it. Just surprised at the removal rush, that's all. Acalamari 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he knew he wasn't supposed to use it to edit war with, and to use it only to remove vandalism. Acalamari, you gave me rollback and explained very clearly when it was appropriate to use rollback. I'm nearly certain you explained to this user as well. If you will look back through his contribs a bit you will see he has been edit warring on multiple articles here the last month or two and has been abusing rollback for quite some time. He was taken to AN3 a couple times here lately for edit warring. Landon1980 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From WP:PERM: "Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed." Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ItsLassieTime continued incivility and false accusations

I first encounter User:ItsLassieTime back in February while editing the Lassie (1954 TV series). At first, she seemed like a good editor, new but ready to learn. I'm the one who welcomed her here, offered advice, etc. After in April, we came to a large disagreement over the Lassie articles (though I honestly can't remember why, and can't find anything specific to point to as the bone of contention). Anyway I walked away from most of the Lassie television articles doing only minor edits to a few film articles.[20] Lassie later claimed I "chased" her away from the article, but as can be clearly seen from its history, she continued to edit the article well into May before she apparently took a wikibreak.[21] She apparently returned to editing sometime in September. On October 2, I also started revisiting the Lassie articles. We came to another conflict over the Timmy Martin article. I tagged the article for issues and removed an inappropriate non-free image ItsLassieTime had added to the article.[22] ItsLassieTime quickly reverted. When I again removed, AGF, ItsLassieTime reverted again claiming "CEASE and DESIST! It is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include. L and R are referenced in the article. DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE WITHOUT CONSENSUS!"[23] Suffice to say, it all went downhill from there. She continued reverted when two other editors also removed the image, with similar edit summaries, and finally a 3RR was filed against her after she reverted 5 times.[24] User:Master of Puppets gave her a warning for the report and encouraged her to stop. Attempted discussion on the talk page frankly went to hell in a hand basket very quickly.

ItsLassieTime began throwing out slews of personal insults, and when other editors supported the image removal she accused me of sockpuppetry! Things spread around to the Television project talk page, Master of Puppets page (see User talk:Master of Puppets#ItsLassieTime and User talk:Master of Puppets#Lassie Articles), and two AfD pages I had done for the Ruth Martin (television character)[25] and Paul Martin (television character)[26] articles. ItsLassieTime began making false accusations that I was stalking her, acting down right hysterical despite the claims being completely unfounded and, quite frankly, BS. She also began displaying extremely WP:OWN over the Timmy article, reverting almost any edit I made, including edits to bring the article in-line with the MoS claiming she will do her own formats. This also spread to Lassie film articles, including Courage of Lassie in which another heated "discussion" occured at Talk:Courage of Lassie#CEASE AND DESIST!!!!! and Talk:Courage of Lassie#DO NOT!!!!! where she absolutely refused to allow the Film MoS to be applied. She even went back and removed validly sourced edits I'd made to The Painted Hills months ago. She also AfDed some Shakespearean characters in some kind of retaliatory/pointy action because of the two character AfDs I did (no idea why she did those).[27][28]

Master of Puppets gave her some mild warnings and offered to mediate,but nothing was really done and while he was on a wikibreak, things only got worse. User:Cf38 also attempted to mediate, to no avail. I finally got so disgusted with her attacks and the lack of admin intervention that I delisted every Lassie article from my watchlist except the List of Lassie episodes and its season pages, which I had created. This seemed the only way to get away from her attacks and to bring some false of peace to the world. Alas, today she added a template she had created Template:Baby Boomer Toys to Charlotte's Web. Seeing the template, I felt it was not a good template to have, so I removed it from the article and sent it to TfD. Unfortunately, that again opened the floodgates for ItsLassieTime to begin her wild accusations, personal attacks, and outright lies.[29][30]

I let her get away with all this before and just walked away, but frankly I'm tired of her lies, her defamation of my character, and her manner of throwing massive hissy fits to get her way and chase everyone off articles. I'd really like an admin to look at this situation and deal with things accordingly (and before she even says anything, yes I referred to her as a "psychotic-Lassie fan" because of her over the top reactions to this whole thing and out of frustration from her constant personal attacks). She has also claimed in the current TfD that she has no problems with other editors, but her own talk page shows otherwise, if you look back at the comments she's carefully removed so that only the ones she likes remain. She was warned about being too bold in her edits, for making page moves without consensus[31] and for ignoring established consensus on infobox usage[32]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, what a complicated situation. In a ten minute walk through Lassie's contribs, it seems at face value that a few things are apparent. First, I really wish she would use an edit summary once in awhile. Second, overreaction is definitely a trend here, a lot of the time in the guise of complaints and admin-shopping. Third, it's not exactly clear that you are totally unfaulted here either, Collectonian - other people have complained about you recently, also. I am unable to come to a clear course of action. Tan | 39 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I shouldn't have let her goad me into edit warring or responding in kind to her personal attacks (though for me, I did keep my tone down far better than she did). And yes, I get complained about. *shrug* I do a lot of vandal fighting and deal with some contentious issues at times. I can even be abrasive and blunt at times. Now, as far as I know, I haven't been reported to AN/I in a long time, unless I was never notified. As for my talk page, there is ONE dispute on there at the moment, and that was after that editor and another got into an extremely heated back and forth and I, foolishly, asked them both to step back and calm down, so I got attacked for it as well. And, as far as I know, I've never had to resort to lying to attempt to make myself look the victim in any dispute. Either way, that does not mean I have no less right not to deal with such extended and extreme personal attacks repeatedly. If I cross the line, I get warned. I keep crossing it, I would certainly get stronger warnings and maybe a block. She has never really even been warned, but practically indulged and allowed to continue this mess for a lengthy period of time. And now she's taking to calling me "Collie" which would seem to be a sneaky way of calling me something else.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I read about 4 or 5 lines above and I decided not to bother with the rest. Yawn. Collie has a difficult time getting along with people and she's been sneaking around behind me for some time -- ie, reverting my work 2 minutes after I've saved a page that I spent a long time composing, accidentally on purpose creating edit conflicts, following me from one article to the next, nominating for deletion two articles I spent considerable time upon (she was shot down by WP consensus on those), and nasty nasty nasty ... *sigh* It's all so sad. Such a waste of time. So detrimental to WP. Collie can't get along with people. BTW, she has a nasty note about me at the top of her User Page and I wish an admin would remove it and tell her to behave herself. If you notice I have nothing nasty about her on my User Page. I stay away from her but she comes looking for me with an "it's all in the line of WP duties." Good little soldier that she is. I'll let the admins take care of this one. I don't want to get involved. I have enough headaches in my life without all this silly stuff. Maybe I should be banned forever. I don't know. I'm sort of new here and I don't know ALL the back-stage stuff yet. I'd rather go about my editing and trying to do some good work for WP. Is there a way I can hide my "contributions" so she doesn't know where I am or what I'm doing? Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out this "nasty note"? I was unable to locate it. Tan | 39 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already self-edited it.[33] It was the note I mentioned in my initial report, and frankly, considering the pages of insults she's thrown at me, it isn't that hideous (though, of course, I should have bitten my virtual tongue). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tan -- The note is gone. She must have dumped it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclined to give both editors official warnings to remain civil and to assume good faith in each other. While one side may be more "in the right" than the other, the situation is too complicated and subjective to judge any other way. Also, all either editor would have to do to avoid any further action is simply abide by the warning. However, seeing as I'm the only admin who has taken the time (sigh) to look into both editor's editing history, I'd like to get a second opinion and/or endorsement of this course of action. Tan | 39 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just want her to stay away from me. I notice she's involved in a long long long Arbitration dispute of some sort and I DON'T want to get involved in that sort of thing! When I think of all the time spent on those rebuttals, accusations, evidence, reviews of edit histories, etc. I cringe. All that time could have been used improving articles on WP! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I already walked away from all the Lassie articles. What else do you want. You are the one who edited an article anyone could see I edit on, so you came after me this time. And despite all your "OMG she's stalking me" I've yet to see you produce evidence. Note my report above includes evidence to support my statements. You, however, are incapable of proving that I'm "stalking" you because I'm not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the userid alone, I'd be concerned about WP:OWN by lassie when it comes to Lassie articles. Let's focus on the complaint (and obvious lack of following policy on even minor things like edit summaries) by the SPA. -t BMW c- 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the WP:OWN concern...along with the completely uncivil response to a complaint about their civility..."I read about 4 or 5 lines above and I decided not to bother with the rest. Yawn." Seriously? --Smashville^talk 23:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• And while we're talking about Courage of Lassie, I'd like all to look at the Revision history of Courage of Lassie. Collie last touched the article 24 April 08. I first touched the article 19 October 08, at which time the article was a stub of three or four sentences (see edit by Otto4711 on 12 Oct 08). Now it gets good: at 4:36 I did at bit of editing and "Saved Page". At 4:38 (all of two minutes later) Collie flew in from out of nowhere to "edit" my work and leave snotty comments in the edit summary! At one point, she created an edit conflict causing me to lose my work. It's an "ownership" stunt on her part, ie, she hasn't touched an article in months, then returns to the article a half year later to claim "ownership" by edit warring and edit conflicting when another editor does a bit of work. Another "ownership" stunt is to revert/delete another editor's good faith work and identify it as vandalism in the edit summary. ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point, without even looking at your account history, I can see you're new to Wikipedia. First, Collectonian (I'm not sure if they appreciate your shortening their name to match Lassie's breed) was the SECOND editor of the article after it was created. Many users use the "WATCH" function in order to be notified of changes to "favourite" articles. Your edit would have therefore advised Collectonion of that change, so "flying in" is more of a "hey, something apparently changed...". There appears to have been a significant number of edits and arguments about "trivia" or "unsourced" statements - these do not belong in Wikipedia. Finally, you say you "lost all of your hard work due to an edit conflict." When an edit conflict occurs, you are provided 2 windows: the first has the CURRENT version of the article, and the lower one includes the edits you ATTEMPTED to make. You then have the chance to compare the 2, copy and paste any edits you consider to still be valid into the current article. NONE of your work was lost. May I also add, most of your edits have poor summaries-they need to explain what you did. Many of the edits say "tweak", and are minor...may I remind you of the "Preview" button, that will allow you to see your changes BEFORE you apply them to the article. -t BMW c- 10:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about your PC, but on mine that feature doesn't work. Therefore, I always do a scan-and-copy of text I've been working on, before hitting "save". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox baby!!! Although it always worked on Internet Exploder too on any PC I used - Dell, HP, Toshiba, eMachines, MyNeighbourBuiltInHisBasement ... -t BMW c- 12:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I also works for me on IE 6 on all my comps as well as Firefox. Maybe something to do with the skin you are using? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm using the default skin, whatever it is. I'll check again the next time I have an edit conflict, and see if the problem still exists or if it works now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I use my epidermis. --Smashville^talk 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be your default skin. Unless you've recently emerged from a burn unit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me be Frank. Hi, I'm Frank. Every time you call her "Collie", you are being uncivil. She told you above to stop calling her "Collie". Watchlisting has been explained to you, but considering this is a complaint about your civility and bad faith assumptions, it would be in your best interests in this discussion to actually be civil and not assume bad faith. It's kind of like going into a trial for armed robbery and holding up the jury... --Smashville^talk 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So Frank is Jake with you, right? So, listen, Jake - things could be worse: at least nobody brought up the reference to "Lassie" in that landmark comedy classic film Porky's. Until now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Laddie. --Smashville^talk 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Kim Cattrall, who played "Lassie" in Porky's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Another "ownership" stunt is to revert/delete another editor's good faith work and identify it as vandalism in the edit summary." - for the curious, before she edited this, she specifically named the Disney vandal here. Yeah, a well known vandal of three Wikipedia's is "good faith work." Try reading for context before you keep making such false statements. And, as Frank noted, I've asked you repeatedly to stop calling me Collie. Its blatantly obvious you intend it to be insulting and its rather petty of you to keep doing it just because you know it annoys me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this edit actually is pretty telling. Although, to be frank again...my name's not really Frank... :) --Smashville^talk 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right, another stunt is to go back and edit your original edits on ANI, completely changing the context after other people have already replied. -t BMW c- 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Backing the truck up for a moment ... I just had a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. Did I not see a statement by Lassie about an arbitration action involving Collectonian? This is an awfully new user to have understood arbcom rulings, and the timing is just faaarrr to close to the closure of that specific arbcom case. Just sayin... -t BMW c- 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did find it odd that she was talking about it being such a "long drawn out process" (kinda funny too, cause the ArbCom in this case went very quickly). Though, to be fair, it was mentioned on my user page, though she "accidentally" misread it to presume that someone had taken action against me instead of visa versa. I do find it the timing rather interesting, though...and the accusations of me being a stalker in view of what the ArbCom was about...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's especially funny when she (I assume ILT is a she) tries to throw the fact that you've been involved in an ArbCom case against you when you were the one who started the process. It doesn't really feel related to me, though... --Smashville^talk 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ariobarza

I've recently been working on articles relating to ancient Babylonian history, but I'm getting increasingly concerned by the behaviour of Ariobarza (talk · contribs). While he is an enthusiastic contributor, he appears to reject the prohibition of original research. He constantly promotes original research and regularly makes edits, or even writes articles, on the basis of his own personal interpretations of sources. His additions are rarely if ever accompanied by citations. He treats Wikipedia as a battlefield, is aggressive, confrontional and accuses other editors of pursuing an anti-Iranian or even "neo-conservative" agenda (it's news to me that there's a neocon viewpoint on ancient history!). When his edits are questioned or criticised, he gets angry and posts long, rambling and often angry rants to article and user talk pages to justify his edits and views. He responds dismissively or with hostility to advice given in good faith and assumes bad faith of others who do not share his POV or question his use of original research. Key diffs:

• Promotion of original research. Numerous examples of articles created on the basis of uncited OR and personal interpretations: Battle of the Tigris (ongoing AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris); Siege of Ecbatana (repeatedly created and deleted via AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ecbatana); Siege of Halicarnassus (repeatedly created and deleted); Battle of Media (deleted); Siege of Kapisa, Battle of Mylasa, Battle of Pedasa, Siege of Pasargadae Hill, Battle of Pasargadae, Mitradates, Persian Revolt etc (all will need to be cleaned up as appropriate). Repeated unsourced additions to articles, which other editors have reverted: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. He is quite open about pursuing OR (which he calls "connecting the dots") in articles.[39]

• Treating Wikipedia as a battlefield / lack of good faith. Believes it's "up to me to stop Xerxes hordes". [40] Accuses other editors of pursing "an agenda". [41] [42] [43]. Accuses me of pursing "neo-conservative" agenda (Ariobarza apparently believes this is a westerners vs Iran situation and that he's defending Iranian honour) [44].

• Incivility. Numerous personal attacks against other editors. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] for just a few examples. Has been warned by other editors and admins to stop this behaviour - [52] [53] [54] - but has continued regardless [55].

• Tendentious conduct on talk pages. Routinely posts long, rambling self-justifications and rants to talk pages (too many examples to list, see [56] for one example).

• Inappropriate canvassing. Canvassed Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris with a characteristic angry rant against myself. [57] (See also #User:Tundrabuggy below.)

I gather that Dougweller (talk · contribs) has been trying to "reform" Ariobarza for some months, but without any success. Given Ariobarza's complete refusal to listen to any outside advice from other editors and admins, his obvious anger management problems and his ongoing use of Wikipedia to promote his personal views, I think a topic ban covering articles relating to Near Eastern and classical history would be appropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I GATHER that ChrisO is wrong that Dougweller has not reformed me, because I greatly made and improved the Battle of Hryba and almost got and I am in the process of getting a GA award for it, so I have great potential, but The Wall of Pink Floyd has is trying to block me, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• A NOTE ALL SHOULD READA topic ban, I'll still can edit articles you know. Now the message, ChrisO is lucky I do not have time to make a list of his faults and misconducts, which if I did, it would be longer that this page. So please do NOT remove this message, let it be a reminder to those that come here, so when they come here they get the FULL picture, not only ChrisO's side of events (unfairness is the biggest problem on Wikipedia, for lack of representation) and know that ChrisO were onced blocked, which now he is trying to get me mad, so I can get blocked. And all users will regret agreeing with ChrisO that the Battle of the Tigris did not happen, which as right now I am gathering the sources, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I can confirm that Ariobarza has been incivil to ChrisO (and others; he called me "Mr. Wall" here), and that Ariobarza has engaged in WP:OR on the articles under discussion. Since I've pointed out to Ariobarza that he has no sources for his claims, I suppose I should regard myself as a participant. I'll leave it to others to take action, if warranted.--Alvestrand (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did warn the user in question regarding the "Bratz dolls" uncivil comment made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris after looking through that day's list of AfDs as usual. I felt that, instead of coming to ANI, that a RfC for user conduct should have been initiated, as this seems to be a blatant misconduct issue in which multiple editors have failed to resolve. However, since we are here now, I would leave the decision on the action to be taken to whomever. MuZemike (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

An RFC might be helpful. I don't think we are about to ban or block this user here and now. To me, Ariobarza's editing seems more confused than malicious. A thread on ANI does not serve much purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did consider an RfC, but many different editors have offered advice to him over many weeks and months and he has consistently responded by attacking them, dismissing them or ignoring them. I don't believe that Ariobarza is willing to respond positively to feedback. An RfC can serve no useful purpose in that situation. He isn't contributing anything useful, he's creating a poisonous atmosphere by constantly attacking those with whom he disagrees, he's actively degrading articles by pushing OR all the time; why exactly are we letting him continue to edit? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only really been involved at the Battle of the Tigris AfD, although have been aware of issues on related articles. In my view the comments on that page, both from Ariobarza and from others, sum up the overall problems pretty clearly on the one page. When editors start here they often dive in over-eagerly into articles, perhaps excited by the possibility that their views and thoughts will actually get integrated into content here. Gradually most either drop out altogether when they realise that they can't force their personal views into articles against consensus and/or policy, or stay but become a little more cautious and take on board the limitations imposed by core policies on original research, verifiability etc. Others just continue brazenly on, demanding the right to impose their personal world views and analysis all over various pages. Those editors lose the right to fall back on the excuse that they're new, or that they don't understand. Ariobarza even appears to claim the right to conduct original research and make "discoveries", about matters that are presumably hitherto unknown to scholarship. This latest example means we have a whole article here about a supposed battle that no reliable source appears to have any record of (and even were these sources to exist, they should be found first and the article then built around them, not the other way round of course). It totally diminishes the credibility of this place as an encyclopedic resource of any sort. Maybe strictly it should have been the first step, but I can't see what an RfC would accomplish - Ariobarza is constantly subject to comments from a wide range of editors, but just shouts back at them while asserting to right to do what he wants. --Nickhh (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That has been my experience at Talk:Battle of Opis, which has been one long tedious OR-fest from Ariobarza. He has ignored everything that has been said by other editors and created Battle of the Tigris as a POV-fork of the first article, after he couldn't persuade people to include his OR. His conduct at Talk:Battle of Opis - in particular his constant insistance that he's right and everyone else is wrong or biased - is what leads me to believe that an RfC would not be of any use. Everything's already been said that needs to be said. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I never said I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The original research article says if in original research I find a discovery, then I could include it in Wikipedia, IF it is supported by sources. Your making up and jumping to conclusions about what I say, is very offending to me. Shall I say, this cornering and trapping reminds me of a saying... (The few against the many). I am currently minded my own business, so please, if I am going to suffer the same fate as Caesar, better do it now when my gaurd is down, than later. (When ariobarza says stuff like this he is being sarcastic.) OR, you guys can help me find sources for the battle, and not try to hinder progress on Wikipedia by deleting me. Thanks a lot.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The article you are linking to is a(nother) rather badly written and referenced Wikipedia article, not the policy. I've already pointed this out to you here, but you seem to have ignored that. Nor does it even say anything approaching what you are claiming it does in any event. And finally the whole point is that you do not anyway have any sources for claiming that there were such events as "Battle of the Tigris" or "Siege of Kapisa". Your attempts to invoke this irrelevant WP article as justification for your behaviour merely serves to highlight the nature of the problem I'm afraid. --Nickhh (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

*Ahem*, canvassing and forum shopping alert: ChrisO has been canvassing a number of involved editors ([58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]) to post here and echo his comments. As for Ariobarza, (s)he has already been warned for her inappropriate comments which were made in an apparent moment of frustration, and this is sufficient enough for now. If ChrisO feels otherwise, he should follow due process and initiate and RfC for user conduct which would allow a broader community input. Khoikhoi 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Khoikhoi, don't you remember? Ariobarza's already had an RFC a few weeks ago: it just got deleted for some strange reason or other. I think. Best, Moreschi (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I notified the people who were already involved in the discussions with/about Ariobarza, so kindly keep your aspersions to yourself. As for Ariobarza, I note that you haven't addressed his continuous promotion of OR (which is the centre of the problem), and it's insufficient to blame "an apparent moment of frustration" for repeated personal attacks on various editors on many occasions recently. Judging from his contribution, he's been behaving like an angry crank for months. We don't need this kind of editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was for conduct that involved two other users (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man). The log says that it was deleted because it was "uncertified." If that's the case, we should open a solo one as there is more of a case this time around for one. MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was certified; there was a dispute over whether it had been properly certified. I didn't bother appealing the deletion at the time because I felt the RfC had served its purpose. Unfortunately I seem to have been wrong about that. If others feel that an RfC is needed, I could probably create a fresh one based on the evidence above, but it will probably end up in arbitration. To be honest, I think this is something that the community can and should deal with - we shouldn't need to ask the arbitrators to do what we should be doing anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

JUst recently I been acting up because of ChrisO, AND I called 4 users Bratz dolls, GET OVER IT! Suggesting from ChrisO's tone, he is saying, OFF WITH HIS (ariobarza's) HEAD. Sure you guys do not need me, its not like it I made 3,000 valid contributions to Wikipedia. Your right ChrisO I should be Quarantined.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Dear, All user involved (HMM) I have come to the conclusion that I have been acting up a whole lot. Therefore I am currently writing a Public Apology to all the users I have offended and I have been wrong on most of the things. So for the sake of good faith I declare that we please put this behind us, and not escalate things, therefore we can resume progress on Wikipedia. I am willing to fix all my faults tommorow, if you and others do this now. My problem is I am short on time and often forget to source articles in the first place (which leads most users to think I am doing original research) and this is understandable from my part, so my main and maybe only problem is time managment. With best regards, thank you all (users for contributing free knoweldge to humanity) for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk Sincerly, Ariobarza

Ariobarza's outbursts are merely the icing on the cake as it were of the problem. The bigger, more fundamental problem is that this editor is dumping extremely poor and inaccurate content into this encyclopedia, based on their own amateur guesswork and original research, and has been doing this for over 8 months, with around 2,000 mainspace edits. You only have to stop and look at what they're doing for a couple of minutes - as I did - and work this out. I really would urge others to analyse what is going on rather than simply suggesting that an RfC would be better or whatever, on a point of procedure. Other editors have had to spend hours trying to stem or rollback the more egregious errors, and counselling Ariobarza on how to edit within the rules. But it just doesn't stop. As I've said it's damaging, and ultimately embarrassing. --Nickhh (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with Nickhh. I've taken the time to have a look through a fair bit of Ariobarza's editing history (in addition to the diffs provided here) and the quality of his contributions is pretty grim. It's one thing to have an editor who makes the odd spelling and grammar error but whose contributions of net benefit to the 'pedia, but this situation is something else altogether. I'm sure that Ariobazra means well, but his contributions are seriously diminishing quality of the articles he focuses on. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the excuse that he's "short on time" and "forgets" to provide sources. Add that to the Pantheon of the Lame. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to work with this editor since June, trying my best to explain about original research, using references, advising him that he shouldn't self-assess his own articles (he just ignored the criteria and gave an unreferenced article a 'B' classification), using his sandbox (I was the third editor to suggest this, he was first asked to do this in February rather than create articles with no references), etc. I tried my best to work with him and support him for some time, then started to simply give up and ignore him - which isn't easy simply because he does things that shouldn't be ignored. For a while on Persian Revolt he was adding huge chunks of stuff straight from a mid-19th century book by Rawlinson, footnote numbers and all - which I reverted when I discovered that as old as it was, it has a current copyright - but it looked ridiculous [65]. It would be useful if people looked at his talk page to see just how many editors have commented on problems with his edits. There are still quite a few articles that he created with no references that he hasn't deal with, and as we still here he hasn't learned from past comments. I'm also unhappy with the way he adds infoboxes with information in them that is often based on his OR. I don't know what to do about him, but I think a review of all the articles he created is probably necessary, he's been given months to sort them out. Eg Siege of Pasargadae Hill where I asked him four months ago for references, Siege of Doriskos which has been waiting since February for references, etc. I think he should request adoption and if he does that, seek guidance as to which of his articles that he created he can improve and which he himself should take to AfD. He shouldn't be working on any other articles until those he created are cleared up. If he doesn't accept adoption I think more stringent action needs to be taken for the sake of Wikipedia. He has been given advice which he hasn't followed for a very long period of time, and it looks as though crunch time has finally arrived. Doug Weller (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Tundrabuggy

Following on from #User:Ariobarza above, I am also concerned about the behaviour of Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs). I clashed with this editor earlier this year over his promotion of conspiracy theories on Muhammad al-Durrah. Since then I've disengaged from anything to do with him. Unfortunately he has chosen to do the opposite. He now appears to be wikistalking me from article to article, opposing whatever I support, supporting whatever I oppose, allying with and aiding editors with whom I have an editorial dispute. He has now done this on with least five articles relating to ancient history that he's never edited before I edited them - Cyrus cylinder, Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Kaveh Farrokh and now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris. He appears to be systematically watching my edits and involving himself in any dispute in which I'm involved. He has accused me of "pushing a particular pov" [66] and of being part of a "campaign" [67] to push a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Babylonian history [68]. (I've never heard of such a perspective and have no idea what it would look like). Other editors have expressed concern and disagreement with his tactics and comments [69], [70], [71]. Instead of responding to these concerns, he blew them off. [72] He has now turned up on the AfD mentioned above (which I didn't start), where he was specifically canvassed by Ariobarza, the editor who created the article in question. Ariobarza has presented a very hostile view of my involvement to encourage Tundrabuggy to get involved. [73] Tundrabuggy duly turned up to support Ariobarza in the AfD, in which I had !voted to delete the article. This is looking like a systematic feud on Tundrabuggy's part, and it needs to stop or be stopped. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Particularly since Tundrabuggy has contributed nothing useful or indeed informed. From my experience of Battle of Opis he is acting purely to harass ChrisO. It's not acceptable. Ariobarza etc at least have a genuine interest in the subject: I do not think this is the case with Tundrabuggy. Moreschi (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your perspective Moreschi. I don't remember seeing you at the Battle of Opis lately. Were you one of the canvassed ones? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(to ChrisO) This is an unfounded accusation against an opposing editor, with whom you're involved in an ongoing dispute. As Tundrabuggy pointed out, "all the articles above are intimately related to each other, and thus to be involved in one is to be involved in them all." ([74]) Khoikhoi 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza ... if you want to strike your comments on this page, then I recommend using <s> </s> rather than deleting them like you did to these Noticed they were re-added a few edits later-t BMW c- 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly unfounded. I quoted what Tundrabuggy himself has said: he has already made it clear that he's following me around because he believes I'm pursuing some sort of political agenda and he's seeking to oppose that. That's a nonsensical line to take. It's also a completely inappropriate reason to pursue an editor. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, Khoikhoi, are you an uninvolved or involved party? Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly involved, since he has been actively supporting one side - Tundrabuggy's, essentially - in four of the five pages I listed above. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and your comment proves my point that these pages are all part of the same dispute, and I have been involved in these pages for the same reason. Tundrabuggy has not done anything out of the ordinary here. This is the same dispute which has spanned across several pages. Khoikhoi 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A few notes:

1. I'm trying to avoid ANI's but was asked to review/participate on this post.
2. Just about everyone who commented thus far, myself included, are somehow involved. It's a bit of a shame to see the same "old faces".
3. Speaking as a person who knows what it's like to be followed and harassed by fellow Wikipedians, I'd like to try and keep things in proper perspective. i.e. I'm not sure I see much more than a somewhat 'new to wiki-policy' editor responding to a canvassing note. Has there been anything new other than the AfD within the past 10-14 days? Tundrabuggy has been active on several articles which were not mentioned, and to be frank, I considered his contribution to the Battle of Jenin talk page a bit of a relief considering some of the highly provocative statements made by fellow editors.
4. Considering my (mostly ignored) proposition to both Tundra and Chris to break off from active disputes was made a bit under a month ago and that there doesn't seem to be anything new, I would personally recommend a canvass related warning to relevant editors.
5. My apologies to everyone involved for meddling in.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I have not read the "Ariobarza" section above this subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize that KhoiKhoi is absolutely right, that all of these articles are (intimately) related to each other and have spidered to one another through the talk pages. As one of ChrisO's diffs pointed out, all are related by virtue of time-period -circa 450 BCE- subject and place. The seemingly obscure article, Kaveh Farrokh, is related as an historian. The idea that ChrisO is being wiki-stalked is out in left field, frankly. As for Ariobarza, I thought (s)he had tried consciensiously to make her points on the talk page before making small edits in the article. Then when she tried to write an article herself, before it is even finished, ChrisO and friends vote to speedily delete it. A sympathetic admin might have steered her into writing on her own name-space and helped her in making a better article. What is gained by doing a speedy delete? Nothing except [more] bad feelings are generated. That is why I voted against deletion. At least give someone a chance. I didn't vote the way I did to vote against ChrisO (as part of some [imagined] "systematic feud") but to vote for Ariobarza. I hope the distinction is clear. And @ Jaakabou -- I do appreciate your input. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the heightened sensitivity between you and ChrisO, I would suggest that you try and avoid even the impression of following him to future articles - there's plenty of articles out here. Also note that responding to WP:CANVASS notes is frowned upon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I've already pointed out on the articles for deletion page that this is an ordinary Articles for Deletion process, not a WP:speedy delete. And I've been telling Ariobarza since June that he needs to stop adding original research to articles and to stop creating articles with no references. He's had far more chances than most editors get. And when you take part in an articles for deletion policy, you shouldn't be 'voting' for or against an editor but stating your views based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Doug Weller (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course Tundrabuggy, you have followed Chris0 around. It stands out like dog's balls. Anyone with commonsense and good faith would raise an eyebrow to see how you followed Chris0 to the five articles after the dispute with him over the MDurrah article. The latter is an I/P article. The Cyrus articles have nothing to do with politics (though you edit there as though Chris0's putative POV on I/P issues influences his judgement on Persian battles). He has a professional background in ancient history, you apparently don't. What are the odds (wiki brims with mathematicians) that it is a mere coincidence that, after two editors had a conflict over a contemporary I/P article, on an obscure incident, the one worsted by technicalities that favour form over substance, moves on to work over several articles on Persian history that require a rather involved understanding of assessing abstruse sources, requirements he was trained in academically under a major authority in ancient history, only to find that, by pure chance, his whilom adversary shows up to edit against him over exactly the same range of articles? Almost zero. It has nothing to do with chance. To ask people seriously to believe that this is mere coincidence is a charming piece of chutzpah, nothing more. From an outside perspective, it looks as though your 'victory' in one article ran to your head, and you thought it worthwhile seeing if you could follow it up against the same antagonist. This is harassment.

You show, unlike Chris0, no technical understanding of, or informed knowledge about the historical evidence, evince no record (I stand corrected if wrong)of a long-standing intrinsic passion for the subject, but you are very strong in making 'political' assessments of the former editor's ostensible POV. That is wikistalking, and you do it by siding with, or defending, editors of little experience, nationalistic in approach, with whom Chris0 clashes on quite straightforward questions of RS. You appear in many edits, to me at least, to be a POV-headhunter, unaware of your own. That is your right. Nothing of course will be done about this, since wikistalking is quite commonplace. People enjoy niggling at others, especially when they've won one suit. Far too many editors don't contribute substantively to articles, but hang round to monitor POVs. You, at least here, are doing precisely that.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally some commentary with brains! Nishidani has it in one. Now could someone please do something about this? Moreschi (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no objections to topic bans on disruptive editors from articles; clarification: I'm not sure if this is the current state on the articles ChrisO and Tundrabuggy are comunicating on since last I looked was almost a month ago.

AS AN OFFTOPIC, I'd use this forum to note that I got a bit of a DE issue (myself) on Land of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with 2 editiors strongly promoting a personal misunderstanding of the Likud charter as a must be listed in the lead. Or as one of them put it in his revert edit: "It is important for article NPOV". Could someone please do something about this?

p.s. Tundra, Doug Weller is correct that !voting is not made on personal perspective but should be based on (preferrably also linked to) existing policy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC) wikilink 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, would you stop following Chris O voluntarily, or would you like an admin (!me) to make a ruling? Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: the AfD vote, I thought the article had some merit and that it should be allowed to take shape. It was not part of any "feud" other than that that ChrisO would like to make it. Re what is called "canvassing," it appears that that complaint is only going to apply to me, and not ChrisO who has canvassed most of the contributers on this page. I have canvassed exactly zero. I am the 4th contributer to these articles (the Cyrus-related ones) that ChrisO has tried to take some kind of wiki-lawyering action against. The others have apparently been intimidated sufficiently to no longer contribute to these articles at all. I did approve of the effort to have a content issue resolved with mediation, though it is not clear where that went. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's a "no". Tan | 39 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Amwestover (talk · contribs) and the Barbara West article

I'd like you guys to take a look at this -- he claims on the article's talk page that his violations of the three revert rule are just, and claims that political commentators are not "reliable sources". He seems to be using IP sockpuppets to do more reverts for him. We've been attempting to mediate with him but it's just not working. An administrator's opinion and maybe a checkuser would be nice. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd comment and/or take action, but I'm probably a little biased. Tan | 39 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected... but this article does need some attention. The subject is very much in the news in the US, and (supposedly) her husband has made edits to the Wikipedia article to "correct" it. This could become a very high profile article very fast. Note that this is probably not a "Joe the Plumber" type article, since the subject, as a longtime news anchor in a mid-sized market, was likely notable even without the zillions of stories written about her in the past week. --Rividian (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

COI editors/possible puppets

• Joseph M Boy (talk · contribs) has created User:WadeWest for WadeWest (talk · contribs). Joseph M. Boy appears to be related to SolgamesUSA where Wade West appears to be a director.
• The WadeWest (talk · contribs) claims to be Wade West, Barbara West's husband and has edited the article about her.

Getting really strange here. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, it gets stranger. Joseph M Boy (talk · contribs) got me involved in posting SolgamesUSA, sensing he may get fallout from the situation with WadeWest (talk · contribs), who is good friends with him. I ended up trying to cleanup the article on Wade's wife's article, being that it was a complete mess at the time: I even requested admin semi-protection to block the random IPs (I think Wade and Joe tried editing before creating accounts, as well as some vandal kept popping up). I've gotten Joe's participation on here straightened out, but I can't speak for the Wests: I don't know what they're doing at this point. Cwolfsheep (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Hello, I am Joseph Boy, Real Name, I know Cwolfsheep and User:WadeWest. I asked Cwolfsheep to assist me in understanding how to properly fix articles without causing any issue on wikipedia. Since my background is computer repair and running a charity not making posts or writing. I have know Wade for over 20 years and I am assuming he is just trying to learn about wikipedia himself so he can correct some of the slanderous remarks that have been posted to his wife's article. I have not spoken to Wade about it. I did go ahead and made a user page for him since he is menitioned in the article and it would allow an explaination of what he really does for a living rather than what has been implied in the article. The only changes I have made on Barbara_West_(TV_news_anchor) were corrections to a reference that was going to an old version of the site on my home based server and moved it to the real location on a webserver that is hosted on a t3 line (able to handle the bandwidth) The referenced website is identicle and was not changed I just removed it from my home server to reduce bandwith issues. I may have made a few other minor changes but nothing large scale as I was asking advice from an experenced wiki user. So to clear the air, I am not a puppet (whatever that is) but myself and Wade West are two different accounts. I know Wade from the fact he is a board member of the Non-Profit Charity SolgamesUSA that I run and figued I would help his wife's article. Joseph M Boy (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dina Cocea

This was created as a copyvio. Creator has removed the speedy tag and stubbed the article but the copyvio is still in the article history. Can someone delete the first 2 revisions please? Exxolon (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll see now if I can add a bit to this micro-stub.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting BLP vio revisions from a large article

It might be a good idea for someone with more powers than me to delete Barack Obama and restore it minus the, uh contributions from Hyperkraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is a problem for me because the article has over 5000 revisions. If the consensus is that these edits aren't worth the trouble, fair enough. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I only see 2 from that user, and they were both reverted. What am I overlooking? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say they're not worth the trouble. There's probably far worse buried in the distant history of the article, like these edits will be in time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Yeah, two extremely nasty edits. Sheffield is suggesting the article be deleted and then all edits restored but for those two to remove them from the edit history. The problem is that when an article has this many edits, only users with certain privileges can delete them. Currently when you try to delete you get the message: "This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the value. Anyone could vandalize anything at any time. And even the slanderous nature of the edits only speak to the idiot who wrote them, not to Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks like a compromised account. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromised? With ten contribs before the vandalism started, and some of them a bit unhelpful, it doesn't look like that to me. Oh well.

In other news, I have two editors complaining via email about being caught in a rangeblock, presumably because of my blocking Hyperkraz. These are Melromero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was actually blocked for 3RR, and DivineBurner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is apparently not blocked at all, including by an autoblock. What to do? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:IPEXEMPT flag them. Exxolon (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any rangeblocks recently issued by SheffieldSteel. How could a simple block of a registered account like Hyperkraz have had any effect on Melromero and DivineBurner? You could try asking these two editors to mail you the result of the exercise given in Template:Autoblock. I also don't see that you have hardblocked any IPs lately; that's the only other thing that comes to mind. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

it may be related to the block made on User:AntiChauvinism. β^_command 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This may be the time to wonder when the supposed "revision deleting feature" will come out – a proposition that, in my eyes at least, has grown to the legendary proportions that SUL once had before the devs finally got that feature in. It's always a pain to have to have to delete the entier article and check box all but diffs you want restored; it gets expoentially harder the older and more popular the article is. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If they do introduce such a feature, it will take edit-warring to a new level. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:CasperMovieSequel200955555

Resolved

 – Alright, that's a wrap! -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This User:Lyle123 sock was reported by me to AIV last night just before he started in on what I knew would be a slew of bogus movie articles and sure enough, he did one. It's been deleted, but the sock remains unblocked. Might I impose on someone to block this sockpuppet as soon as possible? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Exorcised. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't want him healthy, we want him go...Oh. Exorcized.

LOL! Thanks, bro. Next time the little "demon spawn" (mwaahaahaaaa!) decides he's going to refill his sock drawer, I'll drop a line on AIV. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

68.198.120.66

Resolved

 – Wrong venue Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out this user's edits. (ChocoCereal (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

For those who like links [75]. --67.155.253.248 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please report vandalism to WP:AIV after the user has been appropriately warned. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I haven't been on Wikipedia in a while.(ChocoCereal (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

William S. Burroughs

Trouble at the William S. Burroughs page has led one editor to rampage see attack on [76]and see my talk page edits [77] by User:72.154.191.175. CU on editor responsible for this diff [78] might be wise as this is the content that is being continuously added against other editors wishes. See also [79]. I note an older block on user here [80] Opiumjones 23 (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted a warning on the IP's user page. If he does this again, you should post another warning. Then if he does it again right away, go to WP:AIV and ask for help. That's the game you have to play with these IP's, unless you find an admin willing to block on-sight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

repeat range block needed, please - 189.192.xxx.xxx

This is a vandal-only user who has done nothing but be disruptive for quite a while. His/Her range has been blocked at least three times now, the most recent block lasting one month. Nothing seems to deter; as soon as the block ends, the nonsense edits begin again. Requesting yet another rangeblock.... please and thank you! - eo (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

IPs shown here: [81]

Last incident report here.

The necessary rangeblock is 189.192.0.0/16 - see [82]. Blocked for six months. fish&karate 10:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper non-admin closure of AFD

Resolved

 – Request withdrawn. henrik•talk 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Scott MacDonald, having contributed to the AfD debate, expressing a Strong Delete opinion, and with opinions pretty evenly divided has closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Baillie, moved the article to Russell Brand prank calls row, and radically changed the content of the article to be about the event rather than the person. This would appear to be a case of "I have decided that BLP1E applies, and it doesn't matter what others think".

Could an admin revert the page move, and re-open the AfD, to allow it to run its course. Mayalld (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's seriously wonky - the AFD ran for one day and looked to be heading for "no consensus" at that stage --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is now a major UK news story involving the Prime Minister and the BBC. What wikipedia had was a dreadful little bio dreading up tabloid tittle-tattle on the victim, and including dreadful lines like "Quotes purportedly from Baillie in rival tabloid newspapers have both denied[2] and confirmed[3] this claim. [That she'd had sex with Russel Brand]". I'm afraid I took bold bold action in the spirit of BLP, and left us with a far superior article as Russell Brand prank calls row. I also confirm that I am the administrator previously known as Doc glasgow, and perfectly willing to invoke the arbcom's special BLP provisions if required. I apologise if I didn't follow all due process rules.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. This girl does not require a Wikipedia article. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any worries with this. Please let me know if I'm missing something, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse, and please note that Doc glasgow is an administrator, regardless of whether he's currently using the non-admin account Scott MacDonald or not. Therefore, he is entitled to and authorised to invoke the Footnoted quotes remedy as any other administrator is. Daniel (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there some policy that I'm not aware of that allows an admin to walk away from his admin account, set up a new account, then suddenly decide that because it's handy to be an admin today, he's an admin again. Right to vanish is one thing, but having vanished, you can't just unvanish on a whim. How is this different from sockpuppetry? Mayalld (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry has to do with undisclosed alternate accounts being used to mislead or skirt a block/ban, which I see no hint of here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. I don't see any hint on the Scott MacDonald page that that user ID is an alternate ID of an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Doc (I think?) scrambled his password and stopped using that other account months ago. He was not de-sysoped. He did the move and non-admin close as Scott MacDonald. I think Daniel may have meant that Scott MacDonald still has the experience, knowledge and trust of his admin past, even if he no longer wards the bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Then User:Daniel muddied the waters with his comment. He and MacDonald need to explain themselves. I agree with the move, but they need to explain the user ID situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they do. I don't recall that Doc asked for RTV and he only deleted his user page, which he had done many times before, but left his talk page history for all to see. Again, he did this non-admin AfD close wholly as Scott MacDonald and hasn't edited from his old account in 6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

MacDonald and yourself explained anyway. And it was not really an admin action, so User:Daniel kind of sent us astray on this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. I said that he was allowed to use this should he feel the need to (see his initial comment in this thread), as he is an administrator, albeit editing with an alternate (disclosed) account. Daniel (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

He was not acting in an Admin capacity, though, so that doesn't seem to be relevant. And where in the MacDonald user page does it "disclose" that he also has an Admin account? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when were radical changes and pagemoves disallowed during AfDs? — Werdna • talk 11:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The action taken by this user has had the practical net effect of deleting the article that was the subject of an AfD, despite the fact that the AfD had no consensus. Mayalld (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Good thing too. Doc being right lets him out of having dot all the i's and cross all the t's. Moreschi (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't deleted, it was redirected to the new article. So anyone looking for the story using the name of the granddaughter (who is not the story) will be redirected to the prank (which is the story). The move was wholly appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It also good to point out that BLP supersedes AFD. WP:BLP is pretty clear on the point that, in the case of potentially bad biographies, discussion should take place afterwards, rather than before any action is taken. As it is, the article wasn't deleted - it was moved, so... Ale_Jrb^talk 11:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) OK, I give up. Clearly others disagree with me (and possibly the AfD would have resulted in the article being deleted in any case). Doesn't mean that I like the way this was done, but I really can't be bothered arguing this one any more. Mayalld (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To clear up the bit about me being an admin, technically I am an admin and was never desysopped. However, I no longer use that account, and haven't particularly either declared or denied the link. Since I'm only using one account, I can't be gaming anything, can I? Actually, in this case it isn't really relevant who I am, as I did nothing that any user can't do. The only reason I mentioned that I technically have admin status is that someone was screaming "non-admin close". On reflection, I can't really see why that matters. If it needs a deletion, then it needs an admin, otherwise any action is either good or bad, the status of the user doing it isn't very relevant.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

While the move was appropriate, it could have been handled better. However, the article itself could have been handled better. Some deletionist posted it to AFD, whereas the story was notable enough that deleting the story was inappropriate. So it should have been nominated for a move rather than a delete. Unfortunately, once it went to AFD, (almost) everyone was thinking save-or-delete rather than move. Blinders on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's ok to boldly move an article in good faith during an AfD and let's not forget that WP:BLP trumps all. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought WP:IAR and the right bower trumped all? -t BMW c- 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case Scott MacDonald trumps all. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes he does :) What's the right bower? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

He's a card. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What an etymology (way down the page). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, it seems to come from "bauer", a peasant, i.e. the "knave". And all those words seem to be kind of connected to each other. English - the verbal virus. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the AfD was closed in a fairly irregular way (by a non-admin account, a user who !voted in the AfD and within only one day of the AfD being opened), I think it would be beneficial if an admin who had not !voted in the AfD adds an endorsing statement for the closure to the AfD page. E.g. one of the admins who have commented above in this thread could do that. This could spare us some problems later, if somebody tries to undo the changes made to the article as a result of the AfD (I had seen something like that happen in at least one other case). Also, it might be a good idea for an admin to look at the history log of the article ans see if a portion of that history log might need to be deleted for BLP reasons. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GooglePedia12 again

GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs · logs) is back - not sure if this is relevant here or where I should put it. He's created Greek ethnic groups/subdivisions and Greek Ethnic Subdivisions plus Greek Ethnic Groups which are redirect pages to it. He's also added this to Romaniotes along with a basic change in the lead [83], Doug Weller (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages of banned users

This [84] is nasty personal attacks and trolling at best, and probably implicit blackmail. Why on earth is this guy allowed to post to a talk page? I'm not going to even mention his name, but can someone blank and protect this, then we can forget he exists.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was actually about to ask for a similar thing. Is there a reason not to protect his talk page? --Conti|✉ 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban Cossack and never ending edit wars

I have no other recourse but to ask for admins' intervention in the edit war at Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Over the past week I've tried everything to stop the revert war with User: Kuban kazak, unfortunately none of them worked, he rejected all attempts at compromise and continues to revert even referenced text. This is the user with multiple blocks for edit warring, the last being just in July of this year. Since then he got several warnings from users and admins for edit warring[85][86][87], and yet he continues to wage edit wars not just in that article but in others as well. I understand that admins cannot deal with every content dispute, but this has gone above that. This is a pattern that would not change and it's become a real nuisance. I would appreciate if admins could have a look at this.--Hillock65 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist is an experienced editor with generally good contributions to the project. However in the space of 48 hours, (A) Describing other editors as "wackos"[88] has caught the attention of several other editors.[89] (B) Canvassing editors supporting only the opposing view has resulted in an earlier complaint above.[90] (C) A 3RR warning on the same article.[91] (D) Calling Admins "incompetent"[92] (E) Redirecting articles without consultation.[93][94] This is not collaborative editing, and not the first time by far.[95][96][97][98] --Grburster (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)