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:Vegavairbob - ownership, consensus-stacking, disruption, etc.

Vegavairbob (talk · contribs) is quite passionate about the Chevrolet Vega automobile, and has contributed a great deal of high-quality material. However, he appears unwilling to participate according to community expectations:

• Persistent ownership of Chevrolet Vega — he simply shoves aside most every attempt by any other editor to contribute to the article, often without so much as an edit summary, as evident in these sequential diffs [1][2] and in the article's history, he boasts that he wrote Chevrolet Vega, he complained to an admin that another editor touched his work, and he has tried to dictate what other editors may and may not contribute to "his" article and "his" work. Attempts (viz here, here, here, here, and here) to engage Vegavairbob in constructive, courteous discussion about editing coöperatively rather than combatively have all failed; he disregards them, dismisses them summarily, spits, or says OK and then continues with the ownership behaviour.
• Vote-stacking in a proposed article move that isn't going the way he would like: Vegavairbob has evidently gone shopping for votes to swing the proposal his way- request, request, request and reply with nudge and wink, request, request, request, blatant request, blatant request, blatant request, request, response. This, accompanied by a fair amount of belligerence in the discussion itself ([3], [4], [5]), distorts and damages the consensus-building process.
• Persistently tendentious and disruptive pattern of making long series of many small edits. This effectively hampers (by dint of endless edit conflicts) other editors' ability to participate in discussion or contribute to articles. Examples are too numerous to provide diffs; pattern is clearly visible in his contrib history and in the history of Chevrolet Vega and other articles and discussions in which he participates. He has been asked politely to change this behaviour multiple times over a period of months by multiple editors — viz here, here, here, here, here, amongst others. These requests have gone wholly unheeded; once in awhile he says OK—and he thanked me with apparent sincerity for pointing him towards my quick guide to coöperating on Wikipedia— but he has shown no sign of changing this behaviour.

He seems to have the ear of one particular admin (search vegavairbob on Daniel J. Leivick's talk page) who appears to be trying to guide and mentor, though the difference between Vegavairbob's tone and approach when interacting with Leivick vs. interacting with others is troubling. I'm sort of at a loss here; we appear to have a willfully, doggedly disruptive, unduly belligerent article-owner here. I can certainly unwatch Chevrolet Vega if it will give some breathing space to help get this situation addressed, but I would not view that as a solution to the problem of an editor who exhibits no apparent interest or intent to coöperate in accord with Wikipedia community standards. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When I had all of my good faith edits reverted in one fell swoop -- correcting numerous mis-spellings, grammatical errors, manual-of-style errors, a lack of referencing or verifiability, and so forth, I decline to let it evolve into a larger issue because Vegavairbob had taken the time to rant against my edits without actually constructively engaging others on the article. A classic case of ownership and persistent disruption. The article had issues of organization, plagiarism or excessive quote farming, MOS and so on that I tagged and then explained myself on the corresponding talk page. That did work, but it took a very long time to have anything resolved and I haven't touched it since because it seems as if the issues that I brought forth before have only continued to fester. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seicer - can you provide a diff for this event? Thanks - Manning (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• My original edits consisted of what I stated above: copyediting, removing excessive quoting, reformatted headers per MOS, but this was wholesale reverted with no explanation. I deferred to tagging the article for issues --
• Article tagging after I was wholesale reverted. I explained the rationale behind each of the taggings on the talk page. This was promptly reverted with the edit summary, "this article is a candidate for feature status."
• He went complaining away at an administrator's talk page: User talk:Daniel J. Leivick#Vega article 2, stating that I should do "something useful." I did apologize that I was being bold and did a sweeping change of a damaged article that would have never passed Feature Article, let along "B" status, to at least bring it up to some coherent standard.
• My notes can be found at Talk:Chevrolet Vega#Article issues. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Comment - as of now, he has 9,671 edits. Of those, 5,200 are to the Chevrolet Vega article. Wow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good gravy. Out of morbid curiosity, how many of those are reverts of other editors? → ROUX ₪ 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That I don't know, but I do know that there's a total of 6,059 total edits to the article from 196 different editors. As mentioned above, 5,200 of those are his. That's roughly 86%. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

More stats.

• Join date - 15 Feb 2009
• Avg edits/day - 71.2
• Edits to Chevrolet Vega - 5200
• Edits to Talk:Chevrolet Vega - 97

Here is a revert that seems intriguing - seems to be introducing a distinct POV tone. Notice how at line 24 "Chevrolet cancelled the Vega after the 1977 model run." becomes "Without emotion, Chevrolet trimmed the car from its lineup after the 1977 model run". There are numerous other curious additions such as the death report of an engineer being changed from "killed in a plane crash" to "tragically killed in a plane crash". Manning (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann...again

Hello- First of all none of his edits that will help the article obtain FL status were reverted. Second, I have contributed all the text and images. He has contributed some conversions, and minor grammer. The article was reviewed by Typ932 who I've been working with and have done everything he suggested. I DONT REVERT EDITS. I might tweak some, Why not. Nobody has contributed one referenced fact to the article. All that's ever done is as far as content goes is word substitution. I've got a 100 referenced facts in it. It's just that Scheinwerfermann is not easy to deal with and I have to spend a lot of time away from contributing when he gets involved on any level. I'm tired of the lecturing. I opened a title change for an article and he didn't like my comment so he wrote a whole page lecture on the article talk page. This guy is out of control. He is like an old watchdog waiting to lecture and police everyone. I can't stand it anymore. I have no problem working with others. check out my talk pages for the vega article and my talk page. As far as the the article title change for inline four i wasn't aware you couldn't contact others. I enjoy contributing content and images. my user page shows my contributions. quite a few since feb. This guy will scare away new contributors. Gentalman, Its been fun but maybe this is not for me. I've worked hard here as others would attest but this is not fun.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob - We are trying to assess this issue fairly and evenly. If you could provide WP:DIFFs to support the above statements so we can review, it would make this case easier. Your extensive quality work on Chevrolet Vega is noted. Manning (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've notified user:Daniel J. Leivick (mentioned above) of this discussion. I think he could be quite a help. My own dealings with Vegavairbob are limited to another automotive article where he inappropriately (IMHO) inserted a mention of the Chevrolet Vega into the text, added a pic of his own car, and slightly messed up the spacing between sections. He queried my fixes in a civil manner and accepted the explanations without argument. It may be that he gets somewhat carried away by his intense enthusiasm for, and focus on, all things Vega, to the detriment of his regard for things WP? Needs more time to get the hang of things? Writegeist (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Writegeist - Agreed. From what I have read thus far, it appears that Vegavairbob is simply extremely passionate about this subject, which is not itself objectionable. I have seen some actions by this editor which perhaps were "less courteous than the ideal" (chiefly in regard to revisions without appropriate edit summaries), but nothing I have seen (as yet) truly breaches WP:CIVIL.

The core of this AN/I (or at least the AN/I above this one) is the WP:OWN issue, of which there is some evidence to support, though I see no suggestion of malice. I do not feel that a heavy-handed response is warranted however. Maybe just some counselling and mentoring? Manning (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been working with Leivick and Typ932 for weeks to get this article ready for FL status and I have not reverted any edits from them. We are working together. Check the chevy vega talk page and my talk page and you will see that although I contributed all the text and images they have advised me how to get it ready for FL status and I was given the choice from Leivick to revert any of his edits I didn't like but I didn't. I always took his advice and Typ932's as well I didn't revert any of Scheinwerfermann edits that helped the article. Some of his edits didn't help article like trimming the captions (eliminating Chevrolet from the captions) stuff like that. But all his conversions, adding "the" before Vega. He advised me just saying Vega is a marketing ploy. I had a feeling as my vintage films prove this. I thought it just sounded better without the before. Leivick said he thought it wasn't proper but we were going to cover that further. He was going to nominate the article for FL any day. Anyway Scheinwerfermann explained and all the edits remain, all mentions of Vega are now ""the Vega"" or in some cases I left it Vega's...So he is wrong when he says I revert edits. Some of his word changes I didn't like and were changed back, but we're talking about a word not a paragraph or even a sentence.Vegavairbob (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Left a note at User talk:Daniel J. Leivick#Scheinwerfermann regarding potential forum shopping. Let's keep the discussion here. seicer | talk | contribs 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• And at User talk:Typ932#Scheinwerfermann. Starting off with "...This guy Scheinwerfermann is a nut..." probably doesn't help your case. seicer | talk | contribs 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

• All editors are encouraged to Assume good faith with each other.
• All editors are encouraged to be civil with each other and to refrain from accusations of bad faith activity.
• Vegavairbob is encouraged to use edit summaries more consistently, and to participate more actively in consensual discussions in line with Wikipedia's policy on article ownership.

Comments or additions sought. Manning (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This proposal would do nothing to address Vegavairbob's ownership behaviour on Chevrolet Vega. All three points of your proposal have already been tried—especially the last one, quite extensively, and by multiple editors over a period of months. I'm not seeking a block, a ban, or anything of the like, but it seems to me something considerably more effective than "encouragement" is called for; the problematic behaviour has got to stop. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Having only done some reading of the back and forth going on this, it's clear to me that the main issue lies with Vegavairbob. He obviously has a ownership problem where he thinks any edit that he doesn't deem to be "corrective" gets reverted. If he doesn't like the wording, he changes it. No discussion other than to chastise the other editor for interfering with "his work". He often tells them to go and find some other article to edit as he has spent too much time writing and adding images to this one. This behavior has to stop. If he doesn't agree with a new editor's contributions, he needs to discuss it on the article's talk page, not immediately change it. If a consensus develops for one way or the other, then changes can be made. Also, on a less important note, Vegavairbob really needs to start using edit summaries and to make use of the preview button. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Update:

• Zero effort at AGF and additional remarks about what he "lets" other editors do to "his" article
• dismissal of valid suggestion for improvement of Chevrolet Vega; accompanying claim of having implemented it does not square with his actually having reverted exactly this improvement twice in the last few days [6] [7]
• Asking the other parent to end-run this AN/I with individual-talkpage messages verging on PA: [8] [9] [10]
• Continuation of bulldozer-style editing on Chevrolet Vega despite this AN/I; no apparent realisation that it might be a good idea to stop or pause while this issue is resolved.

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry I haven't been around to address these issues in the past couple of days. The way I see it, there are two issues that need to be discussed. Ownership and string editing/not using preview. Frankly I don't think the attempts at canvassing or "asking the other parent" are anything close to bad faith. Vegavairbob was unaware of these rules was not attempting to unfairly manipulate the system, now that he is aware, I don't believe these will be issues. I also don't think that he has breached civility in any major way. I do however realize that the continued ownership issues are a problem, on the otherhand I think it would be beneficial to look at the situation from Vegavairbob's point of view. He has spent a tremendous amount of time expanding the content at Chevy Vega and turning it from a mess into what it is today, including uploading a multitude of images (and dealing with their copyright status). I don't find it that surprising that someone who more or less completely wrote an article might be possessive about it. I think what Vegavairbob needs to understand is the value of the collaborative editing process, while he might not agree with everyone of Scheinwerfermann's edits, he needs to understand that they where all made with good faith in an effort to make the article that Vegavairbob worked so hard on better, not worse. I think the issue is one of experience, I don't think Vegavairbob has much experience editing collaboratively on Wikipedia. For a long time he worked away more or less in seclusion, so I don't find his reaction to the shock of sudden collaborative editing that surprising. I think as he gains more experience in the particulars of editing here the issue will improve. As for the preview bottom issue, I can understand why this would annoy people, but in my opinion Vegavairbob's contributions far out weigh what is, from my perspective just a quirky editing style. Seriously, are we going to block a valued contributor for not making his edits in the manner we are accustomed to. We can ask him to change his style, but I don't see it as enough of an issue to warrant anything further action especially in light of his contributions. In conclusion, I am confident that the ownership issues can be resolved by all parties assuming good faith and trying to work together. I will happily discuss further suggestions with any of the involved parties. (sorry for the long message, but I wanted to put all my thoughts on the table at once) --Leivick (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I donno, DJL. Nobody's requesting a block, but Bob already has been asked, politely and repeatedly and by different editors, to read, understand, and heed WP:OWN. He has persistently and very overtly refused to do so. What makes you think asking again will bring a different result? Asking and encouraging (and begging, and pleading, and telling) haven't worked at all; there's been zero improvement. It's good that you've been encouraging him regarding the quality of the content he's providing, that's important and he really has put in a huge lot of good work on Chevrolet Vega, but I think it's clear that some close guidance and coaching is now called for, specific to behaving coöperatively and editing collaboratively. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's suggested a block, which would be unproductive and do little to actually solve anything. Bob does seem to be acting in good faith, whether he's assuming such on the part of certain others, I'm not sure. However, the collaborative process here seems to catch some people off-guard as I've seen more and more.

One thing that does need to come out of this is an understanding of the "preview" button. I just checked Bob's contributions, it shows two hours of near-constant editing on Talk:Straight-four engine, most recently being a half hour of small edits to complete a paragraph. I saw this a long time ago and never said anything, although it is extremely difficult to go through the page history when there are a hundred edits made in one time span, which no doubt makes for unnecessary edit conflicts. --Sable232 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I don't condone the alleged article ownership or the other issues raised, I'm just not prepared to say that it's intentionally disruptive. --Sable232 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I really hate having to repeat myself and it really takes away from something productive. I have been working with three editors the last three weeks getting the Chevrolet Vega article ready for an FL nomination. As stated, my talk page and Vega talk page show I have been working with these three editors. And a lot of discussion is in the other editors talk pages as well. Does that sound like I am not working with others on a common goal...to improve the article? There is no ownership behavior going on. I have made all the changes I have been asked to make including revising headings, quote farms, organization issues, neutral issues. Everything has been addressed, the article is now ready for a nomination and one editor wants to create someyhing that just doesn't exisit. The truth is the article is an effort of the three editors I mentioned and myself. I was just allowed to use my text because I basically wrote the whole thing, but the organization of the article I was instructed very carefully and did everthing I was told. I will practice better editing practices preparing the small edits and posting as one, and I have been labeling all edits. Also there has never been a complete revert of anyone's contribution. Sorry but here it comes. The reason for complaint is because the editor who submitted the complaint didn't hear want he wanted to hear in my article title change and he didn't like that a few of his "one word" edits to the Vega article were not kept in. All of his conversions and all of his corrections, of course were not changed. So who is showing ownership? I told him if he has a (text) contribution that actually adds to the article, bring it on. In four months not a bit of text came from anyone except some word substitution. But please understand, the article was a joint effort. I was instructed how it should be and how it should look. Quadell provided the copyright knowledge and thanks to him the article has many public domain images that even one I couldn't get in as a non-free image. He knew these pre 1978 images were PD, and he did a lot of hard work fending off editors who did not know of these copyrights and restored images for me that were deleted. Typ932 does edits and conversion additions in an on-going basis none ever changed or deleted, Seicer made a list a page long of needed work posted on the Vega talk page and I did all of it..in one day, including re-writing two sections within a week.. Daniel J Levick is a great adminastator who has helped me through the tweaks and changes needed for an FL rating and has worked with me for weeks getting the article ready, but the difference is he does things in a nice way, not like a boss or like he owns the site and that's why the article has benefited, because the work was not an edit war or any of this complaint stuff which was really not necessaryVegavairbob (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get defensive. Obviously someone thinks there is (or was), otherwise this wouldn't be here. However, I have edited my prior post, hopefully that meets your satisfaction. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vega, you're not getting it at all. You're holding the article hostage and get upset when someone else edits your article that's not to your liking and label it as being not being "corrective". This isn't how things work. You need to discuss other people's edits on the talk page FIRST before you revert them OR even change them to the way you like. That's how cooperative editing works. You don't drive people off and tell them to stop editing the article, because it's going to FA status (it's not even GA, yet, is it?). And, sorry, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion on the talk page. Yes, there's some, but not to the extent that that you're claiming. As of yesterday, you have 90 edits to the talk page and 5,200 to the article. That's a bad ratio. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There haven't been any edits to revert, sorry, you have no case. I said it three times. The only text edits that have been added were one word substitutions and most if any of these did not help article and most were left in anyway. Read the rest of my comment above.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, it looks to me as if you are missing the point. This AN/I was not placed to hassle or harrass you. It was placed because you are not behaving in a coöperative manner, despite numerous attempts by numerous editors to guide you politely towards a better understanding of the standards and expectations of this community. All editors have the right to edit all articles, including Vega, as long as their edits meet community standards. Placing yourself in a role as arbiter of who can and can't make particular kinds of contributions to "your" article, or of what edits are and aren't improvements, is just not okeh; we don't do that here. "Working with three admins" is not good enough, either. All articles are open to all editors, and routinely undoing most or all of others' edits — which is what you are doing, as has been amply demonstrated with diffs — is ownership. Yours is not the only valid perspective on what constitutes improvement of an article, nor does your obviously deep knowledge of the Chevrolet Vega give you carte blanche to control the Vega article here. That is what people are trying to get you to understand through talk page dialogue and pointers to WP:OWN. Can you please try to understand rather than continuing to deny and defend?

I am glad to see you say you will move away from making miniature edit after miniature edit after miniature edit in rapid succession, but you have said this several times before. What makes this time different, please? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the point. How could I not get it. It's going on all day. I explained everything in my comment above and I'm tired of explaining it over and over. If your not convinced I've been working with others trying to get it a decent rating, I can't help that. There have been hardly any (text) additions added other than mine so the ownership or hostage accusations are really overkill, don't you think. What the problem really is here I think is my percieved attitude, right? Well, after four months of work (I won't get into the details) I would like it to be and remain a quality article that gets the GA or FL rating and wouldn't it be nice to see a few more auto articles with those ratings, but I don't feel I own it or have exclusive rights to what its contents should be. It's just I'm basically the only editor on the site that has had any interest in it since I began working on it in February, and to make it good enough for a possible FL rating (with the help of the mentioned editors). I am working on and have contributed to many auto articles as well. I'm working on several (my user page) that I would also like to see recieve a GA rating. I understand the way things work here as far as the editing goes. I see a lot of complaining going on other talk pages about bits of text or contributions that get deleted from (other) articles. I wouldn't want my work deleted either. I had two sections deleted in their entirety from the Vega article without any notice or instruction beforehand. Afterwards I was told they had to be re-written. So I know what its like to have a large pieces of work suddenly vanish too. Again I did what I was told and re-wrote them to Seicer's approval without complaining (too much). His comments in the discussion here were a bit severe under the circumstances of the two deleted sections and the fact I did everyhing on his article issue list in a day but I did get an apology for the deletions without warning. Thank you Secier. Did I give you a star yet? Try to be nice and I'll pick one out. That'll be fun. I respect the knowledgeable people here. I've had to bite the bullet on images and text I wanted in and as was told were not proper or not neutral etc, etc. I haven't and wont change anything that helps the article. If it disrupts or hurts the article it shouldn't be left in or tweaked just like my words get tweaked. As long as you said please..lol, I'll say I promise not to do separate strings of edits. this was not done intentionally I just keep reading it over and find things to change or improve. Not more than one or two edits (per article) per day. How is that? Buy the way I thought Bold editing was the term..Bulldozing? Regards, Vegavairbob (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Vegavairbob (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one or two edits is probably overkill especially when you are making major article expansions, more edits are probably needed. What editors are really concerned about is actually what you are doing right now (on this page), continually making minor changes to talk page posts. Once you write something like this, it gets read by someone almost immediately so changing it doesn't do much good. You should probably make an effort to cut back on the number of individual article edits especially in quick succession, but editing talk page posts over and over is (at least in my mind) more disruptive and less helpful. --Leivick (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. I was only planning on a few comments but it got expanded. I thought I might cover it all.Vegavairbob (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, please stop continually editing your comments. It makes it very difficult to reply, as well as making replies made before your edits seem nonsensical or strange or whatnot. As for the issues above... see the new section below. → ROUX ₪ 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-topicban suggestion for Vegavairbob

I'm not an admin, but I've looked through everything above (and boy howdy would I like those hours back) and the net result is this: your apparent attempts to own the article and be the sole gatekeeper of what is included and how is antithetical to how consensus works on Wikipedia, and how collaborative projects work in general. In addition, your laserbeam focus on a single article is, while commendable for its dedication, contributing to the apparent feelings of ownership you have over it. As pointed out above, this article represents over 50% of your total edits to Wikipedia, and you are responsible for approximately 86% of all edits to it. Given the sheer number of these edits, this is concerning when there are nearly two hundred other editors who have contributed. So I propose the following, in order to a) wean you off your apparent feelings of ownership, and b) start drawing you into contributing more significantly to other articles (which really is the same goal).

• User:Vegavairbob is topicbanned from editing the article Chevrolet Vega for 60 days starting from whenever (if, obviously) this is approved by consensus;
• During that time period, he may propose edits on the talkpage of the article, to be implemented by an uninvolved admin (volunteer needed) if the edits achieve consensus;
• For 60 days after the end of this period, Vegavairbob is held to a strict 0RR (excepting obvious and blatant pure vandalism) on the article, and must discuss changes at the talkpage and achieve consensus before implementing them;
• During this 120 days, Vegavairbob is required to find an uninvolved mentor (perhaps from here? If not, someone with the track record of a Durova or a Shell Kinney would be good, and preferably an admin) to assist him in taking an article completely unrelated to automobiles in general to GA status. In an ideal world, this would involve a wikiproject-based collaboration (pretty much all content-based wikiprojects have periodic "Hey everyone let's improve XYZ" drives, is what I mean).

Thoughts? → ROUX ₪ 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I have been working on other articles for several months (user page)your determination and ban is unfair. I am closing out my user page in 24 hours and will no longer contribute to this site, If you change the "verdict" you can e-mail me at Vegavairbob@gmail.com. I will no longer contribute (or view) the site. This is quite childish and I'm not going to tolerate it. I'm done here. Good luck trying to get the auto articles some decent ratings because they need a lot of work and now since you want to play dirty you wont have my help or any more of my time. Regards Vegavairbob (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Please pay attention to what was actually written; I am proposing the solution above for the community to approve/amend/reject as they see fit. There is no 'verdict'. → ROUX ₪ 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is just a proposal and one that shouldn't get any traction either. Vegavairbob has done nothing to deserve a topic ban of any length. Asking to contribute to another topic is not needed, why shouldn't he contribute to automotive articles? --Leivick (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of others above would seem to disagree that he has done nothing to deserve a topicban. Asking him to contribute significantly to another article is in the interests of attempting to draw what for all intents and purposes is an SPA (with severe ownership issues) into productive contributions that won't lead into the inevitable block that I for one see coming if he does not reorient his behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Given his behavior in this thread, I would support a user-conduct RFC in which Vegavairbob is enjoined from editing any of his already-added comments. Which is to say: Vegavairbob, please stop it, it's annoying. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Leivick, this AN/I is obviously still quite open, and I'm not sure I see how your telling Vegavairbobto consider it closed really helps get the issues addressed so we can all move on. It looks more as if you're telling him to just ignore it until it goes away. Your position seems to be that his misbehaviour is okeh because he's added a great deal of good material to Chevrolet Vega. How do you figure that squares with community expectations of coöperative behaviour from all editors, and what is your intent, please? I respectfully remind you that the goal of admin mentoring is to help new editors learn to interact smoothly and coöperatively with the greater Wikipedia community, not to shield defiant editors from the consequences of persistent, willful misbehaviour. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered the matter closed last night, but apparently there is more to say. Vegavairbob is a new editor (when I say new I am referring to his experience editing collaboratively, as he worked without much input or help for a long time) and he is learning how to interact with the community. In the month that I have been working with him has actually improved dramatically. What I am seriously concerned about is chasing away a valuable and knowledgeable contributor simply because he did not immediately fall into line. I have high hopes that his behavior will change, the adjustment may not be instant, but I am confident that we will see improvement. Frankly I am working as hard as I can to help him integrate with the community and if you read the advice I have given him I think you will agree that if it were followed, the problems would evaporate. I think any sort of block or editing restrictions at this point would be punitive and guaranteed to cause him to quit. --Leivick (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I take a generally positive view of [[[User:Roux|ROUX]]]'s discussion points. All constructive input here is helpful, particularly from uninvolved editors. While not in favour of any bans for Vegavairbob (yet), I think mentorship is an excellent first remedial step. It seems entirely appropriate in the case of an editor who, although comparatively new to WP and understandably ignorant of many of the protocols, sometimes still disdains to follow them when he receives reasonable requests and helpful guidance - the way Vegavairbob has continued to cause problems by editing this talk page when asked not to is just one example - and whose amour propre apparently overrides any will to collaborate more properly with his fellow-editors.

It seems that after numerous patient attempts to help Vegavairbob become a considerate and collaborative editor, he still just doesn't get it. So it would be helpful to have him mentored by an uninvolved admin - one who will give firm guidance and not feed this user's apparent misconception that he is the injured, rather than injuring, party.

David Eppstein makes a good point but I think an RfC would be best reserved for implementation down the line if necessary.

I agree with Scheinwerfermann that the cited post to Vegavairbob's Talk appears unhelpful, illogical and somewhat counterproductive. Writegeist (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Scheinwerfermann Dan was concerned about me quitting as he stated here and only told me to take a two day break and relax. And frankly at this point I would only continue contributing with his continued help and guidance. I will tell you the main thing I'm guilty of is the multiple edits instead of one or two on an article per day (as I said here I would start doing) and Dan has suggested that, before and here too, and yes I was told buy several others, on talk pages mostly. Dan is the main one I have been working with lately, save the past week. I always ask his opinion if I'm not sure of something. He is a pleasure to work with . He deserves credit for having the patience to help me through some adjustments, and he is hopeful things will be OK provided I follow the rules more carefully. and I've made mistakes as we all know, but after some thought I have a new obligation if I continue.. to show my appreciation for Dan's help and the help of others I have mentioned. Scheinwerfermann has explained several times the correct way to edit and I was warned the last time. I can understand his frustration with me as he really tried to explain it carefully and offering detailed suggestions. I guess there is no excuse, I need to do more reading of the complete section or article before hitting that save button. I have been using preview but not checking enough before hitting save. After a major edit I have made several after that to correct or change something like a reference of spelling or re-wording....It needs to be done all together as one edit before hitting save. Now some things have been overlooked here. The other work I have done somehow got left out of the discussion here. I have been working on other articles.. The Vega article has only been tweaked the last few weeks for a nomination. Actually if you look at my user page there are six articles listed under working projects I've been working on for two months. Headings (learned fro Seicer last month), infoboxes, plenty of images, and more. I've spent hours per night, sometimes until 3AM contributing.(I live alone)so I have of plenty of available time at night, And I've enjoyed it. Downloading photos from my camara, scanning old photos, cleaning up and organizing poorly organized (wrong headings, incomplete infoboxes, etc.) articles, adding text and editing poorly written text. I only edit poorly written text. I don't mess with something that's well written because I'm sure it would upset the writer. I do contribute however and most of the time I find my addition or image has not been deleted. Point is I pretty much know what I'm doing and don't really want to upset anybody. I'm just a bit thick-headed sometimes, but I can be sharp and useful when I catch on to things. Thanks to all and I'm sorry it came to this. Happy 4thVegavairbob (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think banning Vegavairbob from editing Chevrolet Vega would be an unnecessarily punitive step to take at this time. Leivick is probably correct that doing so would chase off an editor who obviously has a great deal to contribute to the project. But positive measures obviously need to be taken to make the misbehaviour stop, and there appears no evidence at all of the dramatic improvement Leivick claims Vegavairbob has shown. He's still doing everything objected to in this AN/I, as of today, so where's the improvement?

The high hopes Leivick says he has for Vegavairbob's behaviour to improve going forward seem unlikely to come to fruition; I have equally-high hopes that someone will shove a great deal of cash into my mailbox sometime in the next half hour. I am perplexed and concerned by Leivick's singular defence of Vegavairbob; it does not seem appropriate for an admin to facilitate obvious, persistent, willful disdain for community standards and expectations. I am fairly confident in my understanding that the rules and customs here apply to everyone. What Wikipedia policy, please, exempts those editors who happen to have been befriended by an admin?

Vegavairbob still seems not to get it. The incessant long series of miniature edits are a problem, but they are not the primary problem. The primary problem is his ownership behaviour on and around Chevrolet Vega. This has been explained to him numerous times, and his persistent response has been flat denial, or an assertion that he's not owning the article, he's just reverting edits that don't help the article — poTAYto, poTAHto. This present comment from him stating intent to do better is nice, but he's stated this intent before without any discernible follow-through. It's easy to see why he speaks highly of Leivick, who has evidently done nothing significant toward improving Vegavairbob's skill at interacting within this community, beyond just asking him to please read WP:OWN.

I think what's called for is active, close mentorship and coaching from an uninvolved party, preferably an admin, starting as soon as practicable.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please note I did not say VVB should be banned from the article. I have proposed restrictions on his editing to force him to cease the apparent ownership of the article yet still contribute to it. I have the strong feeling, based on the history here (I for one have seen no difference in his behaviour over time), that the next discussion about him will be a community ban discussion, and it's probably wisest to avoid that. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that clarification. That makes sense to me; some reasonable, thoughtful restrictions on Vegavairbob's editing—without preventing him working on the article—would probably put a rapid, educational, and non-punitive stop to his ownership behaviour. I fear you are probably correct that if we end this with nothing more than "all parties are encouraged to assume good faith" or "all parties are encouraged to read WP:OWN", we'll be back here before long, talking about more serious sanctions on Vegavairbob and a much greater likelihood of our losing him as a contributor. That would not be a happy or productive outcome for anyone, so let's act thoughtfully and deliberately now to prevent it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggested to Vegavairbob that he not make any sort of revert on the Chevy Vega article and instead use the talk page to discuss the changes he disagrees with. I think that if he stuck to this, the problem would be solved. If we need to implement a zero revert restriction for something like a month I don't think that would be too big a deal. I'm sure that after using the talk page to discuss disputes he would gain the needed experience to edit in a positive collaborative manner. --Leivick (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think there's a whole lot more to be said. I was impressed by Vega's comments above (assuming he hasn't changed them since I last read them). He definitely does a lot of great work and it would be a shame to lose him as an editor. His approach and style isn't always the best, but he seems to have realized that and it looks like he's going to work on improving it. If that doesn't happen, then we can take another look. However, for now, I think we're kinda done here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, we are not "kinda done here." See [11]. Unfortunately that attitude is proof positive that Vegavairbob persists in his obstinate and self-justifying refusal to accept what's at issue; indeed continues with the attitude that even the action taken to resolve it should be of his choosing -- i.e. that WP should bend its knee to his royal decree. The longer this goes on without a firm response, the clearer the evidence that nothing will change without one. The cosy, softly-softly approach adopted by Leivick thus far has very obviously failed to penetrate. Your man simply shrugs it off. Innocence abroad? Maybe. But it's beginning to look awfully like artful dodging. Writegeist (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a novel approach might work in this case: let's invite VVB to comment on how he would deal with the situation if he ran across an editor who was displaying ownership of an article to the degree that he seems to. Maybe something between that and what I suggested could give us a workable solution to the problem. → ROUX ₪ 08:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was my comment deleted? This is nothing but an abuse of "power" on this site. I would like my comment returned to this discussion. I am being accused of ownership of an article for tweaking minor one word edits and you have the nerve to delete a paragraph statement of my feelings towards the progress of these discussions which are not positive and biased. This situation whatever the outcome will be addressed for the site's benefit. As stated, no restrictions, no chosen mentor and stop questioning my motives. I am being advised and coached by a capable and very helpful administator who wants a positive outcome here and for the site. Myself, after that attitudes and bias displayed here, I'm not even sure if I to want continue. I'll make my decision at the close of this discussion. I have done nothing to hurt the site, its contents, or this discussion. I have addressed my editing style and it has been suggested that I comment on talk page of the Vega article before making any edits. Fine, as long at other editors have to do the same. What's fair is fair gentalmen. You will not restrict me in any way in editing or contributing. I will be treated as any other editor. I will review and follow all rules as you have outlined me to review. And there is no ownership issue for the last time, but there seems to be an "ownership" issue for the contents of this discussion. I would like my deleted comment returned to the discussion.Vegavairbob (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no idea what comment you are referring to; by all means reinsert it--and please show us the diff of where it was removed, so that whoever removed it can be properly chastised. And sorry, but you don't get to decide that nothing is done when everybody sees a problem with your editing--that is for the community to decide. Far less do you get to make a unilateral decision at the end of the discussion. Please re-read how consensus works on Wikipedia, because I think at the root of the problem is a lack of understanding. Other editors have not made 86% of the total edits to the article, nor have they indicated through their actions that they think they own the article, and so it would be silly to treat them the same as you. 'You will not restrict me in any way' completely misses the point about how Wikipedia works; you are in fact being treated the same as every editor: you are required to do what the community says. You may say there is no ownership issue, but do us all a favour and try looking at the situation from our perspective. How would you handle a situation where an editor will only allow through changes if he approves them? (And, interestingly, does not allow changes one day, then makes the exact same ones the next?) I fear that with your response above you have made it crystal clear that you have no interest in bowing to the will of the community and working in a collaborative manner. I hope that you will re-read what you have written, re-examine your behaviour, and change your attitude accordingly. → ROUX ₪ 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And for the last time, would you please STOP editing your comments multiple times after posting them. I know for a fact you have been asked this and you have claimed you will stop doing it. It makes it VERY difficult to respond. → ROUX ₪ 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that you have not in fact addressed the ownership issue other than to say there isn't one. Can you please explain why? And refute the multiple points made by multiple people showing that there very clearly is? Indeed, your mentor has stated there are ownership issues. → ROUX ₪ 14:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt , but you guys are driving me nuts. A suggestion. Show and tell. Here how we play. Step 1- Go to Feb, 15, 2009 on Chevrolet Vega. Step 2 Go to July 1, 2009. Step 3. check progress or size or content of article from start of Wiki to Feb, 15, 2009. Step 4 Check progess and content change from Feb, 15, 2009 to July 1, 2009. I have added all of the content and images and infoboxes and all refereces, etc, etc. When is this going to stop. There have been no additions to this article in four month from anyone but me except conversions (Type932, and a major two section delete from Secier(which I re-wrote) and returned to article. I'm getting worn out from explaining this. There was no interest in the subject to have to try to claim ownership. I had no problem doing it myself because NOBODY CARED or had a contribution to make to it other than what I stated. Don't you get it? I keep reading Bob doesn't get it, Bob doesn't get it. No the panel in this discussion doesn't get it. Step 1 gentalmen if you don't mind. There will be a quiz.Vegavairbob (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I will make this crystal clear. Quadell was instrumental in the copright knowledge for so that half of the 42 images are mow legally allowed. He provided the knowledge and I provided the images and the work. Seicer provided the knowledge of the article organization and content. His list on the talk page with all issues was addressed by me in one day. Headings, quote farms, etc. The deleted sections were re-written in a week and re-inserted. The knowledge of his instruction I now use to edit other articles every day. See my user page. Dan has instructed me how to edit with others, and I think I'm a fair editor and I don't want to eliminate anyone's contribution or what they have written. I already said I do not edit well written referenced text. I would assume that should go for my well written text to. Just changing something to change it is not constructive. I hope you're getting the message that I can work with others and I do have a high standard as the article shows. I'm a perfectionist but I'm not selfish to others contributions to anything I have worked on or will work on.Vegavairbob (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I've learned much about formal words and tense and references and article organization from other editors some of which are in this dissussion. I hope everyone here understands that I want to work with others because I've learned from others. It's been a great learning experience I enjoy it more now than at first.Vegavairbob (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of my comment was made after your comment Roux 1:24 3, July.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I might be mistaken as I was up in the middle of the night reading this thing, very tired and I might not have hit save. I read it over several times. But might not have saved it. Sorry for the confusion and the misunderstanding on my part.Vegavairbob (talk)

To further clarify, the only change in someone's major edit was when Seiser completly changed the locations of the sections putting the section with the images of the cars at the end of the article and misplacing another. At that time there were no sub-headings used however. I took the info on his very complete issue list and on the vega talk page and did all new sub-sectiom headings, then put put the sections with the car models at the beginnin where they were and belong. Now that's showing ownership I guess. Doing everthing on the issue list but I should have kept the images at the end like a large gallery. Oh well. You guys are gonna think what what want regardless, I don't even know why I'm spending the time on this. The bias here has got to stop. But thanks for at least asking. Any other changes i made were word changes. If a word of mine can be changed there is no reason I can't do the same. It's not anything important to even be discussing. No additions were deleted by anyone here, adjusted, maybe, tweaked, maybe. Why not? My work gets tweaked, but I can't do any tweaking. It has to be one way or another? No, I don't think so. Compromise does not mean ownership, it means compromise. And that's what some editors have to learn maybe. I have no problem with compromise. Everybody is half happy instead of one party unhappy. This is on edits that can go either way. If one is corrected it should remain, not adjusted. Still think I have an ownership issue?

Maybe not now.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just let it drop?

I had not realized the full extent of the mutual-admiration society formed by VVB and Leivick (e.g. the latter's Barnstar to VVB here [[12]] and VVB's reciprocation here [[13]].

Leivick's good-natured and well-meaning encouragement does not help curtail VVB's problematic behaviour, which is ongoing. E.g. his postings here yesterday and today:

"I only edit poorly written text. I don't mess with something that's well written because I'm sure it would upset the writer." (Does he seriously think nobody will review his edit history?)

". . . you have the nerve to delete a paragraph statement of my feelings towards the progress of these discussions which are not positive and biased. This situation whatever the outcome will be addressed for the site's benefit. As stated, no restrictions, no chosen mentor and stop questioning my motives. . . "

". . . You will not restrict me in any way in editing or contributing. . ."

". . . there seems to be an "ownership" issue for the contents of this discussion. . ."

". . . It was probably bait to get to this discussion. . ."

Absent any change in attitude or intervention by an uninvolved sysop, I don't see any point in continuing with this. VVB might as well be left to his fate, which I imagine will manifest itself fairly swiftly. I had hoped it might be otherwise. Writegeist (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. What I have done wrong I apologised for including the rapid edits. I will not apologise for any ownership issue. I have worked alone for four months on the article. When other parties got involved I did everthing i was instructed to do. On any edits that were done by these parties which were few, I did not revert anything, as stated some of it might have been adjusted (one word adjectives, etc,etc. or putting back a quote that was reworded. Most of other editors contributions were instructional to me on how to inprove the article and I did all of it. Gladley, and learned how to edit nand organize an article at the same time. What nobody here seems to understand is that it worked out perfectly. Yes that's right. I gained experience added image and text, learned how to edit, learned how to take instruction, learned how take a compromise approuch (got that one from Dan..he's the one here we can all learn from, because his intentions are best for the site and its editors not scare them away, because without them you have no articles. And finally, learned and am still learning how things work, like this discussion, which I have found biased, one way, and not open minded to my side of the story. But at least I was able to give my side... finally.Vegavairbob (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"There is nothing wrong with my attitude."

For all that Leivick may support your curious (to me, at least) assertion, I suspect there will be less than white-hot enthusiasm among the nonpartisan members of the community, including those present, for the attitude of a user who persistently commands the community to bow to his imperious will, makes promises to reform but does not keep them, studiously ignores the issues here, and also very obviously intends to continue in blithe disregard to WP:OWN, etc., etc. As I have now totally lost interest in your cause I'm stepping away from any further participation here. Good luck. Writegeist (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• /me sighs... Well, okay. I give up. Multiple people have tried to explain to you, VVB, what exactly is the problem with your editing, and you refuse to listen. I urge you as strongly as possible to read what article ownership is and dispassionately evaluate your behaviour in light of that. Beyond that, though, I must agree with what Writegeist said: you have no interest in listening to what you are being told or modifying your behaviour accordingly. I strongly suspect that the next time you are discussed on AN/I it will be in the context of a full topic- or community ban, and the only person who can prevent that is you. I do hope I'm wrong, but history would indicate otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentalmen, I have taken all instruction on how to improve articles and use what have learned daily. Regrettably, I did not follow instruction on the rapid edits, which I will not do and I again apologise for that. Thanks for listening.Vegavairbob (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Update: VVB posted this on my talk page, an apparently-polite but disingenuous enquiry as to whether I'm an administrator. When I answered that I'm not, he posted this to his admin-buddy Leivick, in apparent hope of having his way. Leivick, to his credit, replied in a manner more in line with appropriate mentorship, guidance, and coaching than he has in the past. Meanwhile, following this exchange [14] [15], Wdl1961 (talk · contribs) acted apparently in VVB's stead to revert Chevrolet Vega to a VVB version before my properly documented copyedit to fix problems of POV, grammar, syntax, caption format, and spelling. I have warned Wdl1961 that meatpuppetry is not tolerated; how many attempts at an end-run around community behavioural expectations are we going to allow here? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm*. → ROUX ₪ 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero indication that Wdl1961 is acting on behalf of Vegavairbob or at his request. To my knowledge they have had no contact. Wdl1961 may be doing it just to antagonize Scheinwerfermann, but it doesn't reflect poorly on Vegavairbob. As far as I can tell Vegavairbob has disengaged from any form of edit warring and is planning on discussing changes to the Vega article on the talk page on Sunday. --Leivick (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats and lack of civility by User:Tcaudilllg in AfD discussion

I think this situation goes beyond what can be handled at WP:Wikiquette alerts. The editor has very strong opinions in the WP:Articles for deletion/Socionics discussion, which is fine (I support strong opinions), but he is pushing the limits of being civil. Most troubling to me are his threats to go "rogue" if the AfD doesn't go his way and his overly hostile responses. Some of the more interesting diffs: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

He has also made some questionable posts elsewhere:

The Fringe Theories noticeboard regarding the topic: [21]

His user talk page about the topic: [22] [23]

Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue hardly seems worth pursuing to me, seeing as how the retention of the article in question is likely and would make the matter moot. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So because the article isn't getting deleted, we should allow him to rant and threaten without so much as a warning? Interesting view. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The user is engaging in blatant incivility, harassment, making threats, and clear personal attacks, regardless of the user "getting his way". I think a block is justified here if he flat-out refuses to communicate civilly and collegially with others. MuZemike 02:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reason with Tcaudillg on his talkpage as well as on the deletion discussion page, but he didn't seem to get the idea of civility for civility's sake. I don't know if a block would improve things much. He seems to have abandoned the discussion. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Crafty, you exhibited a lot of patience. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, but I think my good will may have been misplaced. He's decided that it's time to "analyse" Mangoe. I cannot see this ending well for him. Teh Crafty One (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My analysis, by the technique explained in the socionics article ("semantic analysis"), was meant to persuade Mangoe of the truth of socionics by first-hand example. The western socionics community, which was alert to the AfD, has generally perceived of him negatively (see his talk page), and I must agree. His statement that no sources were provided to him before is a deception: several links replete with scholarly information and secondary sources were provided to him at his request. That his initiative to begin the debate in spite of these sources was not administratively criticized shook my faith in Wikipedia as a fair judge of notability. I was concerned for the social implications of the article's successful deletion; I doubted whether or not Wikipedia remained "a force for good". I intended to pursue a campaign of criticism against it if the AfD was affirmative; those were my "threats". The remarks I made, although negative, were fair and honest assessments of character, and were meant not as criticism, but as legitimate advice. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your threat is to restore thew articles if a "false consensus" is reached. You are under the mistaken impression that consensus means that everyone agrees. Also, your mass postings to people you feel are sympathetic is WP:CANVASSing. And I don't know how threating to put other people "on your ass" is assessing the character of someone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS says canvassing is discouraged, but it is not overtly forbidden. Unlike you, I have other responsibilities than to sit and argue at Wikipedia all day. Goodbye.

Well I can't actually put anyone "on your ass" unless they agree to it. And if they do, then that's their choice. Obviously if enough people feel threatened enough to attack you, then they may have a legitimate grievance. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the finer details of my philosophy, then there are forums for that. Else, goodbye. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've exhibited no desire to discuss your philosophy. I am here discussing your conduct as it relates to WP policies. WP:CANVASS reflects community consensus, in other words, what the community finds acceptable. You did something the community does not find acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

personally, i would point out the fact that tcaud has done a great deal of work patrolling the socionics page and has worked in good faith to help provide sources for the page. however, i feel that his personal attacks have been rather over the top and that he is also taking on a degree of control over the page so that if it is merged (which seems presently to be the most likely was the outcome of the current debate) it will be difficult to actually make necessary changes to the page. also worth noting is that tcaudilllg has been banned from the wikisocion, a wiki on socionics, for similar behavior (see [24]). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to second the fact that Tcaud isn't acting in bad faith, but also point out that he exhibits a general lack of cooperation. I think he believes that socionics is indeed a notable thing which deserves to be on Wikipedia, at all costs, even if it means bringing in WP:IAR (see [25]). As is often true with editors (myself included, on occasion), the only thing he's doing wrong is a degree of stubbornness. When confronted with Wiki policy or logical arguments by several users, he'll cite a policy overriding the policy threatening to go against him (see previous example), make unverified, opinionated assertions (see [26]), or just change the subject (see [27] for a particularly pseudoscientific example). I think this is a consequence of his expressing a very strong point of view. Even though WP:NPOV applies specifically to content, I think it can be extended to mean that one should remain neutral in discussions as well, which Tcaud might not have been doing completely. So it's really not bad faith; he believes he's doing a good thing, ignoring all rules. The problem starts when people take that guideline to the extreme, which is what's happening here; anything argumenting against his goals is, in fact, ignored by him. This is further supported by his threats to 'go rogue' if the AfD doesn't go his way, as shown in [28]. So, in conclusion, he's not acting in bad faith, but his stubbornness and refusal to pay attention to others contributes to an overall lack of cooperation. That apart from the incivility, which has already been mentioned. --Slartibartfast1992 04:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcnew might also be implicated in incivility and canvassing on the same topic; in a recent edit war kept on posting a section claiming that socionics is derived from and linked to alchemy, astrology, sutras, chakras, and other forms of mysticism, while producing very tenuous evidence to this end, and attacking other editors questioning his evidence on the associated talk page and accusing them of bad faith (see here and here for a small sample. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am not really able to account for why Mangoe thought socionics isn't notable, nor for why Rmcnew would rather see no articles on the subject than an article with which he disagrees- -- but I consider a good deal of Tcaudilllg's responses as an overly frantic and unnecessary attempt to defend and expound something to which he is clearly very committed. If in fact socionics had been only borderline notable, such excess might even have harmed the chances of keeping the article. (I think Black kite's no-consensus closure was misread the discussion--there very much was consensus of all neutral parties to keep the article--but in this case it was a harmless error. If there should be a 2nd AfD in a while--a course i would not advise--I urge him to just make one calm argument and rely on the rest of us. I am not sure he will convince anyone about the actual value of the theory, and in any case Wikipedia is not the place to try. It is only partially correct that "Wikipedia is the ideal means of introducing people to socionics" - Wikipedia is a suitable means of informing people about it, not convincing them of it., much less of convincing them about the merits of any one of the different schools. DGG (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i agree; i think that there was a general consensus to keep the main article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your advise is duly considered. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Currently, the page is 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please see the talk page. I need to get back to my article work, so it would be impossible to try and deal with any of it further. It needs more eyes on it for the following - page move warring, edit warring, possible POV problems, possible BLP problems (these are living individuals involved and it deals with a potentially criminal act that people have been tried at the World Court for), and other problems. Some admin were previously involved in page moves. Since this is a major event and is ongoing, this wont be solved soon. I hope this can be handled in a way that doesn't lead up to some of the problems on other political pages (I need not remind everyone of what happened at the Sarah Palin page). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! A military coup overthrowing a democratically elected Government is a "constitutional crisis" per the Wiki WP:NPOV! Need I say any more? Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the sources and the page, it makes it clear that their Supreme Court ordered the military to remove him so their Legislature could appoint a new President. That is not a "military coup", especially when such would be against various international laws and a crime only a judicial body can determine. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If it walks, waddles and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck. This is a military coup. End of debate. Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP has higher standards than that. It would be unacceptable to label people as violating a law without a judiciary body determining such. Now please take your off topic comments elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be unacceptable to label people as violating a law without a judiciary body determining such. Would it? Do you have a verifiable source for that assertion? What is a judiciary body? A dead judge? The North Korean Information Ministry? I can hardly be more "on topic" than pointing out the massive breach of WP:NPOV that is involved in Wiki calling a duck a goose. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the entire membership of the Organization of American States and the UN general assembly (not a single dissenting voice) are wrong too? Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those are judiciary bodies and have no ability to determine criminality or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa people! It is NOT up to us to establish whether this is a coup or a crisis or whatever. We report, not interpret. Here is a summary of what WP:RS's are saying:

• BBC - coup
• London Times - coup
• AFP - coup
• AP - coup
• Reuters quoting SofS Clinton - coup

I may have missed a wealth of sources describing this as a "constitutional crisis" - please correct me if that is the case. Manning (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. You missed an important one. Wikipedia calls it a "Constitutional crisis". Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a secondary source. Anyway the name has been fixed. Manning (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that those sources are not reliable because they do not have a judiciary backing. They are reporting rumor and innuendo. Until there is a court case, no one can be said to be participating in a coup, which is a crime. Furthermore, this entry at ANI is about edit warring, move warring, and other problems. Sarah has already proven on the September 11th page that she does not understand NPOV or abide by our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The judiciary can be involved in a coup just like any other organization. There is no reason why Wikipedia should swallow every judicial decision as gospel, especially not in this case. In Turkey you also have a tension between the judiciary and the government. Count Iblis (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, please reread - The World Court or some body like the ICTY would be a judiciary body that would investigate and try anyone involved if there was indeed a problem. Those are the international judiciary bodies. Due process is important to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been "fixed". This is WP:OR, nothing less. Since when did Wiki take it's naming policies from a concept called "judicial bodies"?!! (And I'd suggest that the 9/11 article (1) has nothing to do with this one and (2) proves that I understand NPOV perfectly. (our policies are an altogether different thing). Sarah777 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up: the entire world, all available reliable sources and the MSM call this a coup (aided and abetted by the Honduran judiciary) but Wiki now has a policy based on the WP:OR notion that if some "judicial body" (undefined) doesn't call it a coup then Wiki must ignore what everyone else is calling it? Sarah777 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple common sense dictates that when an elected leader is removed by the military, it is called a coup. Common sense is anathema to the Wikipedia Mind(tm) usually, but in this case we are blessed by the common sense of reliable sources as well, who describe it as a coup. So please, let's ignore the whitewashing and wiki-lawyering, and title the page 2009 Honduras coup or some such. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! Otherwise I can hardly wait to apply this reasoning to a host of other political and military conflicts all across Wiki! Vast tomes are written in total ignorance of this "judicial" principle; wait till we start applying the ruling of Iran's judicial body (the Ayatollahs) to various conflicts. Must get to work on this straight away - major re-writes of the Israel/Palestine conflict called for. Sarah777 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, consensus is against you on the 9/11 page for a reason - your understanding of POV and the rest is highly questionable. Your inability to understand the idea of due process and "proof" of a criminal act before declaring one is disturbing. These are WMF standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable when they publish rumors or innuendos. Since only courts can declare a criminal act, any statement not by an official judiciary body counts as the above when it comes to BLP in determining if we can declare if said criminal act happened. Thus, this is not a "coup". It doesn't matter if "the entire world" says something, as the entire world could claim OJ Simpson was a murderer but his page will not reflect that. Furthermore, Tarc's comment is factually incorrect, as their Supreme Court ordered the removal and the Legislature appointed a new person. Having a strong POV is not a pass in violating the very basics of BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If the articles involved here are factually correct (and knowing wikipedia, I wouldn't take that as gospel), then OR has a point. A Coup d'état is stated to be the unconstitutional removal of the executive. If the nation's Supreme Court ruled that the President must go, and if they had jurisdiction to do so, then presumably it's not unconstitutional and hence not a coup. Note the many "if's" though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is way off the topic (which was move warring and edit warring :) ). By the way, I am fine about calling it a coup if an international court rules one, I just don't like declaring criminality before an official declaration by one with jurisdiction in the matter. Anyway, what about the word "alleged" which is normally used? That would be perfectly fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The OAS is apparently going to decide what to call it, sometime soon. What the "topic" here is, is not yours to control, even though you brought it. And since you questioned the sources' use of the term "coup", you opened that door yourself. It's clear to me that the sources are using the term "coup" a little more broadly than it's currently defined in the wikipedia article on Coup d'état. That doesn't necessarily make the sources wrong, as wikipedia editors have been known to try to make articles support a particular point of view. The legality of the President's removal appears to be in question, at the very least. Hopefully the OAS will provide some guidance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind to talk about it, and I admit that I am off topic too. I just don't want people to forget that there is admin attention needed to deal with edit warring and move warring so it doesn't get out of hand. The philosophical debate isn't that big of a necessity in comparison. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OR (is that a reference to the WP:OR you are promoting here?); in the case of 9/11 the majority proposition was that because the vast bulk of "reliable sources" called it a terrorist attack, that is what Wiki should call it. You supported that. Now you are saying that though the vast bulk of "reliable sources" call it a coup, some other principle applies because you have access to a higher governing body for Wiki called a "Judiciary Body". I rest my case M'Lord. Sarah777 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Sarah on this one, if not necessarily with all her arguments. Reliable sources call it a coup. No reliable source I'm aware of calls this designation into question. Ottava, just because something is unconstitutional does not automatically make it "criminal". And no, we do not have to wait for a court decision to accurately report what reliable sources report. Your demand to wait for some international court decision is unreasonable - the international legal system does not work like this, and most likely no international court even has jurisdiction about matters that are internal to Honduras. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

News story today: "Honduras quits OAS over coup criticism" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

0.02 from the random reader: From when the courts must be NPOV? Are we saying the Supreme Courts of Thailand and Pakistan, themselves players of the political turmoils of their respective countries in the past 2 years, have the final say on how things should be called on WP? Given the situation, letting the Supreme Court of Honduras to decide the name of this article is probably violating WP:COI.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The unanswered question is, by what authority did the Honduran Supreme Court order the removal of the President? If it were a constitutional act, one would think there would not be such a huge outcry over it from various places around the world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one can easily get the text of the Honduran constitution-- to prevent needless NPOV dispute, as long a literal reading can support the Supreme Court to remove/impeach the President, the current name can stay.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger dispute re:3RR

After this discussion, Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) found there to be consensus for a merge of WP:3RR and WP:EW. Today, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undid the change, citing no consensus [29]. Based on his decision to revert my revert of his revert, and the comment he left on my talk page [30], it's clear that he doesn't consider the initial close legitimate. So I'm coming here to get some more outside opinions about what we should do about this so we don't get a large-scale edit war. We need some clear thoughts primarily about whether the close is legit. I also seriously question the unilateral action being taken here, but that is probably a less important issue than solving the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned this drastic change to the formatting of these well-established policies, organised at a low traffic talk page and implemented with no consensus. If the change gathers a more legitimate basis of support I'll have no problems with the alteration. The group of editors who expressed support for this change on the talk page are very powerful, and I don't envisage it being resisted if they insist on the change by edit-warring and political games ... I'm certainly not going to put my neck on the line for it if this does happen. I in any case have better things to do just now than go rounds [like this thread] with the number of people I'd probably have to in order to successfully resist this on my own. If they do insist on it, I urge others who oppose this to participate actively in the process.

PS, Heimstern, comments like this this seem to be seeking confrontation rather than resolution. All will be well if participation is broadly-based, and if participants judge the topical issues honestly and participate honestly. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that remark was overly annoyed. Refactored. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Deacon strongly opposes this merge, and saying he "can't see consensus" is a bit disingenuous. If the Merge were an RfA candidate, they might be given the bit, as by my rough count, that discussion has a support rate of 74% (20 supports, 7 opposes, and a few random comments that I didn't put in either column). If Tiptoety is counted, that makes 21-7, or 78% - I'd say that's a consensus. Tan | 39 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not something you can check from a score-card. It's when reasonable parties agree that something should happen ... an occurrence absent from the discussion. It's a mood, not a number . Now I respect that consensus in the normal English language sense is an unreasonable ask in certain cases, and head counting is unavoidable when faced with a decision that has to be made. But there was no urgency, unlike that in a RfA, to make a decision one way or the other. When there is no such consensus in these cases, you leave it. Don't see any wriggle room on this point. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Deacon of Pndapetzim, I would have been happy to talk to you about this had you come to my talk page first. My actions are always open to review, and I am always willing to discuss my contributions. That said, I am a bit baffled by the fact that you do not see consensus here. While I did not play the numbers game, I did read over every comment made and found that there were only a few strong opposes I also noted that most were open to the change but, not sure they liked the idea. On the other hand, I saw little doubt in the eyes of the supporters who as a group were strongly in support of such a change. Also, I am not sure what is wrong with the discussion taking place on the talk page. Is that not how it should work? Opening a RFC seems a bit bureaucratic for something I see as not very controversial. Anyways, I will not be reinstating my edit but do hope that a common ground can be found. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Editors who have participated in a debate don't get then get to determine the consensus (or lack) of the debate.
2. If you disagree with the closure of a discussion, your first port-of-call is the closing editor's user talk page.
3. Believing you are right is not a justification for edit-warring. CIreland (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x4) I have nothing but respect for you, Deacon, so take my comments as conversational. I'm not about to jump into this. However, I did roll my eyes a bit, as I predicted the age-old "consensus isn't a score" reply... yes, it'd be nice if we had unanimous or near-unanimous conviction for every action we took here on Wikipedia. However, if this truly is how we define consensus, nothing would get done. But you said all that yourself! Ah, the trickeries of process. You're right; it wasn't urgent - but it probably wasn't that horrible either way. Discussion can move on no matter what state its in; the only thing is the onus moves to the opposition to motivate and try to get it changed back - which seems appropriate, given the 78% support rate the merge was enjoying. I'll be interested to follow this. Tan | 39 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip, I'm afraid that, despite being here nearly 5 years, I've not found it to be our custom that we authorise or deauthorise the content of policy pages by close templates. No-one has the power to do such, so there's no scope for such "decision"-making. Regarding edit-warring Cireland, we follow WP:BRD. That means that when a bold edit is made, it can be reverted; when a bold edit is reverted, it is discussed, not re-reverted. It is the latter that breaks the system down. I didn't do the latter. So I'm firmly on BRD grounds here I think. Conveniently selecting who will be labelled edit-warring on another basis is opening the term up to the kind of flexible ambiguity that rhetorical gaming and power-politics flourish upon, which in point of fact was one of the main reasons I objected to the proposal. ;) @Tan, I went to some effort to ensure my consensus definition point was more substantial than the cliched version. :) Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The "D" in BRD comes at the end of the chain. When an edit is preceded by discussion it is no longer "Bold" and simple reversion is not acceptable, especially when the discussion was fairly well attended by experienced editors. What you ought to do is revert yourself and start again where you should started in the first place: Tiptoety's user talk page. CIreland (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on CIreland, gimme a bit of respect please and stop with the politics. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you mean to imply that I'm criticising you in order to get the dispute resolved according to my own preference, I would point out that I actually dislike the idea of merging of the two pages. However, I also dislike the methods you have been willing to use to contest the merger. CIreland (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If that were true it would put you in a stronger position to criticize. However, your explanation for indignation is incoherent, and your contributions of the talk page for the renaming the noticeboard indicate the contrary to what you've just asserted. So I dunno what else I'm supposed to think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't contribute to the original discussion simply because I didn't know it was taking place. I can see further discussion will be fruitless since I am now the third editor in this debate whose good faith you have questioned when they have criticized your approach. If you choose to pursue dispute resolution instead and open an RFC (or other further discussion) on the merger, drop a note on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is generally a fairly unresolved problem at Wikipedia. How do we close controversial discussions? Part of why I get stuck in that nightmare called ARBMAC2 is that there was no way to end the long discussions about FYROM, Macedonia, Republic of and the like: if it was called one way, the other side said no and kept reverting anyway. No major edit wars of that sort have happened here, thankfully, but the problem still exists. How can we decide if there's consensus or not? Wikipedia has never had a way to solve this question. Part of the reason the current discussions about Macedonia are going better than any previous ones is that these are refereed discussions in which there are those who can police them and ultimately make calls on consensus. That's the kind of mechanism that works. Here, we have nothing of the sort. What do we do? This comment goes far beyond this dispute, incidentally, and is something I've been mulling for many a week concerning other things. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the "discussion" proceeded too much like a straw-poll and the principal proponents made little attempt to interact with the principal objections. Any "discussion" that justified this name would have done this. This isn't a sensitive political issue, there's no reason to expect insurmountable partisanship. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer hit it on the nose here. With that in mind (purely for my own curiosity), Deacon of Pndapetzim, how would you have liked the discussion to have been "closed" resolved? And how should we/I have determined consensus the outcome? Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

By the by, from memory and from a quick skim of the discussion at WT:3RR (including the RFC discussion, which AFAIR was widely advertised), the arguments of opposers, beyond a slippery-slope "3RR might disappear more easily if it doesn't have it's own page" (debatable, and I responded to that), seemed pretty vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Probably opposers will disagree, but without re-opening the entire discussion here, a mention of the major points of contention might help decide whether another RFC is justified. Disembrangler (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's completely unacceptable to make major changes in policy documents based on unannounced discussions on their talk pages, which very few people follow. The number of opinions at the RFC was less than any RFA I've seen, only 19 by my count. The system for managing policy documents is woefully understructured. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's how it works. In my innocent days as just an article editor the only encounter I had with policy was when someone quoted it at me, and when I discovered most of it is written and changed by a small group of people mostly all friends with each other on IRC I was rather shocked and slightly outraged. Now I'm cynical and weary of it. From soon after that discussion happened there was only going to be one outcome. No-one even bothered to argue the proposal's merit; most of it was just discussing how such an obviously great suggestion should come about. Then one of the proponents "closed" the "discussion", and when it was reversed they cried indignation at how some partisan opponent of the proposal reversed the decision against the conventiently styled "consensus". No-one now will reverse it because the only people who care are those fully tuned to the process, and most of those are experienced enough to recognise that a high number of the proponents are "big players" in the game and oughtn't be annoyed in any effort bound to fail. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My attitude currently is that Wikipedia's policy articles are like any other articles: descriptive rather than prescriptive. They are attempts at describing the state of consensus, and sometimes they get it wrong. Editors who think that you can change policy merely be editing a policy article are simply wrong: without real community consensus, the only thing that does is create confusion. I would favor a system where the policy articles are managed by a committee elected for the purpose, and charged with maintaining stable policies that accurately reflect the opinion of the whole community. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

semi-threat made on my talk page

Resolved

 – user blocked for a week. --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 has just posted a harassment/threat on my talk page. It's the first thing I saw this morning and I have no idea why. Please have him stop as it's kinda scary right out of the blue. I responded in no way to this guy. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's kind of weird.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week; I encourage him to use a request for unblock to get this matter sorted. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out in record time! In looking back through my history, in fairness, I do see that we had an argument a year ago on a tennis article. After I read his note on my talk page and posted here I then went through my usual updates on pages and noticed this same guy had made lots of reverts to ongoing pages many of us have worked on for months. So to be fair while his post to my talk page was scary to me right out of the blue, to him it was probably not right out of the blue (however the wording was still a bit unsettling). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Those pages appears to be List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions and List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions for people wanting to check out the issue. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said this is the first time I've seen this name in quite awhile. I got to the tennis pages after his bad post on my page. While I have now reverted his changes I did not respond to his post on my talk page (and I won't). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this block was jumping the gun. Fyunck(click) has in the past played the "this is unbelievable to me. I'm minding my own business when XXX writes an extremely inflammatory statement on my talk page right out of the blue" game, and may be telling the truth now but isn't entitled to an assumption of good faith. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but the comment made was unacceptable. This has less to do with the requester as the commenter. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually please don't take it on faith, look around my contributions and see if I was interacting with this guy. I certainly don't recall anything recent. All I really wanted was for someone to check this guy out to make sure of his intentions and to stop any more of these posts to my page. If it's a gentle nudge, fine. I wasn't angry and I wouldn't want him blocked if his intentions were good but misguided. It was a bit scary though upon seeing that message first and foremost this morning and I thought it better for administrators to deal with it fairly then for me to do anything at all that would come back to bite me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Things like this damage neutral point of view by driving off other editors leaving only the abusive and thick skinned. If this user acts in this manner again the block should be longer or of undetermined length. Chillum 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All kinds of attacks

Someone should protect User talk:CENSEI so he can stop with the homophobic and personal attacks in his unblock requests. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done ... and G3'd for good measure. Blueboy96 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He had recent unblock requests? I thought he had last edited on April 7th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He had some up earlier today, but his talk-page has now been deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He came out of dormancy after 3 months when his sockfarm was uncovered? I guess I missed it. Well, at least he's gone. But I still wonder if there's any connection between him and the Axmann8 impostors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd timing for him to show up at the same time as User:BarneyFifeApprentice who accused me of being a sock a couple of threads up, no? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Verrry interesting. I think the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC is still open. Maybe today's two Barney Fife's, along with the one just below, could be added to the list? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added the names to it. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

G3'd!, That is just terrific! How are all the coconspiritors supposed to leave each other hidden messages on User talk:CENSEI now? There was no backup plan. Now we will have all sorts of socks wandering around aimlessly with no way to organize. Blueboy, you need to think things through before you make rash decisions. This is unbelievable. KcoSweNdnarB (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody want to do the honors of blocking this ... t-word? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start calling black people "n-words" and see how cool that is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Prior to Chevy Chase: "Dead honky!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? As far as I know even black folks can be twats. This world is a melting pot of twattery. --WebHamster 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But did WTWAG mean twat or troll? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Given all the math discussion lately, when he said "t-word", I just assumed he meant this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to a discussion on the Village Pump, we're not supposed to use the word "troll" any more. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe don't call them anything - just block them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Who then was a gentleman?, which Village Pump is that? If you mean the discussion on AN, then your description here shows that you misunderstand it. Furthermore, acting as if saying "t-word" is somehow different from saying "troll" insults all of our intelligence, including your own. If you think you can de-escalate and resolve disputes more effectively and quickly by saying "troll" a lot, then you are duty-bound to say it, and to show us all how it works. This is gonna be evidence-based, though, not theoretical. Show us how to use labels to effect good dispute resolution. Then we will all follow you. Until then, I'm going to do what I've seen work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I don't know where it is, and I don't really care. My purpose was to make fun of the ridiculous idea that somehow we should coddle vandals. Just as ridiculous as this discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Coddling vandals is ridiculous. Good thing nobody is suggesting that. You're making fun of a straw man. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Or a straw troll. I've pretty well come around to your philosophy. Don't call them anything up front. Just turn them in to WP:AIV. Then when they get indef'd for their unconstructive and/or disruptive behavior, is when I call them something: GONE. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference? --WebHamster 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Still not blocked despite their name and their harrassment of other users? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not even 30 minutes after I asked it to be done on IRC. And now the user is hitting user talk pages with null edits. He's been blocked now. FWIW, say his name backwards. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Once he hit mine, I turned him in at AIV, and either because of that or coincidentally, he's blocked. I see you added the 3 new ones to the SPI page along with Axmann8. I also added the Axmann8 impostors, as it's possible (though not necessarily probable) that CENSEI was the source of that stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor in order to run for President is what got the CENSEI sockfarm charged up today? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If so, that's a sad commentary on where one's priorities lie. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be par for the course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They closed the SPI without bothering to look into the other user ID's that we raised. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

They've re-opened the case, isolating the more recent ones. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a conspiracy against me

Someone is registering new accounts, posting messages at talk pages I am involved in and editing articles I have edited, These accounts are using some of the same language as me, they are trying to make it look like I have created several account. Someone is trying to get me banned from wikipedia.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tastytreasures <<<====== Notice this name compared to mine.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dalwadi6

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Masasuijen

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hamas4life

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolof359 <<<=====This guy showed up when I was blocked for 24 hours, doing the exact same edits as I have just been involved in and using the exact same language.

--User:Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 4:03 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I have posted as this user has asked too. Anyone?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of PCH. By the way, did you post this here, or did Supreme? If Supreme did so, you may wish to move your post so it doesn't come right after his, and to a place one line below it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme is blocked, so I believe Abce posted it here on his behalf. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Any idea why someone would want to do this to you? -- œ^™ 03:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I was blocked for 24 hours, a user named "Wolof359" showed up and starting editing the exact same articles I have been involved in using the exact same language. I think it was Arab Cowboy trying to fool people that I had created a second account to get me banned from Wikipedia.

This is his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolof359

At the Sea of Galilee article, I had written "Golan is not Israel." he wrote "also Syrian too because Golan Heights is not Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Galilee&action=history

At the druze article he did the same revert as me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300029523&oldid=299739268

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300097056&oldid=300032507

At the Mount Hermon Ski Resrt article I had written "not in Israel.", he wrote "not in Israel." :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Hermon_ski_resort&action=history

At the Golan Heights article he did the exact same revert as I had done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=299954291&oldid=299950868

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=300116308&oldid=300032437

I am involved in these four articles right now, but there was one article that he did not touch, and that was the Asmahan article, the same one that me and Arab Cowboy are arguing over. He let it be like Arab Cowboys edit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, it smells like PCH to me, or one of the Axeman framers.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What is PCH?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I make a complaint against Supreme Deliciousness for helucination, false accusation, and conspiracy theory allegation? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Although I am not familiar with all of the articles/users/content mentioned above, the Golan Heights article was recently subject of a recent RfC. When the RfC was closed, the choice of the 3rd-party closing Administrator was not accepted (see talk) by some editors, and therefore the debate continues. Many editors have found SD's edits and viewpoints to be very controversial, including previous versions of his userpage[31]. Unfortunately, controversial edits and content sometimes leads to vandalism and wiki-hounding by uncivil editors (who should probably find somewhere else to play). --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Comment:

User Supreme Deliciousness is not interested in truth or facts on Wikipedia articles. All he wants to do is to make everything/everyone Syrian. This has brought him the wrath of many users, hence his hellucinations and conspiracy theory allegations. Please see other users's comments on his edits.

User Supreme Deliciousness's claims are biased and arguably racist. 'As other users have described User Supreme Deliciousness:

"I hope you are banned from Wikipedia soon for your comments on this and many other pages. You are a disgrace to Wikipedia (if not the human race)."--Gilabrand (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC). Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Za%27atar#Israeli_culture_theft

and

"Please understand that this is an encyclopedia. Statements must be supported by verifiable sources, opinion is not enough. Edits that are aggressive, highly political attacks on particular ethnic and national groups are not welcome here. And please try to read up on a topic before you edit. Your assertion that is is somehow illegitimate for a nation to adopt a foodstuff Za'atar is absurd. And your assertion that the Druze are not Arabs because they are not genetically Arab is not merely ridiculous, it is borderiline racism. Historicist (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Historicist (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)". Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#Settle_down

The truth of the matter is that User Supreme Deliciousness is the one who deserves to be permanently banned, not just blocked, for the following reasons:

1. User Supreme Deliciousness has been edit warring with numerous editors, and most lately myself. Please see comments by other users about User Supreme Deliciousness at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Za%27atar#Israeli_culture_theft, among many many other pages including User Supreme Deliciousness's own user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#Settle_down, where User Supreme Deliciousness is proving to be unfit for Wikipedia.

2. User Supreme Deliciousness has previously taken his "crying wolf" complaints to two other administrators who have responded by telling User Supreme Deliciousness that they were practicing the same behavior of which they were complaining. Evidence: you personally blocked him yesterday for the same allegation he was making against me. Please see also:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

I can bring forth many more.

3. User Supreme Deliciousness has gone around using my contributions page, undoing every change that I had made to every page on Wikipedia, even on pages where they had previously shown no interest, and inviting other users to intensify the edit wars against me on all of those pages. Please see:

(1)

(2)

Again, I can bring forth many more.

All evidence from reliable sources has shown that Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin. Yet, SD refuses to accept this fact. Instead, he's crying fowl and making false allegations all over Wikipedia. We had agreed to stop the edit warring and let the RfC take its course. SD's accusations here, here, and here, at least, are more than sufficient. Why do they need to be in the RfC?

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Predatory behavior

Please see recent openly predatory actions taken here and here and advise. Thank you for your time and consideration. -- logger9 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: users will need to begin their reading with this entry, above, to gain a more complete understanding. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You should describe the problem in more detail with a general summary and who is involved, and with links to edit diffs showing specific edits - it makes understanding the situation easier. My two cents. Some guy (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Logger9, I'm not sure what "predatory actions" you're referring to, and without more direction we won't be able to assist you. However, if you're referring to the actions taken by Exploding Boy referenced in the discussion linked to above, it would not appear that anything Exploding Boy did anything inappropriate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am referring more specifically to the actions of Wiki User:Paula Pilcher, who is relentlessly bad-mouthing all of my previous work, deleting images and entire sections at random, (referring to them as "dumped" "pets"), continuously harassing me, openly refusing to accept any of my editing suggestions, and attempting to tear all of my previous work to shreds -- bit by bit. -- logger9 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that user claims to have just retired. What do you want to do?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Throw a party ? -- logger9 (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And she's not the only one who has a problem with some of your edits, just the most vocal. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, Logger9, the user you are talking about has claimed retirement on their userpage and hasn't edited since. It may be safe to assume that they are gone. There is nothing more to do here.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

repeated addition of merge tag without explanation

User:Badagnani keeps adding a merge tag to Celebrity death hoax suggesting it be merged with the neologism Pseudocide. I do not see the connection and have asked the user on three separate occasions to explain the reasoning. Each time the user has reinstated the merge tag but provided no explanation (see here for an example). I have communicated with the user repeatedly but gotten no response - see Talk:Pseudocide#Merge_tag_from_Celebrity_Death_Hoax. I have also recently left a message on the user's talk page as well.

User:Badagnani is an experienced Wikipedian so I am quite confused by the behaviour. We have now BOTH breached the WP:3RR rule so I am self-barring myself from further action. (Feel free to admonish me with a 3RR warning if you want, as I am clearly guilty). Anyone got any ideas as to what to do next? Manning (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand 3RR (re: Celebrity death hoax) ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest: start an RfC on the merge or other dispute resolution. DGG (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already an RFC in progress and I invited User:Badagnani to participate a few days ago - see Talk:Pseudocide#Merge_tag_from_Celebrity_Death_Hoax. I got no response, s/he simply reinstated the merge tag. As far as I can see no reason has ever been given for applying the merge tag, and there is no apparent content relationship between the topics as far as I can see. Manning (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That user did the opposite thing in Steven Dale Green. He removed a merge tag placed there after the AfD on the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani and his block log may shed some light on Badagnani (talk · contribs · logs · block log)'s behavior. --Ronz (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah - thank you Ronz. So this is nothing new then... Manning (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the procedure in situations like this? Can a closed RFC be reopened? I was in on the RFC, and it does seem the problematic editing has restarted. It ain't on to unilaterally decide not to accept an AFD result, and I warned Badagnani way back about the hysterical edit summaries. I think most of us would take "highly threatening message" to be at the level of, say, "I'm coming to your house to shoot your dog and then you". It's overblown and inflammatory to use it to describe a standard (and justified) 3RR warning. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Article ownership and personal attacks by User Koalorka

Resolved

 – Koalorka blocked 1 week for WP:NPA Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a revised repost of a previous discussion due to various problems which kept any uninvolved administrators from commenting or approaching the issue (see [32] )

I have had some serious difficulty with Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has been exhibiting textbook article ownership on several firearms articles including MP5 and SG 550. In his attempts to own the article and discourage me from editing he has exhibited extremely hostile behavior and unacceptable personal attacks in an attempt to prevent me from editing the articles (including suggesting I leave Wikipedia). I am in discussion with some other users about amending the firearms article structure guidelines to satisfy his demands for consensus, so the main issue at this point is his personal attacks.

Personal attack diffs:

• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37] (edit summary)

Warnings (and his denials that personal attacks occured):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koalorka&diff=299787685&oldid=299317824
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koalorka&diff=prev&oldid=299815646

Some guy (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Those most certainly are personal attacks, and display a very unwelcome attitude and an obvious attempt to drive another editor away from editing the articles in question with repeated insults. This editor has been blocked twice before for harrassment and/or personal attacks and should be well aware by now of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Since the last 44 hr block was evidently not long enough for the editor to digest the relevant policy I propose a longer block to cool down and read up again, with a strong warning to not return to this behavior yet again. Mfield (Oi!) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Koalorka of this report. Mfield (Oi!) 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. And thanks for notifying him, I did before but I forgot to do it again >_< . Some guy (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mfield and would suggest a block of about a week.  Sandstein  06:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 has done and I support this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please leave a more specifically tailored message at his talk page clearly explaining to him the concepts of personal attack and ownership? I don't think providing links to those policies is effective and he does not listen to me at all. If an administrator or uninvolved party clearly explained those policies maybe he would listen. EDIT: Additionally, Koalorka was working hand-in hand with Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to own certain articles. Nukes continues to revert my edits as well, but due to our current discussion on firearms structure I didn't file anything regarding his previous edit warring and ownership-related reversion of my edits, but from just looking his recent contribs they are all reverts with textbook ownership edit summaries. Could someone please either advise whether another ANI is appropriate or speak to him directly regarding this issue? He does not listen to me much. Some guy (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Monica Crowley

There is a bit of a tussle going on at Talk:Monica Crowley involving User:Jacobite30, User:Liberal00Q1 and User:CanuckMike. It would be nice to have some eyes on this dispute, which is beginning to get a bit personal. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing?

I recently opened an arbitration request on the DreamHost article. One of the named parties seems to look at this as an opportunity to take me down, and is going to unrelated editors looking for help making his case. Is this canvassing, or just a normal part of an Arbitration case?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely inappropriate, as is his gloating over how he is going to take you down. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Domer48 Has a legitimate complaint against you and your actions and I think that it is well appropriate that he and ANYONE ELSE that has a complaint regarding you take their case to the Arbitration.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate for Sarekofvulcan to block me before I have the chance to give a full account to the arbitration regarding his actions?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That sure looks like canvasing to me. If you want to notify people of an event do it in a neutral fashion please 194. Chillum 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read WP:CANVASS. Specifically this section. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, so tempting, but I haven't gone completely WP:ROUGE yet. In any case, my apologies for not notifying you of this thread: I'm more used to responding here than starting threads.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have anyone else to notify regarding this so for the time being consider this cut.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on 194x's talk page that Sarek linked above, as well as a portion of his statement at RFAR (acting as clerk). I've left a very heavy warning on his talk page; 194x, remain civil or you will be blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I thought we weren't supposed to call the poor, delusional dears who disagree with us as to the purpose of the encyclopedia, trolls. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Outing?

Could admins please look at the following thread to see whether it is in line with WP:OUTING, WP:COI and WP:NPA:

• [38], in particular this part of the thread.

In the thread, mention is made of a conference centre that the editor is supposed to have managed. The name of the conference centre is given. Will Beback (talk · contribs) has claimed that the name of the conference centre is apparent from two sites which the other editor "linked to" themselves.

• I can't immediately see where user:Terrymacro linked to the second one of these sites, "feld.re-url.com", on Wikipedia: [39]. It's not linked to on his present user page, nor on any past versions of it, as far as I can see.
• The name of the conference centre is not present on either of the sites, as far as I can see, nor mentioned on any other Wikipedia page in relation to that editor, as far as I can see: [40].
• The information presented here by Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) goes way beyond what the editor divulged on the one site they did link to on their user page.

Please examine to what extent WP:OUTING, WP:COI and WP:NPA apply, in particular the following sections:

• WP:COI#Close_relationships: "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization."

• WP:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. — Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor."

• WP:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia."

Is the linked discussion thread fine, or is it a cause for concern? Thanks. JN466 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In a brief review, I see no posting of personal identifying or contact information. The fact that another editor was able to use an editor's self-chosen WP:REALNAME isn't outing. I do see an asserted and insufficiently denied COI, and calling a COI a COI is not a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no outing because the subject has used his real name and linked to his biographies. The editor signed his real name on talk pages, etc, for over a year.[41][42]. He linked to his own websites, which included a description of his work history.[43][44] Those sites both included detailed biographies, one of which includes this sentence: "In the 1990's I was the finance manager for a 2,000 acre outdoor conference facility outside of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia."[45] Another one said, "For the rest of the 90’s I was the finance manager for an outdoor conference centre about an hours drive from the city of Brisbane."[46] The movement in question owns a conference facility which exactly matches that description. The person's earlier role as an officer of a new religious group is reported in movement publications.[47] The user has rebuffed the assertion that he has a conflict of interest regarding the organization in which he has held senior positions, or incidentally, that he did anything wrong by inserting links and material on his non-standard astrological views. However the COI issue is probably better addressed on WP:COIN.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that the Prem Rawat topic has an unfortunate history of editors with disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest, and has had two RfARs. Advocacy on behalf or (or against) the movement has been a real problem on Wikipedia going back to at least 2004.[48] Considering that experience, and the recent case concerning Scientology, I think that COI is a legitimate concern.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a (rudimentary) section at WP:COIN. [49] Perhaps you might like to add to it. JN466 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the concern raised here, and that further discussion is appropriate at WP:COIN, however it I would point out that the information I posted about which Jayen466 expresses concern was in direct response to this:

• My involvement with DLM ceased over 25 years ago. I have never been employed by EV, and I am not a member of TPRF. Any common sense applied to the situation would clearly indicate that 25 years gives the necessary detachment to provide NPOV edits for articles related to DLM. There is no COI. Terry Macro (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered a detailed response necessary to counter what I saw was either a major misconception by TerryMacro or a deliberate attempt at concealment. Admins should be aware that these issues bear directly on article content. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jclemens: If you take a closer look, you will find that at least one of the links in the section leads to a document purporting to give the editor's birth date and private address. JN466 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING doesn't specifically prohibit linking to sites that give further information. To take a hypothetical example, many links to references include an author's biography that will include information like birthdate and job title. Linking to such a webpage does not violate the policy. Remember that the user added himself as a source to articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the URL of the site in question begins http://www.geocities.com/rawatsucks/ ... JN466 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevance?   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any specific assertion that an involved Wikipedia editor created that page? Is there any assertion that the page was linked without apparent other purpose than to introduce the personal information into Wikipedia? WP:OUTING does not specifically deal with including links to information hosted elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor brushfire at WT:RFA

Resolved

 – Apparently nobody cares. Enjoy your fireworks, and if you're not in the US, just enjoy your evening. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it will come as a shock to many to learn that there's yet another argument flaring up at WT:RFA. Can someone uninvolved calm things down before it gets out of hand? – iridescent 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine then block me, I said my piece, and I want to tell Ottava the truth.Mitch/HC32 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you keep saying things like that, someone might just do so... comments like that can be seen as trolling, and aren't helping your case. You might want to just step back from things. If you feel you've made your point, there's no need to keep trying to pound it in. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody object to marking this as resolved? Ottava's struck his comment at WT:RFA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone object to me setting virtual fire to the parts of the server that are responsible for WT:RFA? Other than the developers.--Tznkai (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as long as you grill something over it, in commemoration of any holidays that might be ongoing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, thats a good point. I'm in the United States. Its time to spend money on things from China and set them on fire while having food marinaded in beer. (Read: I'm heading off line, and if you have an excuse to light fireworks and grill, so should you) --Tznkai (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that's my kind of 4th of July party! I'm going to start a fire right now. Where's my whiskey at...? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And what celebration would this be?(</sarcasm> although it took me till 2PM to realise) I think there are about 3 parties in the whole of the UK, somehow I don't think I'm invited to any of them.... - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 21:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about an administrator's actions

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

---

The utility has run its course. There's nothing that requires immediate administrator action. There are proper mechanisms in place if someone feels this needs addressed further, but overall let's all move on. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For having had the temerity to report a 3RR violation ([50]), I was issued (in effect if not form) a topic block on Clarence Thomas ([51]). And, for having dared question the propriety and dimensions of that punishment, and not accepting the question being brushed under the carpet, was told to "go fuck [my]self" ([52]). Whether I am the WP:DICK or he is, I think intervention by uninvolved admin(s) is urgently needed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All admins should be open to criticism regarding their actions and are never justified in telling people to fuck themselves for doing so. Very poor form, but of course I'd like to hear both sides, but according to his talk page he has no plans on responding as he has happier things to do. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My explanation is already at Simon Todd's talk page, which he linked above; nothing more needs to be said. If you need clarification, I wasn't telling him to fuck himself for "criticizing me", I was telling him to fuck himself mischaracterizing my response as an attempt to "brush things under the carpet" when I was very explicit in saying that I responded at his talk page because I wanted to answer his question without continuing the drama of the AN argument. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you still in the view that is was not bad form to tell him to fuck himself (regardless of the reason)? Were there not better words to choose from? English is quite an extensive language and there was no reason based on what I've seen for gross incivility, particularly as an admin. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the civility policy. I could have used any words I wanted; the message still would have been the same no matter how I packaged it; I'm not one to try to game the system by hiding vitriol behind pretty words. If the only point of this thread is to scold me for using a bad word (the thread can't be about the "de facto topic ban", because I have already told Simon numerous times that he doesn't need to worry about being blocked by me), then consider me scolded, but I don't see any other purpose to this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yea it's likely you've heard of the policy. I don't really see why you need to continue your incivility with me. Regardless of what happens here, I do believe the user would be rightfully justified in pursuing this through the proper channels. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have done no such thing; the closest you have come is saying that you "can leave a statement here agreeing not to use my tools at all in any issues involving the Clarence Thomas article." Stating that you can do something is far from doing it, and it will be told comfort when I am later blocked to be told "hey, I never said I wouldn't, only that I could say I wouldn't."

And even if you had, that would not be sufficient, because another admin could act on your warning, regardless of whether you would have. (Whether they do so independently or at your behest is immaterial.) You seem to be new here (less than a year, according to your user page), so you may not realize this: sometimes actions you take at wikipedia take on a life of their own. Whether you intend to drop the sword or not, you still put it there, and you shouldn't take it personally when the person under it expresses discomfort and wants out.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Rjanag did say that: [53]. See my response below about your probability of getting blocked later. Rjanag has the trust of the community, no matter how long his stay here. His suggestion was phrased as a suggestion; I'm still puzzled why you think it's a threat. Shubinator (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it operates as one. And while I will retract the point that he never said that, I don't think it's reasonable to blame me for not having seen something he said at his own talk page. Do you habitually watch the talk pages of any user with whom you have an exchange? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Shubinator (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's astonishing. Well, kudos. I don't, I don't think many people do, and I certainly don't think it's incumbent on any user to do so. That's why talk page discussions ordinarily take the form of replying to someone who talked to you on their talk page. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And now the situation has been compounded by a good-faith but ill-taken decision by user:Shubinator to close and archive the discussion at WP:AN. Although user:Rjanag insists that there is no de facto topic ban, he has suspended a sword of damocles over my head and now insists on his right to walk away while I look nervously aloft.

This situation is untenable, quite aside from its impropriety as a response to my report of a 3RR violation. user:Rjanag has threatened me with a block should I make certain changes, for an uncertain period, unless an amorphous criterion is met. That is, whether s/he recognizes or intended it as such, a de facto topic ban.

I need to know whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances I can edit Clarence Thomas without being blocked, and for how long these restrictions are imposed. None of these critical points are clear right now, and it is astonishingly unfair that this punishment is being imposed at all, let alone in such gross disproportion to the supposed "crime."

I am sure that user:Rjanag had the best of intentions at the outset, but things have gone awry. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can both adamantly insist that violators of the 3RR rule be blocked no matter what and at the same time not understand that after reverting 3 times you face the risk of block if you revert again.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dodd, there is no topic ban. Rjanag has said as much. He won't block you now, even if you deserve it, because there's a conflict of interest.

In general, it is a good idea to discuss controversial edits at the talk page. Shubinator (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely nonresponsive. Whether Rjanag will block me isn't the issue: he isn't the only admin with the power to block users. And as to discussing controversial edits on the talk page, that is precisely the point: at what point has sufficient consensus emerged (or has it already) that I can edit without an admin blocking me per Rjanag's warning? Simply saying "discuss it" isn't good enough. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No one will block you per Rjanag's suggestion (not a warning). They may block you for edit warring, incivility, etc., which any user can be. In a mathematical sense, what Rjanag said does not increase your probability of being blocked. Shubinator (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hold you to that. In reliance on what you're saying here, I have added back in the material at issue. I trust that this will not lead to any admin action, in light of the repeated exhortations by you and others that there will not be.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted what I said. See my response at 23:21. Shubinator (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying you "need to know how you can edit the article without being blocked". I don't know how many times I need to answer this question for you, but here goes (again): [54][55][56]

And, if it's still not clear enough: I am not going to block you. Does it make sense yet? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Instead of taking a suggestion to not engage in editwarring to heart Simon Todd came to ANi to complain about how the other editor should be banned. He repeatedly posted highly aggressive exhortations Rjanag of "justice" instead of considering that another editor might have blocked both editors with no mercy (although the blocking policy clearly doesn't allow punitive blocks). When Rjanag finally got exasperated by his futile insistence and crossed the civility line he was taken to task for that too. Being and admin seems to be the worlds most ungrateful job - you're fucked if you do and fucked if you don't. Even when you try to resolve a situation by the minimal amount of admin tool usage you get swept up in nasty disruption like this. I am glad I am not an admin here. And I think Simon Dodd should be ashamed of his conduct here - he should have taken it like a man and just refrianed from editwarring in the future. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the many (over 5) threads created by Simon Dodd run to their end, I support Maunus's summary. Leave the horse. Shubinator (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A more pristine example of blaming the victim has rarely been seen in these pages. What you fail to recognize, Maunus, is that I didn't break any rules. That's where your theory that Rjanag acted leniently compared to some other hypothetical admin falls apart. I reported a violation of the rules and was punished for doing so. Astonishingly enough, yes, I then came to AN to question the propriety of doing nothing about the editor who broke the rules and punishing the one who hadn't. user:ThuranX got it precisely right at AN: the reviewing "admin dropped the ball here. 5 [reverts] in 24 hours and the other editor stops, reports the issue, and gets blown off? Proof that those following policy are weaker than those who do not, and those who do not can get favored treatment by some admins." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You DID break a rule. Edit warring is also editwarring when only reverting thrice - read WP:Edit war if you are unclear on this issue. And furthermore you were not punished you were poitely told not to editwar in the future.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How were you punished? Shubinator (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than I already have. The admin's actions operated as a de facto topic ban by creating a situation in which I couldn't edit the article without risking transgressing an amorphous limitation s/he had imposed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

of course you could edit the article you just couldn't keep edit warring by reverting the same edit as you had already done three times. You really should read up on the policies on blocking and edit warring.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dodd, is this the edit you're talking about re the "topic ban"? Rjanag said my understanding of the talk page now is that there is consensus for including the information, but not necessarily for how it should be included (full quote, or brief mention along the lines of "Goldstein said he likes Thomas' style", or what), so it's best to refrain from re-adding it until it's been decided how best to include it. This is fully within policy. We always encourage editors to discuss content differences. Shubinator (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, seriously - just use my first name. Repeatedly using my full name when there's no one else posting here called "Simon" takes on the condescending air of a mother addressing her wayward child ("Jeffrey Richard Jones, come here at once"). On the point at issue, see [57].- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the thread before closing it. I don't see any threat. I am accustomed to using usernames; since yours is "Simon Dodd", I use "Simon Dodd" by habit. Shubinator (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did. You can maintain that it wasn't a threat, but that is certainly how I perceived it, I think (obviously) that's at least a fair reading of it, and so it was entirely appropriate that I seek clarification about the rules, ad hoc and plenary. I find the treatment of my efforts to do so and to play within the rules incredibly offensive, although I am grateful to those editors who took the time to look at the issue, understand it, and offer support. We now see Maunus insinuating that I should be banned for disruptive behavior - that's incredible when all I have done is to report a 3R violation, be threatened for it, and then sought to clarify the propriety and implications of that threat. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the surrounding issues, but I have told this admin that such abusive commentary is inappropriate and that it makes all admins look bad. Chillum 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of clarification to Simon Dodd, in response to this edit: I said your probability of being blocked would not increase. I used mathematical terms precisely to avoid saying you would not get blocked for an edit. Shubinator (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. After all this, after all the "what are you worrying about anyway" schtick, you're pulling a bait and switch? Jesus Christ! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am slowly chaning my mind on your original complaint though. maybe admins really are to lenient - I certainly would have blocked you for disruption a while ago.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

De facto topic ban? Demanding promises that one will not be blocked? Asserting that one side needs to be blocked yet claim you have been mistreated for not being able to revert? There are two sides to every edit war. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Surely an editor such as User:Rjanag who tells other editors to "go fuck themselves" should be blocked - no further questions asked. There is no way that is jusfitifable under any circumstances, and violates Wikipedia policies. Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Spoken like a true person who hasn't read the discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I read the discussion; and all that aside, NOTHING can ever justify such uncivil words. Your comments must still conform to WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Failing to do so, showing no remorse, and continuing to justify your actions, clearly deserves a block. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• He got pissed off, why can't someone just simply get pissed off and use the word "fuck"?--Giants27 (c|s) 02:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And again - there is nothing in the wikipedia blocking policy that justifies punitive blocks. The only reason to block Rjanag for this offense would be if we were afraid he would repeat it during the next days. I have no such fear.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't share your optimism. It seems pretty clear from the discussion that he thinks he was fully in the right to do it and owes no one an apology. Why wouldn't he do it again? The kneejerk response by admins to jump to the defense of other admins is a bit thick in this thread. If it had been an ordinary user reported to the civility noticeboard he very likely would have been blocked or at least subjected to "involuntary mediation". ⟳ausa کui ^× 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let the record show that I am not an admin and have never had any personal dealing with Rjanag.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let the record further show that after seeing the kind of shit an admin has to go through for not blocking someone, I also have no desire of ever becoming an admin. I'd hate to experience what might happen if actualy using the admin tools.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)@ causa sui:Um, read the discussion above. This wasn't a "kneejerk response by admins to jump to the defense of other admins"...these people had been watching a user forum-shop all day and be disruptive by stubbornly refusing to let go of a "battle" in which he wasn't happy with the outcome (I didn't block the guy he wanted me to block). He was pretty much asking for the lukewarm response he got in this thread. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. Your apparent conviction that you didn't cross the line leaves me worried that you will do it again. You seem to think it was absolutely appropriate, where the reverse is true. It was absolutely inappropriate. There is no reason to conduct yourself that way toward anyone ever. If I got some sense that you acknowledged that, it would be easier to let this go. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am also not an administrator, and neither is Giants27. (Backslash Forwardslash is.) Shubinator (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Causa sui: I'm not excusing his actions, I never tried to say it was justified. I was commenting on Simon, whose behaviour in this thread I find hypocritical. I have known Rjanag before this thread however, and demanding some sort of punishment for becoming agitated is unlikely to calm anyone down. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If there was no fear ... sure. But the lack of remorse or apology suggests otherwise. And while blocks shouldn't be used for punitive purposes, they can be used for deterrant ... or for Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.. The use of that kind of language is such a clear violation of WP:CIV, I really don't see another option; it's not like they just started to get a bit short. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of speculating why don't you rid yourself of your fear by asking him?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, they should be blocked whether their is fear or not. That would deter future incivility; the lack of remorse or apology are key here. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Our blocking policy specifically prohibits blocks where there is no concern of future disruption. If you wish to change the policy, this forum is not the place to do it; Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the correct place. Shubinator (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about future disruption. If the user in question had turned around and apologised and/or regretted their action, I wouldn't be concerned. But they've done nothing but justify it. In my mind, that only means that there is a good chance that they may repeat the action. Normally when one does something completely uncivil one apologises; the lack of an apology here is absolutely shocking. Nfitz (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) (Maunus asked me to comment here) This is what I see as one of the problems with how the civility policy is enforced. It's all about the words people use, and not whether they are actually being civil. I guess that's just natural in a noticeboard like this, where everything is hectic and people don't necessarily have the time to read the whole background of every dispute...it's easy to notice bad words sticking out here and there, and hard to notice equally uncivil comments that are couched in superficially friendly mannerisms. This thread is an example—no one here has asked Simon Dodd to apologize for lying about and misrepresenting my comments after I went out of my way trying to help him, but several people have asked me to apologize for, understandably, being upset over it. Is one of our actions scummier than the other because one used a swear word and one didn't? No—at best, we're both scumbags, but it's easier for you guys to gang up on one kind of scumbaggery than another. Now, the extensive discussion above here shows that numerous editors believe Simon Dodd was being disruptive and needed to step away from the dead horse, and as far as I can tell he has since done so. I have already said (both here, I think, and in an e-mail to Nja) that I will not apologize because I believe Simon Dodd had it coming. I don't see a need for any apologies, though, as all the real parties in this have moved on to bigger and better things. Neither Simon nor I has apologized to the other, but we have both now sent each other constructive messages about something unrelated to this dispute ([58][59]) and, while we're certainly not going to be inviting one another to our kids' birthday parties, I think that's evidence enough that we're both past this, or at least tired of it. There's no longer anything worth talking about or anything worth doing, and attempts to rekindle this already-dead argument look to me like nothing more than drama-mongering. This is a big noticeboard with plenty of other drama, I'm sure the ANI-watchers here can get their drama somewhere else. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While it was inadvisable for Rjanag to use the word "fuck", that does not make him the most uncivil and uncooperative one in this dispute. If you look at this dispute and all you see is "oh noes an admin said fuck", you have missed the point. It is not civil or in any way productive to storm onto AN/I, hurling accusations and demanding immunity from blocking for any reason, as Simon Dodd is doing. rspεεr (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) While I agree with you, Rspeer, I would clarify: "as Simon Dodd was doing". He appears to have moved on, as we all ought to. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the other guy was a dick too. Maybe he was a bigger dick. What is this, a race to the bottom? ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rspeer, it's not the use of the word "fuck", it's the context of "go fuck yourself". There's a significant difference. An admin shouldn't be out there telling others to carnally attack themselves. If an admin is at that point, it's time to get an uninvolved admin. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is what has happened. Rjanag made it very clear he would not be performing any administrative actions, and ironically, the comment that has caused this fuss was as a result of Rjanag not wanting to be involved. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the reverse of what happened. Rather than recognizing that he was getting emotionally invested and seeking an impartial admin, he posted flames on this guy's talk page and nobody heard about it until the user posted about it here. It should have been the other way around on all counts. ⟳ausa کui ^× 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that blocking User:Rjanag is inappropriate. WP:BLOCK is explicit that "[b]locks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." That policy is, in my view, deeply flawed. It ought to be changed. For now, however, it is policy.

What is more, there is little basis in policy for a block on these facts. WP:NPA confines blocks for its violation to "extreme cases" and WP:CIVIL to a "pattern of incivility"; by contrast, this incident appears to be a momentary lapse of reason. That fact also tends to limit the application of WP:BLOCK 's allowance of blocks to "[d]eter[] the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit." All of these statments in policy contemplate an ongoing or extreme pattern, not a one-off blowing of one's stack.

I stand by raising the issue here, but I do not think a block is appropriate as a matter of discretion or available as a matter of policy.

As User:Rjanag 's comment immediately above makes clear, we are each backing away from the dead horse with greivances about the other's conduct, but I harbor no grudges (indeed, I have since been cheered by an exceptional display of wikicivility by User:Maunus), and WP:STICK is clear: once "a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having 'won' ..., then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No admin should ever say "F.U." to an editor unless he's being funny, which wasn't the case here. It's inexcusable; extreme incivility. It should be grounds for suspension, at the very least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't blindly follow policy here. If someone is causing problems we block them. Policy is not prescriptive. That said, this would be nothing to block (or even sanction) anyone over if only Rjanag would admit some kind of fault. Since he won't, this remains deeply troubling. ⟳ausa کui ^× 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"We don't blindly follow policy here." So it's perfectly OK for an admin to say "F.U." to a user, yet there's an initiative right now to de-sysop an admin for refusing to use a standard signature, on the grounds that it "sets a bad example". What kind of example is set by being allowed to hurl obscenities at a user? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat from Cheaperbydozen (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I blocked the above user for being an advertising-only account, being as that they only make promotional edits to Kerchoonz and related companies/individuals and products of the company. I also deleted the articles per G11, and locked the main one (Kerchoonz) from recreation. I then received an email from the above user - a standard one, asking why they have been blocked, saying that "I do not understand how this could be interpreted as spam in any way.". They have also "kept a copy of the article to send directly to the wikipedia foundation to ask why my article would not be considered."

Rather than reply to their concerns immediately, I replied with "Your contributions are exclusively about Kerchoonz and related companies/individuals. Do you have any relation whatsoever to the the industry?", nothing else. I saw this as a curt but understandable response, given their edit history, and I would do the same with any other user in the same situation. I then received a reply, the important parts of which are below:

• "I don't have any contact with the industry"
• "I will submit my findings either directly to the wikipedia foundation and will also make contact with the kerchoonz website administrators to let them know what has happened"
• "I am a lawyer by trade"
• "I will make note that libelous content is subject to litigation however. "
• "I will ensure that this situation is rectified unless provided with a thorough explanation as to why my endeavours have been targeted exclusively in such a manner."

The rest of the email seems to infer that there is a cabal of 'Wikipedia members' out to 'vandalise' her edits. I know that the contact team - of which I am a member - will not respond to editorial issues. However, the shadow of litigation has been raised and I feel I should bring it to the attention of this board. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have just informed the user via email of: this discussion, the NLT policy, and that I am unsure as to where her libel allegations are directed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have just received another email: "I have now researched your history and take note of the collusion between your self and another user 'swatjester'. Trust that my research will be detailed and conclusive." I have notified Swatjester about this discussion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the user is just mad that you deleted their spam. Triplestop x3 01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support the admninstrative actions taken by the above admin. Triplestop x3 00:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unambiguous application of WP:LEGAL. Marking this resolved. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ED question

Resolved

 – Questions answered. No issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not about Viagra. I'm just puzzled over this post and what the poster might be getting at: [60] Assuming it's actually the same guy, which is not necessarily obvious, is there any rule against an admin having a page at Encyclopedia Dramatica? Or is the poster trying to cause trouble? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any real problem with it, as long as they're sensible with what they say on ED. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's looked down upon as a serious lapse in judgement (given ED's, ah, predilection for splendid Wikipedian biographies), but there's no hard-or-fast rule about being registered there. However, if an admin uses said ED account to engage in harassment, the ArbCom would probably rain in desysops all around. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Have I done that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, I'm not seeing anything horrible on that page and of course we don't even know if it's the same guy, it could just be a mimic (as has been known to happen on wikipedia also). Unless someone sees anything here that's a problem, I think I would close this question that I raised. P.S. It wouldn't let me save this as a link, as the spam filter doesn't like it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any bad edits from that account. However as ED is a haven for banned trolls and such editing there should be discouraged. I remember I was over at the lyricwiki the other day and there was an ED troll trashing the place with vandalbots. Triplestop x3 01:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The admin who is represented as being the subject of that page has not posted since the question was raised on his page, so I'm probably being a "nanny" bringing this up, but I was just curious about it. It could well be a hoax perpetrated by someone who doesn't like the admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the same GTBacchus at ED. (For those who are careful payers of attention, this is obvious.) That picture of me there, is really me. If anyone has a problem with that, they're welcome to approach me about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's any pressing admin attention required, I'm marking this thread resolved... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, that's fine by me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only curious. I happened to come across GTBacchus's userpage while exploring today. What point did you think I was trying to make, Baseball Bugs? Pzrmd (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if you were suggesting that an admin ought not be doing that. So I thought I would ask, since I know virtually nothing about that site. The answer turns out to be that it's not an issue as such, it just depends on whether an ED or WR user brings some kind of shame or notoriety upon wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was just wondering if it was an impostor. Pzrmd (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's another thing I was wondering about until he confirmed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Viriditas Wikihounding

The present dispute is a long one, and involves user:Viriditas and his/her continuing campaign against other users, in this case user:Wildhartlivie. This stems from a documented content dispute in the matter of Jonestown, which is now the subject of an RFC located here: [61]. Following the filing of the RFC in question, user:Viriditas began a campaign of wikihounding user:Wildhartlivie over to that editor's favored editing area, wp:actor, posting talk thread comments as can be seen here: [62], [63], and adding prods here: [64]. All of these articles display that user:Wildhartlivie had contributed to them in their edit histories, none of these had ever been the subject of user:Viriditas's edits prior to recent days, and user:Viriditas had previously iniated an unsuccessful sockpuppet investigation against user:Wildhartlivie here: [65]. Further, user:Viriditas's edit history shows he/she was not previously an editor on articles of this genre. The evidence of wikihounding is overwhelming, as is the obvious motive for doing so. I think it likely to be in the best interest of Wikipedia to split these parties up at this point, and let things cool off, but it appears user:Viriditas is spoiling for conflict. This is disruptive in my view, and harassing as well. I would therefore ask for a topic ban on user:Viriditas until further notice from editing articles that are part of the wp:actor wikiproject, or to edit any articles with recent edits by user:Wildhartlivie. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are hardly a disinterested party here, and it is seriously starting to look as though the hounding is coming from you. Two AN/Is and an RFC/U in what, a week? → ROUX ₪ 08:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew and User:Daedalus969

Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For awhile this user has been following me around. I don't exactly know when it started, it might have been around the DougsTech fiasco. Either way, I want it to stop. It may be very subtle, but he is doing so, and, as said before, I want it to stop. I could care less that I am followed around by other users, but I am not going to sit here and let Jack harass me. What spurred this thread is this diff specifically, in which Jack accuses me of baiting people for being a bird lover. Yes, I realize there are rules for civility and the like, but seriously, what the fuck? Am I going to have to take pictures of all my birds to prove I'm a bird lover? I shouldn't have to. Take this tidbit of incivility, as another instance when he accuses me of being purposely disruptive. Or you can take this example as well, more veiled incivility.

Closing AFD I started, this evidence is to prove he has been following me around, as is any other following diffs provided concerning AFDs. There might be more diffs as I find them, but I a sick of this user following me around to insult me and throw baseless accusations.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cooled the temperature a bit in the section heading, and want to remind one and all that calling Daedalus a little shit is entirely inappropriate.... Privatemusings (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus is a rather central figure in the whole Giano/Bishonen/Civility issue of the last — what? — six-weeks? He should not be surprised that he is getting some attention and given the circumstances that much of it is negative. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats and Cavassing

Recently, after normally proposing an addition of an "article" in the article Josip Broz Tito, User:Petricek posted the following text on Talk:Josip Broz Tito [66]:

“ Since several high profile institutions are alerted to this issue (Croatian Institute for History, Croatian Helsinki Watch, Croatian Television) deleting this article may have some serious and perhaps unwanted implications to all involved. ”

This is a barely disguised legal threat (WP:THREAT), and is easily perceived as one (WP:NPLT). At the very least, its a threat of public defamation. Note that the User states how those who remove his section (i.e. "article") are openly susceptible to "serious and unwanted" repercussions. The user clearly implies his contacts to the Croatian media will also bring consequences. He is trying to openly intimidate others from opposing his edit. Indirectly, this is also a threat to violate WP:HARRASS as the User implies media pressure, through his actions, will personally effect the opposing party. All this among calls for calm debate(!). The user is also canvassing (WP:CANVASS) to push his edit in the article [67] [68]. I'm here making an appeal for condemnation and sanctioning of such behavior, and a constant eye on the Josip Broz Tito article. User:Petricek is a serious User with a serious agenda, an agenda he apparently feels will be aided by this kind of POV-pushing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)