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

Wiki harassment and threats by User:Hkwon

This is a request for an admin to take a look at a possible violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. User:Hkwon has been shadowing my edits, filing punitive 3rr reports and then threatening me.

I had originally been involved in an edit dispute with Hkwon at the kimchi article: [1].

However, rather than keeping our dispute confined to editing of the kimchi article, Hkwon has been subsequently following my edits and harassing me in articles that he has never participated in before:

• Hkwon shadowed my edits to the Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union and left this bogus warning in the talk page of the article[2] as well as in my talk page[3]. He then filed a punitive 3rr report that was rejected[4].
• Hkwon shadowed my edits to Byron Moreno and left me a bogus warning on my talk page[5] and also in the talk page of the article[6] He also filed a punitive 3rr that was rejected[7].
• Hkwon has also shadowed my edits to nureongi where I was involved in a different edit dispute and joined in editing against me.[8]. I was going to overlook this and give him the benefit of the doubt when he removed all doubt by making it clear that he has and will be shadowing my edits.
• He admitted to shadowing my edits and then threatened me with further harassment in my future contributions. "It's on. Your contribution list has been officially added to my watchlist. Try not to make any mistakes when editing articles."[9]

This is crossing the line from normal edit disputes and he has admitted and threatened future stalking of my edits. This is appears to be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment: "pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Please take appropriate action as you see fit. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Hkwon that that last threat is not acceptable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Talking of not acceptable, Hkwon called Melonbarmonster a Chinilpa, a derogatory term for a Korean collaborator with the Japanese occupation. Exxolon (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Melonbarmonster has not been a paragon of virtue either, if it's true what Hkwon (talk · contribs) is complaining about here:

1) Why don't you start by swearing at me in Korean this time like you did before? I guess you don't have the guts. Do you think you can fool other editors who can't read Korean? "또라이" is translated as a deranged, lunatic, and/or demented person, a word cannot be used in official Korean documents by government or mass media. And do you think if "또라이" means "nuts", it is a less vulgar word that does not violate Wikipedia:Etiquette? Don't try to make excuses but try to think twice before you swear at other editors.

I'm not justifying Hkwon's actions, I want to make it very clear; and, my personal suggestion to both users, is to try and avoid the other (in Hkwon's case, it's actually not to follow up on his threat of harassment). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio point taken but just to clarify Hkwon's complaint of that word is disingenuous. It is not a swear word at all.[10] and here are many uses of the word in Korean media: [11] (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was hoping Hkwon would heed admin suggestions but he has not and continued his stalking to yet another article, Korean cuisine, and left me another threat of Wikipedia:Harassment see [12]. I cannot avoid someone who has added my contribution page to their watch list and has followed my edits to what is now 4 articles. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What you describe is impossible, you can't add a special page to one's watchlist. Further, your insults are unacceptable. Another editor bothering does not give you the right to insult them as you have been.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible or not, that is what he has claimed he has done in his threat to hound my edits which he has followed through on rather than heed admin warnings. I can admit having played my part in the mutually heated talk page discussions on the kimchi article and I also understand calling someone's revert warring "nuts" or "crazy" can possibly be insulting but that's hardly "swearing" and doesn't condone threats and stalking my edits.(talk) 03:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't avoid someone who is determined to follow you. BTW do you speak Korean? It would be good to have translations from an actual speaker to determine if Melonbarmonster2 really is swearing - machine translations miss so many nuances, don't you think.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

btw I included examples of Korean news usage of the word in case you missed it.[13] to address this concern.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who can read Korean language, please hear me out. These are the messages User:Melonbarmonster2 left for me on my talk page and on talk:kimchi:

• 한심하네요. 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• 한심이 아니라 무식인가? 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• 장난하냐? 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• ㅋㅋㅋ 야 지나가는 똥개가 웃겠다. 08:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• 야 나라 망신 그만 좀 해라. 넌 양심 도없냐? 19:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• 완전 또라이 아냐? ㅋㅋ 02:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• 저질 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that "ㅋㅋ" is an echoic word for sneering laugh. Is this the way to talk to fellow Wikipedia users, even if many others cannot read Korean?

Even an uninvolved editor, User:Chrisrus left me this message after reading User:Melonbarmonster2's message on my talk page:

• 한심하네요. = You are frustratingly stubborn
• 한심이 아니라 무식인가? Are you being ignorant and not stubborn?
• 장난하냐? Are you kidding?
• ㅋㅋㅋ 야 지나가는 똥개가 웃겠다. A mutt walking by on street would laugh at that
• 야 나라 망신 그만 좀 해라. 넌 양심 도없냐? stop embarrassing your country and stop. don't you have a conscience
• 완전 또라이 아냐? ㅋㅋ Are you totally nuts? LOL.
• 저질 low quality

Mind you these are comments collected from a long heated exchange. As I've stated, I definitely admit to playing my part in this dispute but these are not "curses", the heated exchange was mutual nor do these comments condone WP:Stalk.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Machine translation of this appears to be a personal attack. User Melonbarmonster2, See wikipedia:personal attack.

Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to take this matter to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but I didn't, because I wanted to solve matters by discussions.

And shouldn't I get a chance to defend myself if someone report me concerning such a serious matter? I found about this report just now, as there has been no warning message or anything on my talk page or anywhere I could see. Hkwon (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hkwon is not letting up on his disruptive stalking of my edits. [14] He is continuing his threatening tone in Korean cuisine talk page, "It is a waste of time arguing with User:Melonbarmonster2 until we get a real evidence...If the quotation from the book is true, User:Melonbarmonster2 will be in utter humiliation". Hkwon is also lying about not knowing about this report. He was notified when this report was filed. [15] Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note that Chrisrus is a user who had gotten into an edit dispute [16] with me at the nureongi. Hkwon stalked my edits to nureongi and joined with Chrisrus in the dispute. [17] Hkwon has threatened that this was what he was going to to. [18] He has ignored admin warnings. [19] And continued to hound my edits to new articles. Please take appropriate action. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    • That's fine, you still need to read WP:NPA your hands are hardly clean in this matter and you've been tossing around all kinds of personal attacks. Oh and in regards to the first "punitive" 3RR you did violate 3RR on the article. You didn't have 8, but you had 4 reverts. It was only rejected because it was stale, not because it was invalid. I would also note that your last diff above is wrong you quote it like he said it, but no where in the diff does he say anything about "it's on.."--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If I posted the the wrong previous version that doesn't mean the threat wasn't made. Here's the correct version comparison [20] There was already an admin warning which has been ignored. That is not "fine". The so called personal attacks were mutual and I've already admitted my part in it. Hkwon has not. He has lied about my Korean comments as being "swearing" and is continuing to hound my edits. He has also lied about not being notified of this report. Even if my comments can be seen as personal attacks that does not condone WP:Stalk and threats. That includes monitoring my contribution page and filing punitive 3rr reports even if they are 'stale' violations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see, that was made in response to about 4 or 5 personal attacks from you. You don't do a very good job of trying to play the innocent victim here. There is nothing punitive about a proper 3RR report. It might have been a couple days late, but you were edit warring or do you deny that you made 4 reverts in 24 hours? It is clear that he didn't understand how a revert works and I've explained it to him on his page.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Melonbarmonster on this issue. The fact that I agree with Melonbarmonster (an editor, who I have criticized, filed ANI reports against, and vice versa) should make the gravity of the complaints against Hkwon quite clear.

[[21]] To User:Sennen goroshi: S**ks a**...I don't know why you need to use that kind of expression in public. Is it your sexual orientation?

[[22]] To talk: Upset? You are not some kind of humorless blob, are you? Helping me to find content that I was unable to locate. Wow. Such an "大きなお世話". If it's not too much trouble, try not to stain my talk page any more please. Although your rambling amuses me every time, I don't want other people who look at this page to think I am associated with kinds of you in any way. Report me? Maybe you haven't completely lost your sense of humor yet.

[[23]] User:Sennen goroshi Wow. A friendly advice to me from a wannabe-admistrator who is supposed to be "no longer interested in this bulls**t" and enjoying his/her social life. Did you want so much to butt in my conversation with another editor? I don't understand your obsession with me. Do you love me or something? Well, if you are a woman who fits my standards...Oh, and I thought you were busy wiping your minion's butt in 3RR noticeboard. Or are you out of tissue?

The above are just recent messages, if I could be bothered, I could dig up numerous similar messages that imply homosexuality, parental abuse, etc - I could also dig up threats to stalk me, and references of a racist nature. I don't care if I clash with an editor regarding edits, different opinions are how consensus is formed - however this editor is very abusive and talking about my sexual orientation and suggesting that I am doing something with someone's butt in 3RR is way beyond anything I should have to accept on Wikipedia. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All in response to you going over and unnecessarily poking an editor you've been wrapped up in disputes with for some time.--Crossmr (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I consider this matter closed. Let's move on. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now that you went and unnecessarily antagonized someone into a block, you wish to move on. I could see why you'd want to do that. Your responses to an editor that you've got a long running dispute with on his talk page in a discussion you weren't involved in were entirely unnecessary. Someone was already engaged in discussion with him.--Crossmr (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued attacks during RFC/U

Last month, I blocked Mk5384 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for continuing personal attacks. I was convinced to lift the block shortly after I imposed it, in favor of attempting to deal with the situation through a Request for Comment, which OberRanks (talk · contribs) filed. However, Mk5384's behavior throughout has been combative, and much of his response (on the RFC's talk page) has consisted of further personal attacks. I would like an uninvolved admin to review the RFC and see if Mk5384 shows any sign of understanding what the issues are with his conduct, and whether he needs to be blocked for the continuing attacks. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have informed Mk5384 of this thread. Basket of Puppies 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BoP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am uninvolved in the RfC, but have concurrently been involved with the user here and here, and I would say that Mk5384 does not appear to understand the conduct issues. No opinion on the attacks; I wouldn't block except in the most egregious instance due to my involvement, even though it isn't with the RfC. If it's so egregious, someone else will be able to take care of it without the controversial claim of admin abuse that would inevitably result.  Frank  |  talk  21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, first of all, someone told me on my talk page that my unblock was unlikely to last. I responded that I knew it wouldn't, "As people like you won't be happy until I am railroaded out of here". For that quote, Sarek blocked me for "vandalism". Now since picking up his admin tools again, Sarek has shown an uncanny infatuation with the block button. That block, however, was simply absurd. Furthermore, in the interest of full disclosure, Sarek should have noted that I said from the beginning that I had no interest in the RfC, that I wolud not participate in it, and if he wanted to reblock me in light of that, then he should go right ahead.Mk5384 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of MKs responses can be found on the RFC Talk Page. I've asked for a Motion to Close, so that this editor can perhaps walk away in one piece since, as Sarek has said, most if not all of MKs posts on that RFC thread have been vindictive personal attacks (I have lost count of how many times MK has called me a liar). An attack which I felt was extremely uncalled for was a snide remark about my participation on the Alex Haley article, mainly: "OberRanks, who, far as I can tell, wouldn't know Alex Haley from Haley Joel Osment" [24]. My response to that can be found here [25] where I point out that not only do I know members of Haley's family, but have actively participated in helping bestow honors on this famous author. MKs comment about that was completely uncalled for and, had it not been in the midst of a heated RfC, I would have asked for administrative action due to what I saw as a severe personal attack. Beside that, though, I think MK needs to accept this Motion-to-Close before its too late and avoid making any more inflammatory comments like this one [26]. -OberRanks (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC should be closed: it is an abject failure, thanks to MK's inability or unwillingness to accept any part of the responsibility for his problem; according to him, it's all someone else's fault. It's OberRanks', or it's Sarek's or it's Malik's or whoever, but never his. This person clearly has no understanding of what "collegiality" means, and has difficulty maintaining civility. I thought once that he was redeemable through mentoring, but I no longer believe that - at this point, with his current frame of mind, he's a net drag on the project. Someone can indef him now, and get it over with, or we can wait until the next timne and the next time and the next time, but sooner or later he'll be indeffed -- and that may be the only thing that can save him at this point. Someone gets indeffed, they either walk away, they sock or they change. I don't have a clue which option MK would take, but I'm fairly sure that only the shock of an indef has the chance of getting him to look at his own behavior and changing it. He's got to want to come back and be willing to change to do it. In the meantime, he's just a ticking bomb. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Ken is absolutely correct in what he says. I also think a very stern, unrevoked block, on the order of one to six months might be what is needed here. When it was suggested that this would escalate to Arbitration if MK did not change his ways, MK practically laughed in the face of that idea and stated he would like nothing better [27]. Given the fact that MK is clearly acting inappropriately and used the RfC for no other means than to spread personal attacks, bringing him to ArbCom at this point would most certainly led to a spectacle with more of what we have seen on the RfC. I think a lengthy block might be the "splash of cold water" that MK needs and I would encourage administrators to act on this. If things don't change, it is not a question of if MK will be indef blocked, only a question of when. -OberRanks (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly encourage that this matter be brought before Arbcom.Mk5384 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Mk, the next step isn't Arbcom -- it's somebody proposing a community ban here, and the odds are that nobody is going to look at that RFC and speak up in your defense. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by what was said. If someone would like to propose a community ban, by all means do.Mk5384 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentler comments having failed to have any effect, I have placed a topic/interaction ban on OberRanks for the remainder of the RFC/Community ban discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Applicable RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384

Either Mk5384 is wrong, or just about everyone else he's ever encountered is wrong. Mk either needs to change his behavior now, on pain of being blocked permanently, or he needs to find other pursuits. So, therefore, I propose a conditional community ban, to be lifted when Mk agrees to carefully review the RfC, and discontinue the behaviors found problematic, with the understanding that resumption of those behaviors will result in a reban without further discussion. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Lars and reaffirm what I stated above that a one to six month block probably would do some good here. At the end of that block, if MK returns willing to work with others, I would imagine there should be no further problems. -OberRanks (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. His behaviour has been very poor; however, I don't think he's even close to anything that would justify a community ban. I'd support a longish block (even up to three months — even conditional, if we think it would help), but certainly not a community ban... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  "Community ban" is essentially a community-imposed block, so since you support a longish conditional block, I'm not sure why you're opposing here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Because bans are a way of saying: you're no longer a member of this community and your edits are no longer welcome. It's maybe just silly formalism on my part, but I think he is not being disruptive enough to show him the door, but he is being disruptive enough to keep him on ice... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Mk5384 seems to have been doing some self-reflection [28], and as such I don't think a community ban is in order at this time. A bi-directional interaction ban with OberRanks (they clearly don't get on well together), and some kind of civility probation would allow Mk5384 to continue with his constructive contributions while addressing the NPA/CIV concerns. –xeno^talk 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) Support. Shit, despite what others may think of my habit of dropping the banhammer on certain individuals, I don't like banning people. However, after reading the relevant RfC, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that Mk5384 has failed to behave in a collegial manner towards other editors. Look at MK's responses to Montanabw & Curtis Clark: they approached MK in a reconciliatory tone but MK failed to respond in anything close to in kind. If an editor can't, at some point, simply stop thinking of others with whom she/he has a disagreement & walk away from a disagreement, then she/he can't help but be a problem for every other editor. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Seeing how both Montanabw & Curtis Clark have withdrawn their support for this because MK has constructively engaged them & they are moving on, & despite the fact this proposal is moot, I'm withdrawing my support for it. I'm always for giving someone another chance, as long as she/he is willing to learn from mistakes & help resolve the issue; leaving my support for this proposal may give the erroneous idea that I still want to sanction MK, or influence someone to act unreasonably towards her/him. (On the other hand, if this whole thing goes to Hades there will be ample evidence to decide on a proper sanction without the presence of my onetime opinion.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) Oppose, conditionally - I certainly hope I don't come to regret this, but given MK's comment as linked by xeno, I oppose the community ban at this time, but agree with xeno's suggestion of a two-way interaction ban with OberRanks and, importantly, a civility probation. If that is not possible, for whatever reason (i.e. MK does not agree to it, or the consensus does not support it), then I would have to say that a conditional community ban as outlined by Lar is the next best choice, and this should then be counted as a support !vote. I have never doubted MK's potential value as a contributor, which is why I proposed mentoring on the RfC, it's been his behaviorial issues that have been problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Tentative Support -- Wait and see: Block or community ban, I think something is in order, whatever label is put on it. While the Rfc was underway, he went on to engage in more of the same behavior with a previously uninvolved user on a completely different article: User_talk:Mk5384#Robert_Byrd_and_WP:3RR and User_talk:Mk5384#Robert_Byrd_and_WP:3RR. I also suspect that I am about to become the next person who will come under attack and I find that prospect a bit concerning as Mk seems to clearly fail to understand the issue was not a content discussion but rather the way he approached the content discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Let it go Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I announced my intention to begrudgingly apologise to you. I don't know what would give you the idea that you are "about to come under attack".Mk5384 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Mk has placed a sincere apology for his use of bad language on my talk page. is the apology in full and my reply, which I hope illustrates how a person can acknowledge their own contributions to a misunderstanding. I will let its content -- by both of us -- stand on its own terms and soften my support to a tentative pending further evidence. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: Per additional appropriate behavior from Mk and evidence of civility, I'll withdraw my support for a community ban as long as the new and improved version persists. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Lar and Montanabw mostly. Terrible behavior. Preferably an indefinite ban. Oh and you adding yourself as a vote to oppose doesn't help either. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a star chamber or kangaroo court, I see nothing wrong with MK registering his opinion, especially when it's done in such a dispassionate manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm unsure of the rules here. If I'm not permitted to !vote, feel free to remove it. I'd like to state, that the message I left for Guy came before this discussion began, or if it didn't, I was, at the time, unaware of it. I announced my intentions to him because that is what I felt is right. Not because of anything happening here, or anywhere else.Mk5384 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to state, as far as the conditions proposed, that a two way interaction ban is exactly what I have sought for some time. As far as civility probation, I have no issue with that.Mk5384 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think a civility probation, and not a ban or block, is the appropriate way to deal with Mk5384's behavior. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ANI needs to be more serious about civility issues. Since this is a chronic problem, a civility probation will just drag this thing out. LK (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support a block until Mk5384 presents clear evidence of a different viewpoint on his/her behavior. The post cited by Xeno does not reassure me; it suggests that Mk5384 is so far away from WP:AGF that the light from AGF takes a thousand years to reach him/her. I think in all cases like this, one has to look at the net value to the project, and I think currently Mk5384 is in the red. I'd be happy to see that change, but I don't hold out a lot of hope.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This is progress beyond the post that Xeno cited. I'm striking my support for now, in hopes this will continue.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• oppose. I'm concerned that the whole process that led up to this was thoroughly unconstructive and has made matters considerably worse. What we need here first of all is for this person to be left alone for a few days and for the civility police to back off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - No ban, but this is a pretty quick escalation to trouble. How about a little fresh-start, clearly understood as demarcated by this issue, understanding that additional problem will be treated less sympathetically. An aside, I'm a little concerned that the concerns with this editor seem to be already understood by everyone commenting above; in other words, not enough diffs for people to actually prove their claims so others can evaluate them, and so outside editors have to dig through contrib summaries to understand what's going on. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The diffs are in the RFC referenced above.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It appears that Mk is finally taking on board the issues that were raised, as shown by his recent apologies, so no need to ban at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for a close of this request, as initiator. There is no consensus for a community ban at this time. Reading the comments above, both support and oppose, what I DO see consensus for is the notion that Mk needs to change his approach, or sooner or later there will be consensus for a ban. Happily, there is evidence that Mk is taking on board the issues raised and that maybe a change in approach is in the offing. So, with the note that this ought to be taken as a very serious warning to Mk (rather than a victory for him or a vindication of his previous unsatisfactory approach) I think we've done what we can here, unless someone wants to take up imposing a civility parole/probation (mentioned by a few commenters) and get consensus for that. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there's no consensus for a community ban at this time, but unlike Lar, I see no evidence that Mk is taking on board the issues raised, particularly in the RfC/U. The "begrudging apology" (his words) to Montana and an apology to Lar where he tells Lar that "Your comments on my talk page were some of the most offencive I have heard in my time here" simply reinforce the original complaints. Having taken the time to read the RfC/U, there are five desired outcomes which any editor should be able to subscribe to. That Mk has not taken the opportunity to do so speaks volumes. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, though, he acknowledges that while he was offended, not everyone might, and that his offense was no excuse for his behavior. I think this is a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Note he's already agreed to a two-way interaction ban and civility restriction above. Can we get these implemented formally? N419BH 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Could someone who knows how these things should be phrased make a formal proposal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I have no idea how it should be phrased, but I'd be happy to propose it. I have long felt that a two-way interaction ban is an ideal solution that will be of benefit, both to me, and another user. I was pleased to see an administrator make that proposal, and was pleased to see that this solution was supported by others. As for civility probation, I have stated that I have no objection. I have no intention of being uncivil to anyone, and if I am, then shame on me. The only thing that I would ask in this case, is that the terms of it be spelled out clearly to me in advance.Mk5384 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility restriction and interaction ban

Proposal - That the following community-imposed editing restrictions shall be put in place:

Civility restriction: If Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Mk5384 otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week.

After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, Mk5384 will be indefinitely blocked.

Interaction ban: Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and OberRanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are indefinitely banned from interacting with one another, indirectly or directly, except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.

If either of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hours they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same mannerm but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

Violations of the interaction restrictions may result in a block for any time limit up to a week. After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the violating editor will be indefinitely blocked.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm making no view on the merits of this, but on a procedural note, bans cannot be permanent (I suspect you meant indefinite). I have adjusted the wording accordingly, along with a few other tweaks for clarity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I might suggest changing it so that reports from parties about violations should be emailed, rather than posted on-wiki. –xeno^talk 13:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • With a few minor exceptions, I cut-and-pasted this from stuff on file at WP:Editing restrictions, so I really have no problem with the kind of tweaks Xeno and Ncmvocalist have suggested or implemented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I put in the e-mail suggestion, but then took it out again when I realized the potential for abuse in off-wiki notifications. Better to have it happen on-wiki and be monitored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to support this completely. I would just ask Beyond My Ken to specify how long this civility probation is to be in place. I'm largely unconcerned with the length of time; whatever is considered to be reasonable will be fine with me. I just don't think that this should be an indefinite condition. I have no objection to the interaction ban being indefinite, as far as my half of the ban goes.Mk5384 (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Permanent restrictions aren't possible as it would mean that review isn't possible (and review is always possible, even if it's for the last resort); I don't think the proposer wanted a null/void restriction, so he probably meant that this restriction is for an indefinite period of time - in other words, the restriction would be in force for as long as it needs to be inforce. As for when you may ask for it to be reviewed, in the absence of any other specifications in the restriction on this point, 6 to 12 months is usually what is suggested. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine.Mk5384 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Montanabw^(talk) 08:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, providing I'm permitted to do so here. If not, feel free to strike or remove.Mk5384 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• A civility parole is just a notice that you're on zero tolerance for personalising disputes. I think that is reasonable in this case. Mk5384 has got himself into a bad place from which it's difficult to extract himself, but it's not impossible and accepting such a restriction, as he apparently does, demonstrate an intent to accept the feedback he's getting from a lot of sources right now. How long? A couple of months maybe. I don't think it will take long to work out whether it's working or not. At the same time it would probably help if OberRanks were to leave him alone. I believe a mentor would also help, if a suitable one can be found. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist says above, that it would be reasonable to request a review after 6 to 12 months, and that is fine with me. And thank you for concurring that things would be better if another user and I were forbidden to interact. As far as a mentor, I'm still not especially keen on that idea. I have made a habit of asking Xeno for advice and instruction, and have now taken to seeking your counsel, as well. If, it should happen, that I find myself in violation of this civility probation (I certainly have no intention of doing that, but would be remiss if I didn't acknoweledge the possibility), perhaps I would be willing to rethink that. For now, I'd prefer to go forward with the stated conditions, and see how it goes. I think that it's clear that I have rethought a lot of things, and have attempted to make certain changes. And as Lar said, with which I agreed, there is still room for potential improvement. I think that my committment to improvement, coupled with the interaction ban's removal of potentially incendiary situations will serve as a catalyst for good things to come.Mk5384 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds fine. Would that more people had these, to be honest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: seems reasonable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, I think it's the least onerous restriction able to help to solve this issue. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as written. Regarding the below #Statement from OberRanks, I should point out that if this interaction ban carries it will be in effect regardless of whether either party explicitly accepts it, and (on its own) will certainly not be taken as any kind of "vindication" nor "condemnation" of either party: it is simply a recognition of the fact that these two editors do not get on well together and should be segregated. –xeno^talk 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no doubt it will pass. I do still stress my concern about point #1 in my statement. Beyond that, of course I will accept whatever measures the community agrees upon without any dispute. -OberRanks (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I concur with Xeno: the interaction ban needs to be both ways to be effective, but does not imply any specific judgment regarding the causes of the problem, it merely acknowledges its existence and tries to separate the parts of the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support civility restriction and interaction ban, noting xeno and BMK's comments above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Moderate SupportI think the one week block limit in the last paragraph is un-necessary. The time limit should be left open, so that the block's chilling effect can match the particular disruption. Otherwise a fine proposal.--Adam in MO Talk 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I also support the Statement from OberRanks and encourage Mk5384 to consider apologizing to him before the interaction ban becomes effective. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement from OberRanks

• I support the civility restrictions on MK but provisionally oppose the interaction ban for the following reasons:

1. My deepest concern with an interaction ban is that MK stated at least three times (probably more) during the RfC that "If it can be proved that OberRanks lied during the RfC he must accept an Interaction Ban"[29] or words to that affect. I strongly feel that if this Interaction Ban passes it will be a green light for MK to basically disregard the entire RfC under the belief that he proved it was maliciously filed and a lie.
2. MK and I have had a grand total of contact on three articles: John J. Pershing, Alex Haley, and Frank Buckles and on the Buckles article we merely "passed in the night" having no contact with each other. A formal interaction ban is unnecessary since I have no plans to communicate with MK and neither does he with me. In addition, I have never at any time sought out MK or purposefully interjected into an article because he was editing there. I think an agreement to stay out of each others way is all that is needed here.
3. This was the first RfC I had ever attempted and was unaware of many of the procedures. For instance, I thought that the person who opened it had to be the same person to close it. My continued presence at the RfC was also nothing but civil. I at no time attacked MK, offered reconciliation gestures several times, and other editors commented several times as to how restrained I was [30]. A lot of people were annoyed with me on that page nonetheless, but every time someone suggested I back off, that is exactly what I did without hesitation or debate. The return to the page at the end was for the sole purpose of closing it and my edits were strictly administrative or to answer direct questions.
4. I feel that this Interaction Ban will somehow justify that I am "part of problem" - that I behaved improperly or committed the same manner of attacks on Mk as he committed against me. And, let us not forget, that Mk did beyond any shadow of a doubt commit very serious personal attacks against me to include comments about my character, my service in the United States military, as well as calling me a liar so many times that I have lost count[31] [. I feel many are seeing this Interaction Ban as a type of punishment, yet the only thing I did was have the courage to stand up to MK and call him to account with an RfC.

With all that said, I would be potentially willing to accept the Interaction Ban if:

1. MK admits that the RfC was not a lie
2. MK makes a simple apology about comments that I was a liar and comments about degrading my military service.

I will even start the process and state to MK that I am sorry for all these bad things and bad feelings on Wikpedia. I am 35 year old man with a family, full time job, and military career. I do not come on Wikipedia to harass people or cause problems, but to help better this project. I hope you see that and see that I am not your enemy. Thank you. -OberRanks (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:McYel responds to User:Alison, User:Crazycomputers, and admins

{{resolved|community ban Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)}} reopened by James (T C) 05:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This unlisted video is for the administrators at Wikipedia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hmEDcZ4fSU --McYel (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble accessing Youtube from my location, but I assume this isn't a helpful link. Additionally, all of McYel's edits are tagged as minor. Not good. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have accessed it and your assumption is right. --Cyclopia^talk 02:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a video response as to why the deletion of my user page was unnecessary.--McYel (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And you posting it here is just plain trolling. Will someone please block this guy? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast with the blocking! He's not done anything wrong, really - Alison ^❤ 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, is the link a video, virus, fig newton? Should I redact the link? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow! Never got a video response before. Unfortunately, once personal information of this sort is divulged, I have to evaluate it and decide whether to suppress it or not. It's my job :/ I've no way of knowing who's details are who's and I have to act in the best interests of whoever owns these. In the video, you show that they're yours, etc, and I'm cool with that. These have also been suppressed on Wikimedia Commons for the same reasons. Anyways - you're free to do with your own proven personal information what you will & if you wish to put them on your website, Twitter, posters, whatev - then knock yourself out. You can even put them back on WP within reason (see WP:USER), but I seriously recommend you don't do that stuff. Identity theft isn't something that your neighbor in El Paso is going to do, it's going to be something some opportunist will do and once that genie gets out of the bottle, it's very hard to stuff it back in. In short; I can only do so much to protect you here, so over to you ... - Alison ^❤ 02:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the user has added the same information to their MySpace page, but I find is highly suspect regardless and would argue against it being readded to any site of Wikipedia due to the indentity theft concerns it poses. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY and all, but... couldn't help it. I had to comment. -- ۩ Mask 02:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the video of? I am afraid to click on the YouTube link. If it is bad, should it be redacted? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just confirming evidence that the user has posted the same material on MySpace etc. I think that doing such a thing is a really terrible idea, but I also think that the confirmation that this material is available more publicly than on Wikipedia, by McYel's own deliberate actions, removes protection of the user's privacy as an immediate reason for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks Gavia immer. Just wanted to make sure so no one get a virus or something. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's more then that.. he documents his birth certificate, asks his mom about the rape that led to his birth, its... creepy. -- ۩ Mask 02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is creepy and WTF inducing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Give the weirdo his userpage back. Beam 02:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Alison and Beam

--McYel (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Wouldn't the documents be considered the intellectual property of the US State that created them rather than whomever happens to have them in their possession? They aren't products of the Federal Government but a State Govt, so aren't considered in the public domain. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Property that derives from the work of an individual's mind or intellect should be afforded the same protective rights that apply to physical property. As long as property exists, it will accumulate in individuals and families. As long as marriage exists, knowledge, property and influence will accumulate in families (not in a State Govt).--McYel (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But the property was created by the state where you were born. Owning a newspaper or a photo doesn't give the owner the right to republish them in other media without consent. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite BoLLOCKs per MAXDRAMA week. Tim Shuba (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per Tim Shuba. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NEEDS MOAR DRAMA - Per Lolcat. --McYel (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That right there shows me you aren't here to edit constructively. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why so serious?--McYel (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Facepalm2 - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support likewise. Editor has much higher overhead then they are worth, also seems unable to deal with conflict correctly and instead amplifies it. -- ۩ Mask 05:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? Reopened this thread, I'm not in anyway sure how we could consider the above 3 votes close to a consensus on a community ban: 1. they are very quick succession (the first vote and the block are only about an hour apart) and 2. at least some of the votes appear they could be more in jest then anything else. I'm going to let Toddst1 know and haven't unblocked the user again yet, though to be honest I'd like to if others agree. James (T C) 05:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - My !vote did have some jest to it with the "TEH DRAMAZ" but I removed that part (removing the jest). I am completely serious in my !vote, McYel needs to be and rightly is blocked. He wasn't contributing constructively to the community and the LOLcat and Dark Knight above posts show that clearly. Combine that with of images of personal information (since deleted and oversighted), I see no reason he should be here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Further Comment - I am only for a community block not a ban. Never was for a ban of any kind. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • To be honest that is fine though I agree more with Alison, but an hour of conversation and 3 users does still not a ban make ;) James (T C) 05:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys?? Are we that ban-happy these days that WP can community-ban someone on the say-so of three people and with very little justification. Sorry, but I oppose this heavy-handed action here. Good grief, folks, whatever happened to WP:AGF, WP:BITE, etc, etc? Indeed, I thought we were done here. Let the guy alone - the issue is resolved. If he persists in low-level trolling or whatever, then consider blocking. But not a community ban- Alison ^❤ 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Template:Facepalm2 Gone with the Wind? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Block yes ban no. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think he should probably be unblocked and allowed the chance to edit, but I don't think those documents should appear on his userpage. I don't see why anyone would want to do that anyway. They're not funny or cool they're just some boring government documents that could be copied and then used to steal his identity. Let him edit but make him promise to leave those off wikipedia. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Good grief. Whether blocked, banned, or whatever, this user needs a stern lecture from someone in the real world about the dangers of posting so much personal information online. If he is unblocked at some point, it needs to be with the condition that he will refrain from doing it here. We can't stop someone from being stupid off of Wikipedia, but good grief, we can at least ask him not to do it here. I have trouble imagining a user who felt like that video was a good idea being mature enough to edit an encyclopedia, so I have no problem with a ban. But if someone does decide to unblock him, it needs to be with a stern warning not to engage in such behavior again. --B (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sadly, the user has posted this documents on a [redacted]. So they are out there with or without Wikipedia. But I agree with B, a very stern lecture about the real world is needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this one of the situations where it is better discussed off wikipedia pages than giving more and more ideas of where to grab this guys personal information from and leaving those comments for longer and longer in public view? Theres real life consequenses here.Active Banana (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Redacted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The user's edits were not all bad. Misunderstanding about free vs not free images, clearly. Also the user is not a minor as age of majority in his state is 18 [32] and he passed that some years ago. If he wishes to disclose his personal information and the law considers him able to make that decision it seems a bit much to hide it, especially since he has it elsewhere and above linked video confirming it is indeed his info. As to it being appropriate for a user page, not really. To me this reads like a pothole that was turned into a mountain. Community ban was way too much. An explanation of why it is not appropriate to have on WP even with it being his info would have been better than a community ban. delirious and lost ☯ 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Just so that everyone knows: I unblocked McYel. I did this for a couple reasons: 1. I obviously was unsure the block made sense given the discussion at the time already and 2. Because the original "ban" (he actually said bollocks not ban) proposer (Tim Shuba made a comment on the users talk page saying that he did indeed mean his "vote" as a joke (NH also supported per Tim but he has since confirmed what he meant). I also decided that it would be right to do it now given that it appears Todd went to bed/away shortly after the block was implemented and I did not believe it was right to leave it up while we all wondered away. Obviously any admin is more then welcome to revert me based on further discussion here or disagreement with my actions (including Todd) I do not consider it wheel warring. James (T C) 08:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you were right to unblock the user James, there was clearly no community consensus there, especially as the original mention was meant as a joke and the motion received a total of three opinions; and I don't think the user's actions could warrant a block at admin discretion, either. I don't think he should be allowed to upload such files again though (whether he can prove they are his own details or not, surely we can protect him from his own... perhaps naïvety is the least NPAey term?), and if he does reupload them then I feel that a ban or block may indeed become necessary. We may not be able to stop him uploading them elsewhere, but we can at least stop them being published by wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the first ANI thread about me! Umm, well, let's just put it this way -- for the protection of the project and yourself, we don't really want your birth certificate published on here. The reasons are simple:

• ID theft is quite easy if you have documents like this. Obviously people would not have the original, but usually places will accept facsimiles under the assumption that you're protecting the original document and any copies.

• If you are a victim of ID theft, and it becomes known that your birth certificate was published here, and we didn't do anything about it, guess who gets to be the topic of a scathing story on the 6 o'clock news? Ok, yes, it's on MySpace too, and we all know how much the media likes to poke at that site, but still. It's just not a good idea for Wikimedia to be hosting information like that.

In closing, note that the removal is supported by policy:

Privacy-breaching non-public material, whether added by yourself or others, may be removed from any page upon request, either by administrators or (unless impractical) by purging from the page history and any logs by Oversighters. --Wikipedia:User page

So I don't think there was anything wrong with the initial reaction to purge the birth certificate, and I will continue to support such action for the protection of everyone involved. --Chris (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the only issue with the user page was the birth certificate. I see no harm in allowing the diplomas to be published. But I would caution McYel to read WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Chris (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? It still strikes me as a pretty dangerous thing to be publishing... a diplomas is a pretty official document, and could very well contribute towards identity theft with or without the birth certificate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may be a rather unusual way of verifying his credentials. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Break

• Having had some of the earliest interactions with McYel, I watch him closely. My personal belief is that he is a sock of some other user and is using this account to make some point about minor edits, a point that would probably make more sense if I knew the history of the other account. That said, there isn't enough evidence of disruptive intent to block him. I'll continue to monitor him, but I don't think there is any need for further action at this time.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Note on birth certificates As a genealogy researcher, I can say that birth certificates are public documents in most jurisdictions including the UK and US, and it is perfectly legal to obtain the birth certificate of any individual in these jurisdictions (whether they are you or not, and whether living or dead - I have an account with the Office of National Statistics, and can obtain anyone's birth certificate for £7). Nor is it an offence to post anyone's birth certificate online - just log on to Ancestry.com to confirm this. However, McYel, I think you're barking mad mate :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just an addition to Elen of the Roads was talking about. You can get most birth certificates at either the county courthouse, the hospital of birth or the branch of service's Department of Records in the US. The prices range from free to $10. In most cases, unless you are law enforcement, you can't obtain anyone's birth certificate but your own or your child's (if they are under 18). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there are other ways to get a hold of someone else's birth certificate and other documents. Silly question, but has anyone any basis to conclude that the information this person is publishing actually pertains to him/her, rather than to some other unsuspecting person? Steveozone (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The video that remains linked at the top of this section is really quite conclusive. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Steveozone. Unless there is a picture of this person actually holding these documents, documents you can clearly see, I am not convinced and do not think the video shows anything but someone repeated what is on a piece of paper. I could read off the life and times of anyone if I had their birth certificate, wouldn't make me that person. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[images added were redacted then deleted]. --McYel (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, McYel. I apperciate your posting those pictures for proof. While I don't feel it is a bad idea to have on Wikipedia due to the indenity theft concerns, that does convince me the user is the same with the documents. I would ask for some input. With the showing of the documents by the user to prove they are his, if the user wants the documents on Wikipedia, would anyone be against it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yes – I oppose the posting of birth certificates etc. This user may be of sound mind and fully informed, and consequently choose to post completely inappropriate personal details on their user page, and we may not care. However, other people will possibly encounter the userpage and think that it is somehow a good thing to emulate. Then we will have more timesinks where we debate whether or not to save users from themselves. There is no benefit to Wikipedia from encouraging/permitting the posting of such excessively personal details. Using Wikipedia to publish documents like birth certificates is disruptive because other editors will waste time wondering whether the information is an elaborate scam intended to attack the person named in the personal data, or will start dramas such as we see here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about this situation but can tell you those pictures need to removed and deleted from the database immediately. In the real world, I work with military records and personal documents to verify veteran identities. Just by the information displayed in those three pictures, anyone could get a fake drivers license, social security card, as well as several other fraudulent documents. A terrorist in another country could also use that information to obtain a false Visa. In my professional opinion, take them off now. -OberRanks (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Johnuniq ~ what possible benefit to us, the community, is it to have these items here? Again, in what way does it help improve the encyclopædia? None. I say remove them.

On the other hand, it is nice to see something a little less drama-ey on ANI than some of the more usual suspects. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 06:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, this whole section is crazy - from the video and the images being here at all through to the ban. I can't understand what McYel thinks he's doing and I don't really care that much but there are BLP issues here because he's claiming his mother (who is very clearly named in full on the displayed birth certificate) was a rape victim and implying his father (also named in full) is a rapist. Posting the high school diplomas are his business, really, but I can't see how posting the birth certificates with the full details for his parents (names, date of births, address etc) and claiming that named people were involved in a rape can possibly be acceptable. He can accept responsibility for posting his own information but he surely can't for his parents. I'm just about to go out for the evening and don't have time to deal with this further but I think these should be taken down and at the very least the rape claims needs to be removed from all these image description pages and the birth certificate should really go. Sarah 06:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we all still here?? O_o - Either way, I've suppressed the mention of what Sarah refers to here as not only is it non-public, personal information relating to someone else, it's potentially problematic as it relates to a criminal act. Not only that, but his mom was clearly uncomfortable in discussing it in the video above, so it's only right that it be redacted. So ... are we done here now? Can we all go home happy? - Alison ^❤ 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So he immediately added that again. It's suppressed again. I consider that highly inappropriate and unfair to the woman in question. He's been final-warned, far as I'm concerned. If he does it again, someone contact WP:OVER and block him for a short while. His userpage is now fully-prot'd for 24 hours - Alison ^❤ 08:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Personally I think this edit demonstrates that he can't take wikipedia or other people's privacy seriously; it's looking more and more likely that a block is going to be required, especially given the very serious BLP issues (and potential libel) demonstrated in some revisions of his userpage which have now been revdelled and/or oversighted, which he is apparently treating as joke. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK...obviously I have caused a fuss by asking for the images to be held up by the person in a picture (which I never really expected would happen...color me surprised) and asking for opinions. I am just at a loss of what to do with this user as they seem gung-ho about having this information on his page. If I have upset anyone by all this, I do apologize. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm just as puzzled & at just as much of a loss as you are, NH. I'm coming to this thread with little knowledge (& interest) of just why McYel decided to reveal all of this information & I'd accuse him of violating WP:POINT -- if I could figure out what his point is. The guy is obviously over 18, of arguably sound mind, so we really can't keep him from sharing whatever personal information he wants to. (Well, I'd appreciate it if he doesn't share the explicit details of his sexual history on Wikipedia, but I feel that way towards everyone who edits here.) I wouldn't publish even a tenth of what McYel has -- I refuse to share my social security number with my doctor's office, for example -- but if he's willing to live with the identity theft which will very likely follow, what can we realistically do? We Wikipedians can't keep someone from committing suicide -- although if they threaten to do so in a Wikipedia post we will do the reasonable thing & inform the local authorities. This entire matter has turned surreal. Either we find a reason to block this guy, or we close this thread & move on. -- llywrch (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Somewhat on topic, could someone make him stop tagging everything he does as minor? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How does holding up a copy of a birth certificate or diploma prove in any way that you are the person? I could photograph someone's diploma when I am waiting for him in his office, or I could create a fine looking fake one in Word. Others have stated above that they can purchase copies of birth certificates. I could easily make a photo of me holding a fake drivers license in someone else's name. It is a nonproof, which needs to be removed. Often I see new users create attack user pages where they claim to be someone else, then make damaging "admissions" on behalf of their target. Even if he is who he says, WP:BLP does not allow him to make accusations that other persons, even family members, have been the victims or perpetrators of crimes, based on his personal belief or knowledge. If the crime was widely documented and meets the guidelines for notability, then maybe there could be an article. Otherwise it is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia to use it as a forum or soapbox for venting one's spleen over nonnotable real or imagined wrongs. If the user cannot understand that and cannot comply with our policies and guidelines, then an indefinite block is indicated. Edison (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hm2k disruption

This user has been previously blocked for Wikipedia:Tenditious which including removing redlinks. Also just about anytime you address the content work the author will automatically accuse you of commenting on the contributer instead of the content. I've tried to asume good faith one more time [[33]] with this user and attempted a dialogue Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#smartmontools. Previously A few editors tried to explain to H2mk that WP:WTAF is a guideline and not a policy and unless redlinking is completely excessive serves a great purpose of organization and indicating where articles can be written. I've given examples such as State Park lists etc and nothing seems to get through. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs?

Please note I tampered with fixed two wikilinks in your edit. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The most recent block, [[34]]

doe the following instances [[35]][[36]][[37]] [[38]][[39]] [[40]]Basically anything with a redlink he is removing.

The mentatitly of the editor in disputes can be seen here in the Ani discussion (this highlites the issues of claiming people are attackign him when we are only talkking about his content work. [[41]] [[42]]

The last Ani discussion regarding redlink removal [[43]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the latest diff [[44]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In my defence:

• Review Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools: it does indeed contain redlinks, that this user claims I've removed.
• Review Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#smartmontools: The user is continually hostile and continually talks about me as an editor (previous edits) instead of my actual current edits on that article.
• Review Comparison_of_S.M.A.R.T._tools&action=history: You will see no recent edit conflict between myself and this user.
• This user will clearly go to any length to prove a point, even reporting previously resolved issues here.

--Hm2k (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because you are not modifying your behavior which means a block is warranted to prevent further disruption from you. Do please show me specific comments that are hostile to you and are personal attacks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I will be no longer be engaging with this user as per WP:TROLL. --Hm2k (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning you can't mount a defennse a resonable administrator would accept? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE: I feel I've made my position here clear enough. I trust an administrator will make the right decision. Should an administrator require further input, feel free to drop me a message. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A vague wave isn't making your position clear. If you are to accuse someone of hostile actions, back it up with evidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm2k was wrong about the standing of WTAF in the community, but it's good advice nevertheless, especially on Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools where we're talking about applications which people have re-added continually for over a year without thinking to try starting the article instead. What with bringing up hm2k's unrelated block log, this looks like a pretty transparent attempt to win a content dispute by getting the opposition blocked. If more eyes are needed on the discussion, start an RfA. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually his block log in this is key. His previous two blocks have had to do with lists. He was blocked for disruption at ANI after he created a completely unsourced list on Shell Providers. The link is above, he was then later blocked for edit warring and disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. The behaviors are related by the inclusion of lists and the disruption in edits between time in content removal and misguided policy enforcement. This is not a Straw man argument, this is saying the user has a history there is a lot of them but read the diffs provided above and then consider the "attacks" this editor has accused me of, in no way have those been uncivil or against a personal attack policy. I challenge H2mk to show me an actual attack a administrator would block me for, there are plenty out there that are block happy. Hasn't happened yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, his own behaviour is not really worthy of a block right now. If we blocked everyone that hovered over an article, or called people they disagree with trolls, then an awful lot of people wouldn't get a lot done. Okay, WQA is largely a waste of time, but far better to try to drag the content issue to a close with an RfC or the like than to take it personally. If that fails then it might be time for harsher measures. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I could care less about being called a troll. My concern is the removal of redlinks. My main work here has been a result of redlinked lists. Unless they are completely non notable or excessive they shouldn't all be removed. It indicates a need for improvement and also a focus for editors that have a focal point they enjoy. Consider work on List of Colorado state parks or National Register of Historic Places listings in Pueblo County, Colorado. Removing the links or info just because it doesn't have a article on it actually will make things be missed sometimes. It helps us fufill our goal which is to write a comprehensive encyclopedia, deleting things properly is not the problem it does and will happen regularly even in cases where I disagree. My question I pose to the community is after a history of the same issues does the rope get longer or shorter? In any of the diffs where H2mk has been told his actions were not in accordance to policy he insists we are attacking or refuses to agree. I understand not agreeing, I do it regularly but if I do it in certain ways it ends in blocks. This is disruptive the encyclopedia and whether the action is dealt with by words or a block is in the hands of a admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

These are still discrete instances which have not yet led to normal content dispute resolution. There isn't a current edit war which would necessitate admin intervention here. Again, if you want more eyes on the situation try an RfC. In general hm2k's behaviour has not broached the level at which admin intervention is required. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Review Personal Attacks by Hell in a Bucket

For those who are curious, Please review User:Hm2k/Hell In A Bucket for evidence of my "attacks". Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I must be honest, most of those are not personal attacks or even combative, or even... negative comments... or even comments. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic dispute resolution....What he fails to present is the edits between time where I clarify my remarks like here [[45]] or the very nicely worded request before the prior example [[46]]. This is classic disruptive behavior and the WP:NPA deals with this explicitly [[47]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to H2mk I was uncivil once. I left a edit summary he refactored anyways [[48]] I did apoligize for that too [[49]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• My advice to you both is to avoid each other. I will note however that the relevant guideline encourages the keeping of any redlink where it is plausible that an article could be created and that WP:WTAF is not a policy or a guideline, it is an essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hell in a Bucket tried to rope me in on this too, through comments on my talk page. It seems to me that Hm2k is not doing anythign wrong, the "comparison of foo" articles are almost all violations of WP:NOR and rammed full of everybody's Brand New Sourceforge Project That Will Really Shake Up The World. Pruning them of on-notable products is absolutely fine, and absence of an article is one of the ways we know it's not notable, because the chances of anybody failing to create an article on a genuinely notable product in these spaces is pretty slim (it tends to be rather the other way round: projects which are deleted as A7 dozens of times before the developer finally gets the hint). Guy (Help!) 09:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely why we do not have a policy on removal of redlinks under WP:WTAF if they are non notable that's fine, however the deletion must be done correctly for the correct reasons. A;so consider what this paticular incidence was doing to the editor that just started, he was trying to add sources in good faith [[50]] and there is no explanation or even a attempt to discuss with the user. This often reduces down to [[51]]. There is reasons I've brought up the editing history, block log and previously edit habits. Redlinks is a issue where many don't agree that's why it's not policy. Consider the software the person was trying to add a ref for. I've found one review of it [[52]] and coverage in multiple languages found here [[53]]. How is this not a understanding of policy or disruptive behavior? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Guy on his talk page has refused to answer my counterpoint saying I am missing the point. If I am missing the point by proving that there is news coverage for the deleted product for a period of two years, then yes I have completely missed the point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares, Recurrence of Personal Attacks and Incivility

Nineteen Nightmares (talk · contribs) had been referred to WQA and then to AN/I. This occurred on June 19, 2010. Following a discussion in which a community block of two to three weeks was discussed, Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) offered to mentor Nineteen Nightmares, and the AN/I was closed, with a comment that if 19N started such conduct again, to refer it back to an AN/I. These previous attacks typically involved allegations involving our being socks of Dmartinaus (talk · contribs).

Since the AN/I closed, he has done the following:

• Commented on Jimbo Wales' talk page here, later struck per his mentor's instructions.
• Commented on Dmatinaus' talk page, here, here, here and here.

Note that Dmartinaus served a two-week block for being a puppetmaster, which involved a check-user. SPI is here. Following his block being released, he apparently continued to edit on Austin based articles, but I haven't seen anything with a possible COI that would prompt the above attacks.

Also note that on a separate issue, both myself and Minor4th went through a separate SPI, also involving a check-user. That SPI is here. In that SPI, both Minor4th and I were cleared of the sockpuppet allegations.

I was notified of the attacks by Dmartinaus. I will, immediately after I post this, notify 19N and users that were involved in the initial AN/I.

I would request that an admin look at this and that the proposal for a block be re-opened. The mentorship has apparently not worked - he has continued his pattern less than a month after the ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 20:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already notified Salvio giuliano, I would like to hear his views on whether the mentorship "failed" before we make any major judgements. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been mentoring Nineteen Nightmares for few weeks, I don't know what results could be expected in so short a time; however, I think that it is positive that this user was willing to remove an inappropriate edit on my suggestion, because it shows that he is willing to heed advice and change his attitude. As far as the other diffs go, I've read them and, sincerely, I don't see any personal attacks there. He is firm, I grant you that, but he is referring to policy (in my opinion, correctly, by the way) and he is not even incivil. I don't think he needs to be chastised, unless there's something I've missed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, he is accusing us of being socks for Dmartinaus, again per his statement: "If they were not working on your behalf somehow (or more socks?), they would not have made it such a crusade and then had no interest in Wikipedia at all when the dust settled". This is what brought it to AN/I in the first place, and there have been two SPI's that have cleared us of being socks for Martin. GregJackP Boomer! 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's inappropriate, since you were cleared (however, please, don't get me wrong, but if I recall correctly, your SPI investigation was a little complex, even though, I reiterate, you were cleared), but I don't think that warrants a block. I'll have again a word with 19N, to avoid:

1. this entire unfortunate matter &
2. accusing people of socking.

Clearly, I welcome uninvolved input. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I also welcome uninvolved input - and you might tell him to stay away from making determinations as to who has an interest in Wikipedia or not - I have plenty of contributions that came before the Don Martin article, and have several since, that I'll stack up against any other editor. GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from involved editor -- I have personally had no interaction with NN since he got a mentor, and I don't intend to have any because he is so unpleasant and does not appear to be capable of controlling his animosity and accusations and venom. I noted that he immediately went to Don Martin's talk page and started in on the attacks and has also continued to make accusations about me and Greg (although he did strike one of them at his mentor's suggestion.) He appears to be wikihounding Dmartinaus right after his two week block. I would recommend an agreed no-contact parole between NineteenNightmares and Dmartinaus. I would also hope that his mentor can successfully counsel him to knock off the accusations about me and Greg. Minor4th • talk 21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly try; however, if I may, he is so unpleasant and does not appear to be capable of controlling his animosity and accusations and venom are not very kind words... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

They may not be kind, but Minor4th was accurate in his description.GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not very kind words, but soft pedaling is not really helpful here. I have found it necessary to avoid interaction with him, and the context of that decision is relevant to this discussion. It's not like I'm alone in this view, and his behavior is not just offensive to me. There are many he has offended repeatedly, and it apparently continues to this day. I thank you for the work you are doing with him and hope that it is ultimately helpful to him. I do believe that he has difficulty controlling his anger and impulses to act out against people he takes issue with. Minor4th • talk 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that it is a little inconsistent to come here complaining about someone else's personal attacks, throwing in personal attacks against them; however, if you're keeping an eye on Nineteen Nightmares' talk page, you'll have seen that I've asked him to keep away from everything even remotely related to this entire unfortunate affair, hoping this will help. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on no-drama week, but a note on my talk page specifically brought me here, so I'll suspend my no-drama pledge for long enough to say: The diffs above are not enough to show that Salvio's mentorship of Nineteen Nightmares has failed. In fact, I can see some early evidence that the mentorship may be beginning to succeed. Give it time.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this report, I'm inclined to simply bash the heads of both Dmartinaus and Nineteen Nightmares together. Neither of them have done anything actionable, but Dmartinus is just as guilty of trying to aggravate Nineteen Nightmares [54]. They both need to leave each other alone. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that! I've posted this almost at the same time... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Deskana. I really wish these editors would just go their own separate ways and stop commenting to or about each other and stop monitoring what each are doing. I am busy with chapter work and not editing much at present but from a cursory check, I think 19Nightmares has been responding to Salvio's mentorship and the mentorship should be continued if Salvio is happy to do so and feels 19Nightmares has been making progress. As I have told Dmartinaus a number of times, I have concerns about what he's doing here and I was particularly concerned with the "clean-up" mission he was on for days after his block expired, but it's obvious that no productive or constructive discussions will ever come out of this group of editors engaging with each other, so they really need to go their own ways and focus on their own editing without monitoring each other and commenting to/about each other. This whole thing has become too disruptive and too much of a time-sink and if they can't come to an understanding on their own to let each party edit in peace and find their own corners of this very, very large project to work in, the community will just have to take it out of their hands and enforce interaction bans. Sarah 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I see I am rowing against the tide trying to do the right thing here, so I will respectfully bow out of keeping a needful eye on Mr. Martin. Someone needs to do it, though, as I've raised some valid concerns and continually been brought to ANI for it. Pretty laughable, but most reasonable people have seen the truth and I think I've made my point. For any concerned admin, I should like to point out that I will follow the advice and wisdom of my Wikipals Salvio or Sarah, both of whom have suggested separation between me and Mr. Martin. They are much, much more Wikisavvy than me, and I love them both for it, so I just gotta defer...Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

All I am requesting is that he stop the personal attacks on me. I have made a point to stay away from him and did not know of this until it was brought to my attention. I just want him to leave me alone, along with any editors or admins that he is associated with. GregJackP Boomer! 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please at least recognize that I didn't start ANY of this. I responded (inartfully) to a series of very, very personal attacks. Nevertheless, as an effort to Assume Good Faith in the other editors here, to take their advice, and to show Civility toward 19N, I am reverting all of my comments about this person on all other pages (mine and his)and striking out the quotations below. And I am moving on to making actual edits to articles again, and not add to this discussion. I have no problem with the suggestion above that he and I not communicate to each other in the future. GregJackP wants the same thing. Dmartinaus • Talk 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did start it. What I am saying is that if you ask 19Nightmares to stop posting on your page and you don't post on his page or make comments about him elsewhere, and he keeps coming back and posting on your page anyway, one of us would likely block him. But when you have two users taking shots at each other, we are more likely to either block both or neither and 'knock their heads together'. Sarah 06:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I'm learning not to respond but it's hard. Note: Previous quotes posted here from NN have been removed by me to help promote WP:CIV civility. Comments have also been removed from all other pages as well. Dmartinaus • Talk 11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Spamfilter his emails and you won't have to read them. I do understand why you want to portray yourself into the victim role here, Dmartinaus, and I don't think you're succeeding.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just because the respected editors who had the decency to cut him slack the first two times around. It needs to stop. Minor4th • talk 00:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Dmartinaus -- ignore him and don't respond as I counseled you on your talk page. You have offended plenty of people as well, and now it's time to make good on your second chance by being productive and avoiding these unpleasantries. It takes two to keep the drama going. Minor4th • talk 00:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Excellent advice that I should have taken 100% at the beginning. I had actually written point-by-point responses but decided not to send them and thus prolong the fight. It is just so infuriating to be characterized as the money-grubbing bad guy businessman. From now on I am blanking his emails and not responding. So on to more productive activities and edits. Dmartinaus • Talk 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez -- I had not ventured over to NN's talk page to see the commentary you left for him. Don, you make it really hard to stick up for you when you're treated badly because you give as well as you get and even up the ante. I am not your mentor, of course, but like Salvio advised NN, I am asking you to stay away from everything related to NineteenNightmares. Please do not comment on his talk page, and consider reverting yourself on those edits on his talk page because Salvio was right, you are taunting him. Minor4th • talk 02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dmartinaus • Talk 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I just noted above, I just want 19N to leave me out of his comments. It was not appropriate for 19N to leave a diatribe on Dmartinaus' talk page, nor to make the comments that he made about his recent block. While I note that Dmartinaus did not start this, he should not have gone over to 19Ns talk page either. I don't really care what either one of them do, so long as I am left out of it. GregJackP Boomer! 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd eco the above. To everyone who's bashing me for responding, please keep in mind that I didn't start ANY of this. I only responded (yes, in anger) after three days of repeated accusatory and rambing messages from him. Surely many of you would have responded as well if you were being attacked in such volume. Next time I will have learned this lesson and ignore him completely (which is easy for you all to say but very hard to do when you are being personally attacked). Honestly I'd be perfectly happy to never post another word about him. Or as suggested above, perhaps a mutual pact not to ever post about each other. Meanwhile out of a desire to show and promote civility WP:CIV and in respect of the comments from many editors here about how I should not have responded, I have removed all of my remarks about him on all pages. And as you can see from my log I have gone back to making constructive edits as well. Dmartinaus • Talk 11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put a communication ban in place? Or something like that? That way the drama of 19, Greg, and Dmartinaus ends. Caden ^cool 14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What's involved? I haven't been communicating with him or having any interactions, so it wouldn't be an issue on my part. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg I don't know. Maybe Sarah or Deskanna can figure something out? I'm just saying that a ban of some kind could be good. Sort of like the way topic bans are set up? I know it worked for me when the community topic banned me. Caden ^cool 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah's an involved party, having made similar statements in the past. I don't have a problem with another admin figuring it out, but I do have an issue with her being involved in the solution. GregJackP Boomer! 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've followed the actions of NN for a time, and agree with Caden that an interaction ban between NN and Dmartinaus would be a good idea. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg -- why don't you modify your opening post and include a specific proposal to this effect and whatever kind of sanction to keep NN from making any more accusations about you, and propose a duration, etc. so that folks can see that there's something to vote on support or oppose. Minor4th • talk 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Greg and Dmartinaus have both agreed on my talk page to sort of a gentlemen's agreement, by which all editors are to keep away from each other's talk page and not to interact with one another (not reverting each other's edits and not talking to one another), except to report someone to ANI, should this agreement fail.

So far, Nineteen Nightmares hasn't commented, but that's due to the fact that he hasn't edited since yesterday afternoon. If he were to willingly abide by that agreement, then a formal discussion could be superfluous, in my opinion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• One proposal: I have stated to Salvio that I would be completely willing to simply give my personal word that I won't make any edits relating to 19 or his work, or to post any comments on his page or elsewhere in return for the same. I'm sure Greg would agree likewise. I would hope we can all be trusted with our word (and I am sure many editors are monitoring for such anyway) without an elaborate technical scheme. Salvio appears to like the plan, too, but says it is just a matter of getting in touch with 19 to see if he would accept it as well. Personally I would not place a duration on it. I'd let it run forever. As to sanctions I leave that to whatever the other editors here decide. Dmartinaus • Talk 21:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait and see if 19N is agreeable, per Salvio's comments above, plus he has a right to be heard before the community decides something unilaterally. If that fails, then we can move forward with community sanctions, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move on

Nineteen Nightmares has agreed to stay away from Mr. Martin. Now, I'm not too keen on wikilawyering, so I'll keep it simple. All involved parties have agreed to avoid each other, this means they'll not talk or refer to one another or post to or edit each other's main page, talk page, archive, articles being edited, or any other ceaeted page involving the other person (except to report each other, if admin intervention is required — but, please, try to do that only when absolutely necessary) and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each other's edits. If nobody objects to my summary, I think we could mark this resolved and move on to something a tad more constructive. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as regards to Martin, but I haven't seen that he has agreed to the same as regards to myself or Minor4th, and would prefer that 19N state that he agrees to the same for us, especially since it was his comments on me that brought us back here. GregJackP Boomer! 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, I am happy with that overall language. I added another line or two to yours (in bold ital) for consideration to include, for clarity. Do you want to add a short sentence too re sanctions? I strongly think this needs to be a "signed" agreement and not simply an unsigned agreement to your summary. There are a few minor details that also need to be added or clarified. I'll take a stab at proposing something, but there is no pride of authorship. Anyone should feel free to edit it. Dmartinaus • Talk 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am offering draft Proposed Agreement language subject subject to edits and discussion by others. But let's not prolong it for too long, and lets get this OVER WITH. Dmartinaus • Talk 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By Mutual Agreement: Nineteen Nightmares and Dmartinaus (or their successor name changes if any) hereby agree to completely avoid each other. This means they'll not talk or refer to one another, or post to or edit each others main page, talk page, archive, articles being edited, or any other current or future created pages involving the other person, or ask other editors to act in their behalf re the same (except to report each other, if admin intervention is required — but, please, try to do that only when absolutely necessary) and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each others edits. Furthermore, Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP and Minor4th) agree to the same terms above as respect to Nineteen Nightmares. and either of them. It is anticipated that other editors will monitor this action from time to time and if such editors find that any party has violated the agreement they shall be subject to an immediate minimum three month block, which they may appeal for good reason. This agreement shall be posted on each parties archive page for future reference. Agreed, by Dmartin Austin 9 July 2010 Dmartinaus • Talk 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed by GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as modified as of the date/time of signing. . Agreed by . Agreed by .</>

• Unnecessarily detailed. The original was fine, so long as all agree to it. Any sanctions if needed later can be determined at the time. All I need is 19N to say that he'll leave me alone and I'll AGF that he'll abide by it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  I posted without noticing your edit; in short, I agree. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about leaving out sanctions. Dmartinaus • Talk 19:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I really just want to be left out of it. I don't need an agreement from NN about me because I don't really care what he says about me. I find it easy enough to avoid him and ignore what he says, and he has not approached me or tried to initiate any interaction. Minor4th • talk 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some qualms about "articles being edited": as long as you don't tweak each other's edits, it should be fine (for instance, you edit a section of an article, while Nineteen Nightmares edits another). And the "or any other created page involving the other person" part, sincerely, leaves me puzzled. But I'm not the one who has to agree to anything.
I also think that three month blocks are an overkill. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Please just edit as necessary. I do think it needs to be "formalized" however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.95.80 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I ws on the phone and forgot to log in. Dmartinaus • Talk 19:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio - re the "articles created involving the other person" is like if GregJackP does another future article on the lawsuit, on the retrial, for example.... None of us need NN jumping into that all over again. Dmartinaus • Talk 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Further edits made above.Dmartinaus • Talk 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Struck posting on user's talk page archive - it will be archived here automatically. GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I don't know how that works re this archive, but OK with me. Sometime let me know how I would find it in the future. I'm just not that saavy yet on Wikipedia. Also OK re no fixed snctions although I wanted it to be strong enough that we don't have to do this again and again. Dmartinaus • Talk 03:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here's the current redacted version, I think. Comments? Edits? Dmartinaus • Talk 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares and Dmartinaus agree to completely avoid each other. This means they'll not talk or refer to one another, or post to or edit each others main page, talk page, archive, or any other current or future created pages involving the other person, or ask other editors to act in their behalf re the same and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each others edits. Furthermore, Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP agree to the same terms above as respect to Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP. Agreed by Dmartinaus • Talk 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed by GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as modified as of the date/time of signing. . Agreed by .

Editor EENG

We had a dispute with editor EENG over a page we wrote, with permission from the principal (Joaquin Fuster) to use his material. In fact, he even added GNU copyright-free language to his site just for Wiki! EENG recruited other editors and deleted our work, and the entire page, which is fine. However, thereafter, EENG systematically went through ALL our articles and began adding numerous templates to all of them, including many that had been through entire editorial cycles, asked and answered. The behaviour has become a vendetta by EENG! This kind of "target the newbie" behaviour is beyond discourteous and disruptive, it is downright abuse of editorial power. It has nothing to do with articles, and everything to do with targeting another editor! Check his recent pattern of templates vs. our articles-- you will see a clear pattern of sequential disruptive editing (see WP:DIS). We have notified EENG of this behaviour on every page he spammed, the articles he deleted, his own talk page, and the editor he recruited to help him delete the Fuster page's talk page, who was courteous and not a problem.

EENG needs to be stopped, frozen, or disciplined for this conduct. The etiquette here is to help new editors, not target them! Thanks for investigating this behaviour. Phoenixthebird (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind, I've changed your original title for this thread to something more neutral and accurate, as there's no spam involved. The Talk:Joaquin Fuster page seems to show that the article was a substantial copyright violation, as pointed out to you by more than one editor. From there, EEng (talk · contribs) looks to have added templates to several articles you've edited in the past. Do you have a specific problem with any of those templates, or just the general addition of any material to an article you've worked on? Also, when you say "We had a dispute," what "we" are you talking about? Dayewalker (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Also, Phoenixthebird, it looks like you chased EEng onto the Phineas Gage article and left a bunch of retaliatory tags there. You don't have clean hands, regardless of what EEng may have done. In any case, copyright violations are a serious matter that must be treated seriously, so if he saw a problem with your edits elsewhere, he is supposed to remove them. That is not optional. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Going off the deep end in response to someone who has obviously just looked at Special:Contributions/Phoenixthebird isn't good etiquette, either, even though it's something that novices (and those who wish to defend the indefensible) regularly do. Look at your edit to Gareth Loy. Because you're so convinced that someone is stalking you over the the seven or so articles that you've touched, you've removed an orphan notice from an an article that … well … was and still is an orphan. Knee-jerk reversions and over-reactions are things to avoid. As, too, are lengthy rants about how other editors are not creative and productive, in defence of text that you just took from someone else and that wasn't creativity on your part, either. Yes, we do indeed turf people out on their ear. Some of the people that we turf out on their ear are those whose idea of "writing" is taking other people's work and passing it off as their own, copying it wholesale into Wikipedia. Those who come to the administrators' noticeboard drawing attention to lengthy and highly erroneous tirades on the subject tend to get administrator attention even more quickly than most. So think very carefully about what you say and do next. Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Loy, but the page Gareth Loy that you created looks like something I'd expect to find on a promotional website, so don't be surprised if people tag it. You don't seem to have read WP:BLP and certainly need to read WP:LEAD, and it needs the promotional language and tone removed. When you write articles like this, and someone notices it, then you can expect editors to look at your other articles. You might want to read WP:OWN also. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've notified EEng - Phoenixbird, you should have done that, it says it clearly at the top of the page. Everyone else, you might want to see Talk:Joaquin_Fuster - the talk page of the deleted article on Fuster which the deleting Admin has deliberately left undeleted so people can read it. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but what you mean "we", Kemo Sabe? I've noticed that you use that word in a number of your posts. You also refer to "our articles" a number of times. Just how many people are editing from the Phoenixthebird account? You wouldn't be some kind of PR firm editing Wikipedia for pay, would you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One more question. If you're not a PR firm, do you have any WP:COI on the Joaquin Fuster article that you should disclose? Note that this does not prevent you editing such an article, but the fact (if it is a fact) should be disclosed and certain restrictions complied with. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just one small point. Phoenixbird says "EENG recruited other editors and deleted our work". I see no evidence that EENG did any recruiting. Phoenixbird (not EENG) called for intervention by a "third party administrator", and I, as an uninvolved administrator, responded to that call. On the face of it this looks rather like "I want a third party to mediate, but only if that third party supports my line". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good comments all of you, except for "Steven Anderson." For Steven: I'm a 70 year old professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing. If someone above used the word "we", (and, do you know what an editorial "we" is?, assume you do), and Anderson is now making accusations of Socking, will the person above please let Anderson know that you're just being supportive and balanced, not using some other account. We have one small account here, and are rapidly losing interest in that. PR is laughable, juried publications are where you cut your teeth in our field. I'm tenured, so what exactly does PR get you again? Young man's game, sir, no interest. In our opinion Watson acted much too quickly here, but then I guess he's got an agenda too-- we're happy and have no axe to grind regardless of the decision, just wish an experienced admin would have allowed more time, since the subject of the article was willing (and has) put free use language on his site, which negates all the copyright hullabaloo. You know, he was going article by article with us to be sure the ones on Wiki were juried! COI? We have no knowledge of this gentleman at all (Dr. Fuster) other than his wonderful credentials and contributions to the Neuro field. He wrote the leading text on the prefrontal cortex in the world, and if you check PFC on Wiki you'll see him referred to, and if you Google him, notability will be no issue. Other editors have contacted us who also are expert in Neuro, and our only motive is the hope that Wiki will keep up with special fields like this, given the many spinoffs like Wiki Neuro that are juried and represent a brain drain from the "real" Wiki. We'll stick to adding technical corrections to articles.

For the "insult" that "you've ONLY worked on 7 articles," hey-- that makes us a newbie, is there a little neuro circuit running in the PFC of that individual wanting us to tell him he's great because he's a veteran? Well, no biggie, our hats are off to you-- go ahead and allow yourself a little GABA and dopamine in that circuit. But, you don't have to blow the candle of another out to make your own seem to shine brighter, yes? And with a little more maturity you'll want to help newbies, not zonk em for beginner level contributions. I've got dozens of young stallions working for me here that are avid Wiki types, contributors and fans... they have the adrenalin for this ride, I'm just trying to add a few notable folks who seem to be missing for no particularly good reason! Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you're not a professor at MIT, you're a professor in the "MIT system". Can you help me? I can't recall what institutions are in the MIT system -- MIT State (Fullerton), MIT Stony Brook, MIT Champaign-Urbana? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why so hostile in the response? Today I don't think most law schools specify their JDs, even those that give concentrations. Which law school awarded you the JD in IP? Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly familiar with the editorial "we", of course, it's just not usually used in Wikipedia talk pages. You don't quite say that you're using it, so I'll ask again, directly. To whom are you referring when you use the word "we"? Additionally, you say "If someone above used the word 'we' . . . will the person please let Anderson know . . ." But, you know who used the word, it was you. Unless someone else was using your account, you're being too cute by half. Or are you just trolling us?

Further, if you'll take a more careful look at my prior post (while fully employing your prefrontal cortex), you'll see that I made no accusations of socking, express or implied. I am, however, concerned that your account may be violating WP:ROLE, even more now that you have mentioned the "dozens of young stallions" you say are working for you, so again, I'll ask directly. How many individuals have access to your account? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page or his, where he's replied to the same question that I put on his talk page. I think he's the only one using the account. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I withdraw my snark. I'll also mention that when I originally asked it was with the understanding that a role account is something that might be started in innocence by an inexperienced user. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anderson: Don't withdraw your snark, I AM an inexperienced user. At my age, and having been through gauntlet after gauntlet of juried publications and research submissions (more returned than accepted), the skin gets thick. I was just curious about process-- Eeng blanked our entire page down to a single sentence, is not an admin, yet effectively "deleted" the page. I tried the same thing and got crucified. He also removed our tags, just as we removed his, but he didn't get any "tag" warning as we did on our talk from some ShyFoot guy. To give you the respect you deserve, yes, I am just one old guy, and no, nobody has access to my lame little account! I wasn't being evasive in not answering this directly, just thick. It is really interesting to watch the tone of these threads. There are guys that cut new users slack, and even mentor them, and guys that are just brutal! I tend to want to return sarcasm for sarcasm ("what, did you get your degree ONLINE?" God forbid, that USED to be an insult! Now, with things like Microsoft certification, it's starting to mean quality!!!). I got my JD at the University of Detroit eons ago, which is not exactly Harvard Law, so the critic above you (sigh) is right... exposed again. Phoenixthebird (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is of course in the nature of a phoenix to consume itself in flames (see Ptb's posts above and elsewhere: Talk:Joaquin_Fuster [55] [56] [57] [58]). I note that:

• P.t.b. also edits as 24.117.202.139 and user Themedusacode (see [59]);
• the subjects of articles P.t.b.'s created or edited have a remarkable congruence to posts at http://www.sciencejournalnews.com (Fuster, The Medusa Code)and http://www.opedian.com/ (Gareth Loy, "Love of God");
• the one and only person posting to those blogs is a “Chess Bishop”; and
• Dr. Prof. Phoenixthebird (J.D., Ph.D.), after those long days corralling "young stallions" (above), commanding his "armies of grad students and PhD candidates" while "hanging around the supercomputing lab" [60], welcoming himself [61] to Wikipedia, and shooting the shit with quantum physicists [62], relaxes with... chess! [63] [64].

Despite all this, and contrary to Steven J. Anderson's suspicions (above) I can't imagine anyone paying money to P.t.b. for his activities here.

EEng (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to mention that P.t.b. unthinkingly let slip that he has "several other science and math user names for editing" [65], though he quickly changed to a less, um, interesting phrasing. SPI, anyone? EEng (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation unenforced by Spartaz

Resolved

 – Spartaz was within his discretion, and there is no consensus to overturn. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war noticeboard section: [66]

Sorry if this is the wrong place, wasn't sure where else to take it. mikemikev (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Three editors have already answered your question at the 3RR board. If they have all ruled in the same way you may wish to take it as given that they are right? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

They didn't "rule" in the same way.

• Mathsci is the 1RR violating party and has no business to rule.
• Spartaz is who I'm complaining about here.
• EdJohnston agrees that there was a violation. mikemikev (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One was indeed unambiguously a revert, the second edit is far more of a grey area. Yes, I could see an argument for blocking him over it under a strict interpretation of 1RR, but I think that personally I'd have given the benefit of the doubt here too - it was a substantial edit that happened to remove some of the content. This is less clear-cut than you seem to be making out - I'd caution Mathsci to be extra-careful with these things, but I'm not inclined to disagree with Spartaz's decision here.~ mazca ^talk 10:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no grey area. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with this project. mikemikev (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly at least 4 people disagree with you about there being a grey area, and just stating "there is no grey area" without explaining why you feel that this is the case, isn't constructive and certainly isn't going to persuade anyone that you're right. In any case, whether Spartaz' decision to give the user the benefit of the doubt is overturned or not, he was well within his discretion to make the call, and since it's Spartaz you're complaining about here, I think this thread can be closed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the revert rule was a bright line. There is no "benefit of doubt". There are no "grey areas". I have demonstrated with no ambiguity or possibility of interpretation that the rule was broken. Removed personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC) mikemikev (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mike, clearly we're all incompetent and corrupt, you're the only one among us wise enough to pass judgement, with your extensive contribution history. Apologies for the sarcasm but there's little I can say about the matter if disagreeing with you automatically makes me incompetent. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll caution him (if it hasn't been done already) since it seems that at 3RR and here there is little consensus that a blatant problem needs fixing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Mike, remember to tell people when you report them to ANI. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• (several ec and a phone call later) There has been no notification on my talk page of this thread. Nor has there been any attempt by Mikemikev to discuss this with me on my talk page. I see that he continues to throw personal attacks aropund concerning me. Calling me incompetant and now alleging corruption. Can someone deal with this incivility please? Oh and Mikemikev, the reason I did not respond to you at AN3 is because of the personal attack. If I did miss the substance of the 2nd revert you lost all chance of getting me to review the close when you chose to attack me. I would have been more then happy to revisit had you simply neutrally pointed out the sentence removed twice and asked if I had picked that up. Maybe if there are any lessons here it would be that you catch more flies with honey then vinegar. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, please review and apply all necessary restrictions to all parties. mikemikev (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The above comment suggests that mike has not taken on board your warning, so I have left him a final warning on his talk page. If he is not careful he is liable to get a "necessary restriction" of his own. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(more edit conflicts but no phone call this time)No chance. I'm not interested anymore. I have better things to spend my volunteer time on then helping users who behave in a nasty and agressive way. You reap what your sow. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at this report upon seeing this. I pretty regularly handle AN3 issues and have nothing to do with this article or this dispute. Spartaz made unambiguously the correct decision. I would have done the same thing and I think any admin who patrols AN3 would have done the same thing. --B (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have seemed to have missed this party; but then I wasn't properly invited. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a witty comment, but I've got nothing this morning. ;) --B (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Mathsci got lucky. An administrator whose argument is: "I can't understand so there's no vio." mikemikev (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Okay you had your warning and you are still throwing personal attacks around. Can someone block Mikemikev please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agree GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Support block: enough is enough Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agree It's almost as if he has better things to do. mikemikev (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I'm glad to see you feel you deserve to be blocked as well. Good for you. HalfShadow 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Facepalm This is reminiscent of that legendary time when a user who shall not be named accidentally reported himself to AIV using igloo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm indeed... mikemikev (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support block Verbal chat 12:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support block as well. Also note the well-executed Plaxico does not mean Mathsci is quite a saint, the edit was a gray area, but only just. Still, no action needed in relation to the complaint, only towards the complainer. -- ۩ Mask 12:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster edit warring

• Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Korean cuisine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

For much of 2006 and 2007, this article was the site of a hyper-nationalist edit war until several members sought to put an end to the foolish conflict and change the article to a serious work on subject. After several weeks of work, multiple ANI reports and a spate of blocks on the worst perpetrators, including Melonbarmonster, we succeeded in our goal. Since that time, many contributors have worked tirelessly, devoting themselves to keeping the article stable and bringing it to the verge of good article status.

On July 4, an anonymous IP contributor posted a long winded attack message on the Korean cuisine talk page disparaging the article as racist, a posting that contained references to multiple policies and essays showing that the contributor had extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and it workings. I left a quick reply disputing the IP contributors assertions and explaining why the post was inaccurate.

A short time later Melonbarmonster returned to the talk page for the first time in years and entered the discussion declaring that he agrees with the IP editor and will fix all of the issues raised by the IP editor. This was in spite of more than 18 months of continuous improvement to the article and multiple contributors not finding any of the claimed neutrality problems the IP contributor was contesting. Melon proceeded to blank out the sections that he disliked the most and began to rewrite the whole article with a pro-Korean bias, eliminating what he percieved as racist. Almost all of the stuff he removed was fully cited and vetted in the GA review and had been accepted as factual and neutral.

My self and others repeatedly restored his deletions and contested his additions. It took a request for page protection to stop his repeated attempts to rewrite the article. Since that time he has begun a barrage of posts on the talk page claiming that the article violate multiple policies and accusing myself and others of ownership and generally violating civility and launching personal attack with thinly veiled accusations of racist agenda on the part of the contributor who did a majority of the initial work on the article, Chef Tanner. In these accusations he claimed, without ever seeing the source itself, that it did not contain any of the information about the subjects he claims to be racist and Chef tanner was making up the additions to demean the Korean people. When another editor, Hkwon took the time to go to the library and look up the research in the book Chef Tanner used, he found it exactly as Chef Tanner had stated it to be. Despite multiple editors telling he is in the wrong and telling him his methods and reasoning are flawed, he has continued to war away at the talk page. In his postings he has also claimed that there are multiple editors who have raised concerns over the content and that there has never been a consensus on the content he is disputing.

I am sure that once the block expires later next week, he will continue his assault on the article.

I need for an uninvolved editor to look into his behavior and see what can be don to stop his edit warring.

My main issues with him in this matter:

• He cannot accept that Wikipedia is not censored and is insisting that the article is racist and all that he feels to be racist must be expunged;
• He is disrupting the articles to prove a point, which this whole thing is really about.
• Articles on Wikipedia must adhere to a neutral point of view, which most contributors agree this article does.
• Assumption of good faith, in the posts on the talk page he has made multiple accusations that other editors have a racist agenda and have made up stuff to push that agenda. These personal attacks are what are riling me most in this issue.

My final and deepest concern is about the IP posting that reignited this whole issue. In the posting, the language the IP user contained similar arguments, phrasing and grammatical patterns that Melonbarmonster has used in past postings and arguments concerning these subjects. I am deeply concerned that this whole thing is a macguffin based on an IP posting that is nothing more than a sock message posted by Melon himself. I requested a check user, but the check was declined because CU requests cannot be used link specific users to IP addresses.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hkwon and Melonbarmonster have been engaged in hostilities with each other recently, and I did warn them both that the article and talk page are no place to attack each other. After that warning, Hkwon was fairly civil and provided a more balanced series of postings, including the trip to the library.

I don't understand why the IP edits on a talk page is even being discussed. It's a talk page, there are no questions of the IP being used to get around any Wikipedia rules or blocks. People often use an IP to edit Wikipedia, when they forget/can't be bothered to login. In addition to that, none of the other articles that have been edited by the IP, are shared with Melonbarmonster - plus a quick WHOIS check reveals that the IP is located in UK. As far as I was aware, Melonbarmonster is not located anywhere near UK. The chances of the IP being Melonbarmonster are minimal. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a concern, if is untrue, it is untrue. I stand corrected. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly not an expert on sockpuppets (apart from being blocked as one) - but I don't think it looks as if it is the same person. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of proxies all over the internet and Melonbarmonster doesn't state where he is from on his user page. --Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is grasping for straws. Inclusion of "dog meat" as a subsection along with common foods like vegetables and grains has been a chronic an issue in the talk page: [67][68][69][70] The complaints go much farther back into the archives and will continue to be a problem simply because it is factually untrue. Accusing editors for being a sock merely for the fact that they are disagreeing with you is a blatant violation of WP:GF.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not accusing you working through a sock because I disagree with you; I am trying to ascertain if it was indeed a sock based on the pattern of speech contained in the post. See below for the full explanation. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to accusations

"For much of 2006 and 2007, this article was the site of a hyper-nationalist edit war until several members sought to put an end to the foolish conflict and change the article to a serious work on subject. After several weeks of work, multiple ANI reports and a spate of blocks on the worst perpetrators, including Melonbarmonster, we succeeded in our goal. Since that time, many contributors have worked tirelessly, devoting themselves to keeping the article stable and bringing it to the verge of good article status."

There has never been consensus on this. A cursory look at the talk page and archives will verify this. The last major dispute resolution attempt resulted in 'no consensus' [71]. I have never been blocked from editing Korean cuisine for "nationalist edit war" or for any ANI report. Jeremy did file a bogus ANI report in the past which came to nothing [72]. Also the language "we succeeded in our goal...have worked tirelessly, devoting..." reaks of WP:own: "I/he/she/we created this article."[73] and "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work":[[74]].

You're right, I screwed up on the block issue and I apologize for that. However, a close examination of the discussion starting in archive four and moving forward shows that whenever a compromise is suggested you work contrary to the proposed work around. Just because no action was taken in the ANI, does not make it bogus, my concerns about your edits and methods are still valid. You say you try to reach a consensus over the issue, but when we tried to involve you into mediation session to work through our differences, you refused to participate. And finally, please do not confuse pride in accomplishing things with ownership, I am happy that people came together to improve the article without fighting and working through their differences. As I have stated previously my problems are not that you wish to contribute to the article but the way in which you go about it and how you make borderline claims about the work of others. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"On July 4, an anonymous IP contributor posted a long winded attack message on the Korean cuisine talk page disparaging the article as racist, a posting that contained references to multiple policies and essays showing that the contributor had extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and it workings. I left a quick reply disputing the IP contributors assertions and explaining why the post was inaccurate."

Please see the latest complaint about the "dog meat" subsection yourself [75]. Rather than assuming good faith WP:GF, labeling editor comments in the talk page as "long-wided attack message" is further illustration of Jeremy's WP:OWN.

The post by the IP editor is a plain and simple rant against the article and the contributors. The structure and tone of it are openly hostile and easily qualify it as a rant. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"A short time later Melonbarmonster returned to the talk page for the first time in years and entered the discussion declaring that he agrees with the IP editor and will fix all of the issues raised by the IP editor. This was in spite of more than 18 months of continuous improvement to the article and multiple contributors not finding any of the claimed neutrality problems the IP contributor was contesting. Melon proceeded to blank out the sections that he disliked the most and began to rewrite the whole article with a pro-Korean bias, eliminating what he percieved as racist. Almost all of the stuff he removed was fully cited and vetted in the GA review and had been accepted as factual and neutral."

This is a groundless accusation. These negative comments, patronizing warnings for civility and false accusations are being made for the purpose of discouraging editors Jeremy disapproves of from making additional contributions in violation of WP:OWN.

"My self and others repeatedly restored his deletions and contested his additions. It took a request for page protection to stop his repeated attempts to rewrite the article. Since that time he has begun a barrage of posts on the talk page claiming that the article violate multiple policies and accusing myself and others of ownership and generally violating civility and launching personal attack with thinly veiled accusations of racist agenda on the part of the contributor who did a majority of the initial work on the article, Chef Tanner. In these accusations he claimed, without ever seeing the source itself, that it did not contain any of the information about the subjects he claims to be racist and Chef tanner was making up the additions to demean the Korean people. When another editor, Hkwon took the time to go to the library and look up the research in the book Chef Tanner used, he found it exactly as Chef Tanner had stated it to be. Despite multiple editors telling he is in the wrong and telling him his methods and reasoning are flawed, he has continued to war away at the talk page. In his postings he has also claimed that there are multiple editors who have raised concerns over the content and that there has never been a consensus on the content he is disputing."

I did not accuse Chef Tanner of "making additions to demean the Korean people". Furthermore, I asked anyone with access to the Pettit book to provide further information about the cited material [76]. I don't see requesting further information as being inappropriate. I also thanked Hkwon for providing information per my request.[77] Please see the details of this yourself[78] instead of Jeremy's word on this, or mine for that matter.

Not openly and not directly, but you have established pattern of making offhanded comments indirectly questioning the nature of the contributions he has made. This can be seen in the edit summaries you make when working around and commenting on his contributions (here and in the examples I list below). Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"My main issues with him in this matter: He cannot accept that Wikipedia is not censored and is insisting that the article is racist and all that he feels to be racist must be expunged;

There is a simple refusal to acknowledge reasons for edit disagreements in a constructive manner. Editors with differing opinions are seen as disruptions to HIS article and attempts at removing HIS work as blind attempt to "censor".

I don't care who edits the article as long as they can back up their edits with proper sources, maintain a neutral point of view and assume good faith.You unfortunately cannot do this, you come in and remove properly cited content and are reverted by multiple editors, not just me. You are told not to remove the cited section but do any way. When that tack doesn't work, you make comments alluding to deliberate misstating of facts without ever ever viewing the cited works. It was only after the article is locked down do you try to work with others, hence the RfC made days after the lock down.

Look at the very first edit you made after posting to the talk page. You blanked the dog meat section calling it "racist and inaccurate" - that is not a neutral edit and more than fits the definition of censorship. You blanked the section again and another editor reverted that. You did it a third time and I reverted it. You violated 3R right then and there and stopped and changed you tack. Three times you tried to remove the information, that is censorship. That was not the first time you tried to remove the whole section.Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

He is disrupting the articles to prove a point, which this whole thing is really about."

I have no idea what "point" Jeremy is accusing me of trying to prove.

That the article and contributors to it are racist. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"Articles on Wikipedia must adhere to a neutral point of view, which most contributors agree this article does."

False. I see this as being more an issue of verifiability and accuracy of reference being used not NPOV.

You stated that you doubted the source Chef Tanner used because you didn't read it. When Hkwon verified it by taking the time to go and actually read the book and verify that it said what Chris said it did, you attempted to hijack his statement and say it proved your point. Again you did this without ever looking at Dr Pettit's work or reading the full text to ascertain its full context. And because of Hkwon's temporary block, he cannot rebut your attempts to shanghai his comments as you tried with mine with mine previously (next claim). Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"Assumption of good faith, in the posts on the talk page he has made multiple accusations that other editors have a racist agenda and have made up stuff to push that agenda. These personal attacks are what are riling me most in this issue."

I do not recall accusing anybody, let alone multiple editors, of a "racist agenda". The only "personal attack" that comes to mind is Jeremy's insult at my comment, [79]. Again, this has to do with verifiability and accuracy of reference and information being portrayed in the article. Portraying dog meat as a common food item along with vegetables, beef and grains is factually false and misleading and Hkwon's reference check has further verified this.

These are your own words:

1. I doubt the offline reference actually state that dog meat is comparable to beef and pork in Korean cuisine. you just stated very clearly that you doubt the veracity of Chef Tanner's contribution.
2. I believe it was Chef Tanner who used Pettid's book as a citation for the claim that dog meat had its own section along with pork and beef in that book. Somehow I doubt the book categorizes dog meat as being a common ingredient along with pork and beef. That is a second claim where you insinuate that his contributions are less than honest.
3. From the Talk page on June 9, 2009 where we were discussing one of your earlier claims against Chef Tanner where you tried to use my posts to claim he was engaged in original research - Well considering the fact that original research and synthesis from personal research isn't allowed, I'm fine with that.

These three posts establish a pattern of passive-aggressive personal attacks attempting to discredit Chef Tanner in order to invalidate his contributions. This shows a clear lack of good faith in your interactions with other editors and proves one of my points. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"My final and deepest concern is about the IP posting that reignited this whole issue. In the posting, the language the IP user contained similar arguments, phrasing and grammatical patterns that Melonbarmonster has used in past postings and arguments concerning these subjects. I am deeply concerned that this whole thing is a macguffin based on an IP posting that is nothing more than a sock message posted by Melon himself. I requested a check user, but the check was declined because CU requests cannot be used link specific users to IP addresses."

More of WP:OWN attempt to discourage contribution to what Jeremy sees as being his article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern that you might be sock puppeting this whole issue is most assuredly not ownership but a concern that you might be trying to game the system, like you have with the 3r violation I mentioned above. While going through the history I noticed that the IP contributor used the same argument about squirrel meat in American Cuisine that you have used two or three times in previous posts. The IP contributor also brought up the same talking points that you have espoused several times over the past few years. These similarities nagged at the back of my mind for a day or so before I initiated the CU request. Finally, I have to say the Admin who closed my CU request felt the same way. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

All of the points I have listed in the first section and rebutted here show that Melon has an extensive history of disruptive editing on this article. It is further verified by looking at the history of the article for the past three years and see his pattern of behaviors in the edit summaries. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy's ownership of korean cuisine

• Jerem43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please be advised that for several years now, Jerem43 has refused and is refusing to acknowledge the fact that wiki articles are edited collaboratively. It has come to the point that any editor daring to disagree with him has to face sarcastic retorts, such as this latest gem[80], warnings of civility, bogus ANI reports such as this rife with false accusations. Please note that Jerem43 tried to file a report like this to discourage me from participating in this article in the past which came to nothing.[81].

Far from there being a consensus, the dog meat subsection of this article has been a chronic point of contention for years. The last major dispute resolution attempt of this issue ended in no consensus [82]. In spite of the "no consenus" result Jerem43 engaged in revert warring to exclude even dispute tags from being added to the section in question [83]. Since then there the objections to presenting dog meat as a common food in this article has bee raised by independent editors.[84][85][86] In spite of these continued objections by independent and neutral editors, there is a stubborn refusal to even consider the possibility of an honest disagreement on this issue.

The actual arguments of both sides can be referred to in the talk page.[87]. What is certain and unquestionable, however, is the fact that this is not a stable nor settled issue but a chronically controversial one that editors have expressed honest edit disagreements on a fairly consistent basis.

I request admin action to curb Jerem43's WP:OWN and admin oversight so that honest differences in opinion can be acknowledged and disagreements reasonably and civilly discussed rather than WP:OWN editors suppressing and attacking editors with differing opinions. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

This accusation is untrue, and his link above contains an example of how Melon does not interact well with those he disagrees with. Melon has been blocked a dozen times for edit wars, including one time for his acts on this article in 2007. He is very adept at passive aggressive attacks, and has been found to repeatedly attack those he disagrees with. In the history of the article he has repeatedly ignored that consensus has been against him and ignored requests for mediation, as can be said in the example he cited. Going back [88], you can see multiple examples of his open hostility to other editors, his refusal to compromise and his attempts to discredit what others have done by accusing them of ownership, original research or bias. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the history between myself and Melonbarmonster, you will find that we did not get on well together - however the fact that he has not been blocked for almost two years, shows that while he still pushes his point strongly, he is making an obvious effort to stay within the rules and spirit of the rules. The article in question needs uninvolved editors giving their opinions, nothing more. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He performed 4 reverts on July 5th and could have been blocked had the report been made promptly. The fact is he hasn't been blocked because it wasn't caught.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why I am making this request. This refusal to acknowledge honest edit disagreements illustrates Jeremy's unwillingness to engage in making reasoned arguments and convince regarding the subject matter: WP:CONS, [89]. Instead talk page discussion is stonewalled into a shouting match of disingenuous accusations, negative comments and aggressive attack and bogus claims of consensus aimed at discouraging dissenting editors from contributing further in the article in violation of WP:OWN. This has gone on for years and needs to stop.

Even if there was consensus, there hasn't been, Jeremy wrongly believes his 'consensus' is immutable. It is not, per WP:CCC, and consensus does not preclude reexaminations of edits that have remained even for years.

But to be clear, Jeremy's claim to consensus is starting to become outlandish. Jeremy's link above[90] where he accuses me of 'disruptive editing' in the face of 'general consensus' is dated January 4, 2009[[91]](his ANI report was ignored). That is right on the heels of the "no consensus" vote[92] which ended on December 29, 2008 with admin closing it on January 3 2009. Contrary to Jeremy's claims, a 'general consensus' was not reached merely 3 days after a vote of 'no consensus' among all involved editors. Furthermore, this claim of contrived 'consensus' is followed up on January 15th by yet another editor raising objections against this section.[93] It is plain as day that there was no consensus and that Jeremy is violating WP:OWN forcing everyone to accept his "consensus". Again, please take a look at the portion of the archives in question. It speaks for itself.[94]

Lastly, I was not blocked in 2007 for edit warring in this article. Please check my block log.

Please curb this WP:OWN so that honest dissent with the "owners" becomes a possibility in this article without having to face false accusations and these outlandish attacks and claims of forced "consensus".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny performing 4 reverts before the page was locked on July 5th?--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe he is gaming the system, Melon has removed that section at least five times over the past few years. That is a consistent pattern 3R violations. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Handicapper still marking edits as minor

Following up this thread from the other day. Handicapper (talk · contribs) has already been through [RfC] where he was chastised about marking major edits as minor. He continued to do it and was warned here and here to stop. Regardless of that, he pretty much spits in the face of the warnings here and continues to mark major edits as minor...including a somewhat questionable page move and a redirect. It's becoming more and more obvious that the editor has no intention of working collaboratively. Due to his refusal to accept consensus, continued ownership issues and inability to edit collaboratively, I recommend an indefinite block until such a time that he shows that he is actually able to accept consensus and edit collaboratively. I would do it myself...but seeing as I participated in the RfC, that probably wouldn't be my greatest idea. --Smashville^talk 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified user here. --Smashville^talk 13:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indef blocked. Any admin can feel free to unblock if they feel the user is going to stop being disruptive. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Probably be more productive for everyone to just go over to Help talk:Minor edit#Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default"  ?, chime in there, and lose the dratted setting once and for all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Um, wait... If we're willing to get rid of the setting altogether (and it appears nearly everyone commenting on this thread agrees), why are we blocking people for using it incorrectly? Just because he won't bow to our will? If you don't think the setting is useful, then don't pay any attention to it now. The only people who should be in favor of this block are those who think the little m has some use. I see other issues besides the minor edit one were brought up in the RFC; have those re-occurred since the RFC? If so, then modify the block rationale. If not, then this is a silly block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said that minor edits have no use, but it shouldn't be a default setting. There's a perfectly valid reason for the "the little m" and they are misusing it, which is considered disruptive editing, especially after this editor has been asked numerous times to stop doing so. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I read too fast and misread Sarek's comment above, and thought the thread at Help talk:Minor edit#Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default" ? was about simply removing the minor edit option completely. OK, I personally still don't see the minor edit option as useful, nor this issue alone as "disruption", but at least there's not the logical inconsistency I thought there was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If the option is removed (as seems inevitable), will the block be lifted? Just askin'. Propaniac (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The bugzilla has been filed, but they can take time - it would be swifter for the user to simply clear the setting and make it known that they've done so. –xeno^talk 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the feature doesn't really answer the WP:OWN issues and make him edit more collaboratively, though. --Smashville^talk 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the user has been asked to do so several times and has responded negatively. Perhaps now with a block they might. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Were that the only issue, of course: blocks are preventative, and losing the option obviates the need for a block. However, the user specifically ignored multiple attempts at a social rather than a technical solution, and editors who are unwilling or unable to follow simple community norms are not likely to be positive contributors in the long run. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite block is a bit extreme for someone with a clean block log, even if they've gone through quite a lot of discussions. It's about a preference setting; I really do not think an indef block is the best solution. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the discussion of the preference setting, there's currently no way to enforce a solution anywhere between the extremes of "block indefinitely" and "do nothing". Hence, if there's a problem for which "do nothing" will not suffice, you have to use the only other option. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that this user was indef blocked roughly two minutes after being notified of this discussion... so much for his/her ability to defend themselves and/or show remorse for their actions. Though that may be common practice and ok by Wikipedia policy, it is not in good faith to be doing things like that and frankly that scares me; there are always two sides to things, I am not defending this user but I assume they have a side, whether it is right or wrong it deserves to be heard BEFORE things are done. Basically what was the purpose of this discussion then? To present one side and rubber stamp it? Perhaps in the future more consideration for the accused, yes some are guilty and annoying to listen to, but for the greater good of those who are innocent and brought her all must be treated the same.Camelbinky (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way: anyone supporting the removal of the preference option, please vote in this bugzilla (increase importance) in order to have it recognized and resolved quicker. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite block is just that... indefinite. It has no time stamp on it and can be lifted any time by any admin. The user has had previous chances to discuss this and chose not to. There's also nothing preventing the user from communicating via their talk page or submitting an unblock request. It's only been a one sided discussion so far, because of the user's choosing not to communicate. As far as the quick block after this report was submitted, since I followed the previous discussion on ANI a few days ago and therefore was aware of the user, the warnings, the RFC, it really doesn't take all that long to determine that the user has continued to ignore all warnings left on their talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As Jauerback said, other editors (including myself, last year) have attempted to engage this user in discussion many, many times about this issue, and he has ignored it. When there's an RFC about your actions (which you choose not to participate in), and the conclusion of the RFC is that you should stop doing something, and you choose to keep doing it without even offering an explanation, I don't know how you can feel ambushed by the consequences. I believe the intent of the indefinite block is to prod Handicapper to communicate and resolve the issues at hand (because there seems to be nothing else that might convince him to do so), not to bar him permanently from the site. I personally hope he returns, despite his rudeness toward me in the past. Propaniac (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The entire purpose of this block is to get him to communicate. He has had numerous editors try to communicate with him, he has had an RfC, he's been brought to ANI at least twice...and the only response from any of them has been along the lines of, "You don't have the authority to tell me what to do." In fact, when I warned him that changing other's comments on a talkpage was a blockable offense, [he told me that I had libelled him. An indefinite block is the only possible option here because it means he cannot continue editing until he decides to communicate with us. --Smashville^talk 14:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Revdel/Block review

Resolved

 – firmly supported by the community Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I generally don't like acting on actions on my own user/talk pages but I couldn't find anyone around, so I protected my own user talk page followed by a few redactions and harassment blocks. I would appreciate it if some uninvolved administrator could look at these three deleted edits and confirm that redaction was in-process and blocks were justified, for transparency reasons. (I note that these attacks were not limited to me and have been going out to others as well, but this particular burst was directed at me.) Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• All three edits were easily within RD2 criteria, and blocking for them fully justified. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. —DoRD (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• For the benefit of anyone else, those three all say basically the same thing. I agree that block and RevDel were the correct approach. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie picked a fight, today

I've cleaned-up Samuel L. Jackson filmography and this included making it sortable. She doesn't like this a) because she like rowspans and b) because it's me doing this. She reverted me, and I reverted it back. Then I got an email from User:Rossrs saying that WHL had agreed to the informal mediation that she's been evading clearly agreeing to or not for about two weeks, and I replied to him that I'd give it a go. [I'm not in anyway saying Rossrs is doing anything wrong here.] Some dispute enhancement IP jumped in and I revert them, too. And then she came back, and I've reverted her and told her that's it. I left her a message that if she reverted it again, I would go straight to RFC/U, as DR suggests. She then 3RR templated me and reverted my message to her with an edit summary of 'revert overt threat by editor'. I'm not touching Jackson again. I'll see what Rossrs says and begin the next step. Many have seen the edges of this, so I'm not going to go into detail here. nb: the best bit is that she's not even edited this page before ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All I can say here is "Wah!" Jack has made a habit of going about and reformatting filmography tables to make them adhere to his personal preference of sortability. This article was formulated using a standard, non-sortable filmography table. I do object to Jack imposing his personal preference on the page and I would object to anyone coming in to reformulate how an article evolved, which is precisely what Jack did. My rationale for reverting this originally was imposing personal preference over how the article was orginally formulated. Jack reverted it, stating Rv; you do not own this; take it up with Rossrs and I. There is no agenda developed for a mediation, however it isn't proper to edit war this way to retain his personal preference, especially when more than one editor has objected. His characterization of the IP that reverted him is an attack on that editor and it totally improper. I reverted Jack the second time and noted "how absurd to charge ownership to an article I've never edited before, meanwhile, you are charging in to edit war to protect your changes to the basic structure as it was originally formulated - now that would be asserting your viewpoint/ownership." Jack consistently accuses me of ownership if I object to his edits, even in this one where I had not edited before. Then note that he immediately posted to my talk page to threaten me again with opening an RfC/U. His representation of my having put off agreeing to mediation had been answered some time ago, and Jack kept trying to force me to comment on it in other talk discussions. Since his post to my talk page was an overt threat, I see no reason not to state what it was. I'm quite tired of Merridew turning around to threaten me with "escalation" to open a RfC/U. That actually is not part of a numbered series of steps in dispute resolution regarding content disagreements. His intent in threatening such a RfC would seem to be that he would like to see me get kicked around and open the doors to harassment, which mostly centers around Merridew persistently wikistalking me and picking disagreements. How ironic that he'd make an issue of disgreeing when I hadn't edited the article before, and he is the one who routinely shows up at articles he's never edited before when he wikistalks me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POINT for Livie.

I am WP:BOLD all the time in editing pages in ways that earlier editors did not foresee; some recent examples:

• [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]

I've been doing this for years ;)

What does Livie do? She obstructs clean-up, blocks consensus, bites n00bz and most everyone else that touches her articles; she issues orders to one and all in embedded comments, she assumes bad faith, and pastes invalid code about; she likes blue.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• This appears to be part of an ongoing dispute with both of you throwing accusations at each other about past and current actions. It does seem some sort of mediation is needed. Is it possible for you two to avoid each other until it is clear whether mediation will sort things out? Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I believe an interaction ban between Jack Merridew and Wildhartlivie may merit consideration.  Chickenmonkey  06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm concerned that such a ban could lead to a situation where whoever "gets to" an article first will be able to lay "claim" on it. Without getting into the specifics of right and wrong, I think it could result in the articles WHL "gets to" first being presented according to her preference, and those that Jack Merridew sees first, being presented according to his preference. I think that would only cause further division and compound the problem of a lack of a standardised approach. It would mean no more quarrels, but I don't think it would help the articles and would make issues more confusing for other editors who might come along and "fix" one set of articles if they see that they don't comply with a perceived "standard". Remember that both editors are looking at style issues from a fundamentally different viewpoint; it's not a question of different opinions relating to article content. Rossrs (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've not heard back from Rossrs, about this; he did say that he's busy. I rather took her starting this today at about the same time as nominally agreeing to informal mediation concerning only "the current points of disagreement" as rather poor faith. I will ask him about the sequencing.

  I've been trying to sort this properly for some time, including by avoiding her. Much of her intent here is to eject me from her articles; i.e. actor bios and their filmographies. This dispute has already entailed one huge^¼mb and messy RFC on proper the proper formatting of filmographies and underlies the current RFC on consensus. I've not commented on the latter, yet, but I have commented on the page where it was proposed and launched: User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC (and I do appear in the RfC's history prior to it being moved from MRG's userspace). Rossrs is WHL's friend and I agreed to work through him as I see him as a reasonable editor who is familiar with the history of this dispute. I'd welcome your involvement, too, as one of the possible destinations for this mess is at your door.

  To be clear (to all), this is not about the blue, it is about her obstructing badly needed clean up of a huge heap of poor code hard-coded into tens of thousands of articles, her repeatedly obstruction of more than a year's efforts at addressing this, her view that WikiProjects are governing bodies concerning the articles in their topic area, her massive ownership issues, and the endless reverting of efforts by anyone trespassing on her turf.

  Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, "the current points of disagreement" is quoted from an email I sent to Jack Merridew, and they are my words, not WHL's. I was attempting to paraphrase and condense what she had said to me. Rossrs (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, I like looking at tables, but hate editing them. You are going to hate the way colour is used in tennis articles (or any sports articles). When Wimbledon was on, I spent lots of time looking at the grand slam career records of lots of tennis players, and the colours (once you got used to them) were helpful in picking out how the players did in different tournaments. Anyway, back to the point. What administrative action is needed here if you both seem to be heading into mediation? I don't think ANI reports or arguing between you two will help any mediation start off on the right footing. You need to both talk to the mediator, not complain on this board about each other. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've not seen the tables you're talking about. For some situations, colour is warranted; I've never disputed that. My concerns focus on appropriate implementations of things, and endless markup baked-in to pages is never a good thing as it makes the editing of the tables considerably more difficult for most editors and it serves to cement things in place. Similarly, rowspan and colspan complicate editing and trip people up every day. In such situations, implementing things in a central spot is appropriate if the colour (or whatever styling) is warranted. A lot of the styling hard-coded into pages is simply unwarranted. Templates, of course, can serve to encapsulate implementations, as can the site CSS. This can take considerable work, and in order for anyone of skill to take it on, the styling in question needs to be warranted; a reasonable styling-rationale, if you will, is required. Too often, it's mere ILIKEIT.

  The form of filmography tables, and all manner of other tables (tennis, anyone?), varies greatly and robust template solutions of the scale of say, {{navbox}}, could be implemented. When is this warranted? Common.css offers an excellent mechanism, but is a class="filmography" warranted? Such local preferences need to be kept out of the site stylesheets, as thousands of others will seek their own classes; class="MileyCyrus", which would presumably involve a shade of purple.

  I brought this here because she was disruptively edit warring. I still see no indication that she's seeking any resolution other than continued obstruction. I'll drop this for now and await a reply from Rossrs (or WHL). I'll also pull my thoughts together for a statement in the current RfC; I saw your comment; you get it ;)

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We badgered the developers for sortable tables for, quite literally, years. We did this to make a more usable encyclopedia. It's really WP:CommonSense at this point to use them. If rowspan forgoes the option of allowing sorting, and serves no function to the table beyond subjective aesthetics of a few, then it needs to go in the face of increased functionality. -- ۩ Mask 12:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering a bit at this edit summary of "how absurd to charge ownership to an article I've never edited before, meanwhile, you are charging in to edit war to protect your changes to the basic structure as it was originally formulated - now that would be asserting your viewpoint/ownership". Unless it is a case of edits making a good or featured article worse (which this is not), why does how an article was "originally formulated" have any weight on future edits? Articles are not carved from stone. Also, how did Wildhartlivie arrive at an article they had never edited before reverting Merridew? This seems to be a clear-cut case of stalking/hounding, and misuse of an editor's contrib history to follow them around. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As Jack Merridew said earlier, I did say I was busy, and I live on the opposite side of the planet to both Jack and Wildhartlivie so I'm not always available at the same time they are. I received an email from each of them, this morning my time, and although I had time to read them before going to work today, I had no time to reply to either, and now this has occurred in my absence. OK, so here's my take. Jack made an uncontroversial (IMO) edit to Samuel L. Jackson filmography. Adding sortability is acceptable as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables), so I think WHL was wrong to revert that. It doesn't matter that the article has used a certain format for a period of time. It's not illegal to make a change, and sortability is an issue Jack Merridew has commented on before, so if he makes the edit it can be assumed that it's a genuine effort for improvement, and therefore falls under "being bold". Added to that is the RfC filed by User:Moonriddengirl which is still current, and which is attempting to address the question of whether Wikiprojects have the right to determine style choices independently of site-wide guidelines. It's still underway, but there is an expressed view that site-wide guidelines take precedence over project guidelines, and it then follows that if a site-wide guideline states that sortability is an acceptable option, there is not sufficient reason to remove it, if someone adds it. Of course anyone can comment or object, but I think reverting it was the wrong approach. WHL says she would have removed it no matter who added it, and I believe that, but I think everyone needs to admit that everyone is watching everyone else's edits, and stop getting upset when someone appears on an article they've edited. I also see no value in either side pointing out that it's a personal preference, because clearly that comment applies to both sides. That argument is a lose/lose argument. I did agree to act as an informal mediator. Yes, WHL is someone I consider a friend and she has some valid points, and Jack Merridew is someone I don't know well, but I consider that he too has some valid points. I think both of them behave inappropriately at times. If this is the kind of drama that flares up over something that I consider to be a fairly inconsequential edit, it makes me doubt the usefulness of a mediation process. I'm bothered that both of them allowed this to happen while I have been making every effort to establish some kind of dialogue between them. Either of them could have, and both of them should have said to themselves that a mediation was pending and that walking away from a possible fight was the best course. Neither of them chose that course. I think Jack Merridew started out making an acceptable edit, but it ends up here with a header "User:Wildhartlivie picked a fight, today", which is not neutral and which is, even assuming good faith, retaliatory in design. Rossrs (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why Jack would post edits he made to articles about fictional characters as examples when they aren't a part of anything that is under dispute. Talk about tooting one's own horn. Jack's accusations are also largely unwarranted. I "obstructs clean-up, blocks consensus, bites n00bz and most everyone else that touches her articles; she issues orders to one and all in embedded comments, she assumes bad faith, and pastes invalid code about; she likes blue." I do not obstruct clean-up, except when Jack or whoever makes personal opinions and viewpoints a part of "clean-up". That I post disagreements with issues that Jack espouses doesn't make anyone block consensus. Yeah, I have been accused of biting newbies, but then there are issues that newbies are also biting about. I'm quite sick of Jack screaming "ownership", something he also did when I returned valid imbedded notes in an article that addressed proper formatting and dates as he did on Kate Winslet. Wow. A note that clarifies that Winslet did not win a certain award, but another one by an awards ceremony, a note to convey that "Academy Award-winning" should not be stuck in the lead sentence of the article, and a note to clarify that until Winslet and Mendes are divorced that no end of marriage date should be inserted. Wow. How is that ownership? It's more like trying to avoid repeated errors that are made. Way to be pointy there, Jack. And to be clear, I mostly assume bad faith whenever Jack Merridew's name comes up in an article history. I do not paste "bad code" around. At one time I used a table format that had errors, but Jack's contention seems to be that I did that knowingly, although when I asked him to explain to me what was wrong with it, his reply was essentially to tell me I'm too stupid for an explanation. I have tried very hard to work within what was approved at the RfC, which Jack flatly will not acknowledge all the while he continues to threaten me. No, Tarc, I do not wikistalk Jack. I was asked to look at the Jackson filmography via email. If you'd like, I can certainly give you a lengthy list of occasions that Jack arrives at an article, sometimes for the first time, soon after I edited it, though. You cannot substantiate that I wikistalk Jack Merridew, but I can verify that he does so to me. Constantly. I made one revert to that filmography, an IP made one and then I made another. But I am being disruptive and subjected to threats. Who is missing the big picture here? I'd also note that I was "warned" about my edits on that page while Jack, who took it to the edge of 3RR was not. Biased on the part of the administrator? I dunno, but it seems that way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this whole thread was done with bad faith assumptions. I volunteered to help in the mediation and was told no which is fine. That being said, there was an agreement that the tables would be left alone until the different RFC's were completed. The one major thing that is missing here is that these tables had no complaints for years. They were excepted by the community and othe editors were duplicating the tables to different articles, still with no one complaining. I see these different things as being different POV's. Jack has his preferences and WHL has her's. Both have editors supporting them. What I also see though is a very active attempt to make WHL disappear, either on her own or by blocking or sanctions. For example, if you look at Wildhartlive you will see a notice at the top of her user page announcing her retirement. Well after she sid this she went and blanked all of her pages and subpages. Jack took one page and unblanked it. WHL blanked it again, then an administrator made a comment and reblanked the page which Jack immediately undid and then his friend Chowbok put a template on it for a second deletion review even though Jack said he was planning on esculating through the DR process. Jack wants it rev deleted even though these are notes for WHL to use for further DR situations. [102]. To see more of what this is all about please see the following difs, sorry but you will have to look at the history too in some of these so you can see the comments made in the edit summaries. [103], [104] (I put this up because RL was and is still screaming for my attentions). [105] (this one shows the main problems along with the frustation being felt by all) There are more of these but the point is, imho, that these editors involved need to chill out and stop baiting each other. No one in completely right nor is anyone completely wrong. I say this should wait for the RFC before anything more is done. I also think that the editors, me included should try stay away from each other. This has gone on for way too long. WHL apparently comes off sounding too harsh to some so we were working together via email to soften her approach and it was working too. Well I guess this helps explain some of the history going on for those here that are not aware. I hope this helps calm things down and also helps uninvolved editors so that they can help calm things down. I'm done with this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Since Jack's first edit to the Samuel L Jackson filmography was before Wildhartlivie's, it is hard to sustain an accusation of wikistalking, at least on this particular article. I would also recommend to Wildhartlivie that she read WP:BOLD and WP:BRD before complaining about editors coming and having the sheer cheek to change articles. They're not set in stone, and Wikipedia is built on a principle of continuous improvement. Opposing all changes for the sake of opposing change is antithetical to that principle. As for the dispute over table formatting itself, it is clear to me that Jack's version is better. Being able to sort the rows is more useful than not being able to. Okay, so I can't see much point in being able to sort by the first name of the director, but being able to list them by the title of the film is definitely a good feature to have. Obstructing this functionality just because you're enamoured of rowspans is not helpful. Reyk _YO! 00:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Easily fixed, as long as you've eschewed {{filmography table begin}} ;) Jack Merridew 00:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I did not state at anytime on this page that Jack wikistalked me to this article. In fact, this may be the only time I've ever arrived at an article where Jack had just previously edited, and I was asked to look at the article by an editor in an email. However there are scores of articles where Jack has blatantly wikistalked my edits, where he was generally the very next editor, in a very short time period, to edit after me. My user subpage he is so keen to have deleted covers just some of the wikistalking he has done, and it is quite long with examples. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Replie on article talk page. Reyk _YO! 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I find it astonishing that nobody seems to have actually bothered to evaluate the original two edits Jack made [106] (+ the previous), compared with the state of the article prior to his edit [107]. Go ahead, look at each of those two diffs and click on the sort button next to 'Film' in the first table. Look at the results. Before Jack's edits the table sorting was broken. He didn't introduce the sorting, or impose a new style, or a personal preference, but he fixed the broken functionality of the page. WHL was edit-warring to revert to a broken version. Here's the revision history of the page. Pick any of Jack's versions and check the sorting on the first table – it works. Pick any of WHL's versions – trying to sort creates a mess. Is anybody able to explain how an "even-handed" approach is warranted here when one editor is improving the article, and the other is reverting without even looking to see what the effect of the revert was? I apologise in advance for being blunt, and I have no personal animosity toward WHL – who is clearly a valued contributor – but if those reversions had been made by a new editor, they'd have been blocked for blatant vandalism by now. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC) added missing "no" - apologies, I really don't have any personal animosity to any other editor. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC) struck an inaccuracy: Jack actually did originally introduce sorting, but that was a month earlier --RexxS (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I had assumed from what Wildhartlivie said that the original tables were not sortable ("This article was formulated using a standard, non-sortable filmography table."). I think I even checked that, but must have either been looking at the wrong page version or looking at the "TV work" table (which is indeed not sortable). I think the point here is that the table was at one time not sortable. Ah yes, here we go. Jack added the sortable class here (8 May 2010). It was somewhere in the intervening edits that the table got broken. I would assume Wildhartlivie wasn't aware of that. If there was less animosity here, it might have been possible for this to have been pointed out. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • You're quite right (the table got broken on 14 May), but was clearly broken when Jack returned to the article on 7 July. I can imagine his exasperation when he fixed it only to have it reverted by WHL's first edit to the article. Nevertheless, from a behavioural point of view, Jack went wrong there by reverting WHL instead of going to talk and explaining that WHL was restoring a broken table. It's the edit-warring that inflames tempers, because each side knows they are right and can't let the wrong version of the article stand. Only solution I can see is to have a trusted "middle-man" that either could turn to when they find themselves in that position. --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Um, the edits I made removed the sortability. You can't feasibly state that I messed up the sorting when I actually removed it, and reverted to the unsortable table. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Jack Merridew and Wildhartlivie

These two editors are not going to give up reverting each other and filing reports here and at other noticeboards until 1. One of them gets indef blocked, or 2. We impose an interaction ban. I'd rather it be the latter. This dispute has been played out on countless article, user, and project talk pages (including my talk page), and there is no sign of it abating. It is disruptive and is not helping resolve the dispute over table formatting. There's an ongoing RfC that should obviously be excluded from this interaction ban.

So I propose the following: User:Wildhartlivie is not to revert any edit made by User:Jack Merridew, and is not to comment on Jack Merridew except at the ongoing RfC, and vice versa. If either party breaks the interaction ban, they may be blocked. Is there support for this? Fences&Windows 21:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not for any restriction on me. I've a thread and dialogue going on with Rossrs re mediation. There is a lot of support for the direction I'm advocating, and she's the obstructing party. Frankly, if any restriction is imposed on me, I'll take this straight to an RFC/U on her and then to arbitration. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is once again a blatant threat to me by Jack by saying if the community imposes an interaction ban, that he will then take it to a "beat up on Wildhartlivie RfC/U page" that he and his cohort Chowbok can just continue to attack and degrade me. That really to me seems to be what Jack wants to do - open something wherein he can simply beat up on me to his heart's content. His threats need to stop, much as his wikistalking needs to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm sorry but I think this would be a good thing for both of you. I'm sorry you can't see that Jack. I wouldn't mind if the meditation was added as something the two of you can interact in. Maybe this way the mediation would have a better chance. You can't really believe that you are not causing any disruptions too with all of this. Fences and windows, would you adjust proposal to allow the mediation to go on between these two editors and the mediator, Rossrs? I think an interaction ban maybe a good idea. At least it's worth a try. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support^withdrawn Oppose - (Another course of action may be more apt, even if I'm not aware of what it is) - I had hoped Wildhartlivie's recent retirement would act as a bit of a "self-imposed" interaction ban to perhaps let the dust settle, but she's apparently not retired (which is completely within her right, and I'm glad for it). As this "self-imposed" interaction ban has not come to fruition, however, I believe an indefinite interaction ban (with the noted caveats of the ongoing RFC and possible mediation) is the best way to go with this particular pair of editors. An interaction ban, we should remember, is to be used only as a last resort; but I feel the community has been more than gracious with its patience. I do, for what it's worth, feel this interaction ban (if levied) could be revisited in some predetermined amount of time. To the concern Rossrs expressed above, on either editor "getting to" an article first and essentially setting their preference: I believe normal discussion will deal with any such occurrences.  Chickenmonkey  23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  "Normal discussion" is a great concept, and we've tried that. To be blunt, it's failed. An interraction ban would preclude rather than encourage normal discussion. If Jack Merridew and WHL aren't allowed to talk to each other, how do we prevent creating two sets of articles according to their individual preference, who takes part in the discussions and where would they occur? The problem won't go away just because we put gags and blinkers on the two editors. I think it would be a nightmare to administer and it would decentralise the overriding disagreement and fragment it on to specific article talk pages. If we end up with what I refer to as "two sets of articles" I think that would encourage individual editors to take sides, and we've already got a group of editors vs. another group of editors. I think we would end up providing a framework that would encourage more of the us vs. them attitude. One of the main issues is about site-wide consistency and I think an interraction ban would work against this aim. I agree that the community has been more than patient. Perhaps it's time for the community to insist on a resolution, and I say that as someone who can see valid points from each of the editors in question. I think they each have something useful to contribute and I do not want to see either of them blocked. If keeping them apart could result in an immediate improvement at article level, I'd be more open to the suggestion, but I just don't see it. So I'm still saying I oppose, along with my comments earlier to your original suggestion. Rossrs (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Consensus appears to be against an interaction ban; so, perhaps mediation will work. The problem may not go away just because we put gags and blinkers on the two editors, but it isn't going away with the current approach either. I suggested an interaction ban may merit consideration because the hint just doesn't seem to be getting through (I assume Fences and Windows suggested it for similar reasons), and I would not like to see this eventually result in one or both editors being dealt with more severely. Hopefully this will clear itself up after another few months of back-and-forth arguments.^Humor  Chickenmonkey  01:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  @both: What normal discussion? WHL booted me off her talk page four months ago; she's the one closed to discussion: I wrote most of the quarter meg of the first RfC. Where's her clear statement agreeing to discuss this at mediation, or anywhere, really? Mostly she talks @ me in edit summaries or to the peanut gallery in threads such as the one above. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Rossrs's comment in the section above. At least give mediation a chance. - Josette (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose- I can't see it being helpful. As Rossrs points out, this has the potential to end up with both Jack and WHL scurrying around to as many articles as they can and laying claim to them so that the other can't edit there. Then one or the other will turn up here again going "That ratbag's just editing articles to block me!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are!" "No I'm not!" and the whole thing will turn into a big messy, time consuming and disruptive dramafest. It just won't work. Better to just tell both editors to crank down the hostility from "Obnoxious hysteria" to "Quiet grumbles". Reyk _YO! 00:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – given my views expressed above, I fail to see why Jack Merridew should be prevented from fixing problems like broken sortable tables, simply because WHL has recently edited there. Neither side has behaved well by edit-warring, but I still feel mediation needs to be given a chance first, since much of this concerns content issues. --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think an interaction ban here will be helpful. I see one editor being WP:BOLD and another editor reverting out of "it was formatted this way first!". Formatting isn't a native language to most of us. Those who know it can do all sorts of wonderful things that those of us who don't know the language can't do. My first article was reformatted several times by other editors, and the net result is much improved from my original version. A debate like this needs to be sorted on the talk page. An interaction ban is just going to prevent issues from being discussed and resolved. N419BH 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Interaction bans are silly. Protonk (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  As I commented on F&W's talk. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Fine, but you'll see this dispute drag on as it has been dragging on for months, with Jack Merridew following Wildhartlivie's editing. Something has to stop it and I'm afraid I don't see mediation coming to anything. Jack Merridew can try to lecture about dispute resolution, but since when has AN/I been a dispute resolution venue? He just wants to get Wildhartlivie banned, and will keep pushing her buttons in order to get it, with the help of Chowbok. Fences&Windows 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • @F&W: JM's first edit to Samuel L. Jackson filmography was 00:02, 8 May 2010. JM's first edit this month to the article was 10:05, 7 July 2010. WHL's first ever edit to the article was 12:50, 8 July 2010 (all UTC). I can't see how that can be construed as "Jack Merridew following Wildhartlivie's editing", can you? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • RexxS, there is a lot more history than simply the Samuel L. Jackson filmography and I am sure that's what Fences&Windows is referring to. It goes back over several months, and across a number of articles. The times of the edits to this one article do not tell the whole story. You'd need about a week to sift through it all. Rossrs (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I think I've fully unravelled what happened at this article, and although I feel Jack was right from an article improvement point of view, I'm sad that neither side was able to take the high ground and start a discussion. I'll happily accept that there's a wider picture that I'm unaware of, if you'll forgive my earlier puzzlement at F&W's comment, which didn't make sense to me in the context of this thread. As an aside and to follow up what I've discussed in the previous section, is there any chance you could persuade Jack & WHL to talk to you first whenever they feel the urge to revert the other? --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Then permission granted to cowboy up and resolve the dispute as though it were between adults. Interaction bans are just added stricture so that down the road someone doesn't have to make a judgment call; they can just say "we made a little rule and someone pissed on our little rule". And we can pat ourselves on the back for having made a just decision which is completely at variance with how the encyclopedia ought to be run. Fewer rules, not more. More personal intervention if needed, not crossing the t and dotting the i. And preferably we might reach a mutually agreeable outcome between the two parties instead of having them sit in ever expanding separate corners of the room. Lets not mention the sterling record of mutual interaction bans. I'd be somewhat willing to endorse interaction bans as a general tactic if they worked like gangbusters, but they don't. They are prone to GAMEing, they don't make both parties happy, and they don't resolve disputes. They just create a paper trail and add more rules. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I do support the idea of an interaction ban in spirit (keep away from each other, you have no conflict), but I am swayed by some of the arguments above. I would normally be the first one to suggest mediation, but it's clear to me that both of these users have a serious mad-on for one another and I don't think they can assume good faith in one another enough to make a serious go at that. Jack brings up the idea of an RFC/U, and WHL has compiled her evidence against him... you know what? I say run 'em both and let the community sort these two out. Although, it seems that both have plenty of people with something negative to say about each of them, so it's certainly possible that neither will like the results. ArbCom may be inevitable, but right now I say dual RFC/Us might just help to avoid that outcome. (And if not, they'll speed it along, which might be just as well.) BOZ (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You know, the only thing I want is for Jack Merridew to stop wikistalking my edits and doing dumb and pointy stuff like removing valid imbedded notes from articles when they are placed to address concerns that arose in errors to the page. I'm really quite glad to see that someone else notices Jack's wikistalking and the resultant harassment he doles out in doing that. Yeah, I banned him from my talk page, which is something anyone would end up doing if they were subjected to the kind of harassment I've been dealt by Jack and his buddy Chowbok. Yeah, I retired for a while mainly because of Jack and Chowbok. That's mostly because the only adminstrator here who has been willing to try to tame the "bash and bad-mouth Wildhartlivie best" was Fences and Windows. And I note once more that Jack's statement above that if an interaction ban is effected, his intent is to immediately open a RfC/U bash-fest in an attempt to what? Get me banned from Wikipedia? Jack's history is rife with wikistalking and harassment of editors with whom he disagrees and because of which arbcom imposed a babysitter to guard against when he was allowed to return here. It's obvious his conduct didn't improve from his conduct toward me. It's also obvious that he was banned for sockpuppetry and he is still registering new accounts here. And finally, he has made on more than one occasion an intimidation post where he declares he is "experienced" in arbitration and blatantly states such that he is still here and others are gone, which is meant to intimidate me and anyone else who disagrees with him. A statement that I really don't want him to do that is meant to scare off those who don't agree with him. This sort of crap really needs to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Deviations

• WP:Deviations

  In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes.

It's part of: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)

So, why is all this still roiling on? The MOS says not to use inline styles for tables. I've been cutting that crap for years. It should all go. And the site CSS will only accept what's truly warranted per some solid rationale. Because Livie and some folks on WT:ACTOR say so? WP:CONLIMITED. She calls what's on WP:ACTOR *POLICY*. Really, and recently: "Please look into the policy on future films on actor biographies at WP:ACTOR."^4th¶

Seriously, Jack Merridew 02:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check required at Jumping the Shark - is this quacking I hear?

• Kb3777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheSharkisdead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kb3777 is arguing that the page Jumping the shark should contain an external link to BoneTheFish.com, on the basis that it is the "successor" to the site JumpTheShark.com. However, the only sources that seem to confirm this relationship are a wiki and a blog, and as another editor has pointed out, a user called Kb3777 is selling BoneTheFish merchandise online. Kb3777 has twice restored the link to the page [108] [109] (the second diff being logged out, but obviously the same user) using a misleading edit summary that implied that spam was being removed rather than added. An SPA User:TheSharkisdead recently joined the debate, repeating the points made by Kb3777, and when asked to read WP:SOCK they accused me of sockpuppetry. Then an apparently completely unrelated editor User:Hill of Beans made the same edit, apparently out of the blue. Considering that the bulk of Kb3777's contributions are adding dubious external links, that they have an apparent financial incentive to spam, that they're using policy links in misleading edit comments then claiming ignorance of how Wikipedia works, and the loud quacking noise from the SPA, I think a block may be in order, but having reverted the article text I will not do so myself - I am unwilling to provide grist to the drama mill. I also think TheSharkisdead should be blocked for sockpuppetry, and I am concerned about Hill of Beans's involvement.
As always, uninvolved admin help is appreciated. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

quack quack. And jumpingtheshark.com was never an appropriate external link anyway WP:EL. Active Banana (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This promotion has been going on in this article for quite some time. Remove it. And I'm all for a block of Kb3777 and TheSharkisdead as promotion-only accounts. ThemFromSpace 02:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If "Bone the Fish" is a webforum, it's likely there's a post there about this that led someone to create a Wikipedia account, rather than sockpuppetry.--Chaser (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you visit the website bonethefish.com you will see some interesting things such as this: "I don't know if this will work, but my advice would be for all Bone the Fish fans to get Wikipedia multiple accounts on different PCs: one for home, one for work, one at your friend's house. Be sure and make lots of uncontroversial edits to lots of other articles; don't just edit ONLY the "Jumping the shark" article or you will be accused of being a sockpuppet of somebody. Try to game the system; play by their rules and find a rule that works in your favor. Putting it references to other, unrelated websites that mention BTF is also a must." We actually have Wikipedia users called Chubby Rain and PYLrulz and the rest. Chubby Rain admits to posting here as Thesharkisdead.--Diannaa ^TALK 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?960 --Chaser (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like some website needs to be added to the global link blacklist? That would be a pretty effective way to combat organized meatpuppetry. --Chris (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It's not a notable website, it's not a reliable source for references, and there are plenty of issues with promotion. ThemFromSpace 04:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think any site which tells us to "Go pass some slaw you d****e nozzles" is looking to cooperate with us at all. In any case the TVTropes article history shows a just as unnotable edit history of four edits from three IP's there (one of them seeing it for spam and cutting it down to size), and it'll probably be cleaned out in any purge of unlinked pages, so the non-notability is clinched beyond belief. Nate • (chatter) 08:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the flagrant COI, the utter lack of notability for the spinoff site and the call for sockpuppetry, an indef block and the blacklisting of both bonethefish.com and fishdeals.com (check the user's history) seems like the pretty obvious solution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Chris Cunningham. I had a similar issue regarding "successor" sites a while back, and the conclusion is that the successor site needs to establish notability of itself before being included - and then the issue of legitimacy of it being a successor is irrelevent - per Notability is Not Inherited (can't find the link). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed please remove all references to bonethefish and block the URL. Thanks. I thought it was a useful inclusion as an external link as it does have some of the old jumptheshark content and is relevant to that topic, but I guess I'm not well versed on what's appropriate as an external link. I figured if thousands of people who read the jump the shark article over the past year thought it was okay by consensus it made sense. I stand corrected. --Kb3777 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You really thought that it was correct to post on another site for supporters to game the system on Wikipedia? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are not the successor, then who is? You guys allowed Nuke the Fridge and it has even less reason to be here. Hill of Beans (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have nothing to do with these people other than the fact that I was a huge fan of Jump the Shark and since its demise, Bone the Fish is the only alternative. They said their page was being vandalized, so I thought I'd help them. I did this before the more inflammatory comments on their page showed up. I get the feeling that they don't moderate their posts like JTS did. Should you really hold the whole site responsible for what one or two idiots write on that site? Have you tried contacting the webmasters of Bone the Fish? I feel like this should be put up for a more public review before a blacklisting occurs. Hill of Beans (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What on the site would ever be suitable for inclusion of any kind in any article on Wikipedia? WP:EL / WP:RS ? There is no hurt to anyone becuase the blacklist only automatically enforces policies would enforced if a knowledgable editor found it anyway. Active Banana (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pfacione

On the critical thinking article, the user User:Pfacione keeps adding his material after being reverted. I advised him to discuss his edits on the talk page but he will not. He just keeps making the edit and then I undo it. I do not want to break the 3 revert rule so I am making it aware here. Andrew Colvin • Talk 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, this Pfacione is also almost certainly the "P Facione" listed as the author of several works mentioned in their version of the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not even notice that. Thanks for the help though! :) Andrew Colvin • Talk 03:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that he has since created a COI bio of himself at Peter Facione. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A copyvio, a quick Google search seems to indicate. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagged as such (why wasn't this done already?), user warned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article wasn't created until after this thread was started. That might be why. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant by the two editors who had already correctly identified the page as a copyvio, but no matter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was interrupted and had to go return a co-worker's errant iPhone. --Calton | Talk 16:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jmbernard86

Need an admin's opinion on something. The above named user edited en masse after not editing since August 2009. The user created several very poor redirects, an article for a television company exec, blanked and redirected several pages and then...gone. All the edits center around the West Virginia television station group West Virginia Media Holdings. I am not sure if the user is an employee or not, but the edits strike me as part vandalism and part COI. What do you all make of it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged his article Bray Cary as a 100% copyvio of the guy's company profile.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, never mind -- the OTRS permission just showed up. I guess that points toward "employee," though.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OTRS or not, I don't think we should have what amounts to a press release on Wikipedia. The whole Bray Cary page needs to be rewritten. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

IP hopping talk page vandalism

Some IP hopping vandal is removing/copy pasting random old comments on various user talk pages ([110], [111]). Every time one gets banned, a new one seems to pop up. Would a rangeblock be warranted? Falcon8765 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

maybe. It sure is annoying though! --Rockstonetalk to me! 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

72.82.2.0/23 rangeblocked 3 months. There's a lot of abuse coming from this range since April.

71.161.224.0/20 rangeblocked 1 week. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsive editor with 50 warnings on his talk page

User:RoyalPains11 persistently uploads images without source information and will not respond to warnings, of which there are a total of 50 on his talk page, broken down as follows:

• 1 vandalism
• 1 edit-warring
• 3 premature splitting of TV episode lists with insufficient content to justify split
• 28 image related - images have since been deleted because the requested information was not added
• 5 image related - images kept after somebody added the required information
• 12 image related - open nominations for deletion

In addition to these are two posts attempting to give him advice on uploading images.

His persistence in uploading images without required information, despite so many warnings, is causing a significant drain on the other editors who have to tag and delete the images or add the required information and, combined with his complete lack of response to anything anyone has ever said to him, demonstrates disrespect for the community. My question is, is there anything that can be done to get the message through to this editor? You'd think 50 warnings would have been sufficient. --13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs)

I'd try with a short attention getting block, to see if that makes him more responsive... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; I've often seen editors with numerous image warning templates on their talk page and paid them no heed when issuing a different warning, but 50 is a lot of notifications / warnings to be ignoring. A 12-24hr block should get their attention. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor has zero edits to any talk spaces or noticeboards yet insists on doing what he wants to do. I'm sorry to have to say this but he needs to be somewhere else. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Against my better judgement I've given him a 48 hour block. If I'd seen this originally it would have been indefinite as that would definitely catch him the next time he tried to edit, and can be as short as a quick apology a few minutes after the block. And of course a commitment to stop. If he doesn't respond in 48 hours we'll have to escalate. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite your better judgment, DW, there's clearly some dynamics to consider here. A ban for an indefinite period might simply lead the user to create a new account & continue this unwanted behavior. Maybe a series of 24-48 hour blocks might just provoke this person to actually talking to someone -- which is what we want to happen. On the other hand, if several of these fail to work as a clue bat (in other words, no longer than 2 weeks) no one worth listening to will blame you for dropping the 14-ton "blocked indefinitely" on this person's head. (Why people think they can contribute to Wikipedia for more than a trivial period without exchanging messages with anyone continues to baffle me. Not all of us bite newbies.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock?

Aussielegend tagged him as a suspected sock on his userpage [112] back in June. Is there a socking issue also? Exxolon (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify this, although it's covered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RoyalPains11/Archive, RoyalPains11 prematurely and incorrectly split List of Castle episodes out into individual seasons.[113] The article was subsequently restored and I left a note on his talk page.[114] On 11 June he again split the article[115] but was reverted by another editor who directed him to a talk page discussion via his edit summary.[116] He continued splitting the article, each time being reverted, so I left a warning on his talk page, after which he stopped. Five hours later, 118.209.95.192 restored the edits made by RoyalPains11.[117] The similarity in the contributions of RoyalPains11 and 118.209.95.192 made it look like he had used his IP address to avoid a 3RR breach. Since neither RoyalPains11 or 118.209.95.192 had individually breached 3RR it seemed that the best option was to report him as a sockpuppet so that a clear link between the two could be identified. It's not the only time that RoyalPains11 and 118.209.95.192 have tag-teamed an article.[118] The IP stopped editing the next day, nothing further was done on the SPI and it was closed on 23 June because there was "no abusive sockpuppetry". Using the IP to avoid breaching 3RR was still inappropriate though and, of course, he never did comment at the talk page discussion he was directed to. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - we should watch for IP edits from that range on those sorts of articles during the block period then. Exxolon (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Behavior pattern seems strikingly similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007, can't quite place it specifically though. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, not Onelifefreak2007 again. Oh well. One of RoyalPains11's trademarks is that he copies episode tables from main episode list articles to the individual season articles that he creates, then strips out the episode summaries in the main episode list articles, instead of transcluding the tables as per Template:Episode list#Sublists. TyDwiki, who appeared a month after RoyalPains11 does the same thing and, like RoyalPains11, tag-teams articles with his IP and registered account.[119] I thought I must be getting paranoid in my old age, as PoyalPains11's IP is Australian and TyDwiki's is Brazilian but it's strange that they both appeared on my radar doing the same thing at the same time. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel - WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CIVIL issues.

This editor has been making disruptive edits to Genesis creation narrative and it's talk page. They disruptively added a neutrality maintenance template to the article three times (and were reverted) today, as well as adding a neutrality check template, which seems to be an attempt to game the system - [120], [121], [122] as well as multiple other edits against consensus which were summarily reverted. [123] - this edit in particular is in violation of WP:NOTBATTLE, and Til's mentality is not that which should be expected of a Wikipedian. Both this edit - [124] and Til's reply to my attempt to communicate concerning the issue on his/her talk page were in breach of WP:CIVIL - I was informed that I was lying - [125]. Til's numerous edits to the talk page are POV-pushing and approach infringing on WP:SOAPBOX. I request action to be taken against Til to prevent him/her disrupting Genesis creation narrative. Claritas § 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This user has also left me messages on my talkpage stating that there is NO neutrality dispute, since I am supposedly the only editor who thinks the article needs a POV check. This is a falsehood and a fabrication, the truth is that multiple editors have expressed POV concerns in light of the vast number of published theological sources disputing the POV OPINION that Genesis falls in the genre of "mythology". I have expressed several times that die process is the only way to resolve such conflicts, but the few editors who hold the "myth" opinion want to unilaterally the declare the case closed for all time, with no hope of recourse or due process. It's almost like they are afraid of due process. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See also

Before I knew about this I also reported Til for edit warring and gaming the system. Please see below.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Til_Eulenspiegel_reported_by_User:Griswaldo_.28Result:_.29

Blocked for 36 hrs for edit warring - [126].Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommend topic ban

This user seems to view topics related to biblical scholarship as a battleground and seems to be of the opinion that he has a right or duty to continue to harass editors at various pages including Genesis creation narrative and Book of Daniel. Please look over these diffs and decide whether the user should be topic banned from Wikipedia pages relating to biblical scholarship: [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast, its hardly appropriate for you to suggest this since you two have a history, I don't think he needs a topic ban. I have dealt with this user quite a bit. He may need to back down on this particular topic for a while and cool of but a topic ban is hardly appropriate. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly appropriate to suggest a topic ban when a user is disrupting pages across an entire topic, and anybody regardless of the perception of third parties of "history" should feel comfortable doing this as a step in the proces. Whether he backs down voluntarily or it is enforced by uninvolved administrators, I don't care, but something needs to change. If you can get him to "cool off", then that's a good start. Right now it looks to me like he's just escalating in his antagonism. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, if this was a new user I'd think he was a simple, fanatical troll. Obviously, I know he's not, but I've been watching over that page (never edited it myself, but I've been looking at it), and there's clearly something wrong when someone keeps adding "dubious" tags to well-sourced material with what's basically an ILIKEIT argument. I suppose I'd support a fairly short topic ban if this resumes after his block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are now very few editors willing to stand up to the atheistic element here that insist on labeling Bible stories as fairy tales (or "myths" in their code). I'm sure they would love to eliminate everyone who stands up to them, and this is a step in that direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting insight by BB, with which I concur.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "myth" doesn't mean the same thing as "fairy tale." It means a story which uses supernatural elements to explain something about our world. It applies to some (not all) of the stories in the Bible. I make sure all my seventh graders know that, so they won't be shocked and offended when they hear the word 'myth' used to describe a Bible story. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. How often have you heard someone say, "That's just a myth." A fable, an untrue story, a fairy tale. That's the standard meaning of "myth". You can hide behind a specific, secondary dictionary definition all you want, but you're only fooling yourself. The "myth-pushers" are engaged in POV-pushing to label Bible stories as being untrue, further "enhancing" wikipedia's reputation among the general public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a bit of ABF around today, which doesn't help at all. Still, it is true that there are some avowed Creationists who think the word 'myth' is inappropriate and have been removing it or trying to remove it, and some others, some atheists, some not, disagreeing. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, not all those angry at the use of the word 'myth' are avowed Creationists either, though I've yet to see an avowed Creationists stand up for the academic use of the word "myth". This is basically an argument of style and, while I think that people who are in favor of adopting an academic style as the most disinterested and dispassionate way of approaching WP:NPOV will ultimately carry the day, there are behavior issues here which are entirely separate from the actual content dispute. It's clear that Til is passionate about his editorial opinions with regards to this subject, but sometimes—and I speak from personal experience here—passion channeled into perpetual dispute does not advance the cause of WP:ENC. I believe that this is the case here. Hopefully he calms down after his 1.5 day block. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I want to see what he does once his block expires. I think that page in general needs some fresh voices. As to the atheistic element- myth is very much an academic term, and (if nothing else) is less verbose than other terms. I can't believe that whole debate didn't end up somewhere on WP:LAME, as I look through it. Of course, my opinion is somewhat jaded given that I'm an Asian history major, and I'm accustomed to hearing their religious myths being labeled as such without a problem. I'm not sure why there's a difference between Christian myths and the myths of Guanyin, but... I'm getting off track, I know. Anyways, I think Til Eulenspiegel is an intelligent person, and I hope he'll just take it down a notch when his block expires. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep discussion of the content of the article over at the right page - Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Til may well deserve a topic ban, not because of what they think about the GCN, but simply because they can't cope with the fact that they've got to work with editors with other views. I'm pretty much neutral though. If Til disrupts the page again, a longer ban or a topic ban will be in order. Claritas § 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just fyi

I'd like to point out the existence of this page in Til's user space. I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong (or right) with the page, but it seems relevant to this discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic message in ani page?

Resolved

 – Juvenile vandalism removed. –xeno^talk 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed the following text inserted at the beginning of this page:

[redacted]

What's that all about? a_man_alone (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism... Where is it, I don't see it? –xeno^talk 14:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It was removed by Giftiger Wunsch. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want to remove it myself in case it was part of some kind of elaborate marker system. a_man_alone (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. It's just juvenile vandalism (same text was used for some recent page move vandalism). –xeno^talk 14:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm at work so I removed it when I saw the report but had to run off before I could comment on it. It looks like someone failed at vandalising the page by putting the vandalism inside a comment, so it went unnoticed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of POV templates

There is an on-going discussion at the article Mass killings under Communist regimes about whether to remove the POV tags. This article has been moved once, nominated for deletion four times, has 17 pages of archived discussion pages and is under a 1RR restriction. However, two editors have removed the POV tags with the notations, "remove pov tag, no section in talk to support it"[132], "remove tags per talk, no justification given for them"[133], and "remove tags per talk"[134] (User:Marknutley) and "please discuss before revert"[135] (User:Darkstar1st). Another editor, User:Paul Siebert, and I reversed Marknutley's removal of tags. Is it appropriate to remove POV tags before these issues are decided? What is the correct way of dealing with this? TFD (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On 2 July 2010 User:AmateurEditor created a section in the article talk page [136] to discuss why this POV tag had been on the article since August 2009. Neither TFD nor Paul Siebert have engaged in discussion. Hence the tag removal. It was not until i asked [137] TFD why he was reverting the tags back in without discussion did he actually join. A POV tag is not meant to be a badge of shame, the tag was in place when i began to edit this article, with no section in the talk page to discuss it so yes i removed the tags. mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me, TFD, that if you feel that the POV tag should remain, you can simply start a thread in the talk page to give your reasons to this, thus nullifying the reason for removing the tags until consensus is reached one way or another. Since there is no consensus on the matter, WP:STATUSQUO says leave the POV tag until removed by consensus, but the important thing is to start the consensus discussion. This shouldn't need admin intervention so this was probably better for a dispute resolution noticeboard. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One editor set up four different discussion threads (one for each template) and I then set up a fifth thread, called, "Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates" where there is extensive on-going discussion. In order to resolve the dispute, another editor set up a discussion thread, "Formal mediation", which is still active. Paul Siebert has now set up the discussion thread, "Template". So it is disingenous to suggest that consensus has been reached, or that I failed to reply to the discussion. TFD (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes when you should have actually replied in the threads devoted to the tags you set up This I dare anyone here to make sense of that thread mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you made numerous postings to that discussion thread, I assumed you knew that you knew what the discussion was about. Incidentally the tags have been restored and now removed by User:OpenFuture[138]. TFD (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no ongoing discussion about the tags, in any meaningful usage of "discussion". There is a lot being written on the talk page, that's true, but that's all "We don't agree the tags should be removed" vs "So come with arguments and examples of how the article is POV and SYN then". Sections was provided for coming with arguments and examples of how the article was POV or SYN. After one week no examples has been provided, neither in those sections nor the other extensive debate. The tags clearly should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Did we rip them off or did they rip us off?

In working on an OTRS ticket about Morris Pert I went hunting for some sources, and noticed some odd timeline mismatched between our article and his obituary posted in the Scotsman.

• The obituary - Last Updated: 28 April 2010 8:39 PM (I assume local time)

• Our article gets an expansion almost the same time, 11:26, 28 April 2010.

Thoughts? Keegan (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's more likely that the IP copied the obit from the Scotsman rather than writing it themselves from scratch. The fact that the "Last Updated" doesn't indicate "First Posted" doesn't help sort it out any, though. –xeno^talk 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Very likely copied from Scotsman. The first line in the edit seems to indicate that the information was copied from another source, and the tone of the edit just doesn't feel like something a typical editor would write. The fact that it was pasted at the end of the article shows that the user did not spend at least a few seconds figuring out where to put the text, probably indicating that they spent little time on the text itself. If you were to spend, say, 30 minutes or more writing that text, you'd probably spend a few seconds to figure out where to best integrate it into the article to ensure that it doesn't get removed, etc. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's all remarkably similar to the official biography as far back as three years ago. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is common for news agencies and PR firms to have pre-written obituaries for public figures, needing only details such as date and cause of death to be filled in before public release. As the obituary follows a similar format to a music site biography for Pert and copies of the obituary printed by the Scotsman are available from other other news sources,[139] I would guess that the text is based upon one of these pre-written obituaries and that the IP was copying from some unknown wire service report. --Allen3 ^talk 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The same biography was actually on his official site (presumably written by the subject) back in 2002.[140] The text was probably nearly identical when the news broke. Whether it was released as a press announcement and under what licence we may never know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the text, but I haven't deleted it yet. Keegan (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Kessler

Resolved

 – 2nd AfD was filed, no action needed--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this in today's AfD log? It was closed in October 2007. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be Shockoegrind (talk · contribs) is trying to nominate it now, but doesn't know what to do make it all line up properly for a 2nd nomination. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

An article protection needed

Resolved

Moved from WP:AN

Hi, I am not sure, if this is the right place, but I would like to ask for semi-protection for this article Paul the Octopus. User:Invertzoo and me are working to make it DYK ready, but it is edited by way too many IPs and is not stable. If it could be protected for a week, I believe we could make a great DYK out of the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)‎

• For future reference, you can ask for page protection on WP:RFPP, but I'm certain a kind admin will drop by and take a look. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• The proper place for this is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where you'll no doubt be told that we don't protect articles just so that a couple of editors can own them. Nor do we assume that the majority of people in the world who don't have accounts are automatically editing in bad faith. People, with and without accounts, are trying to help, and (from the edit history) editing in good faith like this and like this. I, for one, am unwilling to use the protection tool to stop editors like those from making such edits. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Protection policy. Uncle G (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I just asked a question, and I do not find your screaming response helpful. Sorry--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably best to try addressing the matter through the relevant talk page, and see if the gentler & coordinated approach works. billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much for your kind advise, billinghurst ! I will try it, when the article will be ready for DYK.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no screaming there, kiddo. (There's no wikitext markup for it, for starters.) You just made a request. And I just answered it. Your assumption of bad faith here is as bad as your assumption that all of the people without accounts are out to destabilize the article, instead of, as they seem to actually be, to revert vandalism, correct your grammar, fix and tidy up links and markup, and in general help share the burden of otherwise tedious Wikignoming tasks. People are trying to help you. Stop assuming that they aren't. Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • In spite of more screaming, assumption of a bad faith towards my question and incivility by admin Uncle G, the article was semi-protected.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from AN

Genesis creation narrative is flaring up again.....

Small editor war flaring, people "SHOUTING" on talk page. Extra eyes and Admins putting it on their watchlists would be appreciated Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this may be resolved: see WP:ANI#Til Eulenspiegel - WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CIVIL issues. An editor is currently blocked. As far as I can see that stopped the shouting... TFOWR 16:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the discussion there is ongoing, with accusations about atheistic editors trying to get rid of people. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Is this notable

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:FEED

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

For what it's worth, this has come up on other noticeboards. The proper venue is in fact Wikipedia:Deletion review, which handles discussing re-creations of salted articles as a matter of course. Everyone Dies In the End has actually been directed there at least twice already, by different people. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is those deletions are fine. The band wasn't notable at that time. They had very little press converse and the music was not getting airplay. Now it is. On June 29th (a week after the last deletion), they released a single which has gotten over 300 000 youtube view since, press coverage and significant airplay in Canada. So why would I go to deletion review. On June 23 (when the article was deleted) it deserved to be deleted. Now in a months time they are notable. I am not the creator of the June 23rd version nor would I have made this article then, No one seems to listen to me when I say this. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Youtube makes it notable? You're not being accused of being in the band but that because of your username you have some form of WP:COI. Pay attention a little better. Take this where you were told. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote Doc "and it's not personal to you or your band." That's not being accused? This is unbelievable. What does my username have to do with My Darkest Days. Please tell me?? Also, it's not just the fact their youtube video has over 300 000 views, but it's also the independent coverage and the airplay.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a request for feedback, WP:FEED. If it's an issue with an admin, WP:AN/I. Starting to get nasty and not relevant to WP:AN.

A simple yes or no would be nice. User:Everyone Dies In the End/My Darkest Days. This is a new band. They have over 300 000 views (for their first single which was released last week) on youtube, has significant radio play (in Canada) and independent source which are in the article. The Band has also opened for Three Days Grace, Default, Theory of a Deadman, and Papa Roach. So my question is is this band notable. Thanks I need opinions on this and thought this would be the best place.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Possibly notable. Looks like some serious possible COI problems, however. Anyone else? Opinions are being sought... Doc9871 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC) The page My Darkest Days is create-protected. In my opinion it shouldn't have being create-protected in the first place, but that's another story. The admin refuses to respond to my points that they are notable and ignores me and says take it to Deletion Review. Not to mention, the fact that he lied and said that the article which he deleted couldn't even muster a myspace (he said mybook) band account which he then later emailed me the deleted page which I have no interest in since I made my own. So that's why I'm posting this here. This admin ignored my points and couple that with his myspace lie, I am at a breaking point with this admin and needs others opinions before I go crazy. Thanks--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC) The fourth admin to delete this page per #A7 "lied" to you? I don't think this is going to happen. Don't go crazy over it, please... Doc9871 (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, he clearly said that this band was not notable and didn't have a myspace page or a website, etc.. Also, this band was not notable during the November delete and the one before that. The other two didn't really explain notability . This band has been played 9 times on my local radio station the last couple of days. Sorry but, in Canada this band is getting major playtime. Their song has only been out since June 29 so it can't be on any charts yet, but 300 000 youtube views is amazing for that song and timeframe.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Three other admins denied it (first in 2008): all on the same grounds. Is there really an issue here? Certainly not for this thread. It's not RHaworth's fault. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Yes a year ago they weren't notable. There's no doubt in that. The point his he is ignoring the points that I make that they are now notable. That's the problem.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Please read WP:COI carefully. And please don't bother this editor as you have: policy is what it is, and it's not personal to you or your band. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Are you accusing me of being this band. That's totally uncalled for. Look at my edit history. I am a rollbacker a reviewer and AM NOT in any band. This band is notable because they are getting significant airplay. Can a normal non notable band get 300 000 in a couple of weeks of releases their single.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Is your issue specifically with this admin, really? Open an RfC/U if that's the case. It's been rejected for the fourth time - is that his fault? Not... Doc9871 (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Look I never created the page once. I'm trying to create a page for the first time. I don't care what other editors have done. I want to create an article that is notable. Also, why are you accusing me of being the band. Also, why are you trying you start a beef with me. First, by accusing me of being the band and not trying to accuse me of other stuff. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from AN

Six Families of Berlin / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Families of Berlin

Resolved

 – Speedied as attack page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Racist article from a now indefinitely blocked user. Can we possibly speedily close (or delete) this? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the most egregiously racist and libellous material and PRODed this last week, but Wittsun, who has been accused of "advocating a strong white nationalist POV" removed the tag, defending this deplorable article making without any attempt to improve it. RolandR (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I speedied this as an attack page, since a German speaker confirmed that the many references did not actually speak about a "six families" group.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have formally proposed a topic ban for Wittsun; see [141] for more info, and feel free to comment. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a point of order, the user was blocked 31h, not indef. –xeno^talk 20:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The blocking admin placed an "indefinitely blocked" template on the editor's user talk page. RolandR (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Counter slab and use of the word "unscrupulous"

Resolved

 – No admin action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This article was started on July 8 and was almost immediately tagged for deletion by Giftiger_wunsch, the reason being given as "Nothing more than a dictionary definition, and unlikely to develop much further." I have used the phrase 'unscrupulous fossil hunters and dealers' in this article, citing what I have assumed to be reliable sources. The word 'unscrupulous' has been repeatedly removed and I have been referred to NPOV and told that 'Inherently positive or negative' words should not be used in WP articles. I have now been warned by Giftiger_wunsch that I am engaged in an edit war and may be blocked. I feel that the WP guidelines on NPOV are being stretched by Giftiger_wunsch and ask for comment from a larger and disinterested group. Androstachys (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This matter doesn't require admin attention, but since I'm involved I'll leave others to decide that. Note that I already requested third and fourth unbiased opinions via 3O and IRC, and both users agreed about WP:NPOV, and told this user as much themselves. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to concur; this is just a content dispute; you should try a a method of dispute resolution; I see that third opinion has already been tried: maybe, you could give a go at mediation (formal or informal, it's your choice). However, there's nothing here requiring admin attention, as far as I can see. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles Being Vandalized

Dear Wikipedia,

My name is Arman and I would like to talk to you about vandalism taking place in Armenian related articles. For the past year, Armenia related Wikipedia pages have been vandalised and continue to be by a specific group who keep on deleting the origins and information on a Armenian related subject. For example, the Duduk, an Armenian instrument, keeps on having its Armenian origins and and information claiming it to be Armenian deleted since the begging of 2009. I know people from Google have found information that 26 Wikipedia accounts have been targeting Armenian pages and deleting information or changing them and those accounts would support each other in doing so. And every time someone try to Add those information back, they would again change them. Google already blocked a very few accounts or just limited their use for only two months, but they are back and have been doing so for the past year. The specific group are people who's ethnicity's are Azerbaijani, or azeries for short. Azeri's have been hacking Armenian websites for the past three years and changing any information on Armenian related articles, even so more common on Wikipedia. Azeris and Armenians have a long bad personal and political relationship, and already, Armenians are trying to solve this issue. Armenians in America tend to use Wikipedia to learn facts about their culture because since anyone can add information on Wikipedia, you can also learn other facts about the subject or information that you can't find anywhere else because there are no websites to explain them. I'v been looking at the articles histories for the past months and those who keep on changing the information end up being the same accounts. If you even click on there user names, it leads to their user web page which ends up always being a pro Azerbaijan page. Please block the following accounts because when Armenians try to add their information back, those same accounts always delete, change, or vandalize them again. They even blocked my old account, and where its supposed to say why I was blocked, they wrote "Quake" which they are refering to me. Please block the following accounts that I know of. 1] Grandmaster 2] Interfase 3] Brandmeister Those are the top three who mainly do the vandalism and when I find out if there are others, I will tell you. So please understand my concern and those of other Armenian Wikipedia users. Please try to solve this issue and block those accounts, we [ the Armenian-Americans] are tired of these vandalisms. I've already sent a email to wikipedia.org and they said you should be able to help us . Thank you for your time and I hope to see this problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.187.4 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

here's how it's done. Do it this way, and you'll avoid tedious edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Very problematic image uploader

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. Fences&Windows 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

3count (talk · contribs) has had a very problematic history of image uploads and other issues. He started out last November with edits like this [142], and then didn't edit for a while. In July, he started uploading new images as new versions of old images we already have (like here [143]) and uploading obvious copyrighted images and claiming he created them [144]. He's also uploading images without licenses of apparently non-notable people [145], [146]. In the case of the last image, he used it to vandalize the Steven Seagal article [147]. His talk page is a list of warnings and image upload notices, but he doesn't seem to "get it". I have notified them of this discussion [148]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

From a cursory look, he's up to no good; I'd say indef as WP:VOA and be done with him... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I propose a new policy. Any user with more uploads then talk page edits gets indefed, no exceptions</sarcasm>. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Unlucky Sixty-Nine

Would someone with the ability to do so kindly purge this little jackass's comments from the log? I tell you, I have just about had it with idiocy like this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the comment, as well as the swift revert and indef block levied. It could probably do with a revdel under RD2 or 3 though. I understand your frustration, but please refrain from making personal attacks, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed you're an admin; can't you do this yourself? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the attacks; I was already burned up over another matter. I'm an admin,but I don't have the ability to purge the edit summaries; I wish I did. Thanks for helping me with this, by the way. Much obliged. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Marty Munsch legal threat

Don't know how else to report it best but a legal threat of cease and desist was made against Wikipedia and I wanted to make you aware. The page is constantly blanked and otherwise vandalized by IPs as well. Best Hekerui (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, page semiprotected for a week. --Golbez (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender176

Bender176 (talk · contribs) was blocked a couple of days ago for randomly abusing any IP he happened to see editing (previous discussion). He's promptly resumed (You are anonymous so your opinions don't count, Don't question me I'm a registered editor so stop editing my page anon, Get a real account then you'll get some respect) and is deleting warnings from his talkpage as fast as they come in—can someone do the necessary? – iridescent 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Wikiquette alers: User:Bender176 is biased against anonymous editors and will revert them regardless of the merits of the edits. He also insults editors. He labels anyone who disagrees with him or her as 'vandals'. See his or her edits for the whole history. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

False all the way around ladies and gentlemen please check my other contributions. I may make some mistakes but I cleaned my act up since then. People may disagree with me but that doesn't mean they're wrong. He's trying to [hound me] because I reverted a few of his edits mistakenly [here] and it's not because he's an anon either, I revert vandalism from [registered editors] as well. I even agreed to bury the hatchet but he disagreed. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

you are anonymous and therefore you don't count You could at least say "I'm sorry for saying that". 129.120.176.206 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I did by saying "[let's bury the hatchet]" but YOU [refused to], and I only meant that on my talk page because you have no right to edit war on it but on articles everyone has equal say. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I said I was sorry and vowed it wouldn't happen again. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not overlook his many, many false accusations of vandalism where none are present.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Yunus&diff=prev&oldid=372614588
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_First_Beat&diff=prev&oldid=372663402
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bette_Kane&diff=prev&oldid=372664721
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Teixeira&diff=prev&oldid=372668822
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Teixeira&diff=prev&oldid=372668822

...all within the last 8 hours. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and every warning issued on my talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I said I was sorry none of us are perfect okay? I even told them they could revert it if they wanted to and even tried to [make peace] with one of them but he refused. I mean if you 69 guy want to revert all my mistaken reverts then go ahead and do so I apologize for those all. And I told you numerous times to quit editing my page but you disruptively did so anyway so you are at fault too so those warnings were not mistakes.--Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out your violating WP:CIVIL with [this] edit summary so you are for sure at fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bender176 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You have not apologized in any credible way; in fact, your recent edits to your talk page demonstrate that you still think it's okay to discriminate against IP editors. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I have apologized, but you've hounded me numerous times tonight as well and that last edit summary was uncalled for too. See you're trying to track every little edit bad or not because you hate me. I only stated that IPs rank below Registered Editors on talk pages ONLY but in articles everyone has equal say. He is also disrupting my talk page just to try to [prove a point] which is disallowed. Check how many times he and other anons reverted my page and they clearly are trying to hound me and per WP:BLANK you can blank your page if you'd like. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, you don't get it. IPs do not "rank below Registered Editors". – iridescent 02:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See, that's not something that really qualifies as "only". All good-faith editors deserve good-faith consideration of their good-faith edits. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the exact point I'm subtly working into the converstion here. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I do assume good faith most of the time. And IPs rank below only in talk page privileges and semi-protected articles. Other than that they're equal I'll give you that. I don't necessarily dislike IPs but the two above have been hounding me due to a small mistake I made. I even told them they could change it and I wouldn't stop them but they still refused. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IPs don't rank below registered editors because there is no ranking of editors. And IPs have the same right to comment on talk pages as do other editors. The only differences between IPs and other editors is that (1) IPs have chosen not to register an account but to edit anonymously, and (2) they cannot edit semi-protected pages (an unfortunate side effect of vandalism that, because there seems to be no other way to deal with vandalism, targets our many valuable IP editors). --RegentsPark (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(Bangs head) IP's do not "rank below you" anywhere. Bender, you're in a hole; stop digging. – iridescent 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop "digging" if you stop hounding me. And I don't want to repeat myself about my thoughts about IPs. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, for your own good...I recommend you take a ten minute break. Drink a glass of water, and please directly apologize to these people. Say you won't do it again, and that you will assume good faith, and treat IP's as if they're a cute creative math based user name. 69 is a good editor. If you want to move in the right direction, you need to point no more fingers, and focus on apologies - changed ways - and new found understanding. Realize you aren't being attacked, and assume good faith for all of these people here who have talked about you.--SexyKick 02:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, you are welcome to and free to have your own opinions about anonymous IPs. Just don't act on them for that reason alone, or even if you do, follow wiki guidelines when doing so. Need we point out that wikipedia is a community based project, and that you are but one user trying to pit yourself against countless anonymous IPs out there?Zhanzhao (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. At the last time I we compiled meaningful statistics, the vast majority of our content was contributed by IP users. Bender's entire schtick on the wiki seems to be one massive biting attack. He needs to demonstrate respect for his fellow editors, of any stripe, or his assertion that he 'has been civil lately' is false on its face. -- ۩ Mask 02:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

To Mr. Mask, since a day ago I have been showing respect and only respect editors who deserve it and these Ip's and half of the other editors hounding against me don't deserve respect due to them not showing it to me. I know I've been blocked for incivility but let me clarify that "lately" is since I got unblocked except for a couple of bad edit summaries. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm trying to be calm, try harder to assume good faith, use Twinkle better, and I will apologize provided they do as well. And thanks for the advice to you two directly above. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What would they be apologizing for? Kuru (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that I have not reverted his talk page even once. If he had bothered to read what I was posting instead of blanking because I'm an IP editor, he would have seen that each and every one was about a different article and a different editor he falsely accused. By insisting on removing comments without reading them and compounding the offense with vandalism warnings, he demonstrates yet another aspect of Wikipedia that he fails to understand. I'm not saying this to "hound" him, but to try to drive home the point that he's just not getting it. I urge him again to not use Twinkle until he has a better grasp of policies and guidelines. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you kept posting and I told you to stop, so you should respect my wishes. And if you want to revert those articles then I said you could and I wouldn't stop you. And I did have every right to warn you for your disruption because that's clearly what you were doing (intended or not). Oh and to "drive home the point" you're violating WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT so stop. Ok, it's down to this. If you apologize, I will too, and we can resolve this issue peacefully. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm missing the disruptive edits on his part. Looking at the history of your edits, he appears to be making good-faith observations on your odd habit of declaring everything you see as vandalism. This also seems to be a continuation of the erratic editing that lead to your block 48 hours ago. Do you understand the points the IP was trying to make? Kuru (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I do see some of the points, I made a simple mistake. However his disruption comes in when I told him to stop edit warring on my page. If he did it to you I assume you'd be annoyed. Look at it through my eyes. My editing has not been as bad no "f*** off"s anymore. So that's my case. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 03:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They should apologize for hounding me and taking it to the extreme, edit warring on my page WP:BLANK states you can remove comments, and not understanding that I made a small mistake. Then I'll do my share of apologizing. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.249.92 (talk)

Bender, here you removed the above editor's comments. I would normally assume it was a bug, but given your past behavior, it does seem a little questionable. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Given his past behaviour, I take it as a sign that he doesn't understand what an edit conflict is. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. Bugs happen sometimes. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You should BOTH drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Say you're sorry and move on. Otherwise a subtle adjustment to clue levels will be made. N419BH 03:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what I told him, I said if he apologized I would too. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 03:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, N419BH is saying that you shouldn't set arbitrary conditions for disengaging, nor spin them into an attempt to blame the other party - you should just apologize. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If he comes back asking for an apology and agrees to do the same then I'll do it, even if he just asks for it but he has to post it explicitly below here. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 03:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not set conditions. The only behavior you can control is your own. N419BH 03:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given Bender a temporary holiday from using Twinkle -- his edits over the past day indicate a need to think through how he's tagging these reverts in more detail. After he practices not marking good-faith edits as vandalism for a while, he can request it back.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

New user page with BLP issues

Resolved

I encountered a new user page that contained potentially libelous material about a real person (I checked). There wasn't any other content so I blanked the page [149]. The content is, of course, still available in diffs, so I am thinking I should have taken a different approach. Should I have tagged it for speedy deletion or what? Thanks. Susfele (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That page was a candidate for speedy deletion as an attack page, so it probably ought to have been tagged with {{db-attack}}. Deleted now anyway. Thanks for bringing it up! NW (Talk) 01:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)