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

Ductch Wikipedia Drama

Dutch Wikipedia drama
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:JanDeFietser Resolved  – Deletion was proper. Concerns about NL-wiki to be dealt with at meta-wiki as EN-wiki is not the place for it. I deleted User:JanDeFietser/wikipedistan001 earlier as an attack page after reviewing a google-translated version ([1]); note that the bottom of the page apparently contains a threat of a fine of 100 euros/day under some Dutch law for nl.wiki because the user's block on nl.wiki - apparently for legal threats (sulutil:JanDeFietser) - was supposedly illegal. The user has since recreated it with essentially the same content. Bringing it here for community review. T. Canens (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I am uncertain that all this effort is productive at all. More effort could be spent on article writing. To most people, the user page is a huge mass of Dutch (could as well be Tamil). The alleged legal threat is not clear and Google Translate is just an unofficial tool. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) User:Tim Song has changed his name to T.Canens. Very confusing! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) There is NO legal threat. I am blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia since 06th November 2009 after the false accusations of an alleged "legal threat" that there wasn't at all. Quite strange , even after my clear confirmation dated 19th November 2006 I am still blocked there: there something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. My message seems enough to inform the community about that. Reactions are welcome, deletions not. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I have re-deleted the page. This is not the place for it. Please do not replace it. James (T C) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC) What is the reason for your deletion? It is not an "attack" page and there is no "legal threat". --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Reads more like a rant than a message. Could also be construed as an attack on the Dutch Wikipedia in general. Have you considered stating on Dutch Wikipeida "I retract any perceived legal threats made by me". On this wiki that's usually enough to be unblocked unless there are other reasons for the block to remain. That might solve your problem. N419BH 16:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) You are correct, it isn't really an legal threat. I apologize for adding that part on to the deletion reasoning. However that stated it basically is an attack page and it does not belong here on enWiki. I understand you are frustrated and angry about your problems on nlWiki but this is not the place for that. James (T C) 16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Both thanks for your reactions. The statement "to consider" was made already 9 months ago - under illegal duress by the way (art. 284 Dutch Criminal Code). That statement already dates from 19th November 2009. That clear statement was first placed on my user page, but then removed, and no deblocking followed until this day. Again, there is unfortunately something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. What do you both suggest is then a more proper place to inform the community on this problem? --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I haven't looked into the details of your nlwiki block, but if you express yourself in legal terms such as "illegal duress" and citing laws over there as well, then I'm not surprised you're still blocked.--Atlan (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I can not promise you will get a better reception (they will obviously draw their own conclusions) but a more appropriate place would be a Request for Comment at Meta WikiJames (T C) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Dear Atlan, expressing something in legal terms is in the first place not so strange because of my background, but is the most clearest description however when injustice is noticed. The behavior on 6th November 2009 of admin Basvb of the Dutch Wikipedia was indeed criminal, if you want to speak in such terms: he threatened to block me if I dared to address a judge on the false and very harsh accusations against my person on which arbitration was refused on 30th October 2009. According to the Dutch law, no one can be withheld form the judge. See here on the English Wikipedia Jus de non evocando and also Constitution of the Netherlands. @ both: But what can one do, if arbitration is refused? (I suppose benevolently: maybe because the issue was /is too complicated ?). If one of you can tell me, I would read that gladly. Again, there is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'm just saying that when you're blocked for perceived legal threats, it doen't help your case to defend yourself with further legal speak.--Atlan (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Threatening to take your complaints about wikipedia to a judge is definitely a legal threat. And I don't know about the Netherlands, but in the USA there is no constitutional right to edit wikpedia, so blocking someone is in no way, shape or form "illegal". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC) @Baseball Bugs: the other way round, there is no right at a;; to use any force against someone to keep him or her away from seeking his right.--JanDeFietser (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I know a little of this user's history on the Dutch Wikipedia, as I am an admin there, though I don't think I've had much interaction, if any, with him; in my perception, the legal threat (whether real or perceived I do not know) was merely the last straw, as the user was making his own position impossible with long rants against just about everything (like the one that was deleted). I don't think this Wikipedia should provide him with a forum for his rants, nor that we should discuss his perceived wrongs here; as Jamesofur said, Meta is a better venue. Ucucha 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This reminds me of an old saying -- the more you yell in people's ears, they less they are able (and will want) to listen. Jan, you need to calm down here. Whatever this article was isn't the end of the world. Let it go. Start over again. The world will continue to spin. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (Sigh) Ucucha is wrong: last year I defended myself against false accusations by users Cumulus and Peter b on the Dutch Wikipedia: then thanks to their deceiving of the Arbcom on 10th June 2009 I was forbidden to defend myself against these false accusations by both for a crime ("laster", art. 262 Dutch Criminal Code) that I did NOT commit and, absolutely unacceptable, the morbid and cruel depicting of me by the latter of an alleged "dancing on the grave" of a person who when alive happened to be very dear and important to me, and Cumulus and Peter b then could continue with their accusations, while other users on the Dutch Wikipedia even started to parrot them about this crime that I did NOT commit, on which arbitration was refused on 30th October 2009. @ Doc Quintana: Thanks for your kind words. But in spite of my clear confirmation dated 19th November 2009 I am still not deblocked and you have no idea of the damage that was done. I will inform you maybe later tonight or tomorrow about this by wikimail. --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) No wories Jan. Trust me, I know how you feel. Step back for a little bit from it and you'll feel better. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) There is nothing to prevent you from pursuing legal action against wikipedia. But if you do, or threaten to, then you are not allowed to edit on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC) That last remark I do not understand. Who was talking about "legal actions against Wikipedia"? For what? For the refusal of arbitration on 3oth October 2009? I was falsely accused by two individuals on the Dutch Wikipedia, Cumulus & Peter b, of a crime that I did NOT commit. Do you think Wikipedia will have to take responsibility for their false accusations? (I doubt that). And there never was any "legal threat" from me, but nevertheless I was blocked on 6th November 2009 on the Dutch Wikipedia for such a chimera, which was a false accusation concocted by Arbcom-member Basvb who earlier that day threatened me on the Dutch wikichat (imho such persons with such unscrupulous behaviour should NOT be members of any arbitration committee) and in spite of my clear declaration dated 19th November 2009, now in July after 9 months, I am still not deblocked. Again, there is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. If you don't mind, I take some rest now (thanks Doc Quintana). --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'm a bit confused. You've repeatedly stated that you were denied arbitration. However in perusing your block log on nl.wiki I noticed that you were actually repeatedly banned for violating an ArbCom decision about you. You were blocked no less than six times in only four months for vandalism, personal attacks and then finally the ArbCom decision. You apparently followed this up with a violation of NLT here where you apparently twice emailed the NL ArbCom threatening to sue in civil court for defamation. And you wonder why you got blocked? Mauler90 talk 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Well, I eagerly admit that you have indeed some reason to be or at least feel "a bit confused" when you see the practice on the Dutch Wikipedia. When some user files a case against me, then I should also be able to file a case against him / her / them as well, but this very elementary stuff still has to be discovered on the Dutch Wikipedia. In June 2009, I was falsely accused on the Dutch Wikipedia by two users, Cumulus & Peter b, of a crime that I did NOT commit ("laster", art. 262 Sr), and the latter depicted me also as "dancing on the grave" of a person who when alive was dear and important to me: such teasing is an absolutely not acceptable way to discuss matters on Wikipedia. In a procedure full of lies and fallacies from their side, while my defence was ignored, they succeeded in an extremely wide 'topic ban' of which the only purpose was forbidding me to defend myself against their false accusations, that Peter b continued to utter while pushing his POV (Cumulus was blocked then for a while for some other reason). In the meantime other users were parroting these false accusations of Cumulus & Peter b. When I am not allowed to defend myself against (false) accusations on the Wikipedia, then these accusations itself should be forbidded as well, as I requested the Arbcom: however, this was finally refused on 30th October, shortly after I informed the arbitration committee on the damages that had emerged in the meantime. Please do not overestimate the admins on the Dutch Wikipedia. There was NO "vandalism", there were NO "personal attacks", just defence against the false accusations that every now and then seem to be rampant on the Dutch Wikipedia, and the deceiving of the arbitration committee by my accusers Cumulus & Peter b. Many users have left already the Dutch Wikipedia because of the atmosphere. They had less endurance than I do (I guess). I suppose benevolently that the whole case was / is too complicated for the arbitration committee. That I "twice emailed the NL ArbCom" "threatening to sue in civil court for defamation" is a sheer lie from NL Arbcom-member Basvb, who himself threatened me on 6th November 2009 on the Dutch wikichat and behind my back concocted that block, again without any defence from my side (that seems to be quite "normal" on the Dutch Wikipedia?). Such persons with such behaviour should NOT be a member of an arbitration committee. There is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. In spite of my clear declaration dated 19th November 2010 on that alleged "legal threat" that there was NOT, now in July 2010 I am still not deblocked. I hope your feeling of confusion is a little less now. I want to take some rest now. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) If this is regarding the nlWiki, shouldn't it be discussed through their appropriate venues, or barring that, Meta? Hazardous Matt (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) To echo what Matt has said. EN-wiki cannot resolve any issue with NL-wiki, so this is the wrong place to post. Sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Matt, to make things worse, when I informed several users of the Dutch Wikipedia in September per wikimail about the negligence of the ArbcomNL, the wikimail was blocked for me by user Woudloper. one of the parrots of the false accusations against which I was not allowed to defend myself. And after I was blocked in november for a "legal threat" that there was not, also the email to the Arbcom was blocked for me: ostrichism. I think that the whole case is too complicated for them, and that they just do not dare yet to admit that they are unfortunately unable to grasp it. I go to bed now. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC) If NL won't deal with an NL-Wiki dispute, then try MetaWiki. I don't think anyone on enWiki has the authority to overturn their decisions. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I would suggest to an admin around here that this conversation be closed. It's going around in circles. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Hello, I would like to say that I am having similar problems on the Dutch wiki. From my perspective it is quite corrupt. I do not know this particular user's full story, not have I read the whole issue, I am merely saying that this is not just one individual experiencing this. I have had contact with several other users who are also having the same problems there. In my opinion it seems that when somebody contradicts one of the regular contributor's POV that person gets into trouble with the whole lot. Saying something about that makes it worse. It seems to me that these things should at the very least be allowed to be said here AND there. However, there they are not allowed. My question is why such critical notes are even being deleted in an open and free system? --Faust (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, again, really more of a discussion for MetaWiki. No one here can do anything about it. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Addendum: Can an Admin close this please? En shouldn't be a launching point for NL administration issues. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC) See my post here. Not much more we can do here, also recommend this be closed with a possible RfC at meta if the user desires it. Mauler90 talk 21:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Meta RFC link for convenience. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I think the point is being missed here. The thing is that there is absolutely no reason to delete such content in an open and free system. If indeed someone feels that some things should not be said here, that person can caution another for saying something and after that remove his own static. But deleting something is an entirely different matter. That is censorship to protect a POV. That simply should not happen on any wikipedia. Claiming that disputes should be settled elsewhere is a true statement, but does not apply to the content of a user's page. A user's page can be filled by anything that user wants to fill it with, short of criminal exclamations. If other users wish to discuss matters there, making it a discussion concerning a dispute, those users should be prohibited from editing the user page in question. Simply cataloging a process does not constitute that problem. The reason I am making a point of this is because of the broader issue involved: the difference between an open and free system and one where POV's rule the day. I hope any and all mods will be sensitive to this. --Faust (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) The content was deleted because it was an attack page. A user cannot fill their userpage with "anything they want." If it is offensive it WILL be deleted. Mauler90 talk 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Wikipedia is privately owned, not owned or sponsored by any government. Therefore, there is no Freedom of Speech in any constitutional or legal capacity. User Pages are not the property of the respective User. The page you are apparently referencing (which has since been deleted) was reviewed to be an attack page. Therefore, it was removed due to WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA. The initial page, the original editor's response, and your responses, have all been a result of an action on NL-Wiki. Several people have informed you that this is not the appropriate venue for reporting questionable action by NL-Wiki Administrators. In summation, the page was an attack in violation of a policy on a privately-owned website, and it was attacking an independent faction of the privately-owned website. There is no censorship or POV-silencing as it pertains to this incident. enWiki should not be a springboard to speak out against NL-wiki. Take it to NL, take it to Meta, but attacks against it do not have any place here. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I think it may be better for Jan to forget about Dutch Wikipedia altoghether. If what he writes is true, then there is little point in contributing there. But then I can understand that he wants to get his version of the facts straight. But the way to do that is not to argue here in the way you would do there. Instead, he should write up something that is of use to us here and that can only be done in general terms. I tried to do that on my talkpage about the negative experience I had on Physics Forums. Perhaps such problems are universal: when you have a small number of Admins/Moderators who get involved in disputes, you can expect trouble; The moderation process can become corrupted. Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC) As an nl-wiki sysop I think the phrase "The moderation process can become corrupted" is absolutely not applicable. First of all nl-wiki has more than a few moderators and Jan has been given the chance of arbitration. Since he dislikes the result of that he now follows this path of slandering people and presenting his own fairytale version of the events. As one of the involved admins I can assure that the part concerning me is highly inaccurate and incomplete. What Jan also forgets to mention is that he refuses to make the statement that he will not sue users of the nl-wiki. Feel free to ask me about the case through wikimail or a message on my talk page. This however does not apply to JanDeFietser since he is resending his view of the events including a ton of false accusations to half nl-wiki all the time anyway (badly enough to get his nl-wikimail shut down). JZ85 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) @Mauler: As stated above it is not an attack page. Please do not double your noise. @Hazardous Matt: The wikipedia is not a platform to promote POV's. That is what this is about. To silence people is to promote a POV. Apart from that, no matter the system, basic HUMAN RIGHTS still apply. Please, you have stated your opinion, do not double your noise. @Count Iblis: I agree with you that a small number of referees is a problem. A large number of referees who intercommunicate and socialize is a problem as well however. That way people tend to look at what the majority is doing. If a precedent is created, the rest follow in line. That is why, in normal law cases, an IMPARTIAL judge is wanted. Bias is a POV. Apart from that I do believe that forgetting about wiki.nl might be Jan's best option. For now he is not arguing anything by the way, he is showing what happened. There is a difference. @JZ85: Perhaps you should stay out of this discussion since you are personally involved and therefore bias? In fact, you are the active corrupting individual in this case. By your actions you are actively trying to get a referee to respond to this case in a bias manner. Please stay out of this matter so there is still a chance that a referee would respond to this in an unbiased manner. Even though I am assuming you mean well, please, refrain from adding more static. Please people, I do not think this page is normally used for arguments.... --Faust (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed, we cannot do anything about NL:Wikipedia here. So let's leave these arguments out of it. The whole thread started with T. Canens telling about his issues with removing inappropriate (according him) content from JandeFietsers userpages. My suggestion to JandeFietser would be to let Nl:wiki rest. Do not put up angry ad/or inflammatory references to that on his userpages, and become an active and respected editor on En:Wiki (i.e. here). If he is willing to do that I see no problems, if not, he will run into conflicts here very soon and may run into blocks here as well. But for now I would give him the benefit of the doubt if he agrees not to refer to his experiences on NL:wiki on his userspace (at least not in a way that can be interpreted as aggressive to anyone involved in the disputes he had). Arnoutf (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I ran the deleted userpage through Google translate yesterday, and my view was that it certainly was an attack page. It referred to nl.wiki's ArbCom as a "Kangaroo Court" and moderators on nl.wiki as "lazy". There were specific references to individual arbs and administrators, using equally unflattering terms. I agree with Tim Song's {{db-attack}} deletion, and likewise with Jamesofur's subsequent deletion. I am surprised that this is still under discussion. This is clearly not a matter for en.wiki. The editor responsible for the userpage has been directed to meta: I do not believe there is anything further we can do here unless the userpage is recreated. TFOWR 08:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I am a native Dutch speaker (and reader). I will agree to the fact that he did use the terms in question, but if the situation was reversed, would you not use colorful language to describe the situation? Granted, it may not be as decent as could be, but here he is merely cataloging. I guarantee that this was not used as an attack this time, merely an accurate log. There is a difference. Please, do consider the larger issues. --Faust (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Whether the editor intended to attack is not relevant: what matters is whether the userpage was correctly deleted as an "attack page" (in my view it was). By way of analogy, an editor might innocently create a userpage that disparages a friend: the friend would in no way feel attacked, but the userpage would still be deleted as an attack page, and the admin who deleted the page would have acted entirely correctly (which was the original issue here - did Tim Song act correctly?) The larger issue is that this is outside en.wiki's remit: we have no authority here. The editor has been directed to meta: there is nothing further we can do. TFOWR 09:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Fully support TFOWR's analysis. This issue is closed from an en.wp point of view. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) All "quotes" out of context are wrong. But to put it frankly, indeed I called and call the ArbcomNL a kangaroo court, because that term, though pejorative, applies. Today, I have no time to read all comments here or elsewhere. So for the moment, I thank the users above for their kind attention to this issue, appropriate here or not, and politely ask them to be alert and not to be deceived by the prejudiced admins of the Dutch Wikipedia. Bamanekhuda. --JanDeFietser (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) One thing I'm surprised no one here suggested was that if JanDeFietser feels he was slandered libelled [see my comment below] on nl.wikipedia -- which seems to be the basis of his complaint, if I understand this thread -- then perhaps his best option is to contact OTRS. I don't know if they can help him or provide a resolution he will be happy with, but there's no relief or help for him on en.wikipedia, no matter what his user page says in any language. -- llywrch (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your remark. Please note that I avoid the use of the term "slander", because in the British and American common law systems "slander" and "libel" are NOT identical with the Dutch crimes "smaad" (art. 261 Wetboek van Strafrecht = Dutch Criminal Code or Penal Code from 1881) and "laster" (art. 262 Sr DCC). --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC) How many times do people have to suggest to you, that not using legal speak will make you more friends ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) To be honest, the only way he could make any use of llywrch's suggestion would be if he mailed the OTRS legal queue, so he might as well use legal language. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Exactly -- although the proper legal term I should have used was "libel" (because it was in print) & not "slander" (which is a transient comment). Any comment someone thinks is defamatory involving one of the Wikimedia projects -- whether the subject of an article or another editor -- needs to be submitted to OTRS. Bringing it to another project will accomplish nothing, even if people are convinced that a wrong has been committed; the various Wikimedia projects operate independently of one another. With that, I think this thread is truly closed. -- llywrch (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) #Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) User: Theobald Tiger Resolved  – No threat was realistically intended, perhaps some pun —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I have hesitated to notify the referees of this matter, however, I feel a little scared of this user. In an attempt to get a different user to reflect on a certain act on his part Theobald and others showed their support for him. I would let the question with which this started rest. However, the way in which Theobald Tiger showed his support was by means of this remark: "I fully agree with MoiraMoira and before you actually start consuming the handsomely deserved watermelon, I hereby kindly offer you a nice kitchen tool for convenience' sake!" The remark was adorned with a picture of a knife. Seeing as MoiraMoira had placed a remark concerning a watermelon I tried to assume good intentions on Theobald's part and asked him to change the remark since I felt a little threatened by it. Theobald changed the remark to: "I fully agree with MoiraMoira and before you actually start consuming the handsomely deserved watermelon, I hereby kindly offer you a nice kitchen tool to make life easier for you!" I thanked him for the revision, but his reluctance to make clear what (or who) the knife was supposed to be used on still makes me feel a little startled. Especially since I specifically asked him to change his remark into saying what that (or who) that knife was supposed to be used on. After repeating this request several times he has clearly refused to do so: "No!". I am not sure what to do about this and I would like a referee to change Theobald's mind on that matter. I would like to make clear that I am still assuming he meant this as a joke. That is why I do not think he should be punished or anything like that. However, it is making me feel pretty uneasy and I think that this should not be a part of contributing to the wikipedia. I have thought about asking for assistance concerning wikiquette alerts, but the nature of the double meaning seems too extreme for that, seeing as on that page it is specified that extreme issues do not belong there. To summarize: I am making this request in the hopes that Theobald will chance his remark with the help of a referee. --Faust (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I am sorry, Faust, but there's no there there. I can discern no evil intent here, and to feel threatened by someone handing over a very nice chef's knife, that's being overly sensitive. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Looking at it you didn't mention that these "remarks" are actually picture captions...right next to each other. Frankly I have to agree with Drmies, I don't see anything wrong with User:Theobald Tiger's action. Mauler90 talk 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)User notified. Mauler90 talk 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hello Mauler and DrMies, I did not say that Theobald had an evil intent. I said that I felt a little threatened by it. Changing his remark into specifying that the knife should be used on the melon seems quite a small thing to ask if nothing was ment by it. I do not see your names on the list of moderators by the way. Since this page is not meant for discussions, would you, and others, please refrain from giving opinions on what was meant (which is not even the issue) and thus cut the static? --Faust (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Interjecting: you want to limit my "freedom of speech"? Seriously, come on. Anyone can comment here--just as anyone can post a request here. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Anyone can comment here, Admin or not. I do not interpret Theobald Tiger's comment as a threat. (Disclosure, I do not believe I've ever had contact with him) I would like to address Faust's behavior, however. This appears to be a matter of WP:STICK User_talk:JZ85 Bad faith accusation Accusations of lying Bad faith yet again Second accusation of lying User_talk:moiramoira Accusations of slander and general bad faith Disregarding instructions to take NL Wiki matters elsewhere declaring EN is the place for it More bad faith User_talk:Hazardous_Matt Declaring a Human RIghts violation Requesting documentation of a law stating Wikipedia is exempt from Human Rights violations Insisting he was threatened and denying he has assumed bad faith I think a formal warning is past due at this point. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Dear Admins, Faust is clearly transferring his problems from NL-Wiki to EN-Wiki. For that reason I felt entitled to play a joke upon him. After Faust had suggested to JZ85 that he should resign from being a referee (JZ85 is an admin on NL-Wiki) upon arguments that seem to me totally ridiculous, MoiraMoira (an admin on NL-Wiki as well) offered a nice watermelon to JZ85. I couldn't resist the temptation to offer JZ85 an 'all purposes' cooks knife to cut the melon into pieces. The rest is clearly visible on the talk page of JZ85 and my own talk page. I myself am neither an admin nor important; I am a user who contributes quite regularly both on NL-Wiki and EN-Wiki. I hope you enjoy it. I do not want to interfere with admin-issues on EN-Wiki, but I can only say that the observations of Hazardous Matt have a close resemblance to those of the admins on NL-Wiki. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hello Matt, I am afraid you are not willing to read what I have actually written. You are dragging matters into this that are not relevant and of which I have not made an issue. However, the accusations are not merely accusations and can be easily backed up by facts by reading what I am responding to. To clarify my position in the initial conversation I would like to say that I have never said that the en.wiki is the place to discuss nl.wiki issues. In fact, I am against that. I have, however, said that removing a log of a rather lengthy issue, in which I am not involved by the way, is a violation of the freedom of speech. Since there are no serious accusations there and an individual is trying to log the unfair treatments he is getting a simple block of the page could do. Since the issue started with this dispute, in which I am not involved by the way, I should clarify that I addressed JZ85's attempt to influence the handling referee with his status at nl.wiki and referred to the history there. To me that is a clear sign of not being able the responsibilities bestowed upon him. Hence I addressed the matter on his talk page to make him reflect on that. The users MoiraMoira and Theobald Tiger felt the need to support the user JZ85, in which the remark was made that I feel threatened by. So, I do not think that any of my remarks were out of place. I was only trying to make the users in question think about what happened there. This may be out of line, but I did so at the users talk pages so I thought I was acting properly. I have clearly stated every time that I meant no offense and only wanted the users to back off so that JZ85 could reflect on his action. I hope all users will now no longer try to influence the handling referee, since I think that what I am asking for is not much assuming good intentions. To clarify my good intentions I would like to say that I have not made an issue out of any of the matters stated above, that I do find very important. I have only alerted the users in question to these matters. I had assumed, in good faith, that such things could be discussed freely on this open and free medium. I do take offense at the remark made by Theobald however, which I feel is at least in part meant as a threat (as by his own admittance above), even though made jokingly (assuming good intentions again). So, please allow this to find its way by means of a referee. --Faust (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) You are involved because you are the only person who continuously states that "freedom of speech" is being impeded upon. Despite the fact that you have been instructed no less than twice that "freedom of speech" is not a "human right" afforded on Wikipedia. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) More specifically: Freedom of speech does not abrogate the right for a non-government entity to limit what users can say on their property or website. Upon editing any of the Wikipedias, you agreed to this stipulation. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Faust - First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with JZ85's action. As most of us do not speak Dutch it is helpful to both get a polite, helpful note on what happened on nl.wiki as well as the opinion of the admins being mentioned on nl.wiki. By your standard JanDeFriester was just as out of line in chiming in on the thread and "attempting to influence the referee." I think it actually speaks quite well of JZ85's abilities to deal with the responsibilities of the tools. Second, Wikipedia does not guarantee limitless freedom of speech, you may want to read this page on free speech on Wikipedia, especially the first paragraph as that seems to address some of the concerns you are having.Third, there is no "handling referee" here and discussion is how we attempt to work through many of the issues brought here (though many do lead to a ban etc). Fourth, I do not believe Theobald Tiger's statement above in any way admitted (partially or other) that it was at least in part a "threat." Mauler90 talk 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) May I kindly refer an en-wiki admin to my talk page here which suddenly is filled with weird talk by this user Faust? User Theobald Tiger is a nice positive contributor on nl-wiki I can attest. User JZ85 as well - he is a very kind and helpful admin colleague of mine on nl-wiki. Please can some one here stop this person Faust? Best wishes, MoiraMoira (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, I am confused. All of you seem to want to try to make this thing about something it is not. This is about Theobald making a remark by which I feel threatened. That is what I want to see changed. The other, very real, issues I have tried to alert these users to all speak in my favor I would say. I have been trying to point the users who seem to feel they should make sure referees are not unbiased to the nature of their actions. The above remarks by said users are of the same content. They are meant to point towards other occurrences to point away from this occurrence and win this argument by making the referee look at non-related matters. I will briefly address some of the misgivings mentioned above. @Matt: The site you are referring to point towards the American constitution, not to the universal declaration of human rights. Article 19 states that every individual has the right to freedom of speech and article 23 states that every individual has the right to appeal to international endeavors; pointing back to the universal declaration of rights again. I am well aware that the American government is trying to argue against freedom of speech of late, implying that there are 'free speech zones'. This is not the case if we accept that all individuals have certain unalienable rights. I would like to stress that I was not trying to get the content of the deleted page in question reappear or anything. I was merely trying to point out that actually trying to silence someone is immoral and make the user trying to get the referee to act bias (no less!!) to reflect on that. That is all. That is why I think this (part of the) matter should not be brought here. @Jeremy: My point exactly: websites are protected by the freedom of speech amendment. But Matt is making a good argument against that, as is the American government nowadays unfortunately. @Mauler90: The other issue I was trying to get through to JZ85 is that any court case needs an UNBIASED referee. That means that the referee should look at the situation at hand and not at previous situations to get to a verdict. The reason for this is that if the referee will look at that suddenly a POV is developed in the referee. In times passed (we should be so lucky) colored people were convicted contrary to evidence for instance. That is an important issue as well. Trying to influence a referee with prior occurrences is therefore immoral (in the narrow sense). Even more so since one of the people mentioned on the deleted page as having acted unjustly is JZ85 if I am not mistaken. So, JZ85 is actively trying to make a referee see his POV and trying to make the referee act on that. That is what I wanted him to reflect on. In the case mentioned the referee has decided to remove the page for alterior reasons, which makes that I am not arguing against the decision. Concerning the free speech remark: see my reaction to Matt above. Freedom of speech applies universally. Concerning your third point: I am unclear on many of the rules on the wikipedia because I am a relatively new user. If I misunderstand, please give me some feedback on my userpage to cut back on the noise. Concerning Theobald I can only say that on the use of the knife he specifies: "an 'all purposes' cooks knife". Yes, I take that as a threat and he admits that there. @MoiraMoira: I am sorry to see you arguing in a way meant to influence a referee to judge based on prior situations. I hope you will take to heart what I have been trying to point out to JZ85 and reflect on your actions. Any ruling should be made by reviewing the facts, without head to other situations or the defendants background. If this is not done a uling is made on the basis of a POV, you see. It is the reason why Lady Justice is depicted with a blindfold. Unfortunately we see her without one often in the Netherlands by the way. I am worried about this as well and am involved in processes to counteract this bias in the courts. "Impartiality is the first duty of a judge; before he gives an opinion or sits in judgment in a cause he ought to be certain that he has no bias for or against either of the parties; and if he has any (the slightest) interest in the cause he is disqualified from sitting as judge and when he is aware of such interest he ought himself to refuse to sit on the case." I understand that this particular case may not be as serious as the impartiality of judges, however, the same principle applies. That is why the wikipedia guidelines clearly stipulate (at misuse of admin tools): "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Again, I am not making an issue out of this because he prior situation has been handled by a referee who was gifted enough to judge on other bases than the influence of JZ85's POV. However, I did want to point this out to JZ85. It is important. Note:I think the wikipedia guidelines clearly state that no issues from any other wikipedia should be transferred here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs) 09:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I hope everybody can now get back to the issue at hand: the threat that Theobald Tiger placed towards me and his refusal to specify on what (or who) the knife should be used. --Faust (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Could you please post your concerns in less than 500 words?.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Also, per Tiger's explanation, I don't see a threat. Now, can you please try to assume good faith and drop the issue?— Dædαlus Contribs 09:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Dear all, I think the confusion of Faust is real as his lengthy sermon makes clear. Therefore I want to expand my explanation given above in order to make it a bit easier to pass judgment on my actions and to help Faust banishing confusion. I will do it in less than 500 words and I apologize to those who find joke explanation in bad taste or annoying (I sympathize with them, but the only alternative available to me is to keep silent). Of course I never meant to threaten Faust in a literal sense. I was annoyed by two things: (i) Faust was transferring the issues from nl-wiki to en-wiki as TFOWR has pointed out to him on his talk page, and (ii) Faust was, unshaken by his twofold ban on nl-wiki, showing his nasty habit of holding forth at great lengt on issues that have no relevance to the making of an online encyclopedia (by means of deontological moralizing, by offending others, by not understanding what an encyclopedic article is and should be). When I saw that JZ85 provided useful information in a decent and clear way to the admins of en-wiki and became subsequently the object of Faust's offensive moralizing, I went to JZ85's talk page to support him. But MoiraMoira was there before me to do exactly the same. She offered JZ85 a nice picture of a water melon with a nice text. I decided to offer a picture as well. I offered a picture of a cooks knife, with a text to the effect that it was a kitchen tool that would make life easier for JZ85. The meaning of my offer was not double but fourfold: It was meant primarily to support JZ85 It was meant to let Faust know that Theobald Tiger (who have had numerous conflicts with Faust on nl-wiki) was aware of what he was doing It was a picture of a handy tool to cut the water melon in eatable pieces It was an ominous picture meant to form a contrast with the lovely picture presented by MoiraMoira I am against violence and bloodshed and I wish Faust all the best, but I hope he will stop behaving in the way he does and choose other forums to present his ideas. The only threat that was implicit in the joke was that Faust could run into conflict with me. Thank you for your attention and I apologize that I had to explain what could have been clear to everyone from the outset. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Related to the above (and at least one other thread here) I have recommeded that Faust (talk · contribs) stay away from another editor's (MoiraMoira (talk · contribs)) talkpage, and warned that I will block Faust if there is any appearance of harassment. I invite review of my actions. TFOWR 10:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I had been waiting to see whether xe continued in the same vein, and was going to tell xem to give it a rest if xe did so. In light of your warning in the meantime I've held off. But, yes, a warning to give the pseudo-legalistic sophistry a rest, lest such a rest be imposed by us for the peace and quiet of the volunteer community that is here to write an encyclopaedia, seems entirely appropriate at this point. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Uncle G. Since my post above I've also had to warn Faust about reverting Daedalus969 on Daedalus969's own talkpage. I don't intend to issue further warnings. TFOWR 15:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I didn't think replacing a talkback notification would be a problem. I think a warning is ill placed here. I have requested an explanation concerning such conduct here on TFOWR's talk page, since it is unrelated. --Faust (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I disagree that feeling threatened by someone who shows a very nice chef's knife, is "overly sensitive". Contrarily, the person who shows a knife in a debate plays himself a "very nice" malicious and dangerous game. Who disagrees with this might consider how he or she will feel, if I tell in some debate about whatever topic that I have a degree in kyokushinkai and give him or her a mouth guard: that mouth guard, o, that is "just" an "innocent" hint to watch your words... - on the other side it is also an ambiguous message to worry about your teeth (and even that I can belittle, o, it's just your teeth and just my hand, foot, knee, elbow, not even a knife - but I expect you might not appreciate it as well, I guess). By the way, in psychiatry obsessions and compulsions with knives are known. Showing a knife is NOT harmless, NOT innocent, but dangerous and in certain settings stupid - and indeed it says something about your state of mind. You don't have to be a Nietzsche to call TT a weakling for his resorting to (showing) a lethal weapon and also a hypocrite for belittling it then "just an innocent tool". It's just like the tactics of provocation: a way to arouse violence and then claiming that you yourself were "peaceful" and the other is to blame... : o, I was just "joking", you see, he even has no sense of humor!.... I prefer real pacifists, or at least peace loving people, not people who boast about being so innocent and so harmless (it is impossible to be harmless when you are of my species) --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) You also seem to believe that when someone is told they are harassing someone, that they may in fact be on the verge of something bigger. [2] Seriously, no one here has interpreted the comment as a threat. Drop the stick, move on and help build an encyclopedia. I may not have the highest edit count, but I've been around long enough to know that no one gets anywhere by playing the victim. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, indeed they may. Did you perhaps ever hear about Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward who were accused of "harassment" of some campaigner of some president, who found some reason to complain about that alleged "harassment" at the Washington Post editors? - "All the president's men". (And it also happened when someone started to accuse me, once, when I was a journalist myself and indeed was on such a verge. So talking about experience...). Accusations of "harassment" can serve the evasion of questions, especially in matters of discussion where something can get exposed from which the other prefers to draw the attention away. - The English Wikipedia should indeed by built further, and not be contaminated with the Dutch disease of accusing other editors: nor of "slander" nor of "harassment" - nor am I playing. --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) "[I]ndeed they may." But that's not what's happening here. In the here and now it is time, as Hazardous Matt recommended, to quit: You're not asking for any admin action; the subject of the original complaint in the thread has explained & apologised for his joke; no one, other than you, has agreed with the original poster that a threat was intended or implied; you may not be playing in the sense of "playing games", but you are in the sense of "acting a part" ~ you're not a victim, & it's time to move on. Let's go back to building the WP, yeah? Cheers, LindsayHi 15:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Hello Lindsay, I have started the issue and yes, I feel threatened by the showing of 'all purpose knifes'. I did not ask for an apology in which Theobald Tiger denies his double meaning, which he admits to elsewhere, I asked for the removal or the change of the threatening remark. The fact that an user points out how this kind of thing works and is seen is an addition to this matter. Your remark is assuming bad intentions and adds nothing but noise. Please do not add to the noise, which is difficult enough to wade through for any admin, no doubt. --Faust (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I have just issued a warning to you as well. This issue ends here and now. The next warnings i have to issue towards people will start counting towards a block. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) This thread is closed: #Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) JZ85 Resolved  – Concerns about NL-wiki to be dealt with at meta-wiki as EN-wiki is not the place for it. On June 23, user JZ85 falsely informed above about some topic on the Dutch Wikipedia and wrote about me: "Jan has been given the chance of arbitration." That is contrary to the facts. In June 2009, I was accused falsely on the Dutch Wikipedia by two users of a crime that I did NOT commit. I was patient with them, but before I could address the NLArbcom about their false accusations against me, they addressed the NLArbcom, leading them down the garden path by two complaints full of lies and fallacies, against which my defence was completely ignored. Just as my early proposal to handle their cases separately, because I foresaw that otherwise the case would become too complicated for the NLArbcom: my proposal, dated 22nd June 2009, was completely ignored: the two false complaints that were carelessly piled, onto each other, that made the case(s) too heavy too handle for the NLArbcom That concoction of these two users first resulted in an absurd 'topic ban', that made it sheer impossible for me to defend myself to those false accusations (accusations that one of these users continued then to utter, while the other user was blocked for some other reason) and also impossible to add further prove the facts that were under discussion and about which they accused me falsely and deceived the Arbcom. In the "verdict" of the NLArbcom dated 20th July 2009 the parties involved were even mixed up with each other (could the incompetence of the NLArbcom be exposed better?): in fact the two false complainers had deleted crucial facts and sources, not me... And when I am not allowed to defend myself against a serious accusation of other users, then such accusation itself should be forbidden as well. However, arbitration on this was refused by the NLArbcom on 30th October. As all users can read here, JZ85 now falsely accused me on this page thus (please read the complete text above) "he now follows this path of slandering people and presenting his own fairytale version of the events." This is unacceptable. There is NO slander by me whatsoever, nor any "fairytale version" and falsely accusing me of "slander" is itself slander. I can assure that his part concerning me itself is highly inaccurate and incomplete. What JZ85 also "forgets" (?) to mention is that he himself was the very admin who was and is responsible for blocking me on the Dutch Wikipedia without any checking of the facts and without any defence from my side. JZ85 also ignores the clear statement that I made on 19th November, that was first placed on my talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia and then removed without my permission - without any following deblocking, for which I am now waiting for more than 9 months. To whom it may concern: feel free to ask me about the case through wikimail or a message on my talk page. Please notice however that I am a different kind of editor than he is, since even JZ85 himself is welcome on my talk page, but I feel he is reluctant to answer some sharp questions and that he fears that he might get into dire straits with honest answers, e.g. about his act of blocking me on 6th November without any investigation of alleged facts, that by the way supposedly took place offwiki. => So to nip Dutch scenes on the English Wikipedia in the bud - frankly, I can imagine very well that no one is waiting here for such Dutch scenes - I just ask the admins on the English Wikipedia now to make clear to JZ85 that he should NOT accuse me here of "slander" and "a fairytale version" (suggestively of facts that he does not mention...). Maybe he does not exactly know what "slander" in fact is. Even then, such accusations make things worse (that's how it got started on the Dutch Wikipedia: with false accusations about "slander" where there was no slander at all). I think a clear warning to JZ85 should be enough. I the meantime I hope to do some editing again or other pleasant stuff --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: can anyone put an ANI-notice on JZ85's talk page for me? I respect his wish. You were told not to drag this issue into the English Wikipedia. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) You must be plural then. --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC) No, you are the one starting another thread on this, no one else. If you would be silent then there would be no issue anymore. So be silent on this issue and accept that you are blocked on another project and that you cannot solve that on this project. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, "you" MUST be plural then: since it can not be solved here, then the English Wikipedia should not be contaminated with that Dutch disease of editors falsely accusing another editor of "slander". --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I have issued a warning to JZ85. Now I don't want to hear another word out of the both of you about this issue you have on the Dutch Wikipedia. </kindergarten-mode> —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC) - notified User:JZ85 - here - Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Issued official warning to JZ85 here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Ends here: #Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I think this is an interesting case to discuss here, because it raises general issues about the "no legal threats" policy in case there is dispute with legal dimensions originating outside of Wikipedia (in this case the dispute dates back more than a decade). If I am in a real life dispute with another Wiki editor, then surely it would be wrong for me to bring this up on Wikipedia and then demand that the other editor promise not to start a legal case in that real life dispute? Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Maybe it is interesting to know that after the legal treat Jandefietser was blocked for, he repeated his legal treats several times in mails send to the dutch arbitration committee. Grimbeert (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) People, we are supposed to drop the Dutch turmoil (see below). Even though I do think that legal issues from outside the wikipedia being brought into the wikipedia might be the same issue as addressed below, we should wait for arbitration, especially given the issue below. --Faust (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC) No more discussion of this case will occur here. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) This stops now I'm getting really annoyed here, all this discussion does not belong in the English Wikipedia, is poisoning the atmosphere and does not help building an encyclopedia. I suggest the following: "All parties are urged to stop discussing IMMEDIATELY the conflicts of the Dutch Wikipedia, as well as all the fallout resulting from that discussion on the English Wikipedia. Continuing this discussing in ANY form, even on ANI or amongst eachother on user talk pages, will result in immediate blocking for a period of a week". Suggested parties would be: User:JanDeFietser User:Faust USer:JZ85 User:Theobald Tiger User:MoiraMoira User:Hazardous Matt User:Grimbeert When implemented, i'll voluntarily add myself to this resolution as well. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you TheDJ. Can I refer to this announcement when this happens again? --Faust (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Could you tells us more pls ..not sure what your talking about. Info has been added !! Moxy (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I added links to the earlier ani discussion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC) TheDJ, I edit conflicted with you on writing this (and merging this single incident), which is not a resolution but a warning of how I intend to use my tools (which I suspect concurs with how you intend to use your tools): Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:Civility There will be no more trolling, pot stirring, tag teaming, sly provocation, playground-level taunting, or other general silliness and game playing of the sort that has occurred over the past few days, on here and on user talk pages. Warnings issued by TheDJ and TFOWR have clearly not sunk in. Therefore let me make this crystal clear. Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Agree With TheDJ and Uncle G. Sick and tired of this. TFOWR 16:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Must Agree Disruptive, not to mention very boring now - really needs to stop.  Begoontalk 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Wholehearted support, my mop and bucket had already come out. Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC). Comment. If people want to continue the discussion, then this is the right place for that. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Blocking I have just blocked Faust, for taunting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I might have misinterpreted and I more than welcome another admin to double check this, but I really need to get some food into me now first. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Won't be me double checking: I'm pretty frazzled, and think an indefinite block is too short. Worth noting that the inevitable unblock request is already up. TFOWR 17:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC) After having had a bite to eat, I still think the user was taunting, but I have to say that the statement is rather ambiguous. For that reason have relaxed the block to a week. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC) This block was fully retracted after being determined to be based on a misinterpretation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC) In the meantime, I've blocked JanDeFietser (talk · contribs) (also for a week) for a comment on Faust's talk page. JanDeFietser was trying very hard to avoid referring to nl.wiki while referring to nl.wiki. TFOWR 19:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User introducing fake sources into Wikipedia

Per this edit [3] User:George Al-Shami introduced a fake source into Wikipedia to support the statement: "...to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis." in the article, cited to "Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48". I checked the source in the library, neither on this page nor anywhere else in the book is there anything even remotely. You can even check it on Google Books, [4]. For me page 48 does not show, but it is clear that this chapters is about the pre-World War I era. You can also search for the numbers 67 and 69, the numbers 67 or 69 are not mentioned anywhere in the book. This fake source has subsequently also been used and defended by User:Supreme Deliciousness when the factual accuracy of the statement has been questioned by other editors, see Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups, Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes). I do not know how one can work collaboratively on this projekt or have trust in Wikipedia articles if we cannot trust our editors to be honest about their sources. This is even more important than civility and conforming to NPOV. Hence I request some admin action. Pantherskin (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just had a quick look for it and I am unsure why but it is also here, According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis. with a copyright claim at the bottom? http://syria.tripholidays.com/syria-history_sixdaywar.php Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite likely copied from Wikipedia (without the appropriate licence). Pantherskin (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've not looked at your diffs (and won't: see below), but I'll make a few general points:

1. Editing in the Middle East geopolitical area (which includes articles about Syria) is tough, and you will encounter issues like this.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles almost certainly applies to Syrian articles, and you should be aware that editing restrictions apply.
3. You should probably raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts (WP:CCN)

I'm currently working on another, similar issue affecting a different region so I really don't want to get involved in a Middle East issue - sorry! However, I suspect most admins here won't want to get involved, either. As I mention above you should raise this at WP:CCN where you will find editors and admins who are prepared to get involved.

TFOWR 10:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not really a conflict that needs to be solved, and the Israel-Palestine conflict is only the background. Unless I am missing something here it is simply the issue of editors using a fake source to support their POV. That could have happened in all topic areas from Armenia-Azerbaijan to Pokemon, and I suspect it does. Pantherskin (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you need to resolve whether the source used is OK or not - hence WP:CCN. You could also WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, if you'd prefer? The sanctions on Israel-Palestine cover an area broadly interpreted - this includes Syria (Syria having been historically involved with the conflict). TFOWR 11:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of assumption of bad faith, forum shopping and "game of gotcha" by Pantherskin. The part about the UN office had been in the article for a long time, and I assumed good faith about the person who added it. Not one single time did Panterskin say that the UN office text had a false source, he said at both the Syria and Golan Heights talkpage that the Dayan quote was incorrect, but that wasn't true and I knew this, the main discussion was about the Dayan quote. Panterskin removed the what appeared to be sourced UN office text together with the sourced Dayan quote that I knew was correct. And once again, he never said that the UN office text had a false source. Later when it was pointed out to me that the UN office text had a false source,[5] I looked at it and I removed it myslef[6] and put a strike on my earlier comment on the talkpage about that source: [7] I also asked the editor who had added it to the article about why he had added it: [8]

This is also a case of forum shopping from Pantherskin as he have brought this up at AE [9][10] and also at NPOV noticeboard: [11] "caught red handed".. clearly assumption of bad faith. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to Pantherskin): According to his block log, George Al-Shami has been blocked two times, both in August 2009, the first block for violating 3RR, and the second for block evasion. Deliberately and repeatedly adding untrue sources should lead to a block; hoaxing is not accepted on Wikipedia at all, so I agree an admin action is fully justified in this case. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, that edit was made almost two years ago (in November 2008). So a block could definitely not be warranted in this case. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about me who assumed good faith that what a user added with source was true? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case the link to the source was obviously false. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The source didn't have a link: [12], it was only text. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a question: Was that false statement not detected and reverted until now? /HeyMid (contributions) 11:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have shown above, first time it was told to me that the UN office source did not say what the text was, was two days ago, and I removed it immediately. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I see it here. Does that mean the false statement was in the article for almost two years? /HeyMid (contributions) 11:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What it means is that the source (Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48) added for the the claim that "According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis.", is not true. And as soon as it was pointed out to me I looked it up and realized that the source was incorrect so I removed it. As you can see the source wasn't a link to the book., it was only text. But there are many other sources that say that Israel provoked Syria, but this specific source and what it specifically claimed was inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was there for two years. The content sourced (or rather not sourced) to this book was already questioned in June 2009, Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups by a different editor, but Supreme Deliciousness defended the inclusion on the grounds that it is sourced. So even if I am assuming good faith here you at least mislead other editors as you never made it clear that you do not actually know the source. Your quick removal after having been caught suggests something different, in particular as you usually question my sources and motives. That in this case you decided to trust my claim that it is not in the source and almost immediately removed it after my message suggests that all the way you knew that it was a fake source. Pantherskin (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No because, the source was only text, there was no link in the source, so I assumed good faith that he who added it had written what the source says. Even if a source is not accessible with a link, it can not be removed just because the source is only text. But then you pointed out to me at my talkpage that the text was not the same as was written in the book, as shown above, so I went to google books and searched for the book, and looked at the page that the text was sourced from, and I realized that the text was incorrectly sourced from that page or book, so I removed it myself, and striked out my comment from the talkpage about this specific UN office sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is such a big issue, book citations like that are hard to check, of course if it originally was a falsification of a citation then that original falsification was a big issue. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html there are other online cites that report similar claims. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Only yesterday a good faith user said to me when I questioned a book citation..if you don't like it, get yourself down to your local library and check it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If SD made any mistake here, this was clearly a good-faith error, in not checking the validity of the long-standing reference in half a passage s/he restored. AS SD notes above, as soon as s/he was informed of the false reference, he removed the statement. This is a case of perfectly good editing, and it is only through a massive exercise of bad faith that SD can be accused of being "caught red-handed using a fake source"[13]. RolandR (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looking at that diff from RolandR and this thread I think User Pantherskin would do well to apply a little more good faith to other users. IMO this is far from a caught red handed situation as he alleges.Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This claim is one that Pantherskin has now been using to smear SD over several boards, here at ANI, at AE, at NPOVN, and in what might easily be construed as canvassing attempts at WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Syria. Unomi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that first allegation was on the 22nd (at an AE to which it was largely irrelevant) and Pantherskin was told then by an univolved admin [14] that the situation in no way justified his allegations. Then as Roland & Unomi points out 3 different attempts ([15], [16] & [17]) to canvas an already debunked insult. And now this ugly bit of forum shopping? Pantherskin easily qualifies for another block. Misarxist (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I notice that on her/his usertalk page, Pantherskin has accused SD (and Nableezy) of "lying about a source"[18]. This is worse than simple bad faith, and surely warrants some sort of sanction. RolandR (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Pantherskin screwing around or not, the only real answer from Supreme Deliciousness should be "I got caught up in debating the issues and failed to check that particular source. My bad." There is no good excuse for arguing to keep a source that has not even been checked. Deflecting is definitely not one.

And Wikipedia:Offline sources is a fantastic essay.Cptnono (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Support blocking any registered users and IPs that can be identified as being connected to any of the 2,015,276 page views of the Syria article since the inaccurate source was introduced at the end of Nov2008 for failing to spot it. Oh wait, that includes me, bugger. Scratch that idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between not noticing that a source is not valid and arguing that the source verifies a line. The mistake seems easy enough to make but acting like it isn't a problem is starting to look like more of a concern than it was originally.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem that concerns me. What concerns me far more is that many editors make efforts to ensure the absence of reliable and impeccably sourced policy compliant information and think that isn't a problem at all. Policy non-compliance resulting from the absence of valid information is far more difficult to spot that policy non-compliance resulting from the presence of invalid information. Wiki policy/noticeboards etc tend to be geared towards dealing with the presence of information rather than it's absence. This is one event to do with the presence of one piece of policy non-compliant material that has involved SD through a simple mistake that anyone could make, a mistake he resolved. SD is an editor who is rather scrupulous in his sourcing and insistence on policy compliance in my experience and for good reason. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Fut.Perf.'s self-issued topic ban to User:Hkwon

Background: I have been working on a content dispute on Kimchi for about one month. I came to this dispute (if I recall correctly) because of an RfC about how to word the lead. The dispute essentially boiled down to User:Hkwon having a preferred way to state the lead, and between 2 and 5 other editors, myself included, preferring another. During that time, due to edit-warring being conducted by several participants, the page was fully protected twice (once for 3 days, once for a week). There was a bit of incivility, mostly between Hkwon and User:Sennen goroshi and, to a lesser extent, User:Melonbarmonster2; incivility which I believe spanned across this page as well as user pages and other Korean-related pages. At one point User:Hkwon was blocked for a week for personal attacks [19], later reduced to 24 hours [20]. By the end of the last protecting, we still hadn't reached consensus; however, once the protection was removed, edit warring did not recommence--instead, the lead was changed to the majority view, and Hkwon requested assistance from the Mediation Cabal (the request for mediation has not been acted on yet, and can be seen here. For my part, at least, throughout the Kimchi debate, I found Hkwon's insistence on his version to be tendentious, but I also felt that he was providing solid, policy based reasons for his opinions along with reliable sources to support it. He didn't seem to be edit warring any more or less than other users. I further felt that he was no more incivil than other participants. During the same time frame, though, Hkwon was also involved in what I believe were heated discussions on other Korean related topics; I wasn't involved so I won't speak to his behavior there.

On July 22, however, Fut.Perf. posted on Hkwon's talk page [21] that s/he believed Hkwon had been "persistently disruptive" and "fuelling one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen." Then s/he stated that Hkwon was "indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat). If you make any edits about this topic, you will be blocked with no further warning." I am requesting community review of that "decision." According to WP:BAN, bans (both full bans and topic bans) can be only issued by community consensus, ArbCom (directly, or by uninvolved administrators in areas they have specifically delineated), Jimbo Wales, and the WMF. Therefore, I don't think Hkwon is actually banned, because I don't think Fut.Perf. has the authority to do so. User:Martin Hogbin and myself questioned FP about this "banning" on FP's talk page, both stating that we felt it was excessive; other users (User:Heimstern and User:Cydevil38) argued that if Hkwon deserved a topic ban, so did others, for employing the same basic behaviors. FP has so far stated that he believes his actions were right, that his experience with Korean topics leads him to believe strong administrator action is needed/justified, and that the burden is currently on Hkwon to "comment on the situation and explain how he plans to conduct himself more constructively in the future."

So, two questions: 1) Is Hkwon really topic banned (that is, does FP's comment have the force of policy), and 2) Is it appropriate for an administrator to act unilaterally in this fashion?

tl;dr:FP unilaterally claimed to topic ban Hkwon. Is this acceptable and legitimate? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I came as an uninvolved editor to the kimchi article as a result of the RfC. After a while of trying to mediate in a simple but intractable discussion on whether kimchi was 'a fermented food' I was staggered to find that the supporter on one particular view, Hkwon, had received an indefinite topic ban from Fut. perf. I commented on FP's talk page that I thought his action was too strong and later made this simple and positive suggestion to FP: 'Can I suggest that you lift the ban on Hkwon and allow the uninvolved editors to continue the mediation, with the strong suggestion that all the involved editors refrain from editing the article and on the understanding that if we get nowhere we can hand the topic back to you for tougher action'. This was rejected. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• This was recently discussed (can't seem to recall where), I believe the notion was generally disfavoured as it had too much potential for abuse. In general, my thoughts are that if the behaviour in question could justify an indefinite block, then the topic ban to prevent disruption is being offered to the user as a lesser measure. Haven't looked at this in any detail, so I can't say whether it would apply here. –xeno^talk 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disclosure - I was previously blocked by FPAS. I'm not otherwise involved. I believe that it is beyond FPAS's authority as an admin to topic ban an editor. Bans are to be imposed by the community or ArbCom, and an admin does not have that authority. Further, based on the fact that FPAS exceeded their authority as an admin, I believe that a subsequent block by FPAS would be ill-advised, and that either the community or another admin should handle the situation. I do not have any input on the conduct of any of the other parties in this matter, and am just commenting on the procedural issues. As far as I can tell, FPAS is otherwise a decent admin - there should in no way be any sanctions, just a friendly word of advice. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite it never having been written into policy, it's not too uncommon for admins to issue sanctions on their own, particularly is heated areas. Note that this proposed finding of fact which would have clearly asserted that admins do not have the authority to issue topic bans was firmly rejected by ArbCom. (The sanction under consideration was in fact confirmed by the community, but that doesn't seem to have factored into the voting.) My observation has been that single-admin-imposed sanctions of this sort are valid if the community is willing to enforce them. For my part, the edit warring I saw at Kimchi makes me believe there ought to be more, not fewer, sanctions here (maybe not of indefinite duration, but definitely for long enough that the article can have some rest. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

*Disclosure - I was also previously blocked by FutPerf and also have been the subject of a topic ban (topic ban was nothing to do with Futperf) I have found that while FurPerf is not as lenient as other Admins, his actions (including this one) have been spot on every time. This isn't about punishing various editors, neither is this about a content dispute - this is about making specific set of articles free from disruption. The editor in question has been recently blocked twice in a few weeks for actions related to these articles and each time comes straight back and continues with the disruption. I consider a topic ban to be far more effective and lenient than a number of consecutive blocks that slowly increase in duration, with periods of disruption between each block. My topic ban saved me from my own stupidity and saved me from a far longer block than I have ever had the dubious pleasure of experiencing, it also allowed me to edit unrelated articles and contribute to wikipedia on less controversial articles. I wish Hkwon good luck and have confidence in him making constructive edits, I just don't think that will ever happen if he edits these particular articles - if it isn't on the Kimchi article, it will on another Korean cuisine related article. This topic ban probably means that he is unable to edit about 0.01% of the articles on Wikipedia, not such a heavy price to pay for some stability on these articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This block does not affect just Hkwon. How is the issue now to be resolved? Hkwon is no longer able to put his side of the argument leaving the uninvolved editors who were trying to mediate hearing only one side of the story and thus unable to make any progress. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They can read the archives to find out what he has to say -- it's not like his opinion has been completely removed from the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's been around the Korea/Japan related topics knows Futper has done this in the past. The ban is harsh but Hkwon picked up right where he started even after his ban instead toning it down. The situation was such that several neutral editors, and even Sennen and myself(mortal enemies) were on the same page trying to reason Hkwon into a compromise about kimchi being "often/usually/primarily" fermented to no avail. I do think a stern admin warning would have sufficed but I can't say I'm surprised and it puts the rest of us on notice.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Administrators have no authority to issue topic bans without prior authorization (normally concerning a specific topic area) by the Arbitration Committee or the community. A policy proposal (by me) that would have given administrators such authority, WP:Discretionary sanctions, did not obtain consensus. Accordingly, topic bans without basis in an ArbCom or community decision are void and can be ignored. However, admins may and often do sanction disruptive conduct with blocks, and if an adninistrator determines that a user's editing in a topic area is consistently disruptive, they are free to either block the user or to warn them that a block will ensue if disruptive editing in that topic area continues. The practical difference between this and a formal topic ban is that edits within the scope of a topic ban need not be disruptive in order to trigger a block.  Sandstein  21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Sandstein that it seems to me Futper has applied WP:DIGWUREN reasoning to a topic area not addressed by ArbCom. There's also been a request to MedCab by Hkwon where the involved parties are welcome to comment there and I think any issue with Futper's actions should be brought here by Hkwon and not others. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Futper was strongly admonished and desysopped for 3 months about "displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard". Later Jimbo raised concerns along similar lines. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant here. That arbitration action doesn't say anything about issuing topic bans and Jimbo's concerns appear to be about FPAS performing administrative actions related to Greece/Macedonia not him being "incivil, rude, offensive and insulting." AniMate 00:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevancy is to the misuse of admin power, not the specifics. Futper has a history of doing things administratively that perhaps are not completely within the appropriate boundaries and this current incident would be another example. Note that there was also an RfC in 2008. This ANI revolves around inappropriate use of admin authority (by imposing a topic ban). As did the prior incidents even if the details differ. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A clarification to the above; I believe Melonbarmonster just misspoke, but Hkwon has not performed any editing since being banned. He did edit again after being blocked, and some of that editing was questionable. At least on kimchi, he did not, however, engage in any personal attacks, which is what he was blocked for. As with others above, I certainly believe Fut.Perf. can and should have warned Hkwon that his behavior was unacceptable, and that he was headed for a block (possibly even an escalating series of blocks). But banning is obviously far more harsh--it means that even should he make a good faith edit, everyone else can and should revert his edits without even reading them. Furthermore, the ban gives the appearance of being partial--it implies that the behavior of others in the topic area was acceptable, while Hkwon's was not, according to some arbitrary standard held by one administrator. In a sense, this topic ban is less readily reviewable by others than a block would be. I'll point out that while Fut.Perf. has posted on his own topic page that he wants Hkwon to account for his past behaviors and explain how he will fix them in the future, he hasn't notified Hkwon of this. If I and others hadn't brought this issue up, it must have appeared to Hkwon that he has no recourse to dispute this ban. Fut.Perf. implied that the law has been laid down, and that is the end of the discussion. Even a block has, built into the template itself, a means for disputing the block. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sanstein has it correct. There have been a number of administrators who've inferred the ability to individually topic ban problematic users: after all, if you have the ability to physically block an editor from editing anything, isn't a topic ban a lesser included power? Consensus has been that no, it's not, and that topic bans should be proposed and discussed appropriately. This was hashed out sometime in the middle of 2009, IIRC, so I have no idea why FP thought it appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• It has been longstanding practice, ever since the ad-hoc imposition of administrative emergency measures on Liancourt Rocks, that the specific field of Korean (and especially Korean-Japanese) disputes is under a de facto "discretionary sanctions" regime analogous to those of the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the like. We've had no formal Arbcom case stating such a rule, but given recent cases, there can be hardly any doubt that if the Korean-Japanese disputes were to be brought to Arbcom, exactly such a discretionary sanction rule (as is by now routine) would be formally passed. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it is only reasonable that we needn't wait for Arbcom to pass it. The amount of disruption on these articles is clearly comparable to that in other political hotspots. I have made such topic bans on several occasions in the past, and in each case that I can remember they have stuck and were upheld and sometimes enforced by other administrators. Best example I can remember was Bukubku (talk · contribs), who I topic-banned [22], and whose topic ban was confirmed on multiple occasions (appeal 1, (appeal 2) and further enforced by admins such as arbitrator Rlevse [23]. Of course, any such sanction is always open to review by the community, and if anybody wants to question this ban on its merits rather than on the formalities of how it was passed, I'm all ears. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the dispute over whether Kimchi is fermented is a Korea-Japan dispute. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds to me like you held Hkwon to a standard (that he should have treated Korean articles as if they were under Arbcom sanctions) he could not possibly have known about, since it's a standard you interpolated from past Arbcom decisions. Is that what you're saying? Or am I misunderstanding you? Like I mentioned, I didn't follow Hkwon on the other articles, so I can't say for certain if he deserved it, we can raise that later (although, perhaps Hkwon should do so). I am still worried that many people have posted here that you seem to be taking up a right to act that you don't actually have.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod. Futper: Put this before the community and get a community imposed discretionary sanctions regime put in place. Properly argued, I think such is a likely outcome and will improve matters. But I think you exceeded your authority absent that or absent clear ArbCom direction, even under IAR. Inferring such broad outcomes, even if you are right, arguably may not be sufficient. Don't do this again please. I'm not seeing a lot of defense for your view, and a pretty strong consensus against it. Take that on board and let that be that. (but undo what was done to Hkwon to return to status quo ante) ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't appear that he returned to edit warring over the lead and sought out mediation to help with the dispute. A topic ban is ridiculous and far beyond FP.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is highly revealing that Hkwon is not here arguing to have the topic ban removed, perhaps he sees the logic in it and thinks it is much better than a long term/indef block. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, whatever. Given the level of disagreement here, I obviously have to agree that the ban is moot, for now. This is a pity, because I still think it was objectively warranted, and as I said, such sanctions have been used to good effect in the past. I hope people will understand that I acted according to my best understanding of previous practice and implicit community consensus based on earlier cases. - For now, I have informed Hkwon that the ban is moot, but I have converted it into a one-week block (which was amply warranted based on both edit-warring and personal attacks immediately prior to my intervention the other day). This leaves me with the issue of where and how to initiate a formal community decision for the future. I think I won't bother asking for a legitimized community topic ban in this individual case, right now (it will just need to be handled with escalating blocks, the old-fashioned way). But I want the community to impose a general discretionary-sanctions regime on this topic area for the future, which would make measures like the one I attempted procedurally valid. Such discretionary sanction rules have been working well on other national hotspots, and if Arbcom can create them, obviously the community can do the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  That sounds punitive and not preventative. They haven't done anything since you issued the ban which was a few days ago and now you're going to turn around and block.--Crossmr (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Futper: The Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation was raised at WP:AN. It became its own subtopic, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Climate_Change due to the length and number of participants. My suggestion is to review the various sanction regimes, craft a proposal, and bring it to AN (not AN/I) and see how it goes. If the proposal was similar to previous ethnic/nationalistic ones and took on board issues and concerns that folk had raised, I expect it would go well. I certainly would support a properly crafted proposal. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sennen Goroshi

As a related matter, at this point, I'd have to support a block on him for harassment and stirring the pot. During the last dust-up with Hkwon, Sennen Goroshi was one of the two poking Hkwon until he ended up using some personal attacks. They've been at each other for quite some time. Also during the last go around he was told to stay off Hkwon's talk page [24]. This was made clear to him during the discussion. Since then, he went back to the page 3 times to needlessly post things that others could have posted [25], [26], [27], sennen was then warned not to bait by SarekofVulcan [28]. His messages here seem to be of the same vein and tone for which was warned and directed at the same user. He obviously hasn't gotten the point yet--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

and I will note these personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by him from Talk:Kimchi [29], [30], [31]--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, since being warned by an admin, I have not posted anything on Hkwon's talk page. In addition to that, I have commented on Hkwon's disregard of consensus, whilst not stooping to personal attacks at any time. Considering the blatant personal attacks made against me by Hkwon (which has was blocked for) I have been rather restrained in my comments. Baiting does not include making valid comments regarding another user's edits. There are no more problems between Hkwon and myself at this time, blocks are designed to protect Wikipedia - they are not designed to punish editors - blocking me from editing would serve no purpose whatsoever. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Bell possible Legal Language

Ok this is Technically not a WP:LEGAL, but this deserves wider attention. I recently edited heavens gate for Neutrality, and Found an Economist used as a source. I say ok thats odd and click the wikilink and come across a Spammy looking article. I check out the history and not to my surprise a single purpsose account created it. i checked and every thing that links to it was added by a different SPA, since i nommed it for AFD another single purpose account pops up and Votes Keep Twice! When it is struck out by another user Since somone can't vote twice a IP adress pops up and votes keep again. and says Do not delete my boss will be very upset! I will be contacting my lawyer to consider my options if this is deleted! Personally I am getting Fed up and now a Borderline Legal Threat. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Screw "borderline"; that is a legal threat. Threatening to bring in a lawyer is tantamount to threatening to sue, since both have the same purpose of intimidation. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention serious WP:COI issues. I've seen COI editors refer to "my boss" often enough that I've created the shortcut WP:MYBOSS. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 64.134.190.246 4 days (the remainder of the AFD) for making a legal threat. –MuZemike 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend as many eyes on that Afd as possible. There's lot of SPAs involved. Edward321 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana

User:Active Banana has engaged in overzealous editing over the last several days on the List of Annoying Orange episodes page. The revision history page shows four edits reverting to a description of a certain episode that was plagiarized. He also claimed that none of the edits deserved to stand because there was no reliable third party information- a threshold that, quite frankly, cannot be adhered to in this situation due to unique circumstances surrounding the article. This was explained to Active Banana on his talk page in great detail, and instead of responding he dismissed the legitimacy of the circumstances as my alleged unwillingness to follow policy. After I explained it to him again, he threatened me twice on my talk page. I did not appreciate his battle mentality nor did I appreciate his condescending attitude (which I noted as such), and I also did not appreciate the lack of good faith he showed in the edits I made. Placed here because I could not think of where else to put it. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the poster is referring to when talking about Plagiarism. I am unaware that any of the content on the page is taken from elsewhere and not appropriately cited. If there is such content on the page, I fully support removing it/citing it.

On other matters, after receiving a final warning about disruptive editing on my talk page on July 22 from User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered [32], the IP responded on my talk page with [33] oops that was a different IP posting in the middle of the conversation with this IP. Active Banana (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might blame that one on me- was a little concerned. (Obviously 78.whatever has some unresolved issues with you, Banana.) However, since you bring up disruptive editing, I noticed a blatant violation of 3RR extending from your eagerness to revert the edits for no legitimate reason. The points I raise are these.

1) The video in question features about as blatantly obvious a Lady Gaga parody as could possibly be. From the dress of the character to the video to there being a song that's a parody of "Bad Romance", it all fits the profile. It's common knowledge, not original research. 2) The video description is lifted word for word from the video itself. That's plagiarizing. If you're going to have a description, it really should be reworded as not to have it look like it was plagiarized. Which is why every other episode's description has been reworded. 3) The reason why I've said extenuating circumstances exist (as ActiveBanana has either not understood or refused to listen to) is because you may never get to 100% with reliable third party sources. This is a problem that exists on an overwhelming majority of episode lists. However, if you were to delete all of the episode lists based on that, you would do a disservice to the people who edit those pages and relay the information. My motives are based on having the free flow of information, not an unwillingness to follow policy, and I believe ActiveBanana is not only failing to assume good faith but engaging in unnecessary edit warring, battles, and an overall lousy attitude regarding something that quite frankly isn't worth the amount of trouble he's causing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If the contents initially inserted by other editors are copyright violations, adding "in a parody of Lady Gaga" doesn't fix that issue at all. And the fact that WP:OTHERCRAP exists in no way is an excuse to allow unsourced crap in yet another article. Active Banana (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You forget that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia that contains only content licensed under the Creative Commons-Sharealike license. –MuZemike 08:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're all missing the point here. The description of the video that was posted on the Wiki is the exact same that is on the video. That is plagiarism and it must be reworded. ActiveBanana keeps reverting calling OR and it doesn't apply here. He's dangerously close to another 3RR violation, from what I've seen, and he's also taken on a bully/battle mentality. He is not assuming good faith, he is not allowing for the free flow of information, and I have to start questioning whether this conduct is falling under WP:OWN as well. There is no reason why the information that he has removed from the page should not be listed. None. And I'm starting to wonder why nothing has been done to resolve this yet. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides, he's misinterpreting WP:OTHERCRAP. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I think you're misunderstanding what plagiarism is. Unless you can show that the text itself was copied from elsewhere, it's not plagiarism. Second, you're attempting to insert your own assumption (Lady Pasta = Lady Gaga parody) with no source to back it up. That's the definition of OR. So, without some sourcing, AB appears to be in the right here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbma again!

Tbma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again started his editing war in Battle of Tali-Ihantala already breaking 3rr violation this last hour. The goal of his behavior is to break down the article in to noconsistent rubbish.Posse72 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This user was already previously blocked for his attacks on me. This article has open NPOVN investigation, and my edits were adding information from more sources. User Posse72 continues to reverse my edits, and falsifies numbers from the references. --Tbma (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're reporting a 3RR violation, you should do so at WP:ANEW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Pls Check User:Tbma history, and compare with former user YMB29. Also dont forget user:Tbma a few days ago accused article Battle Tali-Ihantala being a hox and fake. This was investegated by WP:NPOVN who disregarded Tbma accusation as false.Posse72 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claim was removed from sock-puppet board. If you think that it should be re-opened - you might do it again. --Tbma (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

After I have read trough all of user:YMB29 postings i 200% she and Tbma is the same.Posse72 (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Then file an spi and stop arguing about it here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:hammy64000 - constant personal attacks, religious vilification, etc

On the 6th of July user:Hammy64000 was indefinitely blocked for harassment and personal attacks by user:SarekOfVulcan. After they were blocked, these personal attacks of an extremely abusive nature continued on their talk page as that is the only remaining place with editing privileges.see this edit after being blocked. They were then subsequently blocked from editing their talk page by the same administrator. However, on the 19th of July the administrator user:kaldari unblocked Hammy64000 without any visible discussions writing "user has pledged to edit cooperatively" on the log. Following the unexplained unblock I have made no contact with Hammy64000 knowing their abusive nature yet they have begun with adding false warning templates to my page. They were removed and they were reverted by Hammy64000. It should be noted that this followed once my page was semi-protected after vandalism by a series of anonymous IPs [34] and [35]. Something is not right here regarding the unblock with no retraction of the personal attacks and the continued intimidation through the abuse of warning templates. --Ari (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am preparing my response with diffs. I was blocked, it is true. But I am not continuing any offensive behavior. I discussed the block removal with another admin. by email, before Kaldari removed the block. He provided many diffs, which I researched. This was an email account of 'excirial'. I did not vandalize anyone and I never have done vandalizm since I started working here. About the warning template that I gave Ari, I don't know how it can be defined as false. First Sarek accused me of creating the template, but it was already created before I found it. [36] Also, I can provide many diffs which show countless warnings on my own page from Ari and SpigotMap when all I was doing was trying to oppose a merge without consensus. [37] I will provide diffs to show my edits and discussion during this time. I believe they were not disruptive. I know for a fact that at least one was doctored. The corresponding warning is here.[38] Here is the diff.[39] I never touched the Islam section. I believe this was changed to coincide with SpigotMap's warning. I believe this constitutes WP:GAME, [40]but it was never reported. I don't think the previous block should be part of this discussion if I am not going against Wikipedia standards at this time. I do object to Ari89 defining my "nature" as "abusive."I will provide diffs shortly.Hammy64000 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is not correct to say "they have begun adding templates." For one thing I am only one person. And I only gave him one and replaced it when he deleted it from his page. I have been trying to deal with this article all by myself. Ari89 does not respond. I did some research and found applicable policy guidelines. I thought I had a right to give him a warning on his page. I put it on the article page and that was a mistake. I did not replace it after Sarek deleted it. But please see the discussion on my talk page. [41] Sarek put the heading "Disruptive editing" which hasn't been determined. I changed it and he changed it back several times. This was at the same time that user:Moreno oso was informing me that Ari could do anything he wants with his own talk page. I did not replace Ari's warning after that. But user:Moreno oso then acted as though I was still deserving of a block. I don't think I am.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You continued the very vile harassment after you were blocked. Now that you are unblocked and I have made no contact with you the false templates begin.

I called your behaviour abusive because that is the persona you have demonstrably made known, especially noting the above.

Finding diffs of who knows what will not address my concerns - unless there is now a policy that says you can make unprovoked vile attacks such as you repeatedly calling me "a liar", "thief", "fraud", "refuse", "low-life" among many other things.[42] --Ari (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the offense I was blocked for. I have already said I expected to be blocked. I have already discussed this with an admin. and another admin. chose to unblock me. I have not repeated anything of the kind. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also please see the beginning of my contributions here. [43] I worked for weeks on the article with no working discussion page. Then on the same day I first heard from Ari he merged the article without consensus and without provided details about his objections, even though I asked for them. I think I was very patient in a trying situation. To define me as basically abusive is not true. You can only do that if you ignore all the other contributions.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammy64000, what made you think that User:Ari89 has a "conflict of interest" related to Miraculous births? I'm having a little trouble imagining what that would entail; does Ari89 get personal or financial benefit from such births? Normally, we don't 'template' people who already know the rules, but instead, we use personal notes to discuss our disagreements. Why did you decide to use a template, instead of simply asking Ari89 about your concern? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is possible, since he is a Christian and since he seemed to object to comparisons of mythological births with Christianity. Also the merge was extreme because of its abrupt nature and the newly merged article was immediately changed to add Judeo-Christian births at the top. The warning does not say I must prove it--but he does have reason to organize the article in this way. Also, conflict of interest does not require financial benefit. It has to do with neutrality. Please see the description. [44] In addition, I have done the majority of the discussion since the day of the merge. He tends to not respond. If he is saying he has had no contact with me because of the abusive language, this is not true. He didn't respond before this happened either. Please see the earticle discussion to see if I was ever able to discuss such things with him. Please see my attempt at a compromise here.[45]Hammy64000 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing you have correct about me above is that I am a Christian. You have made quite an issue of this fact, for example:

• "You are an embarrassment to christianity and a black eye for Wikipedia. You are completely off the wall and anyone can see it." -Hammy64000 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• "You are an abomination, a travesty of a human being and an embarrassment as a Christian." -Hammy64000 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• "I have tried to warn you about the bad reputation things like this give to Christianity, but you don't seem to care...You are just validating my concern about how degenerate Christianity has become. Truth and goodness is real. No matter how dark you are, it is real." --Hammy64000 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• "This is not the death toll of Christianity. That happened long ago. This is the faint echo of that tolling bell. If you are the face of Christianity, Ari, then Christianity has become rigid and perfectly hollow." --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a few reasons why I see you as an abusive editor.

On the issue of Abrahamic religions being at the top (the alphabet does start with A) and does that mean I am also a Muslim?

re me not responding to you, I did there at 11:38, 17 April 2010 which states: "I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here, Hammy64000." (not the direct reference to you)... --Ari (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy, having received answers to your questions to act as though you never received answers and do something drastic like merging an article. If you repeat the offense for which I was blocked over and over, and add a little more each time, it is still not a fresh instance. Again, all of my contributions should be taken into account. Ari did not do the merge properly. He made it look like I had no part in it. Here is Wnt's opinion:

Don't cancel your account just yet! Alright, it's obvious that I was wrong about this one. But you didn't help things by saying over and over that Ari "moved" the article - on Wikipedia, that's different than merging the article, which is what he did. And it's clear now looking at the last version of that article - which still does exist in the history - [4] and seeing your contributions in that article's history, that this is where you did do just about all the work that I thought he'd done. Wnt (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I'll add that the "manual merge" - which I should have caught in the article history - wasn't done up to the current standard for WP:copying within Wikipedia, which recommends that the source article be credited in the edit summary, and notes be added to the talk pages of the source and destination articles. Additionally, you could have reverted the proposed merge and requested discussion of it on the talk page (see Help:Merging). Wnt (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)"

I did revert the merge later--after Ari redirected it so you could not longer see the original. Then I was said to be edit warring.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy, none of what you have said is addressing my issue. Is that the WP policy that states that you have every right to personally attack me over and over without consequence? --Ari (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the request for an "unmerge" discussion. It was requested again after I was unblocked. While I was blocked Wnt and Ari had a short conversation and Ari redirected the article again so the original can't be seen.[46]

Also, here are links to diffs showing that Ari deleted the sources, which I provided at his insistence--at least twice.

"After the merge you put citation tags all through a sourced article. I provided additional sources even though I questioned the necessity. It started here. [47] My next 3 edits are added sources. In this one I said in the history that I had returned my library books but added a source from the library online catalog. [48] Then three edits involved my adding sources and removing your tags. You deleted my sources from the article, saying they were dubious. [49] I replaced them. You deleted them again. [50] The next several edits were my replacing the sources again. Here Wnt says the article is well sourced except the last paragraph. [51] I believe that was part of the original Miraculous births article. Hammy64000 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The offenses for which I was blocked were rude and I have never tried to make an excuse for them. I fully intended to never come back here again. But after I was blocked, the protection was removed on the virgin birth (mythology) article. I thought it was protected from Ari, but apparently it was protected from me. Also, I had a problem with SpigotMap's part in the block. He has been harassing me on my talk page since April and both he and Ari have threatened repeatedly to block me. For the block, SpigotMap then requested that Sarek of Vulcan block me. My argument for the unblock was based on policy violations involved in SpigotMap's conflict of interest. I said then and I'll say again, I expected to be blocked. I don't make any excuses for the attack that got me blocked. I'm only here now because this is all so wrong.Hammy64000 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked the diffs for April 13 and 14 because I got so many warnings on my talk page for those dates. On this one [52] it looks like I deleted material about Moses, etc. Please go to that diff and click "next edit." I never deleted any Christian or Judeo-Christian material. I did not wish to participate at all because of the animosity of the merge. All I did in those days was add sources because Ari said he was going to re-write and delete material. So I don't even know if my links above still go to the place where he deleted my sources. Then on the 19 is the diff where I apparently messed with the Islam part. I never did. I provided that diff above.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I clicked link 94 above that use to go to his deleted sources. Now it looks like he was "improving" the article by adding Egyptian material. Here is a version of the original material.[53] He did not improve this material. On the contrary, he threatened to delete it. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Miraculous births looked like before the merge.[54]Hammy64000 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to see changes to the revision history? If not, evidence for any dispute process would be impossible.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided the links to Ari's source deletions here [55] at 2:27 on July 3. At that time, these links showed his deletions of my sources.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The link to Virgin birth (mythology) is number 2 here.[56] I have it on my user page or else no one would be able to see it at all. Also, some of the discussion can only be found there.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It was here [57] that we had the following conversation about sources. It was at this time that Ari put citation requests all through the article and threatened to delete material.

Ari, you requested citations for the Egyptian article and I provided them. Now you have marked that they need page numbers. That is a bogus way to justify your re-write. Anyone here? Why does this person think he can do this? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC) You may not know this, but quotes and ideas attributed to a book that are not the main thesis require page numbers. This is basic referencing, and not a conspiracy theory. Once again, calm down and think for a minute before ranting. --Ari (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The conspiracy theory comment is beyond old. Why do you keep saying it? Do you think it makes me look bad, because I'm not the one who is having a meltdown here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I told Ari on the article history page that I returned my library books and so he is asking for page numbers to justify changing the article without discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hammy64000 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Hammy64000 (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000, once again you are not addressing the issue with your extensive monologue. Complaining about a content dispute when the issue is your abusive behaviour is obvious side stepping of the issue. --Ari (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting clarification. Was I brought here because you object to the unblock, or because I recently put a template on your talk page? Also, I would like to request links to the vandalism you mentioned taking place on your talk page. The two links you provided are not anonymous IP's. Also, they were not vandalism. It has been suggested that some sort of vandalism is connected with this ANI and I think it needs to be cleared up. Thanks.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand

Neither of you two comment here please, you're both just arguing back and forth and nothing is really coming of it. I am therefore requesting this section be reserved for comment by an uninvolved administrator, as that is the only way this is going to go anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Those large chunks of varying indents is actually just Hammy64000 arguing with himself which seems to obscure the actual issue. I have set it outin my few posts having provided diffs and extracts to quite vile abuse. I will respond to requests for more from the backlog but hopefully this will be all from me. --Ari (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Ari (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What did I just ask? This section is reserved for an uninvolved admin, or other uninvolved admins to make comment. It is not for you to continue the argument above with a snipe at the other editor. Please leave it be.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, speaking as an uninvolved Admin who has waded thru the above, I have to ask: is there anything here that can't be solved by requiring both editors to avoid one another? (And on a related note, someone ought to create a template which produces the following output: "There are {{Numberofarticles}} on Wikipedia for people to improve, so it should be easy both of you to avoid one another. If one or both of you can't do this, we can always block both of you until at least one of you learns how to do this." This seems to be the first solution for many issues presented here.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari89 on above

Thankyou for the input, llywrch. Avoiding Hammy64000 has been my response for quite some time, however, he continued to post personal abuse against myself on other user pages including his own. Even above I have made clear that I am not going to engage in an off topic content dispute despite their numerous posts/copy/pastes above. Hammy was eventually indefinite blocked for this abusive behaviour. He was subsequently unblocked without any retraction of these personal attacks. I intentionally made no contact with Hammy64000 since his block, yet the other day he started harassing me with false warning templates which he also reverted after I removed them. This was the last straw - I quite forcefully asked him to not post on my user page again and came straight to this noticeboard. Threatening to ban me unless I do exactly what I have been doing doesn't sound like a solution. Maybe asking him to stop the personal attacks and posting on my user talk page would be better. I certainly have no intention to make contact with him on his talkpage after the vile abuse I have received so my reciprocation is without question. --Ari (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000

I will be happy to avoid Ari89 in the future. When you suggest that we have no further contact are you saying I should give up on this article? That is what will have to happen. It seems a little disingenuous for him to treat his current avoidance of me as a virtue. Recently, I have been trying to find a way to stop the stonewalling on the Miraculous births discussion. He has been asked by another administrator to discuss an unmerge, but I get no response.[58][59] That is the reason for the template. It was not a false warning template. He should not keep saying this. His response was this ANI.

I have not been told whether I am here because I was unblocked against his wishes, or because of the template. My understanding is that it was the template. This seems obvious on my talk page. But "continued abuse" is all I hear. The template was not abuse. It seems this would have to be made clear for this discussion to make sense. But I see we will never be able to work together. I won't approach him again for any reason.Hammy64000 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at your links to the vandalism. The IP addresses, 77.31.85.207, 213.146.172.146 are not mine. This one [60] looks like Morenooso did it. He says he's reverting, but look at the actual revision. Why did you say, "It should be noted that this followed once my page was semi-protected after vandalism by a series of anonymous IPs.." Why should that be noted here, Ari? That is not even my style. And the swearing...If nothing else, the premise of my arguments, my writing style, should have told you something about me as a person. You never had a sense of me at all, which is just sad.Hammy64000 (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear in my initial post - your harassment which is not limited to personal attacks and the resurgence with unprovoked false warning templates. But I guess this settles it. If you are prepared to:

1. Leave my talk page alone (e.g. personal attacks, false warning templates) unless there is a legitimate reason and you act civilly. I will obviously reciprocate.
2. Not make any more personal attacks or derogatory religious comments about myself or other editors. This includes your own talk page such as you did here among other occasions, other user pages and article talk pages.

In essence, just a call for you to adhere to wp:NPA and wp:civil in contrary to your past behaviour. Then hopefully the past will stay behind us. --Ari (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking to Daedalus and IIywrch. I think it would be more appropriate for them to sum this up.

I see this will never go anywhere and that is why I said I will stay away from you--not because I agree with anything I have seen from you in the past. You seem to want to talk about an offense for which I was already blocked. How is this relevant to the template which led to this ANI or to your actions since the first day I saw you? And editors have a right to give you warning templates on your talk page. You have deleted such warnings from other editors too. I have said the template was not abuse and not intended as abuse and it is as though I have said nothing. Further I can document repeated requests from me since April 13 that you stop leaving warnings on my talk page and you flatly refused.

I will stay away from you, but you speak as though we will go on to collaborate. You know you will avoid this as you have been doing. Of course, you don't have to warn me to stay off the article because all you have to do is stonewall and revert changes as you have been doing.

I will stay away from you, but your pretense of good faith should not go unchallenged. Hammy64000 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And I must say something about your heading "Religious vilification". All that anyone can know for certain is that you claim you are a Christian. In truth, I have a great deal of respect for Christianity. It is you I have issues with. In order to pull off your claim that I have vilified your religion--which you have stated as a fact without knowing anything about me--you would actually have to be a Christian or even a religious person--rather than just say you are. But is this possible to prove on Wikipedia? It is like saying you drive an expensive car. Talk is a lot cheaper than the car. All that can really be seen and so all that really matters is the relevance and fairness of your editing practices. I am just amazed at your claims to some kind of precious position here.Hammy64000 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IMOS and its application

Can an administrator please take a look at McKownville, New York regarding the issue of having County Londonderry mentioned, originally the dispute was over having the word linked to the city of Derry which IMOS does say must be referred to as Derry and not Londonderry, but the county is to be called Londonderry. When I brought the issue to the WP:Village pump the issue was split 3-2 in favor of changing the link to the county to keep the name Londonderry as the source mentioned it and as the place would have been named in that time period. This was not acceptable to some and now they have removed all all together. After being repeatedly made fun of I replied that I would not argue but would rather this go to the next level of dispute resolution, they refused and have decided to continue to edit out Londonderry (simply changing to Derry was originally what they wanted until a compromise ruined that and now they want it completely removed). I will abide by whatever a fair and impartial consensus (ie- not a giant spam attack on this page of COI editors who work on IMOS related issues) no matter what side is done, I simply think an impartial view needs to be done.Camelbinky (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did warn Camelbinky about WP:BOOMERANG before they chose to post here. The issue is whether a guideline should be followed, and Camelbinky's ownership problems, failure to assume good faith and abusive attitude. Comments such as "this is not an article about Ireland in any way, please stick to messing up Irish articles since that is what you know", "for someone who is so concerned about "comment on content not the editor" you are surely a hypocrite" (for the record I never said "comment on content not the editor" either), "You are a disruptive POV pusher and I do not have to respond or engage in debate with you because of that" (and "But that brings you here with a COI that is hard to ignore" and "This discussion is over, the dispute is not resolved in your favor"), "The whole purpose of some editors here is simply to remove from Wikipedia the word Londonderry and not to improve this article" speak for themselves. This is essentially a content dispute, no admin action is needed. O Fenian (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I asked that this be brought forth for content dispute resolution and that offer was declined. Taking my words out of context of what I said around them and from what O Fenian said to provoke the words in the first place is ridiculous and another example of those brought to AN/I having the thought process of "bloody the witness", boomerang is simply an essay that those with that philosophy use to try and legitimize that tactic. It is scummy when a defense attorney does it in a rape case it is scummy when it is done here. I suggest if others want to make my reactions and comments an issue that a new thread be made just for that and Ill take whatever punishment is decided by consensus. However I do not think that should muddy the waters about O Fenian's continued crusade across Wikipedia, to which he was warned previously about not doing, this is disruptive and violates common sense.Camelbinky (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its worth noting for any person not familiar with the various naming issues on Irish matters, that the Derry for the City, Londonderry for the County is one of the few stable areas in a difficult area. I can't see, and I have no recollection in several years of any warning to O Fenian in respect of any wikiwide campaign to remove Londonderry, so that needs to be supported by a dif or withdrawn. I also note that Camelbinky properly notified the editors involved of this ANI thread, but also chose to notify one and only one other editor namely a SPA who takes a consistent strong Unionist position. The detective work to discover that name could as well have discovered the names of 4/5 admins with experience of this area whose invitation would have helped gain a neutral perspective. --Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear case of a spoiled child throwing their toys out of the pram. Why oh why didn't Camelbinky engage in the discussion that I started on the talk page rather than first running off to the Village Pump and then here. Complete waste of Admin time. Bjmullan (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More insults. And regarding warning there is on their talk page right above my post informing about the AN/I!!! So no warning about a campaign of Londonderry to Derry?! Whatever. Talking to Bjmullen is Bj telling me what to do and if I dont do it he resorts to insults and snipping at me. He has a COI and is a POV pusher.Camelbinky (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-3 to Bjmullan (talk · contribs) for WP:NPA. Please resume your bickering politely. Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So it's fine to call someone a COI and a POV pusher without reprimand but to compare someone's actions to the behaviour of a child constitutes a warning. What about assume good faith? Produce evidence of your claim or take it back. Bjmullan (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has been warned about edit warring, WP:POINT and WP:Battle as well. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And I brought Toddst1 to the Wikiquette noticeboard for his continued actions. If Todd is going to accuse me only of those things and not the other party then obviously there's an issue. This is not the first time Todd has accused me of this, whenever I am a party to something Todd shows up to accuse me of the same thing. Can someone without a COI please comment? Warnings from someone with a COI are unacceptable and I suggest Todd stay away from commenting on things that are about editors he has had bad dealings with in the past.Camelbinky (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick to bring others to book... but what about your unfounded accusations against me. There is a saying "put up or shut up". Bjmullan (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is continuing on the page. Mo ainm (talk · contribs) warned and LevenBoy (talk · contribs) blocked (has had numerous BI EW warnings and was canvassed to this thread). Toddst1 (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden

I am leaving this message here out of concern that a potential problem relating to the ongoing rfc for Blablaaa (talk · contribs) may balloon to the point that an admin may be needed, but in the interest of transparency the matter I can not handle the matter since I am one of a number of the current admins and coordinators of the military project presently involved in the above mentioned rfc.

My concern relates to the behavior of one Caden (talk · contribs), who over the last few days seems to have tried very hard to inflame not just those opposing Blablaaa in the rfc but also Blablaaa himself (interpreted by me from this discussion here, where Caden appears to canvass a little until Blablaa asks him to stop). From where I sit on the matter, the behavior exhibited by Caden could be interpreted any number of ways from unsound advise given in good faith to disruptive editing.

Over the past 48 hours Caden has alleged that a so called conspiracy exists, and has openly rather unsubtly called several different editors out his RFC post (full details), and has singled out both EyeSerene (talk · contribs) (see banned editors link for details) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) out as problematic editors (against ed), even going so far as to defend a banned editor by claiming he was a victim of EyeSerene's abuse of admin privileges.

Certainly I feel that the matter is explosive enough without his two cents, and that is why I am asking for an outside opinion on the matter. I do not believe Caden is acting for anyone's good, I think he is capitalizing on the situation to maneuver a couple of people around so he can further his position that we are all involved in some kind of conspiracy. As I noted above, I'm involved, so I recuse myself from taking an official action, but (and I believe I speak for everyone at the this point) an outside opinion on the matter would at this point be greatly appreciated. At the very least, we must protect Blablaaa from Caden's influence to ensure that the RFC currently running on him remains doesn't collapse into conspiracy theories. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My relevant contribution here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa#An annoyed and slightly off-topic second outside view by The ed17. I regret showing so much of my annoyance in that post, but the overall sentiment is (I hope) clear. Caden's use of these unfounded, baseless, and quite offending accusations without any sort of evidence has gone on for too long. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Caden means well. My impression of him is that he's younger and holds the moral absolutes of the young. When it comes to anything remotely political, he's right and everyone who disagrees with his position is part of a (gay or liberal or anti-German) conspiracy. He does quite well when he's editing music or model articles, but he gets really easily worked up when he edits articles that are political (for lack of a better term). He's been topic banned from articles in regards to sexuality before, and he's managed to stay away from those since it expired. I'm not familiar with this situation, but he's a fine editor when he's not emotionally invested in the topic. AniMate 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let it be then, however the others may have different opinions on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just giving background. If he's as disruptive as you say, another topic ban might get him back to editing productively. AniMate 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly hesitant about posting here, but thank you AinMate for your advice. I must admit I'm starting to wonder if I've run over Caden's cat or something; it's quite disconcerting when an editor I've never encountered before turns out to be able to dismiss four years' work here as POV pushing and admin abuse using only their logic and common sense. However, I certainly don't feel any need to defend myself against Kurfurst's lunatic notions - his record speaks for itself, he remains indefblocked and Wikipedia's a better place for his absence. If certain editors feel that citing him as evidence will improve their case that's their decision, though it's not one I would be making in their position. It is disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, to see the RfC/U being used as a vehicle for unsubstantiated personal attacks and daft conspiracy theories, but I'm still hoping something worthwhile will come of it all. Stranger things have happened :) EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I actually don't know a lot about Caden, but on his allegations of a conspiracy: As I pointed out here (which EyeSerene responded to here), there is some funny (as in bad funny) activity going on by the group against Blablaaa. No administrative misconduct by Eyeserene that I've seen but the understanding of WP:SYNTH is not what I would expect of an admin (see EyeSerene's response for details). People here might be surprised at what EyeSerene considered forumshopping (EyeSerene admitted in the above response that Blablaaa really wasn't forumshopping at that point): Blablaa raises an issue about a WWII battle at a talkpage where people disagree, discusses it a bit at the disagreeing people's user talk pages, then raises it at WP:MILHIST. EyeSerene argued that when Blablaa raised the issue at WP:MILHIST it was forumshopping - that is, the first attempt to seek uninvolved help in a dispute was forumshopping. This has to raise eyebrows and suggests that EyeSerene may not be the best person to be issuing unilateral blocks for disruptive editing. EyeSerene has a decently nice internet tone and seems willing to admit mistakes, and I do think everyone involved will be able to work it out, but I felt compelled to mention this because I think these interpretations of policy are off and I think it can be helpful to discuss policy clarifications. I strongly suspect the editor EyeSerene blocked in question was disruptive, but there's some overall behavior in regard to British-German WWII battles that suggests to me that there is a pro-British spin on the articles. Considering we are the English Wikipedia, it's not all that surprising, but potential English bias also an obvious blind spot that we can watch for. And it's not like admitting that the Germans might have had a good battle or destroyed a few extra tanks is supportive of Nazis or anything either. II | (t - c) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

II, might I ask for some diffs of this alleged pro-British/Allied bias? Yourself, Blablaaa and Caden have stated this numerous times, but I've yet to see any diffs to back this up; you yourself have said several times that you haven't look deeply into the matter (ie Kurfurst and the potential area of bias). Do you have any evidence of this please? It would be interesting to see if there is such a bias, and what could be done to correct it. Skinny87 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I had a response here but I guess it didn't end up being submitted. Did you read my RfC, where I documented fairly clearly a case where original research was clearly used to support a more favorable interpretation of a certain battle, yet nobody supported Blablaaa in the effort. Blablaaa recently brought my attention to the Battle of Jutland which, I think, is a similar case - Blablaaa presents 90 sources with quotes which call the battle a tactical victory for the Germans and a strategic victory for the English, yet there's no budging from the status quo of "tactical inconclusive" except for a single editor. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I respectfully add that although you've made quite a serious charge about my interpretation of a fundamental article writing policy at the RfC and again here, you haven't actually explained anywhere why you think I don't understand WP:SYNTH. I gave you a full explanation of why I believe your take on the policy is not entirely correct in this case and is out of step with good article-writing practice. I'd be very interested to hear exactly what your understanding of WP:SYNTH is and why you think I'm mistaken. Obviously ANI is probably not the best place for this, so I'd be happy to take it somewhere more appropriate. However, I do appreciate that you've indicated elsewhere that you don't have the time to endlessly debate this, so if you'd prefer to spend your time doing something more productive I completely understand. EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining and I appreciate that you have remained calm in spite of what could some editors in this emotionally-charged website would view as personal attacks. The honest truth is that I was hoping you would revise your explanation of SYNTH/OR, since your major argument was apparently that since the OR was not used "to advance a position" and it occurred in the lead, it was acceptable. Let me know if you think I've just set up a straw man there. I added my response on why I don't think that makes sense. Summarizing my response for anyone viewing here, I think you need to keep in mind that every sentence in Wikipedia articlespace advances a position, even if the position is a simple fact. The lead actually needs be more directly supported by the sources, not less, regardless of what you've experienced. This makes sense because introducing misleading or original facts (which don't come from actual scholars directly) into the lead is very dangerous - it can seriously confuse the factual record on a topic. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read your response at the RfC. I'll reply there because I think this is going beyond the scope of ANI. However, from your post there (and above) I think we may be more in agreement that it first appeared. Thank you for taking the time on this, EyeSerene^talk 08:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been systematically removing citations to Media Matters (a media watchdog organization) from multiple (seemingly random) articles, and replacing them with citation needed tags. (See: [61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77] and many more too numerous to list.) He continues to do so even after several users have pointed out that his interpretation of policy on this issue is incorrect, and that he should stop. (e.g. [78], [79], [80].)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling argues that Media Matters is not a reliable source, and that the articles linked to violate WP:LINKVIO. Media Matters has been discussed on WP:RS/N several times (e.g. [81][82], [83] are the last 3 discussions), and the conclusion is that while it may be a partisan news organization, but it is still a reliable source, and can be cited the same way as other partisan sources, like for example, Fox News. Also, a reading of the policy 'Linking to copyrighted works' shows that it does not apply, as WP:LINKVIO forbids the linking to external Web sites that carry a work in violation of the creator's copyright. Media Matters is a well known, established organization in the US that carries video excerpts in accordance with 'fair use' laws, if they were systematically violating copyright law, it would have been sued by now. Also, the weblink can be removed if it violates WP:LINKVIO, but the reference itself should be retained.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been polite about it, but he has been ignoring opposition to his systematic actions, and reverting people who undo his removal of these citations, demanding that those who oppose his actions justify themselves on the talk page of the respective articles. (e.g. [84], [85], [86].)

I stumbled across his actions when he removed this perfectly good citation [87] from an article I helped create, and reverted me when I undid his removal.

What I would like to see is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agreeing to stop removal of links to Media Matters, and stop reverting people who undo his removals. Finally, if consensus can be reached that Media Matters is a reliable source, I would like him to undo all his removals, as he has created a huge amount of cleanup work for people to do (but this may be asking a bit much). --LK (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MMFA is good for a secondary source for things already covered by the MSM. After reviewing the edits above, I would question the inclusion of a lot of the material. That being said, simply deleting MMFA while doing nothing with content is indeed disruptive and serves no purpose. This needs to stop. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is extensively used by non-partisan information outlets like NPR (indeed, their On The Media show frequently uses them). They are with out a doubt a WP:RS. Removing them whole sale and placing citation needed tags is disruptive and pointy -- ۩ Mask 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America is an openly partisan source that is unfortunately used in place of journalistic sources more frequently that it proper. That being said, I agree that simply removing the citations with no apparent effort to locate other sources or otherwise mitigate the holes left by the removal is disruptive. --Allen3 ^talk 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LK's claims are inaccurate. I have responded here to his efforts to keep an MMfA ref that disparages someone as a means to support the claim that people burn money. As to my other MMfA, almost none of them have been reverted because they are proper. Further, I do not remove all MMfA refs. Indeed in one case I even improved the ref by adding an author. I hope people will support me in applying Wikipedia policy and perhaps join me.

As to removing the refs and adding Citation tags, that is not inherently evil. Am I supposed to buy a subscription to Lexis/Nexis and source everything? Am I not allowed to comply with Wiki policy? The alternative is to remove the ref and the associated text. I see people do that and I don't like that. I choose not to do that. My purpose is not to eliminate things in the text, rather it is to ensure proper RSs are used.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am aware that people are using the Citation tags to properly source the information. In one case, for example, I can't put my finger on it, someone added a NYT ref where I had removed the MMfA ref. So the Citation tag is working exactly as it was designed to work. Wikipedia works to allow people to work together to improve articles. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your appeal to policy is undermined by the fact that your interpretation of policy has been challenged. Your appeal for cooperation is undermined by your use of reverts. Even if you are 100% sure that you're right, you should still be able to step back and understand these problems. Melchoir (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The challenges made are based on either ad hominem argument or on the irrelevant claim that other MMfA refs have been found to be RSs. No one has yet gone to the specific context as required by RS.

As to my use of reverts, you are joking, right? I make an edit and specify exactly why I made the edit and include specific Wiki rules, a very few revert me with either no comment or a comment that has nothing to do with the RS/LINKVIO concerns, so I revert that, and suddenly I'm the bad guy for reverting a revert? Where's the WP:AGF in that?

I totally understand that some people are opposed to removing MMfA refs. But WP:RS is what necessitates the removals, not me. The only reason why my ensuring compliance with WP:RS is problematic to some is that I have applied the policy on numerous pages. Nevermind that MMfA refs in the hundreds are used all over Wikipedia inappropriately, as Allen3 generally agreed above. Suddenly I'm the bad guy for making a small dent in the removal of the non-RSs.

Look at the specific page about which LK complained, Burning money. Look in Talk. Look at the discussion I am having there. Tell me specifically why the MMfA ref on that page is a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have dedicated a large part of your time over the last 2 months to removing MMfa sourcing, I suggest that you self revert and argue each removal in turn. You have been told on numerous occasions that your interpretation of WP:RS seems to be counter the consensus interpretation, notably around May 3rd. You could have saved yourself alot of time and effort if you had started by searching through the WP:RSN archives. They are, at the very least, a source which can be used with particular attribution. Unomi (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a perfectly clear and consistent case of subversive editing.--Wetman (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wetman, on the page you reverted, explain how MMfA is a reliable source for Institute for Energy Research funding coming from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Don't just ignore WP:AGF. Is MMfA a RS for anything and everything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I am acting in compliance with Wiki policy. Most of my edits have not been reverted, almost all, that is. Why? Likely because the other editors agreed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though everyone who has commented on this thread agrees that his actions are inappropriate, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling continues to remove Media Matters citations, and to argue with and revert users who disagree with those removals. A short preventive block might be in order. LK (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

One guy, Badger_Drink, is reverted all my edits claiming it is "vandalism".

And LK, to this point people are saying MMfA is generally a RS but no one, not a single person, has addressed the specific issues on any page. It's as if they know they have no legitimate substantive argument so they say things ad hominem in nature like "A short preventive block might be in order."

I am beginning to sense that the MMfA supporters care more about MMfA than about WP:RS or WP:LINKVIO.

I will need to get help with this as restoring non-WP:RS en masse is a serious problem. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just reverted Badger Drink's restoration of an MMfA ref saying, "rmv disputed statement - only "source" was a copy of the cnn show, posted on some other site, with no additional commentary. does no-one understand notability anymore? So I see WP:NOTE may be another relevant issue as edits like this one are all over Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a preventative measure User:Badger Drink should be blocked for disruption - that user has mass reverted all the removals of MM as a source, but has failed to examine each case, leaving some very poor "sourcing" in this encyclopedia. BDs behaviour is nothing more than edit warring that will eventually have to be undone. Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a proactive measure, you should soak your head. If a stopped clock was right twice in a day, we don't start getting in a self-righteous huff over a clockmaker fixing it. That's not to say the edits in question by LaEC were correct, either - see below. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-application of WP:TROUT

Just want to chime in with a vicious self-scolding. Badger, edit summaries like this are not helpful. Apologies to any and all who took offense. Badger Drink (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just loooked at your latest contribution, which was rubbish.[88] If you don't understand basic policy you certainly shouldn't be going on any ill-advised reversion crusades. I've removed the passage you tried so hard to keep in, because it is poorly sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? Wikipedia statement which you removed: "Arthur Laffer made [a statement] on CNN". Media Matters link: "Economist Laffer [makes same statement] on CNN", complete with fucking video of him fucking saying it on fucking CNN! Honestly now, you're being beyond tendentious. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your second last contribution, which was rubbish.[89] You warred to have this "source" remain despite it not supporting the statement it is there to support. Weakopedia (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you, of all participants in this discussion, should use the word "rubbish"... Badger Drink (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is the best you can resort to, then you shouldn't be editing here, full stop. While you are adding non BLP compliant material to BLPs, you will be reverted automatically. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the "shotgun approach" to discussion in the hopes something will stick - yawn. Are you really this stupid, or do you just assume that everyone else is too stupid to see your edits here for what they are? Anyway, let me know how the air on that lofty mountain of yours is. Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you stop replying please and leave the issue in question for other editors to evaluate first. It'll drop the unnecessarily high temperature of this thread a little. sonia^♫♪ 09:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's participation at WP:RS/N

I have just realized that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling knew full well that he was systematically removing reliable sources against the consensus at WP:RS/N. As these links show,[90],[91],[92],[93] he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him. And yet he decided to systematically remove Media Matters citations even against consensus. This makes his behavior much less acceptable than I had previously thought it to be. I strongly support an indefinite block unless he agrees to reverse all his removals of these citations, and to not remove Media Matters citations in the future. LK (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him.

What are you characterizing as "Consensus" from those RS/N discussion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only concensus that I ever see from those discussions is a concensus from those in favor of MMfA saying that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to treat MRC/Newsbusters and MMfA as two sides of the same coin. Until ideological editors agree that they should and must be treated equally these type of partisan battles will NEVER end. As long as one side feels that the other sides is getting preferential treatment there will continue to be edit wars. Unfortunately I don't see any give on the MMfA side. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just read through the 3 (the 4th is a repeat of the 1st) diffs cited by LK, above. I see no consensus. If I can draw a mood from them considered as a whole, it is this: Cite MMfA's opinion rarely, only if their opinion is somehow relevant to the article. Cite them for facts only if the original source is unavailable. I, of course, haven't looked at each of LaEC's edits but I've examined quite a few including this sequence:

[94] American Family Association 13 June 2009

[95] American Family Association 11 March 2010

[96] American Family Association 11 March 2010

[97] American Family Association 6 April 2010

[98] American Family Association 6 April 2010

[99] American Family Association 25 May 2010

[100] American Family Association 27 May 2010

and see nothing wrong with this. Or any other edits. Have I missed something? Anthony (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

It's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive editing through mass removal of citations without discussion and against consensus. This constitutes tendentious editing, disruptive cite-tagging and a rejection of community input, all classic signs of disruptive editing. He has continued to do so even after this discussion began. He has a lengthy history of previous blocks, including one indefinite block for legal threats (since rescinded). Given this continuous and lengthy pattern of disruptive behaviour, it's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling hasn't learned anything from his previous blocks. I therefore propose an indefinite block of this editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: Since it seems to have caused some confusion, please note that I'm proposing an indefinite block here, not an infinite one. If LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is willing to agree not to continue such actions, he should be allowed to continue editing, but without such an assurance a block becomes necessary as a preventative measure. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reject Examination of the history shows many articles where MediaMatters was being used inappropriately. Those who are blindly reverting all removals of MM as a source should be blocked, as they are in many cases simply reintroducing inadequate, or even misrepresentative sourcing to articles, just to make a point. Weakopedia (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Bold>Revert>Discuss doesn't work if the person being bold refuses to actually discuss. The previous discussions where consensus in re: MMfA was formed were provided to LaEC, who chose instead to ignore it and insist that somehow they were right in the face of a multitude of editors suggesting the exact opposite. Indefinite need not necessarily be infinite, but given LaEC's past history, I would suggest that he would truly need to display that he understands that he went about this in entirely the wrong fashion and is prepared to make a serious endeavour to mend his ways before the block is lifted. Badger Drink (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support or possibly Restrict. If LaeC had really been removing dubious sources from articles, then in examples like CIA leak scandal timeline he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA. But he left all of those in. Thus, it has to be described as nothing more than political POV-pushing. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA.

I don't recall that specific descriptive being used (do you have a quote or two?) nor your paraphrase summary of recent RS/N discussions related to World Net Daily. Being that as it may, MMfA is being recognized (finally I might add) for what it is...and its RS status, unfettered by any other consideration, appears to now be history in Wikipedia. MMfA is a hyper-partisan source and its ubiquitous presence in this Wikipedia medium should give ANYONE pause. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you reach that conclusion? Mainstream media outlets routinely source or credit MMfA in their stories. A google news search will show you recent items by CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, NY Dailyt times - all referencing MMfA. Please see WP:YESPOV and understand that we are to reflect what might seem to you the apparent liberal bias of reality. Unomi (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is misplaced. In the examples you cite, substantive third-party sourcing can validate MMfA content just as RS third-party can validate WND, MRC, etc etc. But you place the NPOV cart before the WP:V/WP:UNDUE horse. NPOV relates to the balanced presentation of content, not to the POV of the source itself (which you appear to wrongly suggest I'm asserting). Like all hyper-partisan content from either wing, reliable third-party sourcing is mandated by WP:V/WP:UNDUE.JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When you take in to use language like 'hyper-partisan' I was compelled to believe that you were arguing from the context of POV. You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan. News outlets routinely reference MMfA, this is not the case with the others you mention. From the ES' of LaEC in his numerous (~50+) removals he argued from the position of an imperfect grasp of WP:RS and how MMfA can in fact be used - albeit with particular attribution in contentious areas subject to editor discretion. He had been informed of this months ago, but continued with IDHT removals, that is why we are here. Unomi (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The MRC is also referenced by news outlets. It's a no-brainer that the left-leaning news outlets are going to reference MMfA more often than they reference the MRC. Drrll (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan.

Your opinion is simply not shared anymore by generally half of the participants in the most recent RS/N's on the subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Unomi (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not to the satisfaction of one who apparently holds MMfA as a breed apart from the hyper-partisan crowd. But you could start here.. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you misunderstood what I meant then, it is not a matter of their perceived political leanings, they could be equidistant from the center as perfectly as one could want, and they would still not be equivalent, that very archive spells that out with the citations in mainstream sources, the Columbia Review of Journalism article and the quality of the editors involved in MMaF and MRC respectively. Unomi (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite...can't say it any better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite and Badger Drink, not necessarily infinite, but we need to break through the IDHT once and for all. Unomi (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: LaeC is looking for instances where MMfA is used inappropriately, and finding them. In some, few. instances, other editors disagree. Nothing wrong with any of that. LaeC does need to be admonished for ignoring WP:BRD. That's all. Anything else is an overreaction and smacks of "I don't like you." Anthony (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not true. As the discussion on the talk pages of many of these articles show, consensus is that the removed citations were perfectly fine. LK (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can you show me a couple of examples, please? Anthony (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: ChrisO, how far back in history do you want to go to skewer me? Don't people change? Have I done anything recently/currently to deserve a legitimate block, other than people doing what you are attempting to do, namely, use procedural means to avoid substantive discussion? Not a single person supporting the block has ever, not once, addressed any substantive issue relating to this matter. Indeed, before the en masse reverts made with ad hominem history comments without substance, most editors left my edits in place. The community accepted them. Look, here is the one and only instance where a person actually discussed substantive issues with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_money#Media_matters and when I responded, he politely bowed out. Blocking me will not solve the problem, but I will admit it will probably make you feel really good. What will solve the problem is the proper application of WP:RS, not the blocking of the person applying it. And no one told me this was going on here? What a disgrace. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You were informed of this AN/I thread here and you've already participated in it, so you have nothing to complain about on that score. If you believe that MMFA is generally not a reliable source then you need to raise that at WP:RSN, not unilaterally attempt to purge it from Wikipedia against the complaints of other editors. You've caused a substantial amount of disruption and damage in the meantime, and that needs to stop. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I was not informed of this effort to block me, indefinitely, no less. It was you who said on my Talk page, "Please cease mass-removing citations without discussion. You are likely to find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)" By that time I had stopped. Yet here you are yourself seeking to blocking me indefinitely despite your very own words! What shameful behavior! Are you proud of your actions?

Only 13 minutes after leaving me your message, you moved to indefinitely block me. 09:24, 25 July 2010 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (307,425 bytes) (→Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations: - propose indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling) (undo) How many "mass-removing citations without discussions" could I cease doing in 13 minutes??

This is a serious witch hunt. Thanks, ChrisO, for helping to evidence it so well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add this. I see Black Kite has said I was POV pushing. That is not true. Black Kite asked me that on my Talk page. I guess he did not wait for an answer. (Now I see he make his non-WP:AGF statement here before asking me for clarification on my Talk page!) But my answer shows I was not POV pushing (as if compliance with WP:RS could ever be POV pushing). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well no - I said that removing sources that promote a particular POV will be seen as POV-pushing, which it does. I appreciate your explanation on your talkpage, though, and given that I have edited my comment above to include "Restrict". Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If the motivation for the removals really was not to push a POV, the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs should have been removed first. The prima facie evidence shows a systematic biased removal of sources from one end of the political spectrum. I suggest that if LegitimateAndEvenCompelling wants to show his 'good faith', he should immediately stop removing MMfA refs and start removing the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs; at least until he has removed as many WorldNetDaily refs as the number of MMfA refs he has removed. LK (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support See Black Kite above for a major plank of evidence. Clearly this guy does not have a clue as to the difference between a source "having a POV" and a source being basically reliable, and is blanket removing a good source of information which has a good history of quality, albeit a source which focuses on exposing problems in the right wing of the US. Weakopedia's comment (as of now) lacks substance and can therefore be discounted; same applies to Anthonychole's comment. Legitimate's own argument shown in the talk page section he references (permalink) is way off: for example, one of his arguments is that ". "E.H.H." Does that sound reliable to anyone here? MMfA articles do include full names of authors sometimes", ignoring the fact that most sources do not always include authors, and sources like the The Economist (which I consider overrated) never do. He argues that since WP:POORSRC (who keeps randomly changing these shortcuts??) includes the words "promotional in nature" and MMfA seems promotional, it is automatically questionable. Wow. He also seems to somehow think that because MMfA irrefutably displays its evidence in actual clips of video, it is less reliable. Wow, just wow. Such a tortured, ludicrous argument needs to be stopped. We should work on cleaning up this mess and restoring these sources as well. II | (t - c) 11:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - if LAEC subsequently agrees not to engage in such behaviour, he can have another chance. It is clear that his behaviour in removing MMfA citations has been disruptive; deleting citations to what is widely enough considered a reliable source can hardly be otherwise. But as he himself noted at RSN on 16 July, " I admit MMfA is reliable for things about itself or incidents in which it has been directly involved, and I also admit its content can be useful for identifying actual reliable sources, particularly in cases where it provides links to such sources." [emphasis added] In this case, a non-disruptive approach would at minimum put the MMfA link on the talk page with an explanation, or replace it with the sources linked to by MMfA. Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I do not see putting these citations on the talk page as an acceptable compromise, heh, and it is difficult to constantly watch over someone this extreme; also if he keeps repeating himself and calling it "discussion" while redoing the edit it is basically impossible to stop him. Perhaps a good start would be for him to self-revert his blanket removals. Replacing these with primary sources of the particular footage is also not the answer. II | (t - c) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The actions being discussed here are clearly disruptive, but an indefinite block is an overreaction. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A permanent block is an overreaction; an indefinite block, liftable on LAEC agreeing not to continue such actions, is not. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, but the proposal does not contain any mention of such a condition. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of WP:BRD until now. I was aware of WP:3RR, so 2 reverts was my max. Now I suppose it'll just be, what, 0 reverts. And Anthony is right, it would be unfair to be blocked indef for not being aware of BRD, while pursuing RS, no less. It is also unfair that I should get blocked and no one ever (except one now) responds substantively to the RS issues at hand on the various pages. So yes, Rd232, I agree to abide by WP:BRD. And I like your Talk page idea. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only substantive complaint about this editor is ignoring (which turned out to be ignorance of) WP:BRD. They now know about the policy, and undertake to follow it. Can this be closed now? Anthony (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. BRD may be at times be advisable, but I'm not sure that it is appropriate for removing what is widely seen as a reliable source, without replacing it with a better one or at least moving it to the talk page. BRD is not the issue. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were only removing instances where it was not supporting the content, or not appropriate for some other reason. As for not replacing it with something appropriate, is it a policy violation to neglect that and just replace with "citation needed?" Anthony (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a longish block and possibly a topic ban/editing restriction of some kind. The editor has been engaged in a clear and persistent pattern of POV pushing and tendentious editing. There are no excuses and no justification for that. An indef block may be a little harsh but acceptabe under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Has that case (POV pushing and tendentious editing) been demonstrated somewhere? Or can you elaborate on that, with diff's maybe? (I don't want to defend a troublemaker who won't benefit from counseling - but that hasn't been demonstrated in this thread.) Anthony (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 12:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support or Topic Ban - It is possible to argue that MMfA is not a reliable source, but that also means that Fox News and WorldNetDaily sure as shit ain't reliable sources either and should be removed from the site using napalm and agent orange. All news is canned gossip, anyway, and is either sold for a profit or proselytized for an agenda. Until more appropriate sources are found, MMfA, Fox, and WND will have to do. There is a thing in American law called "fair use," which Media Matters follows, which means that their videos do not violate WP:LINKVIO. All the articles I've seen either present a video, or present transcripts with some context. LegAEC seems to be sorta repentant, if only because of 3rr and now the threat of a block (not so much because of acknowledging any mistakes, so I guess repentant isn't the right word but compliant). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Fox news is not the appropriate ideological opponent you are seeking; it's the Media Research Center. Fox News is the conservative equivalent of MSNBC, not MMFA.

There is little difference between the left-wing PoV pushing from MMFA and the right-wing POV pushing from MRC, and in a previous discussion on the RS/N, I suggested that neither should be allowed, because the egregious partisan spin both sources place on anything that appears on either site.

As for WND, nobody should be using it as a citation for anything, anywhere on Wikipedia, unless they are citing it as an opinion from WND or one of its contributors. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. There needs to be a definitive consensus on the suitability of hyper-partisan "media watchdog" sources, including MMfA, FAIR, MRC, and AIM. I would support an RFC on the topic, but I don't think focusing on a single user is appropriate for this subject. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an RFC is a good idea, but this isn't about whether MMfA is a suitable source - it's about whether a single editor should make that determination himself and single-handedly attempt to purge Wikipedia of that source, against the opposition of other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LAEC has tacitly agreed to stop removing links to MMfA. I would support blocking him again if he continues if there is an RFC initiated on the issue. Without an RFC, I don't see a consensus at all, so a block would be inappropriate because it becomes an issue of editorial content, unless there is an edit war. When another editor with a different view follows an editor reverting every edit, there is another issue (wikihounding) which is equally disruptive, and needs to stop. Horologium (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Unless User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agrees to undo all of his removals. If he really believes that those citations are bad, someone else will surely remove them. Also, he should agree not to remove Media Matters citations in the future. If he comes across a bad citation, he should instead raise the issue on the talk page for someone else to deal with. LK (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is even the point of being an editor then? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose MMfA is almost univerisaly used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view. Its use should be limited to an extension of existing secondary sourcing and not a as a primary source, especially if MMfA is trying to establich a fact. MRC should be treated as the same way. To punish LAEC for attempting to maintain a basic pillar of WP is absurd to say the least. One only has to ask, do you want WP to be a better more neutral place? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I first noticed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's systematic actions when he removed a citation in the Burning money article from this statement "people have publicly burned small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media — Living Things at South by Southwest,[17] Larry Kudlow on The Call[18]". The removed reference [18] leads to a short article on Kudlow burning a dollar bill on The Call, with a video excerpt of the act. How is this 'used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view'? How is neutrality on Wikipedia improved by this removal? LK (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The only reason MMfA or anyone else commented on that incident is because they are trying to make a political point against Kudlow breaking the law given his apparent attempt to run against a liberal politician in the near future. MMfA could care less about the actual act of someone burning a dollar bill, they are just trying to point out a conservative breaking the letter of the law which will undoubtably be used against Kudlow in the future as political fodder. Now, granted this is a rather benign incident, but the intent is clear from MMfA when you come to grip with reality and admit that they, just like MRC, are political animals. The question I ask myself, is, "Is this editor removing partisan sourcing from one ideology and inserting partisan sourcing from another ideology?" If the anser is Yes, then they are in violation of several WP policies. If they are simply removing partisan sourcing which appears to be in violation of NPOV then they are upholding the fundamental principles of WP. You have to admit, the people putting MMfA in as a source to begin with are very likely to partisan editors to start. LegitCompelling is simply trying to go around and clean up the crap. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps even more importantly, did the sourcing for the content removed rise to satisfy WP:UNDUE sourcing or was it just coatracking of MMfA opinion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. This particular incident didn't warrant removal. It isn't a coatraking of MMfA opinion. The only questionable aspect is that the sourcing is being used in conjunction with a fact (ie that their is no apparent consiquence), when the conjuntion is that this would be MMfA opinion. ehh, boarderline and technical. I did some searching and there isn't much else, so I would assume that burning a dollar bill on live tv probably won't ever get you in trouble. I did look at some of the others that LAEC removed and in general they are some longstanding wars regarding the blur between opinion and fact largely criticism of conservative figures which didn't recieve much press outside of the blogs. Those clearly should be removed, but it is usually a difficult endevour because of the political nature of WP, at the very least they should be expressly attributed as opinon of MMfA. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose If you would indefinitely block LAEC, then you would need to indefinitely block other editors who regularly and consistently remove references from the Media Research Center. I lean toward excluding both sources, but there needs to be a consistent WP policy/guideline on this. In the case where this question was widely discussed on the RSN, using RfCs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_59#Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting.2C_Media_Research_Center.2C_Media_Matters_for_America.2C_Newsbusters, the consensus was consistency in application of both sources, and another RfC there leaned against use of MMfA entirely. Because of the results there, the lack of a policy/guideline on the use of such ideologically-charged sources, and because of the regular and consistent removal of MRC sources by other editors, I strongly oppose an indefinite block on LAEC. As someone else has noted, there is going to be continued warfare on this front unless a policy, guideline, or decisive RSN ruling has been made to treat these two sources consistently. Drrll (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a good argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because there are other people doing unacceptable things, does not mean that we have to accept this one person doing unacceptable things. LK (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• So I take it that you would support indefinitely blocking--and will start ANI items seeking to indefinitely block--those who regularly remove references to the Media Research Center? Or does that not matter? Drrll (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From your lack of response, LK, it looks like you are only interested in indefinitely blocking those who remove ideological sources that you like. Drrll (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Treatment of MMfA as something more than a hyper-partisan source is a "sacred cow consensus" that no longer stands up to RS/N scrutiny. Just like its peers (Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters etc. etc.), WP:UNDUE should require third-party RS to support any content solely attributable to MMfA. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - indef block for a first time offense? Seriously? He has been warned, he is responding to this discussion, he has been civil, and he seems willing to learn how his actions were inappropriate and adjust his behavior accordingly. He has a few blocks in his bast for edit warring, but most are in 2007 and he seems to have learned from those experiences. At most an appropriate length block (3 days to a week) IF he continued removing the MMfA stuff before a discussion at WP:RSN confirms it is non-reliable. Otherwise, blocks supposedly aren't punitive but preventative and thus far, the disruption appears to have stopped. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. There's far too many one-sided ideologues who game the rules on Wikipedia. Strong action against them would hopefully curb this sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I could make an argument that such a statement and other actions by you Gamaliel would get you blocked by this rule. Ideologues exist on both sides, it's a part of the site, deal with it. Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This sort of trolling is inaccurate, inappropriate, and irrelevant to this discussion. If you think any of my actions are inappropriate, take it to my talk page or to the relevant article discussion page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – An indefinite block is taking this too far. How about a ban from removing references from the Media Research Center, enforceable by blocks if necessary? The use of MMfA and MRC sources has already been decided on elsewhere. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't know that. Can you please supply the diff? Anthony (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose give him a WP:WHALE, but i have seen enough good work out him to think it would be a waste to indef. I may support a Topic Ban from Editing Citations and Artilces closesly linked with MMFA Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per diffs provided by Black Kite. Note that it would be indef, not permanent, and lifted after assurances by LaEC that he would cease disruption. -- ۩ Mask 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Black Kite didn't provide any diffs. Anthony (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't need to. The example I gave, and many other of LaeC's edits, show clearly the removal of one source whilst not removing those referring to WND, right-wing blogs, etc. Thus his claim of removing unreliable sources is clearly false. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, your differences don't show much. If LAEC was using the linksearch function to find MMFA links (as I have done for Free Republic and Democratic Underground links), it shows that he was looking for links from that source, not links from other, even less reliable sources. When I go on one of my most populated->most populous tears (see my contribution history for examples) I don't look for other problems, and when people go through with AWB and fix specific issues, they will overlook things other than the specific issue on which they are working. It doesn't mean that they are shitty editors, and it doesn't mean that they have a partisan agenda, it means that they are focused on a single task. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? - I haven't reviewed the consensus on this, but assuming consensus is clear that MM references shouldn't be removed as such, and/or that LAEC is persistently overstepping the bounds, can't we just make that consensus clear for the record and ask LAEC to honor it? No need to get any broader than that, and it's only a blockworthy thing if they get that firm message and won't abide by it. I know that an indef. block could be overturned if they only make that promise, but wouldn't it be simpler and less disruptive on all sides to take the administrative sanction step out, and go immediately to the end result? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see that failure to remove other, more unreliable, references is a reasonable argument here. Either there's consensus or not to remove MMfA links, and either LAEC is being disruptive or not doing so. Nobody has an obligation to to anything around here, so I don't think it's fair or practical for anyone accused of POV disruption to show good faith by doing the same edits for the other side as well. It's not as if this is a single-purpose POV editor, they're just caught up in this particular issue at this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has any obligation to do anything here ... except not be disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC's actions are mostly correct in this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per AmnaFinotera. If he's here, discussing the appropriateness of the edits, and has ceased making such edits for the duration of this discussion, there's no ongoing disruption to be solved by such a block. Blocks are not punitive; they're to protect the encyclopedia from harm. When and if LAEC disregards an established consensus or becomes incivil in presenting his viewpoint, then we can appropriately talk about disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the last post by this user, it does not seem to indicate that he recognizes that there is an established consensus. Your suggestion to lay off MMfA refs sounds like you are asking me to self-censor. .. Now I have a demand for you, since you started this. You address yourself to the MMfA non-RS ref you reverted and you explain, for the first time, why that ref is a RS, and you do so without ad hominem argument or general statements about how MMfA has been shown to be reliable elsewhere. Unomi (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular case is this edit to Burning money - the MMfA page in question used as source is here complete with a transcript and a video of Kudlow setting fire to a dollar bill. LaEK's claim that he was unaware of BRD is frankly ludicrous when you consider that this particular account was created in 2006. His block for legal threats also came on the heels of idht regarding WP:LEGAL. Unomi (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's 4 years ago! Be reasonable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC and I are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to MMfA links and whether or not they constitute WP:LINKVIOs, having had a very lengthy discussion on the matter. We still disagree on the LINKVIO issue (and I still hold out hope he'll concede someday, LOL). But for those editors here who support an indefinite block, please take a look at that discussion and also how it got started. Use this link and look at the edit history for July 13th. LAEC removed an MMfA link from a page I watch; I reverted, requesting clarification on the Talk Page. He did not revert my revert; instead, he went to the Talk Page and proceeded to patiently lay out his position and perspective on the matter, a conversation that went on for quite some time that you can see here. The conversation was undeniably civil and respectful. Hence, after my own personal run-in with him on an MMfA dispute, I am skeptical of the claim that he systematically steamrolls over people's objections without taking the time to stop and discuss the issue in a civil fashion. If he did revert someone who reverted his edit, please take the time to carefully examine the incident and see if an edit summary or reason was provided by the offended editor rather than just assuming so. Also, reading some of the comments in this thread, it's apparent there are strong feelings in play for some folks here. I would ask that each of you consider what level of examination and scrutiny you would want your peers to apply before voting to block yourself in a similar situation. LAEC has thousands upon thousands of constructive edits, so please do him that courtesy before you make up your mind.--AzureCitizen (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's hard to believe that anyone would oppose the removal of such viciously hyperpartisan sources as MMfA. Yes, they do often (but not always) link to reliable sources. But no, they are not a WP:RS because of the high-velocity partisan spin, editing out of context, selective presentation of facts, and general propagandizing in which they constantly engage. We need to amend WP:RS to clarify Wikipedia's policy on hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and, at the other end of the rainbow, such right-wing trash as World Net Daily. Until that occurs, any suggestion that LAEC should be indef blocked raises my suspicions about any editor who would even suggest such an oppressive remedy, where there is no clear policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Relentless POV-pushing and IDHT over a long period of time. Xanthoxyl ^< 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC proposal

This is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Let me suggest what I have learned here and how I will respond, then people can comment and eventually agree that those actions will be acceptable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to examine MMfA refs for compliance with all Wiki policy, most typically WP:RS. If I determine that the ref fails the test, I will take the following action:

1. Create a Talk page section entitled "MMfA refs".
2. On the Talk page, add the MMfA link(s) and associated text.
3. On the Talk page, briefly state why the ref(s) is(are) non-RS.
4. On the Main page, remove the MMfA ref(s), and typically leave the remaining text, though other policy may require removal, in which case I will briefly state why I removed the text in the Talk page. I have not done this much at all.
5. On the Main page, insert a Citation tag, but only if the MMfA ref removed is not duplicative of existing links or is not in the External Links section.
6. On the Main page, leave a history comment similar to the full disclosure I currently provide, including that an MMfA link is involved, but also adding See Talk:MMfA refs.

If I determine that the MMfA ref is Wiki compliant, as it is from time to time, I will take no action, except perhaps to improve the link, as I have done in at least one instance.

If I am reverted, I will take the following action:

1. If the history comment claims the MMfA ref is a RS, I will not revert but I go to the Talk page. I will take no action on the Main page until consensus is reached or if a week goes by and discussion on the Talk page has ceased without consensus. This raises a problem. What if all the folks here seeking to block me indefinitely create a consensus that a non-RS is a RS. What do I do then? RS Noticeboard, I guess. But what if the same thing happens there?
2. If the history comment is blank, I will revert, but only once, and thereafter return to Talk.
3. If the history comment contains ad hominem comments, I will revert, but only twice, and thereafter return to Talk.

I note that before this issue was raised and Badger did his mass reverts of all my edits, very few were reverted, and of those, even fewer stayed reverted. I say this to point out that I do not expect a lot of reverts, except if it is by the people here seeking the indef block. If those people revert me just because of what is going on here, that is a problem, and I am asking now how to address that, as that will clearly be for reasons having nothing to do with the RS issue.

The edits that Badger mass reverted, he should revert them all. Have any of you seen the personal attacks that guy made in the history comments? His actions went beyond the pale and he should revert himself--he has already trouted himself, but that's only of jovial consequence. Note well that I have not and likely will not take the route of using procedural means to intimidate him, such as this huge matter that has been filed against me to silence me for complying with WP:RS, though perhaps not complying with WP:BRD, although I was unaware of that until now and will now comply. No, I won't make official complaints against him, or against ChrisO for his move to block me 13 minutes after his comment on my Talk page saying I needed to stop something or someone might block me, or against Black Kite for his projection about POV editing (as if RS compliance is ever POV editting) made minutes before he too went to my Talk page to determine the veracity of what he just claimed was true. Given what has happened to me here and how I have responded in the positive manner I have and how many editors have supported me here and how the vast majority of my edits made over months were not reverted until Badger acted as he did, I ask that Badger be required to revert his mass edits of what I have done over the months, particularly since they were good edits never reverted for months until he came along and made his ad hominem attacks, and because the RS rule goes to the heart of Wikipedia.

Let me add this. In all this time, only one editor, and only once, has ever addressed the RS issue on a substantive basis. Everyone else every single time skipped over that and jumped to ad hominem argument or general statements that MMfA has been proven to be reliable. Then they move to block me indefinitely. Clearly they have no substantive argument or they would have made it. So here is the question. What happens if on the Talk page the discussion and resulting consensus never addresses the substantive RS issues? What happens if, like what has been happening 99 44/100% of the time so far, people choose to attack me or to make blanket statements about how MMfA is a RS on other pages? What is the means to prevent Wikipedia from being subverted in such a manner? What recourse do I have to get attention to that problem?

Okay, what do you all think of the above?

Thank you all very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the persistent efforts to use ad hominem efforts to sway opinion, such as the raising of 4 year old disciplinary matters, among other things, and in light of the persistent avoidance of substantive RS issues in the context RS rules require, I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about your behaviour, and whether you're going to be indefinitely blocked. Do you mind if we focus on that now? The other important questions can be addressed on a new thread, here or at an appropriate forum. But, for now, can we just see how everybody feels about what you have proposed regarding your future conduct? Anthony (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. This betrays a completely inappropriate battlegound mentality, as well as being an egregious violation of WP:AGF. LAEC does not seem to fathom the possibility that someone may find his actions disruptive without being his political opposite -- and by his comment reveals the probability that his own actions have been ideologically motivated and not based on Wikipedian principles. Serious consideration has to be given to the question of whether this editor is capable of acting based strictly on grounds of policy, without guidance from his political views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it was an after thought after all I've been through. Cut me some slack, even though you moved to block me indefinitely. I'll withdraw the question and strike it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's look at your proposal: it amounts to codified edit warring ("I will revert twice..."), and is therefore totally unaacceptable. What you need to do is wait until there is some consensus regarding whether the source is reliable or not, and then act. The lack of consensus is not license to do whatever you wish, the lack of consensus is merely an indication that the community has not yet made up its collective mind, and in that circumstance, one needs to act carefully and with due consideration for specific circumstances. Mass reversions when Wikipedia is still thinking about what to do is not being bold, it's being disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am the one being mass reverted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those reversions returned the articles to the status quo ante. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the case of disruptive editing such as your. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. They were not "disruptive" if you judge by the reverts you get or don't get. They were not reverted until Badger Drink did so en masse as a result of this AN/I, and with the ad hominem history comments for which he trouted himself.

I'm going to sleep now. Sweet dreams. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With the striking of the offensive section, I whole-heartedly support this proposal. It accomplishes the goal of ending disruption and allows LaEC to voice his concerns without detriment to the project (it may even improve sources where there's consensus Media Matters is not the appropriate citation). All in all a better outcome then either extreme. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. We have mitigated potential damage, so none is needed. -- ۩ Mask 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are still seeking to make the determination on a global scale of whether MMfA is a reliable source or not. It should be obvious from the discussion on this issue that there is substantial disagreement on that point. I see nothing in your proposal about getting the consensus of editors beforehand about whether MMfA is a reliable source. What needs to happen is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary. Only then and only if the consensus is that MMfA is reliable should you attempt to carry out a systematic removal or replacement of MMfA citations. As it is, you're still pursuing the approach that got you into trouble - i.e. imposing your own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"[A] discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary" for each of the hundreds of edits I make would be a huge roadblock that would essentially end my efforts to apply WP:RS, and it would be overburdensome to everyone involved were I to decide to do that. As ChrisO is the person who waited 13 minutes to move to block me indefinitely after advising me not to edit in a certain way that I did not, is it not surprising he would suggest such an onerous requirement. Recall that I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. Focusing on MMfA is not what got me in trouble with Wiki policy nonadherence, rather that was failure to comply with WP:BRD, although admittedly it was the MMfA that got me in trouble from the viewpoint of editors such as ChrisO who oppose removing MMfA refs even when they violate WP:RS, etc. So I am not "imposing [my] own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand". My "view of MMfA" is irrelevant. The point is compliance with WIkipedia policy and that I have found an easy way to quickly identify hundreds of refs that may violate that policy. To the extent that I have removed the MMfA refs and not provided a means to mine the refs for RSs or to allow for consensus, I have proposed a means to correct that. That is what is being decided now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right ChrisO, there is substantial disagreement on under what circumstances MMfA is a reliable source. It is unreasonable to expect any editor to be guided by one particular contentious interpretation and not another. LAeC will follow WP:BRD, and preserve the MMfA ref's so others may use them to find RSs if they wish. That should deal with the disruption, from his side. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@LAEC - No not a RfC for every edit. There is so far no consensus that MMfA is NOT (that's NOT) a reliable source. Opinion is split. Until you have consensus that MMfA is NOT a reliable source, you may not systematically remove it from the encyclopaedia. That is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Either start at the RS noticeboard, or start a RfC to confirm that MMfA is not a reliable source. In the absence of that, you may only remove it where you can show that it is not a reliable source. This would involve demonstrating that it is the only source saying something, or that other sources contradict it, and cannot be done by mass removal, but must be done on a case by case basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Elen of the Roads is 100% correct. I will "only remove [an MMfA ref] where [I] can show that it is not a reliable source". Indeed, that is exactly what I have proposed doing. I have also proposed doing it "on a case by case basis." I will not do "mass removals".

On the issue of whether MMfA is a RS generally, I have no opinion on that. Further, I do not think is it constructive to raise the issue. WP:RS states, emphasis in original, "Proper sourcing always depends on context...." Also, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." To me, that means each instance of a ref needs to be seen in context. I do not understand, given that Wiki policy, how any source, no matter how reliable or not, can be given blanket approval or opposition. Oh sure, refs from one source are usually RSs and refs from another are usually not, but a blanket policy cannot possibly apply where WP:RS requires that each ref be viewed in context. In other words, MMfA refs cannot be given blanket approval. They must be reviewed in context, like any other ref. My proposal does exactly that.

Someone made the suggestion that WP:RS needs to be updated to, basically, record what is being decided here so as to minimize the need to redo this kind of thing over and over, this being just the latest effort by so many people. I fully support that effort, should anyone actually carry it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC Topic Ban Proposal

Given that LEAC still doesn't get that it is inappropriate to systematically remove something from the encyclopedia without community consensus, I think its better if he were to leave the issue of MMfA references to others, and to make productive contributions elsewhere, I suggest a topic ban whereby:
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is forbidden to remove any MMfA references from Wikipedia, or to systematically tag them as unreliable.

If he sees any violations of policy involving a MMfA link, he is free to raise the issue on the talk page of the article or any of the relevant noticeboards. If there really is a violation of policy, someone else will surely take care of it. LEAC needs to concentrate his energies elsewhere as he doesn't seem to understand that his actions are disruptive and not supported by the community. LK (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait for LEaC's response to Elen's very sensible post, above? Persuasion and education take a little longer than coercion, but create a nicer work environment. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. See above section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this outright. There is no consensus that MMFA is a reliable source, so there is no community consensus that his removals are a bad thing. An RFC can make a determination, which will settle this once and for all. However, I think that LAEC should wait at least a week, to see if an RFC is drafted. If so, he should not remove any MMFA links until the RFC concludes. Removing links while an RFC is in progress is unquestionably disruptive, but this attempt to hold him hostage over links of disputed appropriateness is not acceptable either. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backwards. Please see Elen's post above, which gets it right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation. A lot of the difference in our positions may be attributed to differences in our interpretation of BLP; I favor a wide scope on that policy, which would result in more sources being disallowed when discussing living people. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BeyondMyKen and Elen. We need consensus on the question of appropriate use of MMfA and other such sites, and the polite thing for LAEC to do, who has been extended considerable patience here, would be to hold off on further MMfA edits until that is achieved. I have started a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard Anthony (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pvae again

Resolved

 – Blocked by BWilkins. LK (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Back in April, I posted here about Pvae (talk · contribs) constantly adding links to Songfacts.com; see here. The discussion hinted at possibly blacklisting songfacts.com, and it went nowhere. Before the last ANI discussion, I warned this user twice that Songfacts.com is generally considered unreliable since so much of it is user submitted. Now, this user's spamming Songfacts again. I don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole with this user, so for a change, can we actually GET somewhere with discussion instead of having it peter out after a day? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A blacklisting of Songfacts.com is probably a good idea, but this is not a the right forum for that. Unless you're suggesting a short block for Pvae (talk · contribs) as a whack with the cluebat? I would support that too. LK (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, looks like I blocked them a couple of hours ago for this reason - the blacklist discussion is pretty important now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at both the original ANI thread and at pvae's talk page and I think that this block might be premature. In the past I have said that if an editor receives multiple warnings and requests to stop doing something and refuses to discuss the issue, that editor should be blocked. I don't see that here. What I see is one user asking him to stop (and another with a minor opinion) and a plausible sounding rebuttal from Pvae. The previous ANI and WP:SBL threads were inconclusive. This isn't consensus this is "because I said so".

Now Tenpoundhammer might be right but before we start blocking people for using Songfacts as a source, we should get a stronger consensus on its reliability (or lack of it) at WP:RSN. In the previous ANI thread it was suggested that it might be like IMDB, reliable for some things but not for others. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Resolved

 – not anymore Tommy! [message] 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a growing backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, if someone could go take a look. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

3 cases is a backlog? Soxwon (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you hadn't had a BM in 3 days, it would be a major backlog... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

:S Was that comment really necessary? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki sabotage

A sockpupper, Rafax (es:user:vitamine = en:user:Rafax = es:Usuario:Dermot = es:Usuario:Cronoster, etc. etc. etc...) was blocked in eswiki for sabotage for a whole month the discussion es:talk:choripán. Three wikipedians we denounce him (es:user:Aleposta, es:user:Rosymonterrey, and myself), and two administrators ratified the denunciation (es:user:Ecemaml and es:user:Ezarate, here).

Now Rafax tries to do the same thing in talk:choripán, aggravated by the fact that the sources, here, are not understandable by anyone (are sources in Spanish). He uses the sources to his whim, and for this motive he was blocked one month in eswiki. This is a case of manipulation of sources crosswiki. Ferbr1 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ferbr1, I'm a strong believer in the independence of wikis. I'm fully aware of how different the uses of each wikipedia (you can see my block log here, you'll possibly get surprissed) are and I don't think that the behaviour of a given user in a wikipedia must have the slightest effect in another. At least in the Spanish wikipedia, Rafax is not a sockpuppet of Vitamine. Rafax asked for a name change and choose Vitamine. I can, of course confirm that his behaviour in the Spanish wikipedia was disruptive (that was the rationale of the block, a block done by me) that he used unreliable sources, and a lot of WP:SYN in order to produce original research. I cannot judge whether his behaviour here is also disruptive, since that's something this community, using the procedures defined in here, must deal with. On the other hand, my understading of WP:EL is that external links in Spanish are valid, as long as there are not better links in English. That's not possibly the words that were expected, but I do think each wikipedia must work in a fully independent way. Otherwise I could claim admin status here, as I'm also an admin in the Spanish wikipedia and commons :-) Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) PS: I don't understand your mentions to different users. Are those users being used in the English wikipedia? If not, your mentions are irrelevant. PS2: on the other hand, my personal understanding of the choripán issue is that "choripán" is the name given in Argentina and other Latin American countries to the local variety of chorizo sandwich. On the one hand, it seems difficult for me to determine to which extent a given variety of such sandwich can be said to be "invented" in a given place (of course that, without proper sources, such a feeling is not enough for assert it in a wikipedia article). However, the sources currently supporting such statement (the Argetinean "invention") are not solid enough (papers and the Argentine portal, with an obvious CoI, so that it's far away from being a reliable source).

Edit warring in user talk page

Hello! I am currently in a edit war with Tournesol on his user talk page, in order to get personal information about myself removed. Even though I am asking him why I am not allowed to do so, he is continuing to revert it. Am I allowed to remove personal and background information about myself? /HeyMid (contributions) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The personal information does not seem to violate any guidelines or policies. On top of that, it seems you added it yourself. In general removal/maintenance of talk page content is at the discretion of the user whose talk page it is. So altogether, that does not make a very strong case for you. I would not worry too much, hardly anyone ever reads talk pages, except for the owner, but (s)he read it already of course. Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If it leads to bullying, then I am seriously worried. I know I have to be very careful with providing personal information, unless there is a real reason as to why. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Looking at the history's, I'm not sure I see any personal information that you did not yourself speak off being revealed. I do, however, see that you are indef blocked at another Wiki[101][102] for pulling the same sort of stuff you attempted at the Bambifan101 SPI (i.e. trying to close it)[103] when you had absolutely no business doing so. And that you have already gotten final warnings here to stop badgering the folks who reported you for blocking there as well[104] I won't repeat the statements you have indicated you want removed, but I will say, it is NO excuse for violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And frankly, I'm finding your focus on SPIs as a newer editor a bit concerning particularly when we have had an editor not too long ago get community banned who made the exact same excuses for their inappropriate behaviors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was actually this close to blocking outright when I saw that Heymid had continued the problematic behavior he had previously been warned for. However, I decided to give him a final chance to continue contributing constructively. And yes, that would not include SPI work if I interpret your and Deskana's comments correctly. However, his non-answers do not really inspire confidence, and I feel we have a total failure to communicate (perhaps due to Heymid's age and the fact that he is not a native speaker of English), so any input on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. decltype (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think HeyMid should carefully read Wikipedia:Competence is required and consider wether he can live up to these standards. I am afraid his competence is more of an issue than deliberate vandalism, but that is no excuse. Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, this has not been a good day for me. I am not sure meta discussing is for me. And my behaviour has already been too bad I can't apologize for all the bad I have done to Wikipedia. I believe my block on SvWp is nonsense; my life at EnWp has changed since then, and I have always said I would really appreciate another chance there. I see EnWp as a better community than SvWp. Thanks for your understandings. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am asking for help, I will instead be facing the negatives and criticism against myself. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I promise I will immediately return to my constructive editing. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When you post a complaint here, the entire situation will be looked at, including your own behavior. As it is, even after all of the above, you turned around and tried to deny requests at WP:RFPP[105] and randomly interjecting your clearly uninformed opinions in other pages and filing spurious requests. You seem to either NOT understand the warnings leveled at you, or don't intend to follow them. At this point, I'm thinking SvWp had the right idea. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I simply just focus all my energy on improving articles, there will be no problems or need for blocks. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy then? If that is true, then I should be allowed to remove personal information about myself, due to my young age. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay...despite his promises above, Heymid has again injected himself into SPI[106] (which he at least self-reverted), and making spurious requests at RFPP[107] (to have a page move protected as a "high visibility" that has not had any page move vandalism that I can see). As he seems completely incapable of keeping to his own advice, and is still also pestering the fellow from SvWp[108]. At this point, I'm thinking a block, at the minimum, is needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a few things:

1. What does high visibility mean? Alexander Ovechkin was indefinitely sysop move-protected yesterday.
2. I did not understand the headline should be deactivated in the SPI archives. Sorry for that again. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to understand it because you have already been told repeatedly to stay out of SPI all together. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. If it is that serious, then I will immediately leave the SPI and RfPP pages/sections. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad if someone removes my personal information at User_talk:Tournesol (especially the part saying Asperger's syndrome). /HeyMid (contributions) 17:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your request has already been answered. Your refusal to accept what has already been told to you is now reminding me of this where I had to repeat myself about four times for you to get it. You really are pushing your luck. --Deskana (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure he understood exactly what I meant. /HeyMid (contributions) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

He answered exactly what you asked. No, you do not have the right to remove information you posted on another person's Talk page. No one here seems inclined to remove it for you, either. I don't see anything else to be done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Guy Stone / Aussieboy373

(edit conflict × 2) When I was RC patrolling, I came upon the edits of Aussieboy373. They're blanking and prodding pages claiming that the article subject wants them deleted. Due to the BLP stuff, I didn't revert, and instead decided to bring it to others' attention. I'm not too sure about what to do in these instances, hence my bringing it here for others to see. (X! · talk)  · @743  ·  16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I created that page, and I want it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieboy373 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, MANDIC777 created it (see the page history here). You created a redirect. Even if you did create it, replacing the content with a prod is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The page was created by MANDIC777 (talk · contribs) and significantly edited by someone not logged in using the IP address 24.46.211.161 (talk · contribs). Are both of those you? If so (and you can demonstrate it, for example by posting here from both the account and the IP address) then we can delete the article immiediately under G7 of the speedy deletion criteria. If not then it will be deleted if noone objects to the PROD for a week.

Having looked at the sources, I don't think they really confer notability to Stone so deletion in one way or another is fine by me. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

X!, you seemed to be talking about multiple pages but I just see the one. Am I missing something, or...? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Even if you create an article, you still do not own it, so it is not up to you to delete it if others contribute. That is what you sing up to when startin to work in Wikipedia

All of them. This is a BLP issue, so this needs to be treaded on with careful steps. (X! · talk)  · @846  ·  19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally not you but User:Mandic777 created the article in February 2010. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, this is me as: 1. aussieboy373 asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now as 2: (whatever my IP address is) I am asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, now as 3: mandic777 am deleting this page. I hope that this is proof enough that I did create the page, I am going to delete the contents of the page (again) and ask for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i would appreciate if my request for a speedy deletion would not be fought against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand a good number of other users have contributed to this article. On the other, though, I would question whether they qualify as significant contributors. Thoughts? - Vianello (Talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when you say a good number of users, you mean me. That is my IP address that appears so frequently, and my two user names. The only other edits seem to be people monitoring pages to check if the sources are accurate and have proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using two user names? Did you forget the password for Aussieboy373?   — Jeff G.  ツ 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, his first comment here came from the Aussieboy ID. The editor seems to edit using both IDs and a fixed IP address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the subject of the article, Guy Stone, is said in the article to be born as "Guy Mandic". One of the editors IDs is MANDIC777. If there is a relationship between the subject and this editor, that would possibly mean they have a conflict of interest in regard to the article and should take alook at WP:COI. Also, if the editor involved is the subject of the article, he should probably contact OTRS if he has a complaint about the article. I'm not sure why there would be, since they contributed a great deal of the information in it -- but others have contributed as well, so it's possible that some misinformation crept in. If so, the answer is not to delete the article, but to correct it, using OTRS or the procedures suggested in WP:COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that one cannot revoke their contributions under the CC-BY-SA; this is made clear between the edit box and the edit summary everytime someone goes to edit a page. –MuZemike 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That being said, it would behoove MANDIC777/et al to quickly go over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and send an email to the OTRS team at the email provided there if there are problems with the article. –MuZemike 01:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I filed an SPI, even though it's a self confessed duck. Aussieboy tried blanking the article again, I reverted and warned, he switched to MANDIC777 and tried it again, leaving a message on my talk page saying he's the "sole" contributor. I was gonna leave him alone on the two accounts, but the warning dodging, the potential COI, and snubbing the contributions of others (assuming he knows what "sole" means, here) gets under my skin. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable. The guy who wrote it, and presumably is the subject of it, wants it deleted. What's the problem? Just do the right thing. Jesus. Anthony (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not Facebook or MySpace, we're not here for people to write stuff about themselves and then maintain control of the content and the fate of the article. He, apparently, wrote an article about himself, and it's been here for almost half a year, when all of a sudden he decides he doesn't want the article – but that's no longer his decision to make. The article is now ours, and the community decides what to do with it through policies. If you or anybody else thinks the subject is not notable, take it to AfD. If he thinks the article he wrote about himself isn't accurate, then he can to to OTRS and make a complaint. What he doesn't get to do is control the fate of the article on his own say-so. In the meantime, he's been playing fast and loose with multiple policies, and we need to decide if this person is someone that we wish to allow to have access for future editing, since they seem to have no real purpose in being here outside of self-promotion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew all that. Who will benefit from us keeping a non-notable, autobiographical puff piece? And who will be hurt by it? Exactly what are your motives here? Anthony (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How pleasant to have my motivations questioned. I suggest you AGF, and if you think the subject isn't notable (the article's not a puff piece at all, it's pretty much a standard actor bio) take to to AfD.

I think we're done here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, motive. It's time someone enquired into that. What is your aim? What are you trying to do here? Did it occur to you to be kind? All I can see is you making someone live with a blp when they don't want to, when, apart from {{reflist}} and some tags and categories, they wrote the whole thing. Surely I'm wrong but it just looks gratuitously petty and cruel.

Now we're done. Anthony (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, gratuitous pettiness and cruelty are my middle names, they're what motivate everything I do here. I'm really surprised no one's picked up on it before now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How about nominating for AfD and deciding based on notability? Despite your disagreement in the last couple of comments, this seems to be the point of convergence of what you both say. Antipastor (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are your motives, Anthony? Hm? Why do you want the article deleted? Maybe you're a sock for Mandic777/Aussieboy373? Or maybe you're a communist spy? Hm? Or perhaps you're part one of the Illuminati, trying to hide the cover of one of your top agents?!? And I'll turn off my mind control lazers that are totally preventing you from taking the article to AfD, which is why you've been forced to question the motives of and badger others for not doing so. Although, you could have just put on a tin-foil hat to block the beam, honestly. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed block of MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373

Why not? He replaces the content of an article with prods and db tags after being told repeatedly not to, acts like he WP:OWNs the article, snubs the work of others, has a COI, and is spreading warnings out over multiple accounts (if it was a single account, it'd've been blocked by now). Then again, I've been drinking, so if I need to be trouted, please do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As a result of the SPI, Aussieboy373 has been blocked for a couple of weeks, and MANDIC777 has been indef blocked. I believe the static IP has been autoblocked as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Elockid abetting meatpuppets?

No point keeping this open. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – This conversation is over. Moving on. –MuZemike 20:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Here's the timeline: 13:30 I post to Talk:Astronomical year numbering 14:43 Chris Bennett reverts 14:52 Jc3s5h (who has been editing all day) files SPI 15:22 Elockid gives judgment An interval of thirty minutes between filing and judgment is unheard of in a free society. It gives the accused no time to read the charge/instruct lawyer/file defence. It demonstrates Elockid's bias against me. A comparison of the way other cases are handled is instructive. For example, The lonerex was filed 08:32 July 23, judgment given 14:22 July 24. Ryanpatrick filed 16:13 20 July, judgment given 06:23 July 24. Now we look at the collusion aspect. Bennett reverted at 14:43 and Jc3s5h filed nine minutes later. The obvious inference is that he was alerted off - wicki. Time for these guys to be blocked and Elockid de - sysopped. (No tilde on this keyboard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.211.161 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) What ever gave you the idea that Wikipedia is a free society? There are standards of behavior to be observed. Including assuming good faith. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Since the IP sock of Vote (X) for Change apparently can't read directions, I have notified the users involved in this thread. N419BH 19:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Re the continuing attacks on my wife, instead of claiming she is a sockpuppet and then changing the subject, can we have some reasoning showing how the conclusion is arrived at? She went to the trouble of collating all the evidence on her talk page User talk:Meletian. It might be a good idea to refer to the evidence against and for (there isn't any) then demonstrate how the operation of the rules on that evidence supports your conclusion (they don't). Re your claim that she didn't notify Elockid, how do you think that (s)he found out to block her (see block log). Are you crediting Elockid with psychic powers? And since my wife does not have psychic powers, how was she supposed to notify Bennett and Jc3s5h after being blocked? Do you think that blocking without giving a chance to give the required notices is an act of good faith? I don't need psychic powers to forecast that two people who won't be showing up on this thread are Bennett and Jc3s5h. (no tilde on this keyboard). WP:DUCK is quacking. N419BH 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) There you go again. You never quote the relevant paragraphs of the rule and show how they support your case because you don't have a case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.178.117 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) The longer this goes on the worse it gets. Last night MuZemike "invited" my wife to leave the project, protected this page and collapsed the thread. The stated reason for collapse, WP:DENY is bogus, since that applies to vandals and nobody has suggested that my wife is a vandal. Chris Bennett continues the disinformation campaign on his talk page. He is now accusing my wife of "an attempt to impose the Revised Julian Calendar leap year algorithm on the Gregorian Calendar article", referring to an earlier thread. Scrolling back, we find his actual words: "I haven't looked at that closely". This he swears is the only interaction with Jc3s5h in which my wife is mentioned. According to him, my wife is "a crank" and he thinks Jc3s5h believes the same but "I don't know, because we've never discussed it". So what about [109] where they accuse her of "lies, slander, obfuscation, ignorance and misinformation" and "monomania", or [110] where he describes her as a "nutter"? Higher up the page they both dispute a ruling by SarekofVulcan where (s)he says "That's a content dispute, not vandalism -- be sure you don't get blocked for violating the rules against edit warring".

Disruption by User Njsustain

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

Njsustain has recently engaged in a pattern of disruption across multiple New Jersey-related articles. The user has refused to present reliable secondary sources to back up his spurious claims, and instead repeatedly edit-wars with multiple editors.

Requesting an uninvolved administrator to take action with regard to this user.

---

New Brunswick, New Jersey

• 19:16, 19 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374346960 by Amatulic (no talk page discussion)
• 10:36, 21 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374566210 by Shimeru (no edit summary explaining this whatsoever)
• 11:05, 22 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374346960 by Amatulic (again, still no talk page discussion)

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

• 13:36, 25 July 2010 - Njsustain adds "POV" and "COI" tags to the article - at the same time fails to present any alternative reliable secondary sources.
• 14:49, 25 July 2010 - At User talk:Njsustain, blanks out request at his user talk page, Undid revision 375376621 by Cirt, still refusing to provide any reliable secondary sources.
• 14:54, 25 July 2010 - Njsustain prodded the page for deletion, again after requests on the talk page still repeatedly refusing and failing to present any reliable secondary sources to back up his claims about the article.

---

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested an article was a puff piece. Rather than engage in discussion, the article creator has been deleting standard WP procedures for addressing these concerns. Cirt has been both disruptive and using harrassing techniques to defend the article used to advertise the "Daryl restaurant and wine bar." He clearly has a personal interest in the restaurant is is using his position as an administrator abusively. Njsustain (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested Njsustain (talk · contribs) cease the disruption, and instead suggest reliable secondary sources to support his POV-pushing. Njsustain (talk · contribs) has repeatedly refused and failed to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly refuse to allow discussion as per standard WP procudures. You clearly have a personal interest in this restaurant and are abusing your privledges as an administrator and showing your bias through these bully tactics. You don't seem interested in other user or administrator comments about the article or about this incident, only in keeping YOUR article (or should I say advertisement) for the restaurant exactly the way you want it to be. Your comments are a big flashing sign saying that the article is nothing more than I biased puff piece. It consists of nothing but positively spun lore about the restaurant and a bunch of positive reviews. It is non-neutral, non-notable, and you just can't accept it, and are taking it out on the user that happened to point it out. You are trying to smear me in order to keep your advertisement for the restaurant. This is administrator abuse for personal gain. It is totally inappropriate.Njsustain (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assumptions. Njsustain (talk · contribs) refuses to stop making these spurious claims, which amount to violations of WP:NPA. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not assumptions, they are conclusions based on the article. You seem to believe that only your conclusions are correct. You don't seem interested in waiting for other opinions, only in pointing out "rules" that are in your favoer and inappropriately ignoring ones that are not. I may not have 40,000 edits or a jillion barnstars, but I can see a puff piece, administrator abuse, and someone looking for a fight when I see them. Njsustain (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you were inappropriately ignoring simple rules like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, and so on. If you have a concern that an article is POV, why have you failed to produce reliable sources to verify claims that suggest that the article is POV? It's all very well if an article is presenting positive reviews, but if no negative reviews exist in reliable sources, are you still going to allege that it is POV? That sure sounds like your argument at the moment. What evidence do you have to demonstrate there is a conflict of interest? That's what is needed rather than the bickering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well don't make ANI another venue for the two of you to continue a dispute. Hold fire while a third party admin takes a look at things, that way neither of you talk yourselves into something else. Take heart the lessons of Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SGGH, understood. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SGGH. Njsustain (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think Njsustain is being a bit of a dick here. Assuming Cirt has a conflict in interest with the subject of the article just because he wrote it doesn't really make sense; plenty of editors write articles about things that they don't have a stake in. The claims that Cirt is abusing his authority as an administrator are also fairly ludicrous; until I've seen a diff of Cirt threatening to block, or protecting "his" version of the article, or something similar, I suggest Njsustain drop that particular line of complaints. If Njsustain thinks the article is so bad, he's more than welcome to take it to WP:AFD, especially since the prod is very much contested (and Cirt is well within his right, even as the article author, to remove that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, after several years on WP, I clearly don't understand the standards if it is (apparently) okay for administrators to go around calling other users "dicks." Fine, Cirt, you won. Have your advertisement, and keep hiding behind the white wall of silence. Have a nice day. Njsustain (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you keep acting like a dick, I'll keep saying you're acting like a dick. You've made unsubstantiated claims repeatedly, both about the article and Cirt himself (the former is a mere content dispute, but you're the one that started making the dispute personal by making allusions of COI, which you never provided evidence of). You thanked SGGH for his comments that a third party should look at things, and guess what, third parties (myself and Ncmvocalist) looked at things and don't think you're right, so now you're just going to "give up" the argument with a potshot at Cirt as a part of your concession? Lame. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. You and Cirt aren't interested in rational reasons for why I'm wrong, you're interested in smearing and name calling (i.e. swearing). If your arguments were logical, you wouldn't need to do those things. You would make them in due course, not use ad hominem attacks. Talk about lame.Njsustain (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And you've just suggested EVula and Cirt are not rational (which goes to mental stability); I think you are heading towards a block with this behavior. I've asked you a question and given a view on how you are appearing based on site policy, but your refusal to civilly respond to that is problematic - that you also choose to engage in bickering with those who are disagreeing with you is compounding the concern. Where are your reliable sources to verify what you are saying? Where is your evidence? If you don't have anything, why not simply say so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt should be warned as well for assuming bad faith.--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery: I got caught in the middle here merely because I observed what I thought was a pretty good, well-sourced article about a clearly notable restaurant, which was orphaned, and subsequently added a wikilink to another article to help out, which Njsustain reverted at least once or twice. I must say I am surprised that after so many claimed years of participation on Wikipedia, Njsustain seems evidently unaware of several policies and guidelines related to content as well as behavior. If Njsustain thinks the Daryl restaurant article is a "puff piece" or "advertisement" as he claims, then he should prove it. From where I sit as a disinterested party who knew nothing about the restaurant before I saw the article, it was blatantly obvious that it wasn't an advertisement, but an article about a restaurant that has well exceeded Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Nsjustain's behavior regarding this article and its author have been, in my opinion, curiously lacking in good faith and knowledge of the standards around here. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment It appears that you all are ganging up on Njsustain a bit unfairly here though perhaps s/he hasn't approached this correctly. If you ask me a majority of these articles should be deleted as advertisements -- category:Restaurants in the United States by state. The restaurant in question appears to currently be popular enough and has had good enough PR to have garnered a significant amount of promotional write ups in the lifestyle sections of various local media, and a insignificant mention or two in similar sections of the NYT. The article is exceedingly well written, and indeed was pretty much polished the minute it was added to Wikipedia. I have no idea what the truth of these COI allegations are, and I would suggest that making those allegations was inappropriate. On the other hand it is odd to see this kind of article pop up in such a polished state like that -- but maybe the writer is fan of restaurants or just a fan of this one? Who knows. I would suggest that if this article, and the other offenders in the category in question technically meet our notability criteria (does it?) its time to have a very detailed look at how to strengthen the policy in terms of commercial establishments like this. These types of establishments garner all kinds of local attention because that's how restaurant PR works. But should an encyclopedia further this PR, by using it to construct articles about these eateries? If we did this for every similar restaurant we'd double the size of Wikipedia overnight with more promotional material. This is a very bad path to go down.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more in principle, but the problem here is muddiness in the guidelines.

As an analogy, the consensus among members of WikiProject Wine is that Wikipedia's unclear criteria for inclusion result in the appearance of articles on arguably non-notable wineries that meet "the letter of the law" but not the spirit. See a real donnybrook argument about one such winery, as well as an even lengthier deletion review. To avoid such huge debates resulting from muddy guidelines, WikiProject Wine has a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), which attempts to interpret existing guidelines in the context of wine, which is a huge topic of global interest. Isn't there something like that somewhere for restaurants?

For wine, we would advocate that the "coverage in multiple sources" criterion in WP:CORP that specifies "at least regional" be eliminated, leaving national and international coverage — at least for wineries. On the other hand, for restaurants, who don't ship products all over the world, I'd say regional coverage by multiple reliable sources is sufficient. (And schools are another matter, assumed to be automatically notable regardless of actual notability!)

The point I'm making with this analogy is that a single guideline doesn't fit all cases. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we admit that this article is bad news and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia? Further discussions are taking place regarding this matter in several other venues:

• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Just_curious
• Talk:Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant#An_additional_source
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability

The last one of these venues is clearly the most significant since it is the policy page in question. Comments there would be most helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A counterattack by Cirt. I wonder how much he gets paid for writing these advertisement articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing informations and edit-warring

User:Ninguém is removing several informations from article Portuguese Brazilian. He's also edit-warring.

[This is the original version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Brazilian&action=submit], which has been there for several months. A rich article, full of informations about the Portuguese presence in Brazil from colonial times to nowadays.

[This is the version of Ninguém http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Brazilian&action=submit], after days of heavy edits, he removed most of article's informations. He removed all the informations about the Portuguese presence in Brazil during colonial times, and focused only in their presence after independence. It became a much poorer article. And he also included his personal opinions, like "People descending from Portuguese from that time are never considered "Portuguese Brazilians" and might take offence at that."

It seems article ownership. Opinoso (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have exactly the same memories of Ninguen. He is rewriting many long term stable articles from another perspective. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• - Notified User:Ninguém - Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He re-writes stable articles from his own perspective. When he deslikes some information, he just removes it, or claims that the source is not relible or that it does not belong to the article. Former stable articles are not destroyed after his editions and endless discussions. He has a huge lack of knowledge about the subjects, so everything he did not know he claims to be false. Opinoso (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am edit-warring, against whom am I edit-warring? Or would this be a new thing, a war with only one side?

About the "sourced" informations I removed, here is one example: ""No available figures. The vast majority of Brazilians have some Portuguese ancestry". No source. It also seems to imply that the "vast majority" of Brazilians are "Portuguese Brazilians", which is not only unsourced, but, frankly, simply false. And here is the "unsourced personal opinion" that I substituded: 1.2 million<ref>Maria Beatriz Rocha-Trindade. [http://analisesocial.ics.ul.pt/documentos/1223029690Q0qVY3ok7Pi09MZ4.pdf Espaços de herança cultural portuguesa — gentes, factos, políticas] in ''Análise Social'', vol XXIV (100), 1988 (1º). p. 328. PDF file.</ref> Apparently it does have a source.

The above is representative; Opinoso is quite a bad reader. He misreads the sources, and then reports them into the articles, stubbornly defending his misinterpretations. In this way, he has included much garbage in Wikipedia, such as, for instance, "Nelson is a Portuguese name". Much of his "sourced information" is of this quality; most of the rest is based in unreliable sources. When someone undoes his confusions, he likes to claim "article ownership", "vandalism", etc. On the other hand, he often undoes - rightly or wrongly - the work of others in them most uncivil way, and then a different standard seems to apply. Ninguém (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to change the focus of this discussion, Ninguém. You removed nearly all the informations from article Portuguese Brazilian. You already did it in several articles. Opinoso (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I did; the removed information is unsourced, missourced, unrelated to the article, or otherwise simply false. The bit I posted above shows exactly that: you included misinformation (indeed unsourced misinformation) in the article, I removed it, and you are claiming that I removed "sourced" information. That's the substance of this ANI. Ninguém (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop using your own perspective to re-write article. And you removed half of the article, not only that figure. By the way, your source does not claim that only 1.2 million Brazilians are of Portuguese descent. Opinoso (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at what this is all about. The best way in is the list of the last 250 edits. We see here an edit war between Ninguém (31,150 bytes) and Opinoso (45,413 bytes). The figure of 45,413 bytes first appears, I believe, at 02:00, 3 April 2010. If we compare that version and the current one, we see no change. Opinoso wants to take the article back to the state it was in over three months ago.

That earlier version lasted 12 days, before it was amended by Ninguém -- slightly and simply, if with a curiously pugnacious edit summary. But this edit summary was anomalous: the edit history of the article shows a string of over a hundred edits by Ninguém, to 12:31, 17 May 2010: each incremental, each -- as far as I can judge (and I cannot read Portuguese) -- an improvement, and each with an informative and polite edit summary. A week later, Rich Farmborough did a little clearing up. Five days later, 200.251.176.140 reverted it to 45,513 bytes with the edit summary "Several sourced informations were removed from this article after heavily continous editing. Can somebody protect it from vandalism?"

There has been an edit war since then. On the one hand, Ninguém. On the other, 200.251.176.140, 201.62.216.172 and Opinoso. All three of the latter consistently complain about the removal of "informations". (The latest is "You discuss why you are removing informations. I am free to add informations in Wikipedia, but you are not free to remove them".) Ninguém's summaries have included "No actual reason for restoring distortions, misinformation, and irrelevance" and "Discuss in the talk page if you think the changes aren't good."

And what are the changes? They're so extensive that the normal left-right comparison makes them hard to see -- which of course is hardly Ninguém's fault: he provided an edit summary every time. Still some discrete changes are easy to make out from left-versus-right. Opinoso has reverted:

• "After Portugal's recovery from the effects of Salazarist dictatorship" to "After Portugal's recovery from the effects of the 1974 military coup"
• "endogamy" to "endogomy" (at least twice)
• "The Brazilian culture is in large part derived from the Portuguese culture and the similarities between both cultures and the relatively easy integration of immigrants in Brazil, make it nearly impossible for some to keep a separate Portuguese identity." to "The Brazilian culture is in large part derived from the Portuguese culture and for the similarities between both cultures and the relatively easy integration of immigrants in Brazil, makes it nearly impossible for some to keep a separate Portuguese identity."
• "Genetic studies also confirm the strong proportion of Portuguese genetic ancestry in Brazilians." to "Genetic studies also confirm the strong Portuguese racial influence in Brazilians."
• "theater director" to "theater director de teatro"

And so on. Most of the above are of course trivial. The point being, when Opinoso's handiwork is extensively edited, he repeatedly reverts wholesale, and the hell with spelling mistakes, crappy markup, readditions of categories that no longer exist, bits of Portuguese, and miscellaneous absurdities.

There's more to see at Talk:Portuguese Brazilian (and indeed the talk page of many articles about issues and non-issues in South American demographics).

For those of you thinking that the names Ninguém and Opinoso are both very familiar here at WP:AN/I and clearly they both hate each other's guts and are time-wasters and should be dealt with in the same way -- no, there are differences:

• Ninguém argues each point, Opinoso demands equal time (or something like that), but hardly argues.
• Ninguém shows where Opinoso's edits are at fault; Opinoso airily ascribes what he doesn't like to Ninguém's PoV.

When both editors agree that there's a substantive difference between the two of them and a third party tries to get to the bottom of it, Ninguém tends to be willing to discuss the issue(s), Opinoso tends not to. (See e.g. the archives of Talk:White Brazilian.)

I started in these squabbles a long time ago, merely as a disinterested admin. I still have no more interest than I had then in the ethnic affiliations, skin color, "race" or genetic origins of Brazilians and others -- they could be Melanesian or Maori, black, white or green for all I care. (And ditto for my inlaws, my neighbors, and my own family, for that matter.) Still, I have some concern for the ability of WP readers who are interested to read coolly and scrupulously written material, and have at times done some editing as well as made some attempts at mediation. The mediation attempts failed, and perhaps I bear a grudge against Opinoso for having wasted so much of my time. Awareness of the possibility that I can no longer look dispassionately at Opinoso's reversions makes me hesitate to do what I believe is amply justified: block him for 3RR, editing disruptively, degrading articles, etc. But somebody else should consider this. I'm sure that this and related articles would benefit from Opinoso being given a long vacation. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Faust

I think User talk:Faust's block is based on a misunderstanding. He and a few others were asked to stop discussing here issues arising from troubles on the Dutch Wikipedia. Then Faust, who I think is interested in philosphy, stumbled on my userpage and found my blog (I had made a few comments in that now closed thread) and made a comment about that on my talkpage. My blog is about certain metaphysical ideas. I don't think his comment is in any way related to the dispute that the invlved editors were asked to shut up about.

Perhaps his use of the word "weblog" to refer to my blog and the fact that JanDeFietser's "weblog" that does discuss the problems on Dutch Wikipedia may have made his comment look suspicious. But then, in the Dutch language, the word "weblog" is often used instead of "blog". So, I think it is more reasonable to assume that Faust was just trying to forget about the case by discussing something else completely unrelated to the problems on Dutch Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

Resolved

 – well it's not anymore Tommy! [message] 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although not that pressing, WP:AIV could use a bit of work. Thanks. Connormah^talk 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just realized that WP:AN probably would have been more appropriate. Apologies. Connormah^talk 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Jessi Slaughter deletion log

Resolved

So Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case was speedily deleted with an Ignore All Rules rationale, but then described in its deletion log as a BLP G10 violation -- yet it did not even remotely fit those criteria. Because of that G10 characterization I've been denied reviewer rights as the author of "a negative unsourced BLP" (it absolutely was not negative or poorly sourced). I wrote a difficult article, waiting for several days of media coverage before even creating it, and took great pains to write it using only the most mainstream of third-party sources. It might not have been a popular topic to try writing about, but I wrote it well and followed WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP1E to the very best of my abilities.

I'm fine with the community deciding that WP:V and WP:RS are outweighed in some cases, and it's obviously futile to contest the decision at WP:DRV, but to cast an editor like myself as having authored an attack page and slap me with a scarlet letter over a poorly-written deletion decision is completely unfair. That poorly-written rationale and its inclusion in the article's deletion log has branded me as the sort of editor that I am not, and I'd appreciate someone at least taking the time to refine the language of the article's deletion log to make this clear. Ingersollian (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the delete log to reflect the actual issue. Not perfect but should at least remove any questions. I would confirm that the article looked to be carefully written and sought to follow a high standard of writing, however community concerns related to harm and long term newsworthiness carried more weight in this instance. It can happen. Borderline BLPs can be difficult to second guess in terms of community reaction.

Not a lot that one can say. Any one of a great many competent editors fancying a challenge might have judged that topic likely notable and tried to write exactly that article. I hope that's some kind of comfort :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Any one of a great many competent editors fancying a challenge might have judged that topic likely notable and tried to write exactly that article. I hope that's some kind of comfort :)" Thank you so much! That's exactly what I've been trying to explain all along. Is there any chance someone who knows the circumstances of the deletion would now reconsider my request to be able to review? :) Ingersollian (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. Having been closely involved on the post-AFD/BLP it would feel improper of me to do anything on your permissions even if it were my area of focus. However while you were writing the above I was posting a comment at WP:PERM/RW, you may want to ask the declining admin (on his talk page) if he would be willing to review it again. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Some advice on persistent hoax vandalism, please

Resolved

 – Another 4chan target armor-plated N419BH 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have List of British words not widely used in the United States on my watchlist, and so have been witnessing a series of US-based IP addresses (and some throw-away accounts) insert made up words into the list. They're blatantly false, for example, "smokery pokery" to mean "corn dog", even though Britain doesn't have, make, or eat corn dogs. These IPs have been pretty much tag-teaming trying to keep some of these words on the list, but they seem to have settled on "Smibbly Bibbly" as a favourite. When this was first inserted, I searched for it and got only a single hit, which was this one: [111]. I've searched intermittently for it since then, and the list of hits keep growing, as the word gets added to various forums and other public-posting sites around the 'net. Adding it to the urban dictionary does not make it a British term. I'm not the only one who has been reverting these additions as vandalism, but I have been doing so consistently, and even semi-protected the article for a short period of time. My last removal has provoked this: [112], rather humorously calling me a bitch, :) Question is, what to do? I don't mind carrying on removing it, as protection seems too drastic, even though this has been a long-term issue, and the variety of IPs being used probably makes blocking ineffective. I'm convinced that whomever is determined to insert this term into the British language is hoping Wikipedia will lend strength to their hoax. Other opinions? For completeness, I've also discussed this with an IP, here: [113]. Thanks, Maedin\^talk 19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems to be on-going and with so many IPs and socks, I'm inclined to think reprotecting it would be a good idea. I see that it was protected before, which drastically cut down on the problems until it expired. It might also be a good candidate for the Pending Changes trial, if they are still allowing new articles. I'd also recommend an SPI on all the editors doing the same edit to see if they are the same person or group of people, get them tagged, and see if a range block is possible. With the SPI, it will also generally be easier to report to AIV for blocking on future occurrences. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be a 4chan attack. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to have that USA Citizen userbox on my page. Probably should semiprotect. N419BH 20:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be embarrassed, there's an equal percentage of idiots elsewhere, we just have more people, therefore more idiots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no shortage of vandalism from the UK, I assure you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page of the article has suggested 4chan as the source. How long would one semi-protect for? The last 3-day protection was useless. Maedin\^talk 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say 5 days, see what happens after that. If it continues, semi again. Eventually they'll get bored/find a new target. N419BH 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like John took care of it—a month. That should shut them up, ;-) Thanks for the extra eyes! Maedin\^talk 20:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't count on it,Channers can go after a target for half a year or more, this might need to be permanent... Soxwon (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh. RBI for now, worry about it in a month if they come back. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken redirects

Resolved

There are two broken redirects listed on Schutz's tool[114] but they need an admin to fix them. Can someone oblige? Cheers. 86.145.163.208 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness on Akins, part two

Resolved

 – blocked - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be such a pain in the ass, but the issues over at Akins aren't getting better. I was originally the 3O on the page regarding a sourcing problem, but I guess I've become more active there. A few days ago I reported Wyvren (talk · contribs), an editor who was being particularly tendentious on this one article. He was blocked for 31 hours, but nearly as soon as he was unblocked, his editing started again. Actually, Dougweller brought this up to the blocking admin on the blocking admin's talk page, and I received a note asking me to chime in. I've tried to work with this editor on the talk page about sourcing, but they left a few small notes and have ignored the rest. He's making large edits that are largely rolling back any productive changes that have been made. I've left a note on the blocking admin's talk page about this, but their edits just don't seem to be stopping anytime soon, and I don't know what to do. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this dispute, but I do know that Wyvren did this, which puts his ability to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in serious doubt. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that the POV of the current article on the Stormfront website is biased? Calling Stormfront a "hate site" is like calling the NAACP a "racist, black-supremacist, hate group". What is with the double-standard here? Using terms like "White-Rights Advocacy site" is much less biased than labeling Stormfront as a Neo-Nazi White Supremacist site. --Wyvren (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, Wyvren, those two things are not alike. At all. Not even close. Not to anyone who has any contact with reality. You may think differently, but we go with what the reliable sources say, not your personal fantasies about the matter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming back from a block and basically reinstating his edits is a bit of 'my way or the highway' and is putting off other editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

G-d no! Even the name has Neo-Nazi connotations - and I find it impossible to believe that was an accident. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, alright. Wyvren is still editing with no regard for previous opinions; they readded some images that are apparently of a dubious nature, and they just made some pretty sweeping changes to the lede, now causing it to be bigger than the rest of the article. It's also skewing pretty hard POV, I think. Can we actually do anything about this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Returning immediately to the same sorts of edits after a block is poor form. I have made no attempt to clean up any of these edits - if they require further discussion here, please unmark this as resolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this; I've been a bit busy IRL. That's the same conduct I blocked Wyvren for, so I think a second block is the right course. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, vandalism, BLP vio

Resolved

 – indeffed by John Toddst1 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User: GeorgeSorrows has been repeatedly warned about his behavior, but is unrepentant. His behavior includes personal attacks and incivility toward other editors ([115], [116], [117], [118])), deleting warnings from his talk page ([119]), vandalism ([120]), and slanderous BLP violations ([121], in which he calls George Soros a "creepy self-hating Jew whose army of of hapless bloggers are polluting the minds of our disaffected youth everywhere"). He has shown no indications that he intends to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, so I think a block is in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fifteen edits this guy has. Fifteen. And this is what he's brought to the table so far. (Btw, he's entitled to remove warnings from his own talk page, but still.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not here to improve the encyclopedia. Blocked indef. --John (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistant Hoax Alert

Three times this month someone has created an article about a boxer named Alfredo Peña. The problem? Its a hoax. The BIG problem? The most recent rendition looks very, very legit. Its well written, has the right templates, even comes with half a dozen references. All the references relate to the form of boxing that Pena supposively fought in. One is even a biographical about a boxer by the same name who boxed in the 40s 60s. Another is about one of Pena's opponents.

I'm concerned that this might be part of a larger ploy to damage Wikipedia's credibility. --*Kat* (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, that's a sneaky hoax :( (as an aside; I reverted edits by the same user [who created the article] adding this "boxer" to various boxing lists - on the off chance it turns out not to be hoax anyone feel free to rv that) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I did my homework. Definitely a hoax.

One of the previous versions was created by a user called User:Mike Rosoft (very punny, no?). Source: http://www.theopca.com/news/alfredo-pena/ Whoops, looks like that page took something out of context. My mistake.--*Kat* (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

--*Kat* (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it and salted it for three months. (There's some evidence for an Argentinian boxer of this or tilde-less name, floreat circa 1960.) ¶ And three months from now? Put it on your watchlist, and keep an eye on links to it, too. -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also sneaky in that some of the other information added by Pn lfredo (talk · contribs) is sourced, but there are questions about the sourcing. Take this for example. I've raised a question about it, explaining the problem, at Talk:Freedom Award#Dubious information (q.v.). This account claims, in deleted edits at Talk:Alfredo Peña (boxer), to be this Alfredo Peña person, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have found confirmation about the 2009 award in the Miami Herald archives. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request IP block of User:207.81.9.153 for repeated vandalism

The user (User:207.81.9.153) has been repeatedly vandalizing many pages, usually involving animated shows and comic book pages, many of which I have reverted several times over the past month. Vandalism usually consists of adding completely falsified information, such as creating characters, involvement in other franchises, appearances in other media, or just adding random celebrities to the casts of animated programs. The user was already contacted by an established editor and warned about his or her contributions and persists nonetheless. Here are some examples: [122], [123], [124], and [125]. The user history demonstrates that he or she has been doing this several times since beginning at Wikipedia. Requesting an indefinite block.Luminum (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite jstor

The template {{Cite jstor}} currently has cascading protection, but it seems to have an annoying bug in it. Notice the "edit" button following the citation, that directs to {{Cite doi/10.2307.2F2689754}}:

• JSTOR 2689754
  This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by hand

The above has the subst'ed template. Here it is, without subst'ing:

• .

As far as I can tell, the same problem appears on all other uses of the {{cite jstor}} template. My understanding of the code for that template is that the edit link should only be added when the citation is incomplete. Could someone with the tools to edit this template please investigate. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklin.vp

Could someone decide what to do about the above which is awaiting admin closure? Cu confirmed that the two IPs and 2 userids were the same person, though the Franklin.vp is stale. [126] confirms that one of the ids says they are Franklin but are unable to log on due to changing to a random password. The CU result therfore means some block evasion has been going on.

99.231.81.164 (talk · contribs · count) has reinserted a comment at Talk:New antisemitism which User:Mbz1 removed as sock abuse/trolling. I re-removed it on the same basis, but have now looked at the details above and am not sure whether to self-revert. So could an admin decide what block on the accounts is appropriate for the sock-abuse and block evasion confirmed by the cu, then direct the user to pick one of the accounts as their new main one and decide which comments by the accoutns should stand? Thank you--Peter cohen (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoganate79

User Yoganate79 seems to blank his talk page over and over again. It also seems that the user has blanked or removed article talk page content in the pasts. --Kslotte (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although archiving is more customary, users are permitted to blank their talk pages, if they choose. Doing so is considered acknowledgement that they have read the messages. You appear to have forgotten to inform User:Yoganate79 of this discussion, so I'll take care of it for you. If there's a problem with that user's edits, messages from the talk page can be found in the talk page history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I found archiving a right pain to set up, and until I eventually settled on a solution that worked it was broken more often than not. Kslotte, it might be worth volunteering to help Yoganate79 set up archiving? It may be that they simply don't know about it or can't be bothered fighting with an evil bot... TFOWR 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But for the most part, we have nothing to see here. As pointed out here (and your talk page...which granted, was after you posted here), users are permitted to blank their talk page. Unless you can provide us some diffs of him inappropriately removing article talk content as you insinuate, I think we can mark this as resolved.. --Smashville^talk 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

213.107.191.108

• 213.107.191.108 (talk · contribs) - most recent
• JHUGHES8989 (talk · contribs)
• Joshh101010 (talk · contribs)
• Joshhughes2010 (talk · contribs)

All edits are inserting misleading information about towns in southern Hertfordshire, England. Various warnings, all ignored. MRSC (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

topic ban for User:Solar Rocker

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem here. This user started off as User:Ratinator but has retired that account. They also have a blocked sock account: User:CuteMice. Solar Rocker was technically created while Ratinator was still blocked, but as it seems an honest if inept attempt at a clean start I elected to let that go. All three accounts have been obsessed with acquiring rollback rights and have made one mess after another at WP:AFC that other users have had to spend time cleaning up. I'm frankly concerned that this user may lack the competence required for an editing environment like this, but at the very least I feel they should be topic banned from requesting rollback or participating at AFC for a period of six months. That should be enough time for an active user to gain the required familiarity with out content and vandalism policies, allowing them to participate in a productive manner, rather than just creating a lot of messes that need to be cleaned up. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fair about the rollback but can you not do the AfC. Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree with a 6 month ban, but rather on a merit basis... what's the evidence for rollback "obsession"?.. moreover, why do you want rollback so much? It's only a button. Tommy! [message] 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The contributions of CuteMice are evidence enough. --Deskana (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban, but I'm not entirely comfortable with overlooking the socking issue, given his responses here. Frankly, the fact that he even asked this question is worrisome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ay, yes the 2nd diff is disturbing. Tommy! [message] 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Luckily he has no skill at deception, so the socks have been very easy to detect. The obsession with rollback and other user rights is clear if you look at the editing history of all three accounts, here are just a few of the many postings made by the three accounts on these subjects:Solar Rocker's reply to a denied request for rollback [127] CuteMices request, which is one lie after another [128] Actually Ratinator was more fixated on the reviewer right, which they are even more unqualified for [129] is one of his many postings to that noticeboard, so we should maybe throw that on the topic ban as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also support a "topic ban", as it were. We've received a fair few complaints from people submitting AfC requests that their requests were unfairly denied by Solar Rocker/Ratinator/Solar Rocks/CuteMice (or whatever other username he's used and I've left off), and a lot of these complaints were found to be justified and the close he made was overturned. Additionally, I think he should be restricted to a single account: him continually dumping old accounts for new ones is not acceptable. --Deskana (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Deskana. Tommy! [message] 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I had missed Solar Rock, blocked them too. Agree that he has abused WP:CLEANSTART in addition to the outright socking, and that he should be permanantly restricted to one account. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, restrict user to one account. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support absolutely (topic ban on AFC for 6 months and restricted to single account); I would also support a fresh block immediately, for an appropriate time, for socking.

I've had to deal with the fallout of far too many AFCs for this user and their socks - I'd guess at least 30 that I've had to repair damage from, and at least 10 users complaining in the IRC help channel about AFC edits that this user has made; I can get diffs if needed, but frankly I've wasted far too much time on this already. If you just look at their contribs to AFC's, it should be apparent that they do not understand that we want to help new users write Encyclopaedic content, not dismiss them to 'clear the queues'.

Solar rocker/ratinator/cutemice/solar rock/IP/whatever you want to be called, you do not seem to have grasped the basic principles of Wikipedia, and you are creating a lot of work; we have to be very careful to make new users as welcome as possible, and to guide them through the difficult process of getting started in Wikipedia; your declined/held AFCs do the exact opposite, and put people off contributing. People have tried to help and advise you where you were going wrong, but you deliberately evaded the block on Ratinator by creating Cute Mice, and even then you were shown great leniency with a short block; you then still persisted in gaming the system, creating new IDs. Wikipedia is not a game, you are not trying to 'level up'; you really do need to understand that. I do not know if you can become a useful contributor or not, but I certainly think you should stay away from AFC, and that you should start listening to all the many people who are trying their very best to get you on the right tracks. And please, stop trying to circumvent policies; it will catch up on you, surely you see that now. Best that can happen now is, you settle down, accept advice, read up on policies and guidelines, and learn to ask when you are not sure - check things, don't make assumptions. Maybe - shock - try writing an article. Stop trying to gain status; 'rollback', 'admin', etc are no big deal, it is not an award, it's just some little setting that allows trusted users to help in special ways. You are not going about it the right way; you're not gaining trust here. Right now, you can fix it; you can demonstrate maturity by accepting this advice - if you're blocked for a bit, use the time to read up on some policies or to start writing a bit of an article on your userpage (WP:FIRST might help). Try making some simpler edits - WP:CLEANUP has lots of stuff to do. Review those AFCs, see what happened to them, learn from your mistakes. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for AFC for six months with a review then of general behavior, restricted to single account, and that seems generous. Block for sockpuppetry for an appropriate time with the understanding that further sockpuppetry gets an indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• And the latest account: Lunar Stars. --Deskana (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

you can do the topic ban then, I don't mind I deserve it Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you are doing the fake retirement/start a new account thing again. Clearly, you are incapable of understanding or abiding by our policies. I have blocked the new account and Solar Rocker indefinitely, and I would like to modify my request from a topic ban to a full site ban. Enough is enough, I shoveled all the good faith I could muster to this user, and they have spit in my face again and again in return. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support This user was shown all the good faith in the world, and abused it each and every time. The door is that way, so long. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support full site ban per Beeblebrox. Creating a new sock in the middle of a discussion about being restricted to a single account pretty blows any attempt to WP:AGF out of the water. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistent ban evasion attempts

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) is permanently banned. He has returned to edit multiple times since then under various IP addresses.

Recently, Linuxmdb (talk · contribs) created the page MDB (Linux) (which was speedily deleted). For those who don't know, MDB is the "Merkey Debugger" as can be seen on LKML and other spots on the web. Other edits by Linuxmdb focused on Merkey's patents.

AmaTsisqa (talk · contribs) had a similar interest in Merkey's accomplishments. A sockpuppet investigation showed that the two accounts were editting from the same IP address 71.219.59.226 (talk · contribs), and the two accounts plus the IP were blocked.

Linuxmdb identified himself as one "Gaylynn Mitchell" [130].

AmaTsisqa claimed to be "Frau Geartner," a 64-year-old German woman [131], though the sockpuppet investigation (which included a checkuser) suggests otherwise.

Other IP sockpuppets have appeared since then. These can be identified either by the IP angrily claiming to be "Gaylynn Mitchell" or the WP:DUCK test based on the subjects the IP chooses to edit.

• 71.219.49.171 (talk · contribs)
• 71.213.116.225 (talk · contribs)
• 71.219.51.124 (talk · contribs)
• 71.213.117.104 (talk · contribs)

71.213.117.104 has been persistent in attempting to get unblocked, trotting out the same old "I'm not Jeff, call my cell phone and I'll prove it." As another IP noted on the talk page, there is no listing for "Gaylynn Mitchell" anywhere in the state of Utah.

Multiple promises to obey all WP rules and policies ring hollow. As a banned user, WP:BAN still applies, and he's not obeying that one already by IPsocking.

There is also the connection between "Gaylynn Mitchell" and Jeff Merkey. If we don't accept all of the edits by "Gaylynn Mitchell" which promoted Merkey's accomplishments as evidence of sockpuppetry under WP:DUCK, then it shows that "Gaylynn Mitchell" cannot be objective and abide by WP:COI and should therefore remain blocked, especially in light of "As soon as the block expires I am going to write about JEFF MERKEY".

Given that this persistent ban evasion will not stop, a high-level contact to the network operator is in order. WP policies specifically hold this out as a possible remedy to long-term abuse. Long Time Lurker (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey is, indeed, a long-time problem. However, he's only half of a problem that includes individuals following him here to further an offsite grudge. The above account ought to be carefully scrutinized in that regard. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Gavia. Stop your kvetching or else that recommendation you just gave will be the noose you hang yourself with. I think at this point it's fair to say Merkey's detractors are also de facto banned for their continued on-wiki harassment of the guy. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to examine the IPs listed above by the SPA on their face value? Or do we just ignore the SPA without acting on the possible JVM socks? (I am asking because I genuinely do not know). Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If he would abide by WP:BAN, then he wouldn't be here for anyone to "follow him here." He is banned, and we're trying to point out evasion attempts so he can be stopped. If Willy On Wheels (talk · contribs) comes back with another sock puppet, will you ban the users who point it out?

What does it say on WP:BAN? Banned users are not welcome. How can you harass someone who is not welcome, persona non grata? If you break into my house, will you call the 911 and report an "assault with a deadly weapon" when I pick up my baseball bat to chase you out? Long Time Lurker (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, banned users are not welcome. Neither is feeding the trolls, which is what Merkey detractors have been doing on the blocked ip talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Instantnood at it again

At List of metro systems. The same IP range, the same POV edits, the same sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. I've requested indef semi-protection, but wanted to mention it here as well. oknazevad (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RevDel

Resolved

 – Revision's edit summary deleted, user blocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Can an admin remove the edit summary from this edit. Remove of the project is correct, just the summary itself should be deleted. Thanks. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've undone this edit from a long-term abusive vandal, blocked them, and revision deleted the disruptive edit summary. As to the propriety of the WikiProject banner, projects are generally free to set their scope as narrow or wide as they wish. –xeno^talk 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

This users continued incivility is getting beyond the joke. He has since the last ANI here said the following.

• [132] Accuses me of making false claims and ignorance.
• [133] Infers i require remedial education.
• [134] Says i am a semi-literate ignoramus, but at least i may be the nicest one.

These are clear breach`s of wp:npa and WP:TPNO

He is also in the habit of misrepresenting my comments [135] another clear breach of WP:TPNO which says, Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context

I would like this user to be reminded that such incivility has no place on WP mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley is attempting to impose a fringe view on a subject about which he knows little. His objection is fundamentally to having his own words, which include the claims that Greeks had no democracys [his spelling, since repeated, he also uses democracy's] and that the United States had no elections before 1789 quoted back at him. My "misrepresentation" has consisted of so quoting him.

He also has a tendency to remove sourced edits, because he (with no source) disagrees with them; this habit of WP:BLANKING really should be addressed:

• 21:17 14 July,
• 21:19,
• 21:21,
• 21:36

At this point the page was protected. He then put it up for deletion, and continued to revert.

• 09:28 17 July
• 12;27
• 12:29
• 12:30
• 21:11

His remedy is simple. If he strikes the nonsense he puts forth, I will cease to quote it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok to hat hab the off topic stuff above? This is not about content, this is about a users constant uncivil behaviour mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If repeated WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT behavior regarding content eventually led an editor to to responses that are not exactly WP:CIVIL, the content discussion would seem to be related. Active Banana (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• A few words in defense. Pmanderson is irascible, blunt, and hardheaded. So were many of the best professors I had in college and grad school. I've observed his work for a year or two now, because our areas of interest often overlap. We've had arguments. I don't always agree with him. Eventually, however, I always see the intellectual basis for what he's saying, and sometimes I'm willing to concede that he was right and I was wrong. His arguments have had a positive, bracing, and clarifying effect any time I've encountered him, especially against those attempting ownership of an article. I've never seen him push a POV or argue for any apparent reason other than a truly impressive devotion to disinterested scholarship. Is he sarcastic? Is he unnecessarily harsh or contemptuous? Yes. He's also sometimes uproariously funny, and an editor of great intellectual breadth and depth, as indicated by the number of topics to which he can make informed contributions. Nor does he go around deleting content out of sheer zealotry; the fact that he spends so much time on talk pages indicates that he's engaging in dialogue. To me, this is crucial; I'm more worried about editors whose main goal seems to be blocking the contributions of others while adding little content themselves. Lighten up! People who place a premium on intellectual activity aren't always endowed with equal patience for the social hypocrisies aka good manners. But WP:CIV is not a club with which to beat the most spirited among us into submission. I would hate to see WP turn into a place where the Dolores Umbridges of the world can flourish and the Temperance Brennans are hounded out. I find it horrifying that people want to form a tribunal to judge editors not on the basis of the overall value of their contributions to WP articles, but on whether they adopt a meek and deferential tone on talk pages. That turns WP into some kind of gentlemen's club administered by a Star Chamber. I fail to see how the quality of the encyclopedia can be improved by this. What the community is going to do with PMA is a chilling phrase (from the Wikiquette alert that preceded this action), because it won't be the community doing anything. Most of the community will be going about their business unaware this is even taking place; it will be a few people ganging up on one independent-minded editor whose prickly manner is not calculated to win friends and allies. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, i know what you are saying, but it does not matter. Just because he makes decent contributions doe not give him leave to call people vandal`s, liars, ignorant, or any of the other insults he chucks at people. This is a behavioural issue and it needs to be sorted mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with Cynwolfe's comment. I've had a look at the article in question, which brought a dispute to AN/I earlier, and aside from wondering why we have such an article, thought it takes quite a lot of intellectual and scholarly effort to improve the article. PMAnderson is blunt, but the few times I've been the subject of his bluntness I didn't feel insulted, but rather that I needed to read more and work to understand the topic better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• “prickly manner” is zero excuse for habitually engaging in incivility and personal attacks, Cynwolfe. I doesn’t matter if PMA has an I.Q. of 165 and herald angels guide his fingers on his keyboard; behavior like PMA’s is toxic to a collaborative writing environment. Moreover, his behavior is chronic; it’s clear he fancies Wikipedia to be a big game to play and has zero intentions of conforming to conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L

• Comment Things are entirely out of hand with Pmanderson. He has a long history of incivility and personal attacks. Something really needs to be done about it. Note that there was an ANI against him here 14 days ago with User:OpenFuture and here 8 days ago with User: mark nutley. All of it was over just this sort of thing. Neither resulted in action against him. Now Pmanderson is engaging in outrageous personal attacks on yet another editor again. Greg L (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

'yet another' editor? This is the same Mark Nutley from 8 days ago, bring this back. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Doug no, these are further new PA`s from Pmanderson, i`m not bringing it back at all. Greg has made an error above though in think i was another editor mark nutley (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ahh! Indeed. I corrected my mistake. I saw someone else’s signature and thought we were dealing with a different editor who is a “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”; I see it’s the same one. A thousand pardons. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. Quoting Cynwolfe: Pmanderson is irascible, blunt, and hardheaded. Agreed. He is “irascible” (definition: “become angry”); “blunt” (being straight to the point); “hardheaded” (stubborn). And none of that excuses “uncivil and engages in personal attacks”, such as calling someone a “semi-literate ignoramus.” It doesn’t matter what the edit dispute is about, editors one week after another are the recipients of abuse by PMA—and those are just the ones who know enough about Wikipedia to come here to complain. PMA is toxic to this project, which is a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see any of Pmanderson's edits as warranting action at this noticeboard. TFD (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• And just who are you? Might you please illuminate us here as to your relationship—if any—with the involved parties here so we can fathom this logic of yours? And what is your knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies on WP:NPA? And why don’t you redact your 2¢ from my comment area and make your own so there is more room for other editors to be dumbfounded by your post. I do gather that you must not be an editor PMA considers to be a '“semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”; do I have that much right?? Greg L (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, the irony. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lacking Dougweller's confidence that the irony is self-evident, I'd like to point out as politely as possible that a comment opening And just who are you? would not serve as my model for civil exchange. This is why I dislike charges of incivility: how do you determine the threshold? You can't. It's too subjective. It isn't at all like edit warring, or lack of verifiability, or any of that. It's whether my feelings got hurt. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Those few who want to know much more about GregL's habits of civility and contributions to a harmonious working environment (and a little bit more about mine) should see the evidence for the date-delinking case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

delete my user page

Resolved

 – User:AboundingHinata is deleted. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to delete it. Can someone do it for me? AboundingHinata (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes,  Done, but in future you can always just wait for the speedy tag to be processed. –xeno^talk 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you. AboundingHinata (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Repku (talk · contribs)

I am concerned by this user's usual style of edit summary. I first noticed the user when s/he edited a page on my watchlist and used the summary "Bull. Fucking. Shit." I clicked on their contributions listing and saw that this style of edit summary was not an isolated issue. I shared my concern with the editor and then I posted on Wikiquette alerts for advice. The Wikiquette people immediately suggested I escalate the issue to this forum. To clarify: I have had no content disputes, "edit wars", or other prior contact with this editor. I am just a bit jarred by the amount of vituperation I came across in examining their edit history. Thank you. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In delving a bit deeper, there is evidence that the user has long been aware of the inappropriateness of their edit summaries, but has continued with the inappropriate style. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 18:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly unacceptable by any standards - the editor's fortunate that they've got away with it this long without being reported. I was going to issue a 24 hour break, but because your note seems to be the first time this has been raised with them it's possible—just barely—that they were unaware of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and have no idea how to behave in a collegiate manner. I'll add a warning to your note, but the next time it's reported I fully expect a block will follow. EyeSerene^talk 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)