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

Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected

I have just full-protected the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely (no expiration set). I wanted to notify other administrators and explain this action, for community review.

This article subject has been the subject of a long-running sustained edit war, and three completed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others) and one pending (WP:RFAR#Cberlet and Dking) Arbitration Committee cases. An extremely persistent LaRouche supporter User:Herschelkrustofsky has been banned and returned repeatedly (most recent sockpuppet Gelsomina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked last night based on CU and editing; had been a participant on the article but not the primary one).

The specific case findings I believe apply to this action include:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - Principles 1, 2; Remedies 1, 4; Enforcement 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - Principles 2, 3, 5
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others - Principles 5, 6, 11

Normal policy allows administrators to protect pages to end particularly tedentious edit wars. This edit war has been actively ongoing since 2004.

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Enforcement 3 administrators are allowed to protect articles on other topics in a version without LaRouche content added. I am going to trivially extend that ruling and protected the article in a version which was not the last, but the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version. I believe this action is in accord with the spirit of the Arbcom ruling.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have clearly been attempting to turn that article (and others) into soapboxes for his political views. These activities have been persistent. They have broken WP policy to the extent of four separate arbcom cases in 3 years. They have utilized sockpuppets to an extent which is at best difficult to follow and monitor.

The common hope that two opposing camps on an article will over time come to an agreeable middle solution which is NPOV (and so forth) appears to be false related to articles on this topic.

I have left advice on the article Talk page for editors who want changes in the article to leave a talk page note detailing the change desired and discuss there; changes which appear consistent with Wikipedia policy can then be made by administrators watching the talk page. I will continue to watch the talk page to monitor for such requests, and I hope other admins will do likewise.

It may be appropriate to apply this solution to other related articles on the same topic. At this point I have no firm intention to do so but I am going to review them in more detail.

As always, I am open to input from other administrators and editors on any of my admin actions, either here on ANI or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded your WikiEN-L message to the arbcom list. I find this initiative against dedicated COI POV-pushers and their sock drawer most heartening - David Gerard 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

He's going to "trivially extend" the arbcom ruling? He's rewriting it altogether! --Marvin Diode 14:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Echoes of El C. Three cheers, stopping a massive edit war, showing initiative, and an action that shows exactly why IAR is policy. My mood has been lifted. It's Oktoberfest, Bratwurst and beer for all! -M^ask? 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay. Tenacious POV-pushers give us much bigger headaches than simple vandals and trolls. And they strike at the heart of the project by consciously making our content unreliable. Raymond Arritt 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The nice thing too is that "indefinite" here does not mean "forever" - the FlaggedRevisions extension, should it prove fit for purpose, will serve nicely to keep pages like this under control - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

An elegant, innovative, and bold solution fitting neatly with Arbcom rulings and the current situation. I'm taking notes. Pig^man 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a new and innovative approach that renders Wikipedia:Dispute resolution obsolete. Where there is a protracted content dispute, an admin may simply decide that he prefers one gang of POV pushers over the other, then join the gang that is to his liking and enforce its version of the article. No need for consensus, either. And what is more, there is no further need for the arbcom, now that User:Georgewilliamherbert has ignored all rules, stepped up to the plate, and simply done their job for them. --Marvin Diode 20:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That you have been a pro-LaRouche POV pusher on this article has no bearing on your opinion, of course - David Gerard 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to provide some evidence to substantiate this personal attack? --Marvin Diode 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

your removal of critical information and removal of his anti-semitism from the article linked here would seem to make it less of an attack and more a statement of fact. -M^ask? 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In your first example, I hid a twenty year old comment by the Post which might belong in the article but not in the lead, since I doubt that it is still accurate today. In the second example, I removed OR by Dking, which puts words in LaRouche's mouth in a defamatory way. Any responsible editor would do that. NOR and BLP are core policies. --Marvin Diode 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of page protection policy

Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes says that:

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

User: Georgewilliamherbert has been a participant in a recent content dispute at Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Today he reverted to his preferred version of the article, then protected it, in violation of policy. --Marvin Diode 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Except he's ignoring all rules to end a pernicious edit war on this page. It makes sense in this context, and is buttressed by the ArbCom rulings on the topic. See the above section — the pernicious LaRouche edit-wars have already led to special provisions against pro-LaRouche versions of articles, against regular policy. This is a logical extension thereof. --Haemo 06:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom decisions don't say anything of the sort. They say that if someone adds references to LaRouche to an article where it is inappropriate, then admins may protect the version that doesn't mention LaRouche. This is an article about LaRouche, and it appears to me that GWH is protecting a BLP violation (which is never supposed to happen.) --Marvin Diode 14:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to enter the BLP discussion on the article talk page. If a reasonable case is made to that effect then I or another administrator can fix the article text. Protected articles are not frozen; they are just not currently world-editable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Georgewilliamherbert in this. (If you would really prefer, I'll go unprotect it and protect it myself, since I've not been involved.) POV pushes need stopping, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here. It's not an IAR, it's entirely per the spirit of the arbcom ruling. - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Three cheers for User: Georgewilliamherbert and common sense. WAS 4.250 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is full protection required? What's wrong with semi-protection and liberal blocking of edit warriors? --Tango 00:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all the edit warriors here have long-standing accounts. --Carnildo 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the blocks are for. If certain people are persistently edit warring on an article, it is generally best to block them, rather than protect the article - protecting is good for forcing discussion and resolving the war, it doesn't sound like this war is ever going to be resolved, the people involved just need to be stopped. If you are worried about them just logging out or creating new accounts and carrying on, then you can semi-protect. --Tango 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's page protection was an appropriate way to deal with an increasingly difficult situation, and might make some progress possible. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What the arbcom decision actually says, versus User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension"

If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) The essential thrust of this decision was to prevent User:Herschelkrustofsky from adding references to LaRouche to a variety of articles where LaRouche or his opinions were not notable. What User:Georgewilliamherbert is attempting to do, is to write his own arbcom decision, which says that if an article about Lyndon LaRouche or his views is protected due to edit wars over the removal of material which is alleged to violate WP:BLP, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which is the "the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version." A "LaRouche supporter" is defined as anyone who disputes the edits of User:Cberlet or User:Dking, who habitually violate WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI, and WP:BLP on a broad range of articles, not just the LaRouche articles. I have added little or nothing about LaRouche, either positive or negative, to the LaRouche articles, or any others -- my role has been to object to policy violations by Cberlet and Dking. In the course of doing so, I have become quite familiar with the LaRouche arbcom decisions, and User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension" of them is in fact an entirely new policy which should not be represented as in any way related to what the arbcom decided. --Marvin Diode 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You may notice the lack of interest and support for your wikilawyering on this point. I wonder why that is. - David Gerard 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No one cares and we're all to happy that someone got out the clue-by-four to solve a legitimate problem in a unique, innovative, and emminently reasonable manner? Oh silly me, you were being rhetorical and I should have avoided using this moment to bask in the glow of a confidence-inspiring action that lets me know the project is in good hands. Whoops, there I go again. -M^ask? 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem to be belaboring the obvious, but I get the feeling that there are one or two admins here who are either oblivious, or indifferent, to the core policies that they are supposed to be implementing. --Marvin Diode 00:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The other admins seem to be supporting Georgewilliamherbert's actions though. Fram 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh! El_C 09:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the decision by Georgewilliamherbert to protect Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely. He is correct that it has been the subject of tendentious edit warring since 2004 The latest round has been particularly unproductive. An alternative solution would have been using Enforcement provision #1 of the first LaRouche ArbCom case, which would have resulted in the banning of Marvin Diode and others. However that probably would have been more disruptive and time consuming. The page protection is a reasonable and necessary step to bring stability to a contentious topic. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a neutral encyclopedia and all of its rules exist only to further that goal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've contributed to Wikipedia for a day short of five years now, & of all of the nasty, prolonged "we're bringing machine guns to this knife fight" edit wars on Wikipedia I've seen, the LaRouche-related one has been the worst. Worse than dealing with Scientologists, Neo-nazis, circumcision, or even the proper name of Danzig Gdańsk that port city on the Baltic sea. If his action ends this dispute, then GWH deserves all of our thanks. -- llywrch 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite ban for Herschelkrustofsky

The main LaRouche editor has been Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently a moderator at Wikipedia Review. HK has been the subject of three ArbCom cases resulting in various short bans and probations, and finally a one year ban. In the course of those investigations it was found that he'd been using sock puppets from the start of his editing career. Desptire his ban, he's never stopped using them. The non-stop sock puppetry has resulted in the ban being reset several times, most recently this month, and has become a de-facto indefinite ban. I propose that we end the charade and make the indefinite ban official. It won't stop him from using more socks but it would make the situation clearer. Any thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we haven't formally banned him yet. Would very much support a ban. JoshuaZ 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadi Carnot

Sub page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot. Perhaps as this subpage develops, any new sections can be noted here. (Just a New section created with title "TITLE" ~~~~). At time of archiving 102 kb long. —— Eagle101^{Need help?}

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested to reduce size of page.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed to reduce size of page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}

Admin edit rights privilege abuse

• Omegatron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A while back, the above admin made a content edit to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a page protected due to edit warring and currently under mediation. Furthermore, that edit was to a section under specific discussion on the mediation page. The admin was notified both on his talk page, and here on WP:ANI, that his actions were improper. The mediator, chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel, agreed that edits to those sections should not occur until the mediation was completed.

Today the admin deliberately unlocks the page in order to continue his editing, even though the mediation is ongoing, although thankfully, progress is being made.

This article is a most tendentious and difficult one to keep appropriate. There has been discussions, debates, and mediation attempts on this article for years now. Recently, we have actually been having success hammering out some of the issues. Keeping the article stable during this discussion is of great importance in allowing all sides to discuss what should and should not be there. Omegatron has been informed of this AND has been invited to join the discussion and mediation process, which he has not done in earnest before using his admin rights to unlock the article. At this point, one can no longer assume good faith as the admin has been informed, and warned, about this activity before. I believe some action needs to be taken. -- Avi 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all interested parties *have* to agree to mediation. :S —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i don't think protecting an article for months at a time is the right way to go. Why can't parties have the mediation without the protection?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop, but I'll let others have fun with that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having a page protected for months on end is not good. There are several minor edits that could be done. For example, on my display the references section is messed up by the sister links box protruding in from above. A simple {{clear}} would sort that. I also note that while one of Omegatron's edits was to do with neutrality, the other (here) was a simple formatting edit, and that should be reinstated. I also note that although Omegatron unprotected the article, he didn't continue editing. See here: "Unprotected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement.". I'm going to add an {{editprotected}} request to the talk page to see if minor edits are being accepted or not. Carcharoth 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that among the edits he wishes to make is one that is at the heart of the current mediation, please read the mediation page Carcharoth. Yes, it is frustrating; it is frustrating for all of us involved, but making changes to the very portions that are under discussion is not the way to do it, especially when after being invited to partake in the discussion, Omegatron demurred. -- Avi 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the mediation page, Avraham. If you re-read my comment, you will see that I link to the edit by Omegatron that I think is non-controversial. It is this one. Have a close look. It is only a formatting change - no content has changed. Note the edit summary: "trying to make long list of refs easier to navigate around". I completely agree that the other edit, seen here, should have been discussed at the mediation page first. My concern was whether minor edits were being ignored. I left an edit protected request, and you only partially fulfilled it. Possibly you misread what I wrote, but it wastes your time and my time if minor edits have to be done in this back-and-forth manner. If editors of the article can't control themselves, and engage in edit wars, then the conduct of the editors should be looked at, rather than protecting the page. Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since general editing to that section, which being in the lead is under scrutiny and mediation now, should be curtailed, changing the structure to facilitate editing-only ease, which is invisible when reading the article, can wait. Regarding editor conduct, sometimes, certain articles require patience by all involved. Yes using {{editprotected}} to suggest changes is a pain, but having articles in edit wars is worse. This article, obviously, is among our most tendentious. So if it requires a bit more understanding and patience than most people in today's "instant gratification" world find bearable, that is a small price to pay for working out a firm consensus. As important, it is part of the dispute resolution process here; which will only work if respected. -- Avi 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I read this wrong, I don't think there is any admin misconduct here, at least not of the egregious sort. I think we could debate for a while whether or not full protection for months is a good thing or not, but I don't think this admin has done anything horribly wrong. I could be mistaken, but best to wait for him to comment I think ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has been ongoing since May. Biased editors cannot use this as justification to lock down an article in their preferred version, and then stall in mediation to prevent others from making changes indefinitely.

Please unprotect the article. There's a lot more work to be done, and Avi cannot be allowed to assert ownership of the article in this way. — Omegatron 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is an integral part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Showing disrespect and disregard for the process will in no way shape or form help the project. Wikipedia will be around for a long time; sometimes, patience is required for the community to come to a reasonable consensus and compromise. Making edits to sections that are at the direct heart of the ongoing mediation shows a complete lack of respect for the process, the project, and the editors involved. Those of us actively involved in the mediation have been editing this article for years, and we do know what the "hot-buttons" are. Join us in working to fix the article on a long-term basis instead of ignoring all of us, wikpedia process, and the project's integrity by making unilateral decisions and edits despite ongoing dispute resolution. You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to? -- Avi 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can request edits by posting them on the talk page and use {{edit protected}}. This might be the best way to proceed with noncontroversial edits and after demonstrating consensus among different editors for more substantial changes. Thatcher131 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, does the same "edit by committee and keep protected while discussion takes place over months" process apply to articles where editing behaviour is being examined by the Arbitration Committee? Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• I would recommend unprotection. Ahmadinejad is a controversial public figure and is in the news often. It is quite likely a high-traffic page. Leaving such a page protected for long periods of time is extremely undesirable. If people involved in the dispute ignore the mediation discussion and continue to edit the disputed statements, take it up with them. Mr.Z-man 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That has been tried. This started when Omegatron, perhaps initially unknowingly, edited one of the major parts of the article under mediation, ignoring said mediation. -- Avi 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Locking a high-traffic and uncomplimentary article about a national leader like this one for long periods is bound to appear to be partisan. I (misleadingly) advertise a likely POV - and did so in the full expectation that even this suspicion of partisanship would exclude me from ever wielding admin powers. PR^talk 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Avi: And did you bring it up on his talk page before coming here? What's wrong with just reverting and warning? Why does the article have to be protected so that almost no one can edit it just because a few people should not be editing a couple statements? Mr.Z-man 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding previous communication see User talk:Omegatron#Your edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Regarding protection, please realize that there are 18 archives stretching back over two years that have been trying to hash this out. We are in the last phase of Dispute Resolution that does not require ArbCom. Getting ArbCom involved would be to no ones benefit, as that certainly will last months. If protection helps us solve the issues here, as having a stable article undergoing mediation does, then that is a good thing. -- Avi 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article.

So Avi's allowed to protect the entire article in his preferred version because it's "under mediation", while simultaneously keeping it "under mediation" for months at a time by refusing to reach agreement with other editors? (See smb's mediation comment from Sept 25, a month ago.) How is this not wikilawyering and an abuse of admin privileges?

This undermines the entire editing process. Wikipedia is edited by people working cooperatively to achieve a neutral point of view. If someone makes an edit that is not neutral for some reason, someone else can fix it. If there's a long drawn-out dispute about a specific part of the article, then you can go to dispute resolution, but that doesn't mean the entire article should be locked down indefinitely. In this case, the dispute is only about one particular sentence in the intro. When mediation has reached an agreement, the sentence can be updated accordingly, and people who make further changes can be referred to that decision.

But if that mediation process is going to take many more months (as it already has) then the article should remain editable in the meantime. Even if there's a moratorium on editing that particular disputed statement (and there shouldn't be), during such a large amount of time, the article's topic is sure to change drastically. — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we have {{editprotected}} tags and admins are supposed to use their judgment if the requested edit will create more or less disruption. The edit you want to make to the lead is at the heart of the mediation and will only add to the disruption. If you want to make a completely innocuous edit, you can still post it on the talk page, wait some time for responses, and perform it. You were using your ability to edit and unprotect protected pages to make an edit that would directly add to the articles instability. -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop

...because the only reason I would have unprotected it is so that I could make a number of controversial edits immediately afterwards without getting tattled on?

And what if someone is "unprotecting so they can edit the page" because it was wrongly protected in the first place? — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to?

Whatever are you talking about? I've left many comments on the article's talk page and the mediation page, and am not "unprotecting the page in order to edit war" or any of the other things you've made up about me. The page should not have been protected in the first place.

There are plenty of other admins, editors, and mediators who apparently disagree. -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See the comments on my talk page, Riana's talk page, and the previous AN/I (which includes a list of my "unilateral" edits) for further information.

Will someone else please deal with this behavior and unprotect the article? — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Which behavior, the one trying to acheive a resolution to this article, or the one that wishes to ignore everyone else and make changes that are likely to further destabilize the article? -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is this, the page be unprotected, and a notice be placed at the top of the page stating the page is under mediation. This way new folks get fair warning that this is controversial, and you best make sure your edit won't cause a shitstorm, while allowing for others to edit. Also it might be wise to engage in the mediation. If parties in the mediation want to edit the page disruptively, there is arbcom. Put simply the parties in the mediation, if they agree to not edit the article and one of them chooses to edit the article to advance a POV, then we have problems with editors. A suggestion would be to place the whole article under 1RR if editing gets really nasty. (Admins can warn parties on the talk page that reverts past 1 revert a day will be viewed as disruptive). Just my two cents here... protection for 4+ months because people can't agree is just problematic and is getting in the way of others improving the encyclopedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been in place since October 2. Where do you get 4 months from? -- Avi 07:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POINTy revert warring by MONGO

{{archive top}} MONGO is not going to be blocked for this action. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Closed per WP:DUCK and WP:DFTT. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:No personal attacks page is currently fully page protected. This is directly and deliberately caused by MONGO's revert warring behavior on it. Over four days, MONGO has reverted the page ten times with useless name-calling edit summaries. It is a textbook example of gaming.

I put this on the 3RR noticeboard as it involves MONGO walking up to the 3RR electric fence and pissing on it for multiple days but never crossing it. El C closed it as non-actionable because gaming 3RR isn't 3RR [1]

So ANI, what is it then? 10 reverts over the span of a few days, often three reverts in the span of an hour, than waiting a day and doing it again. This policy page has been protected 7 times this year because of this crap.

Action, or another free pass for MONGO? SchmuckyTheCat

To be fair to El_C, he didn't say that "gaming 3RR isn't 3RR". He just opined that such cases are better dealt with here rather than on WP:AN3. As far as blocking MONGO, it's pretty straightforward. The page in question is already fully protected, so the edit war is over. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Blocking someone for edit-warring after the page in question has been protected (and the edit war thus ended) would be punitive. I doubt you'll find an admin willing to do it. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The full protection has to end sometime. Do we have any assurances from MONGO that he won't continue this edit war as soon as it does? Why should he stop when he knows that he can get away with it? -Chunky Rice 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruption caused by his unprovoked personal crusading needs to stop as well as the edit warring; protecting won't solve that. Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that citing edit warring as 3rr violation on an3, when one knows that, technically, there hasn't been a 3rr violation, is problematic, and unnecessary. We don't need the 3rr for that. One can be blocked for edit warring, wp:point, or gaming the system (including 3rr) violations without 3rr being cited in the block, or an3 being used. Leave an3 for 3rr violations which are, in fact, 3rr violations. El_C 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

El C's non-action is neither here nor there, I'm just pointing out why this is being posted here instead of there, and there has a diff history for anyone that wants to look. 3RR gaming should be actionable on the 3RR noticeboard, but that's a general admin discretion issue, nothing with any individual.

Full protection for a page isn't appropriate when it is primarily one contributor making it into an edit war. MONGO's actions have caused that page to be under PP multiple times this year. When does it end? SchmuckyTheCat

To be honest, I think it was a kneejerk reaction because you and Miltopia are ED editors, and he's already got enough reason to hate ED. Still, I'd block for 3RR. Will ^(talk) 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it against WP:NPA to use outside affiliations, "mainstream or extreme", to dismiss any editor's views? *Dan T.* 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but commenting on the contributor vs the content they add is. MONGO violated that quite awhile ago with edit summaries like [2], [3], and [4] are. Spryde 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes explicitly. It's been (sensibly) a consideration for a while. The language comes right from the page. And for good reason, as you can see by this situation... Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is dismissing Mr. Cat's views by noting that he is an adminstrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. We're just putting it in context. MOASPN 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is what intent seems to be. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it in edit summaries, the talk page, etc at every moment possible?

Can you read minds? I'd like that power. Are you an adminstrator of ED also? MOASPN 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I give up.

On second thought. No, I am not giving up. I can't read minds. But I can take what appears to me to the be the intent (and it is fully my opinion) for bringing it up. To disparage the contributor instead of his or her argument itself. You are doing the same thing, in my opinion, here by explaining what ED is and what role that person may or may not have had. Accusing me of being an editor there is the same action as above. What part of my argument is faulty? Did my diffs not show that the person was reverting based on who the person is and not what the argument was? Did my diffs attempt to disparage the person by commenting on the person rather than their argument? I don't think so. If I might have missed it, please show it to me. Spryde 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything - I'm asking you if you are an editor there. You seem to think I'm attributing motives to people by noting they are adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. Since they are, in fact, adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website, it seems that you are able to draw connections between their being adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website and their actions with respect to external links and MONGO. Why would you do that? I'm shocked, shocked that you would violate WP:NPA by assuming that adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website would be harassing and hounding MONGO. MOASPN 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Nope, been there, read a few pages, did not like it have not been back. Let me ask you a question, what is the point of repeating the same phrase over and over except to make a point? And to comment, the recent edits by the ED people have been mostly constructive in my opinion. Their recent contributions may have not been to MONGO's liking but IN MY OPINION, he is quick to react and has a temper which got him into trouble in the first place. He contributes quite a bit towards the project but he also grates on many people's nerves with the "fuck off" edit summaries, accusations, and basic way he steamrolls people which he suspects of being someone else. This causes valuable editors to leave/be banned/etc. Spryde 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you get the chance. please produce evidence that I have steamrolled a single "valuable" editor off of this website...on the contrary...I have seen a lot of valuable editors steamrolled off this website by ED supportors...I can name a half dozen that have left due to the harassment that has been written on that website about them. If you are going to make accusations, then you best gather your facts to substantiate them.--MONGO 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

MOASPN, I don't edit stuff about Wikipedia on ED. I've been editing Wikipedia going on several years now. You're not contributing to the discussion by maligning my intentions. The issue is whether MONGO's daily edit warring is disruptive. Is it? SchmuckyTheCat

Please can we not argue over who edits ED on this noticeboard. It's not relevant to anything, ever. Take it to user talk or something. Milto LOL pia 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the edit warring, not the name calling, please.

It's been shown for two years that MONGO has carte blanche to be incivil and call names. Nobody cares anymore. It's me he's calling names and I'm asking everyone to please focus this only on the edit warring behavior. SchmuckyTheCat

Who is he edit warring with? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on who's online when he signs on. Last night it was myself, Privatemusings, and Schmucky. Meanwhile his only input at the talk page was the sort of insults that have disrupted the page for a while now. I'm not making an issue now of the name-calling, only that his lack of meaningful input on talk makes it clear he won't stop this warring. Milto LOL pia 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it worse for him to revert than for you to revert? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it seems to me at least that there is a burgeoning consensus building and he opposes it. Spryde 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, as I've said before, because of his lack of discussion on the talk page. His only input there is to sidetrack others with personal remarks. Milto LOL pia 18:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave MONGO a polite final warning on his long, continuous pattern of incivility and personal attacks the other day; he rebuked my warning and continued as usual, so I blocked him. The block was overturned within minutes, and he's only continued the same behavior. It seems clear at this point that the community has basically given MONGO a free pass to be as disruptive as he pleases. --krimpet⟲ 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebuking an administrator is not grounds for a block. Though if that ever changes, I'll be all over it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not the case at all. You blocked me because I removed your warning with the comment "Bye"...that was an abuse of your admin tools, period. Furthermore, Schmucky reverted my change back to the older version which used wording directly from an arbcom case which states that ED is not to be linked to. Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia...so there is a definite COI when these two are removing information to the NPA policy which details that we don't link to that website. Schmucky's revert also seemed, at least at first, to be random as I had not seen him making any effort to participate in the ongoing discussion on that policy talk page. Lastly, Schmucky seems to be forum shopping at this point...not getting a block for 3RR (which I have not violated), he then marches here to complain further...Nevertheless, I will self impose a 1RR restiction on myself on that policy henceforth.--MONGO 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected. I'll add it to my watchlist and help out when I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh whatever, Tom, you're proxy reverting for him and all you ever bothered to do on the talk was "vote" on the poorly-attended RfC that was made obsolete by my rewrite oft eh section. Milto LOL pia 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, it's not forum shopping when the closing admin says it belongs in a different forum. kthx. SchmuckyTheCat

Let's remember-- these edits happened at WP:NPA. It isn't an article-- it's a policy. Regardless of what you think the policy SHOULD be, it is NEVER okay to knowingly take some highly contentious proposal text and just edit it into a policy page. If you know it hasn't gotten consensus, you should NEVER put it into policy. You just shouldn't do it-- not even once. Policies reflect consensus-- if you take a rejected proposal and even ONCE add it into a policy page-- you're being disruptive-- and I've seen people blocked for less.

Now, by my count-- MONGO has taken highly-disputed text, text he KNOWS is highly disputed, and he has added it into policy TWELVE times. Not once, not twice-- TWELVE times.

How many times are we gonna let him do this before we stop treating this as if it were "just another article content dispute" and start seeing it as a disruptive editor trying to edit-war a rejected proposal into becoming policy in order to circumvent consensus? --Alecmconroy 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that MONGO has pledged to abide by 1RR in the future. This is very encouraging. But the point my comment stands-- even 1 revert is too many if you're using that revert to re-add highly disputed text into a policy. --Alecmconroy 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to claim to only do 1RR yourself once you've organized your posse to join in. SchmuckyTheCat

Schmucky, press the extra tilde and help us all out. As far as MONGO's editing of this page goes, yesterday I asked him why he chose to revert an IP's good faith edits ([5]), and his reasons were that in his view, IP editors should not be allowed to edit policy pages ([6]). This is also a concern. As best I can see, MONGO is loath to allow this policy to exist in any form which does not include the link to his ArbCom case, I think because it expressly forbade ED linkage. This, despite it now being made defunct by the more recent and general ArbCom attack sites ruling (and the meta blacklist). The majority of editors participating see having both as pointless and potentially confusing, MONGO wants it there and thus far he has reverted 2 or 3 times a day every day using various edit summaries, but all with the same end result. Neil ☎ 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky and Miltopia joining up to complain about MONGO? Is this the right Wiki for this crap? Close down this thread and stop whining. --DHeyward 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just not helpful. As I've said before elsewhere-- MONGO needs help from his friend to DISCOURAGE bad behavior, not to egg him on. With feedback from those he respects, MONGO could spend 100% of his time helping the encyclopedia-- instead of the case now, where despite incredibly positive contributions, a fraction of his behavior is highly disruptive. Help him to see this and you help him to become a better editor, and one day again, an admin. Egg him on, dismiss complaints like these as the `whinings of trolls` and you only make the problems worse for Mongo in the end. --Alecmconroy 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, DHeyward, I feel the wikilove. My three years of contributions here are meaningless because I've dared to call MONGO on his disruptions? I can see my presence is appreciated. SchmuckyTheCat

We just had an ArbComm case in part because of edit warring on WP:NPA, and now we have more edit warring about WP:NPA. Something needs to be done to put an end to this, and I am starting as an admin to believe that the right solution is to invite certain participants to go away and not return. MONGO's reported behaviour in this matter is not acceptable. GRBerry 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The bad behavior is that of ED and WR partisans who have tried to get the NPA policy altered so that they can link to their capricous websites and not be blocked doing so. Did everyone miss the part that Miltopia reverted three times as well, or is that not a big deal? This is the same song and dance I have had from this crowd for some time now...they contiue to mischaracterize my efforts and comments when I have repeatedly shown that they have a serious conflict of interest when they remove prohibitions about linking to malicious sites and they are active participants in these very same sites. In article space, we block or end up doing topic bans for COI...why is this any different? I recommend a topic ban on the partisans of these websites. In addition, the external links policy proposal so many are boasting about is still a proposal so there is no reason to remove current arbcom case of from an existing policy until (if) that external links proposal passes.--MONGO 06:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't bode well that you can't refrain from slinging insults even in a thread discussion the disruption you've caused by slinging insults.

Here's the facts-- I'm not an ED member, I'm not a WR partisan, and I have no interest in promoting ASM. The same holds for almost everyone else involved in this debate. And it's my feeling that you have tried very very hard to spread lies suggesting that I am affiliated with those psychos-- and I'm pretty damn sick of it.

• At the arbcom case, we were all having a very civil discussion about the many important issues raised. You chose to present "evidence" that said nothing of the actual issues, but just instead accused me of being part of a campaign of harassment.

• I raised concerns on the WP:NPA talk page. I politely explained my point of view, in great detail, and explained why the BADSITES text was disputed. Many valued community members expressed similar points of view. You reinserted the disputed text explaining "the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR"

• GTBacchus, a very valuable and respected member of the community, joins the discussion. You dismiss him by saying "GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows." When he takes offense, you stand by your statement: "says I 'lie'...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks!"

• When your disruption and personal attacks are reported to ANI, your justification for the disruption you've caused is simple: "Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia".

• Your actions are criticized, and you are given several warnings to cease making personal attacks. Your response is to declare the entire dispute to be the work of ED partisans. Think about that just for a second. When we take time to ask you to stop slinging personal attacks, you dismiss the whole lot of us with another vile personal attack????

How DARE you try to justify your own misbehavior by fabricating some link between me and ED just because I disagree with you about a content policy. How DARE you take an important discussion over the fundamental nature of this project, in which practically everyone on all sides is acting out of sincerity, and try to pass it off as just a trollish campaign to promote some hate sites.

It seems you will justify any actions whatsoever merely by alleging that one of your opponents is affiliated with ED. And if that behavior is so ingrained in you that you can't cease it even for five minutes, in the midst of a discussion about how you need to cease it-- I truly fear that in the end, you're gonna have to go.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this little tactic of dragging people's names through the mud every time you get into a content dispute-- it's gotten real old, and I'm quite sick of it. Stop it. Stop it right now. Don't do it again. Seriously....

The sad fact is, however, I don't think that you can stop. I bet dimes to doughnuts, even after I've warned you, even after I've asked nicely, even after I've told you I think you're unable to stop attacking people-- I bet you your response, and the responses of your allies, will still be to imply, allege, or accuse people of being trolls, ED partisans, WR loons, or ASM stalkers. --Alecmconroy 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I have nothing whatsoever to do with ED, Wikipedia Review, or any other of these sites, and to be characterised as an "ED and WR partisan" and my comments dismissed is insulting. Right now the "ED and WR partisans", or as I like to call them, all the Wikipedia editors who disagree with MONGO, are coming out of this a whol;e lot better than MONGO. Neil ☎ 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I guess since Alecmconroy feels that I "have to go", I might as well.--MONGO 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. While I have no wish for MONGO to leave, the lies about other editors' motives and offsite activities must cease. Milto LOL pia 09:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies?--MONGO 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies about myself and Schmucky being active ED contributors. Lies about me and several others advocating support for ED. Lies about me or GTBacchus or several others being "ED partisans". Lies about me wanting to allow links to ED. So yes, I'd say lies. Milto LOL pia 09:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checked ED...you still contribute there. Inactive to me at least means no edits, nada, zero...not occasional = inactive...whats this...was this true?...I'm inclined to believe it was trolling. I think we're done here.--MONGO 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you perhaps notice that both of those diffs were from april? Viridae^Talk 09:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes I did...but was he a newbie then?...he started editing in Ocotber 2006...oh darn, I can't complain about other editors...this is actually the AN/M (Administrators noticeboard/MONGO)...but wait, I already have a board of my own...and no one wants to play there lately, even though I have promised barnstars that are really nifty!--MONGO 09:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point MONGO has once again receded into incoherent rambling about me. That or he is just blatantly trolling, but I'm inclined against believing that. This is pretty much how every dispute MONGO has thrown himself into with me has gone. Milto LOL pia 10:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, during either the most recent, or next most recent, previous MONGO thread on AN/I, he accused me of being a WR/ED troller as well. It really is becoming his standard reply. And, in the interest of full disclosure, After being attacked like that, and after he refused to take it back, I went and looked. I've never registered as a member of either, and only started reading ASM last night, in regards to another thread on AN/I. So now, MONGO's made someone else into a reader of his most hated sites by accusing them. It's only a matter of time til he's a one man membership drive. MONGO needs to see the substance of their complaints, not be dismissive of them using personal attacks on them. ThuranX 11:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The accusations don't matter in any case. Let MONGO throw out his accusations. They are meaningless. Offsite actions aren't important to Wikipedia. Which, fwiw, was another ArbCom finding in a MONGO case that he chooses to ignore so he can continue to sling the accusation around. SchmuckyTheCat

Here is an interesting comment on a very similar issue from one of our most experienced and influential editors. I completely agree with the sentiment expressed; civility is non-negotiable here as without it the entire community becomes unworkable and the project fails. On the plus side I see good signs of progress here and here and MONGO's statement that he will adhere to 1RR on the policy page in future. --John 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear harrasment sites will not be tolerated. Nor will restoring deleted links to harrassment sites be tolerated and the solution is indefinite ban. It seems the policy ought to reflect this since unsuspecting editors might find themselves on the wrong end of the ban hammer after reverting harassment link deletions. Misinterpreting BADSITES Arbcom or misinterpreting rejected BADSITES policy or WP:NPA will not save them so it's a service to include this in the policy so no one is confused. Hopefully this will end the discussion on MONGO's reverts since if User:Ombudsman read MONGO's version, he would probably be an editor today. --DHeyward 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the thrust of my message then. Jimbo Wales reduced Om's block to a week; but he also laid down a clear marker that incivility will not be tolerated, even from experienced editors, a message I heartily applaud. --John 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I understood where you were coming from but I thought you missed the forest for the trees. Schmucky and Miltopia are generally upset that MONGO doesn't want to soften the WP:NPA policy and limit it's extent to badsites and offsite harassment. You could argue that is why Miltopia took up Ombudmsan's cause on Jimbos talk page. Schmucky claims that off-site contributions have no bearing on Wikipedia but it's clear that if it creates a hostile editing environment on wikipedia, that editor should find another hobby. Jimbo went out of his way to ban him when he restored links to harassing sites. MONGO is simply trying to reflect this reality in our written policy so editors understand what harassment is and what will get them blocked. --DHeyward 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the others dissatisfied with MONGO's gaming and personal attacks have equally nefarious motives. Let's hope they at least understood my comments about Ombudsman better than you did. Milto LOL pia 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I did't even talk about motives of Ombudsman and certainly never mentioned any nefarious motives. The truth is I don't care what his motives are. I don't really care what your motives are. I only know it's disruptive and time wasting to hear you constantly complain about MONGO. It's an extension of your "todo" list on ED and it's tiresomely predictable. --DHeyward 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for editing ease

If the revert warring and incivil edit summary problem with WP:NPA is still ongoing with the same offending party(s), I would say that you've exhausted this, ANI, as the first step in the conflict resolution process. I would suggest, then, that the aggrieved editors, and there appears to be more than two of you, go ahead and co-sign an RfC on the offending parties' behavior and leave that open for a week or so. If that doesn't take care of problem, then take it to the next level- RfAr. It's a long and frustrating process, but that's how the "system" works and it has worked before which is one of the reasons why one of the offending editors mentioned above is no longer an admin. Cla68 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The system doesn't work, though. Not matter how many WP:CIVIL policies, statements, decisions, redactions, RfC's, RfAr's, AN/I's, AN's, and so on MONGO goes through, no one's got the balls to give him any amount of blocking that sticks. Instead, admins engage a series of delaying tactics until things cool off on the relevant pages, cite 'blocks are preventative not punative, and it's been too long', and MONGO walks off to do it all again. There's a pattern here of disruptive editing and incivility, and he never ever gets blocked for it. Not really. All those blockings that get undone in 2 minutes don't count, they aren't supported blocks. I'm not on ED, ASM, or WR, though I admit to HAVING READ them. I'm just a wikieditor who thinks that it's not fair that most editors get blocked far faster for far less, far more often, than MONGO. MONGO does get special treatment here. It's pretty undeniable at this point. Some editors love him so much they bend policy and procedure with big piles of bureaucracy, and it's incredibly frustrating. I'm sorry MONGO can't talk his issues out, but maybe he needs to leave to get help. My attitude twaors him is well known, and after this, it's a damn guarantee that he'll trot out my last screed against him as 'proof' of my WR/ED alliance and my membership in the great conspiracy against him. No, I'm just one more editor tired of a double standard. He needs a blocking. It's been promised for 'the next time'. Never happens. Not fair. frustrated. ThuranX 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If the system did work, you would have been blocked for your comments [here... but you weren't so be grateful the system failed to do what it should have done when you made those comments...which are much worse than any I have ever made.--MONGO 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Called it, didn't I? Every time I speak out against MONGO, he brings this up. Ironically, while I've learned from that, and my warnings, he has not. it's enough to start insulting him all over again. Hell, I'd take a 24 hour block for that in exchange for never having it brought up against me again, and a 48 hour block in exchange for that AND the full block Viridae would have hit MONGO with. However, none of those things can come to pass. Even if I did get a block for it, MONGO will still drag it up as proof that rather than being a WP editor dsigruntled by his 'special' treatment, and I've have to counter with my block log, and then it'd be a bigger disruption. Further, go digging, you'll see that before that, I'd spoken out civilly over, and over, and over against his getting off the hook. He'd been condescending to myself and many, many others. It's not coincidence that fewer and fewer editors speak out against it, most have realized that speaking out makes you MONGO's target, and speaking out does no good.ThuranX 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are others, but that one was so outrageous, I was really taken aback by it. You seem to constantly yell "block" all over the noticeboards about numerous editors...so I guess we can all be grateful you don't have that capability.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That was sad Thuran and a huge mischaracterisation. You presume he is guilty of all these transgressions yet the evidence shows otherwise. In fact, the lo9ng list of accusations without consensus of wrongdoing speaks more to MONGO being harassed than it does about him getting away with anything. This is just you repeating a bunch of stuff that has already been adjudicated. Wh ydo you keep bringing it up? Here I'll call it: there is a particular list of editors that will bring MONGO to ANI for every content dispute and you will show up with your "MONGO is above the system because one time in bandcamp they didn't block him like I wanted them to" bullshit. I'm sorry you didn't like the consensus of the community but give it a rest. --04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god MONGO - that was July - this is late october, live in the present. Viridae^Talk 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, it's really hard to live in the present when responding to the comments that is about the past. Maybe Thuran could talk about the present instead of the past. Thruan complaining about how MONGO didn't blocked for all his past transgressions is kind of pointless. --DHeyward 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I experienced this sort of "impeccable memory for past slights" also. Mongo got very very angry with me once for asking too many clarifications about the MONGO case. I was a relatively young wikipedian at the time, I was acting in 100% good faith in that discussion, but I did acknowledge I should have had that discussion in a different venue and with people who hadn't been so personally attacked. I very quickly and very sincerely apologized for accidentally upsetting him and not picking up on his stress level.

Naively perhaps, I assumed that with my apologies, the matter was settled, and that was the end of that. To the best of my knowledge, I didn't say another word to Mongo or interact with him for the next year-- perhaps I did, but i didn't have any interaction that was sufficient for me to remember it now as I type.

But when I decided to contribute to the Attack Sites arbitration, Mongo quickly showed up and started screaming about this once isolated incident, a year old, in which I did nothing but act in good faith, and in which I had profusely and sincerely apologized for inadvertently upsetting him.

It would seem that MONGO has mentally compiled an "enemies list" of sorts, and that I was still on it, and at the first sign of a dispute, Mongo was eager to unload personal attacks on me with both barrels, as the saying goes. --Alecmconroy 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone isn't interested in letting go of past disputes, it seems to be you, not me.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you sincerely feel that, but I promise you MONGO, it's really not true. I've never held the 2006 incident against you-- it's clear you'd been through a lot, and when I complained about it, it wasn't because I wanted you destroyed, it really was because I wanted you helped. You basically snapped in the middle of an otherwise civil conversation, and it was clear to me that we didn't do something to help you, you couldn't continue to function as an admin. I still wish there has been something I could have said that might have been able to reach out to you and help you see, and helped you avoided the consequences that ultimately befell you.

When I, a year later, participated in the Attack Sites case-- it wasn't out of any desire to 'get back at you', it was out of a sincere concern for the integrity of the project. If I had been motivated by some desire to attack you, I could have easily done so in that forum-- you would have made an easy candidate, having been de-admined for bad behavior, but I never crossed that line, I never made it personal, and I kept my remarks as focused as I could on principle, not people. To the extent I even mentioned you, it was almost exclusively in rebuttal to your attacks on me-- and even then, I didn't harshly attack you.

You've been a real puzzle for me. I've sincerely wanted to try to find some way to help you out of habitual assumption of bad faith that I assume was created by the harassment you were subjected to. I don't think you're a bad person, I don't think you're a mean or cruel or suffering from character flaws on anything like that. GTBacchus has talked about "considering everyone children of God, and therefore aspects of God", which is why he's someone I look up to, and that very very vaguely approximates what I feel towards you. You're not a bad person-- you're a good person who just has a problem, and it saddens me to no end that I can seem to help you.

I know you probably are convinced otherwise, but I've never for a second been "out to get you" or anything like that. Even here when I speak harshly too you, I have to confess, I'm not really experiencing anger-- my heart doesn't pound, my blood doesn't boil-- I just figure maybe speaking directly and imperatively will let you hear me in a way that you haven't been able to hear me when I was peaceful and philosophical.

I know it's probably futile for me to say this, because I'm sure you think I'm trying to scam you, or project false compassion or something-- but I'm really not. --Alecmconroy 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well had I noticed that it had been 12 reverts in 4 days he would have had a lengthy 3RR block - but as it happens I had just seen a lot of watchlist so I had a brief look at the history and protected the page. The irritating thing is I had hope the people involved would have taken the chance to engage in discussion on the talk page, but very little has taken place. I feel that once the protection is lifted the cycle will start again - and should i see any more than two reverts in a short amount of time I will once again protect the page. Viridae^Talk 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy? You can only block for 3RR for 24 hours. Furthermore, if you were to block me after the disagreements we have had, would be a really bad abuse of your admin tools.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not in disagreement with you over this matter, it was a clear cut case of gaming 3RR. Call abuse all you like but no reasonable person is going to look at that evidence and see anything but gaming 3rr. Furthermore, an admin can block for a length of time they feel appropriate. If it was straight up 3rr and your first offence then it would have been 24 hours - but because this was 12 reverts over four days it would have been a minimum of 48 hours. No block length is set in stone, they are all subject to the blocking admins discretion. You can call admin abuse all you like, but as long as I am not directly involved in that dispute then I see no problem with blocking an editor who clearly deserves it. Viridae^Talk 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful, no doubt, your protection of the NPA policy was on a version you have argued in favor of on the policy discussion page. I would have sent a request to WP:PP even if I was an admin. Furtherore, since I have been on the opposite side of the dispute in that matter from you, any block you were to do on me in the near future would be a violation of the block policy.--MONGO 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Viridae has just given a clear shot across the bow that anymore of the type of disruptive behavior being discussed here in the WP:NPA debate won't be tolerated. If it continues, however, I repeat that you should use the escalating conflict resolution system to try to correct the behavior of the offending editors. It's not true that the system doesn't work if you utilize it correctly. If you look at some of these cases here you can see that the ArbCom has given plenty of editors enforced wiki-breaks to reconsider their behavior or to help them break their addiction to drama or dissembly. Cla68 03:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I doubt you are in a position to talk at this point...you seem to have been an advocate for banned editor Wordbomb for some time now and your ongoing accusations regarding SlimVirgin have been pretty bad. I really would give it a rest since you have just emerged from a block on this matter.--MONGO 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Give your threats a rest Viridae. You're an involved editor and since your last block warning against MONGO was wholly inappropriate I don't see how this one is suddenly above board. Put the admin tools down and step away. --DHeyward 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Mongo again falsely accuses me or any other good-faith editor of being affiliated with harassers or of being a participant in a campaign of harassment, I'm gonna take whatever steps necessary to get the behavior stopped. Falsely accusing good-faith editors of engaging in nearly-criminal behavior is just not acceptable. For a long time, I'd hoped that unflappable peacefulness towards Mongo would convince him of our good-faith, but that didn't bear out. Now I hope that a little bit of tough talk and some clear warnings will stop the behavior. Hopefully it will stop and that will be the end of it, and, speaking for myself, all will be forgiven. If the behavior doesn't stop, it seems we'll have to turn to methods of last resort. --Alecmconroy 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually of the people who commented on that block warning, only yourself and MONGO found it to be inappropriate - everyone else thought it was justified. Whats more it wasn't a block warning, it was a NPA warning. Viridae^Talk 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WR, ASM and ED are compaigns of harassment. I am not sure what peacefulness you speak of nor do I know who continues to participate in those campaigns on those websites. However, I do know that trying to relax policy to allow links to those site has the de facto result of continuing harassment whether or not it's intentional. opposing harassmnet and opposing policy changes may increase harassment is not the same as accusing the editors of engaging in that harassment. --DHeyward 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SO, given the multiple responses here, to many editors who oppose special rules for MONGO, you're in fact saying he shouldn't be blocked for 3RR violations, gaming 3RR, or incivility. Right. No special MONGO rules, except for the special MONGO rules.ThuranX 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected so there is no edit war, whence no need to block. Blocks are not punitive so once the edit war is stopped there is no blocking. I have not seen incivility that was worth blocking. So I don't support a block on you or MONGO though the constant rehashing of previously adjudicated incidents is bordering on disruption. If you believe there is a pattern of misconduct, bring it up on an RfC and stop bringing it up every time MONGO is mentioned on any noticeboard or talk page. It serves no purpose and doesn't shed any light on the current situation. It's just whining. --DHeyward 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to DHeyward) No, no-- let me apologize for miscommunicating. The edit warring and personal attacks exhibited by MONGO is completely completely unrelated to any opposition to linking to some sites. Many, many good faith editors have very valid concerns about links like that-- I think we all do, really. Supporting a BADSITES-esque policy is NOT a problem, it's a valid opinion, and one we should all take seriously. I have no problem whatsoever with MONGO or others supporting BADSITES-- I think BADSITES has been motivated by compassion.

The behavior problems I'm discussion here are Mongo's edit warring, his inserting rejected proposals into policy pages without consensus, his incivility/personal attacks, and his falsely implying or stating that other good-faith editors are linked to harassment campaigns. Mongos support for a BADSITES policy is most certainly NOT a behavior problem-- it's an opinion, and one that should be taken seriously. --Alecmconroy 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know...I find your threats made a few posts above to be alarming and unwikipedian. Telling me to not DARE and other threats like that are unacceptable. I find that you have also edit warred on the NPA policy pages, so acting as if I am the only guilty party is hypocritical. The facts of the case are that many excellent contributors have been driven away from the NPA discussions by editors who seem to have a single mission, and are not on this website for the purposes of ehancning encyclopedic content. A lack of mainspace contributions by SOME (that is SOME, not all) editors is worrisome...furthermore, the fact that SOME (that is SOME, not all) who have been arguing against strong wording prohibiting attacking our contributors via external linking to malicious sites are also either present or past contributors to these very websites is a definite COI. Soon as one of the "silent persons" makes a comment on the NPA policy stating they are against linking to websites such as ASM or WR, a post shows up, usually on WR, condemning that person. So they have instead decided to give up, and let editors that have what appears to be an agenda at times determine and make our policies. I find this situation unacceptable. Some may think I have an agenda...well they are correct...my agenda is to do all I can to ensure our contributors edit this website in peace, and not have to look over their shoulder when someone wants to barge onto their talkpage and say...hey, did you see you're article on ED, or what they said about you over at WR...as if what is said on a silly blog dominated by mostly banned editors matters one iota..it doesn't.--MONGO 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(after ec's)For something that matters so little... we sure let it get to us a lot. If it's trivial and boring, then why are we up in arms to write special policies about it? There's no problem removing the links you want to remove, because they lack any possible encyclopedic value. That's sufficient. Let's not give them any more significance than that. Let's not reward trolling behavior with emotional reactions; that's the very definition of feeding. It's just another site we don't link to, like all the porn and online pharmacies and random blogs and.... the part of the Internet that sucks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"my agenda is to do all I can to ensure our contributors edit this website in peace, and not have to look over their shoulder"

Do you like to go to the beach and pound the sand for not resisting the tides as well? You can't control what people do on external websites. Our issue is to decide on a policy that makes sense on how to react to these sites. Pounding your preferred opinion into the page with an edit war is not going to accomplish your goal. SchmuckyTheCat

On incivility/personal attacks, frankly I think a lot of people are simply taking MONGO's comments much too personally and confusing them with a WP:PA. Take for example this comment:

"GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows." When he takes offense, you stand by your statement: "says I 'lie'...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks He is simply pointing out that GTBaccus may have a conflict of interest based on observed behavior. This is not in my opinion a PA, if it was, WP:COI should be deleted because to say someone has a COI is automatically a PA which initself is forbidden. Anynobody 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anynobody, please note how the screen name is spelled; thanks. I'm not offended at this point by anything MONGO has said about me; I believe we understand each other to an extent. I don't blame him for not trusting me implicitly, knowing all of the history. Whether or not one thinks I'm editing with a conflict of interest, I think my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. I'm concerned with MONGO that he's largely disengaged from the conversation, participating more in policy page reverts than in talk page discussion. On the other hand, he's been through the same thousands of words as the rest of us, and if I were he I'd be sick to death of it.

What I would most like for MONGO to believe is that he can get the protection he desires for our editors without the paragraph of policy to which he seems attached. That paragraph is not the protection; it's an empty symbol of it. The actual protection is in our core, core policy WP:ENC. There's no encyclopedic value in linking to the harassment that you want to legislate against, and it can therefore always be removed as simple encyclopedic work. It won't suddenly become worthwhile and relevant just because we don't draft a rule targeting it. In fact, such a rule would make it more relevant, because here we are, discussing it in our policies.

We really can trust the boring procedures of encyclopedia-writing to protect us better than all the policies we can write. Those policies... they're attempts at word-magic; they tend to backfire. Think about WP:DENY.

Check it out: if a link has no encyclopedic value, then it may be removed at any time, because it makes no contribution to the project. If someone persists in adding material of no value, they may be blocked, as a common vandal, and that's just normal and undramatic. Removing the link and blocking them "per BADSITES" is terribly misguided when we could just do it "per sweeping the floor".

MONGO, I entreat you to consider - where in that process is a special policy required or desirable? I'd like to hear an answer from anybody on that point - on my own, I can't imagine how a special policy would do anything but raise the heat, increase the drama level, feed any and every troll....

If you'd like to think that I'm only arguing this point because I have a conflict of interest, then my question to you is: why would I work to undermine a project, Wikipedia, that I have poured so many hours and months of my life into improving. Why did I sit there today, reading comments of contributors, and weeping at the sheer beauty of it, if I want to support harassment of our contributors. I love this website, and I'm confident that MONGO knows that. What I'm asking him to do is to trust me a little further on this point - we can get what we need without that paragraph - this is not a about paragraphs. It's about trusting each other because we care A LOT about what we're working on here. Will you join me, MONGO? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't it work in reverse? Just leave MONGO's version of words in the policy if it's not going to change anything in practice. Since he's been a prominent victim of off site abuse, I would think helping victims by not symbolically stripping them of protection would be of paramount concern. It's like a court order of pretection: it doesn't stop abusive husbands from hitting their wives, but it certainly makes their wife fell safer. Why not just go with it since, as you say, it doesn't make a difference? --DHeyward 06:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm saying it "doesn't make a difference". I'm saying that having a special policy raises the heat, creates conditions for drama, encourages useless ad hominem arguing, and empowers ("feeds") those who would harass and troll by rewarding their behavior with defensive action. How exactly did you get "doesn't make a difference" out of that?

I'd still like to know what concrete good this proposal would do that makes up for these disadvantages, especially when we would be so much better to prosecute these cases as simple content disputes and not as part of some kind of internet war. That's a terrible idea; this is an encyclopedia, not a soap opera. This is not the wiki for drama - you know where to find that one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I paraphrased your comments that his protection is in WP:ENC. If all the protection is there and the policy MONGO wants is just redundant, then it doesn't make a difference whether it's duplicated or not. There's not a lot of drama over "revert, block, ignore." The drama is added when three months from now an editor claims that ED is encyclopedic and should have an article. The drama starts when an editor thinks an article inside of ED become encyclopedic as some sort of notable internet meme. Or when an editor thinks that Blu Aardvark is a notable person and deserves a biographical stub with links to ED and WR. Why not give the "block, revert, ignore" guy as big an arsenal as we can so we don't have to fight this silly drama. Today it's this silly policy section which whether it stays or goes doesn't change anything about the project. No article will be improved or created tomorrow no matter which way the policy goes. So the choice give me is a) make a longstanding prolific editor happy or b) try to reduce drama by changing link deletion edit summaries from WP:NPA to WP:ENC. I don't really see b) working and I think making the editing environment more comfortable for valuable contributors as paramount. This seems like a no brainer. --DHeyward 07:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not a "no-brainer". I see your choice (a) as misguided and likely to create more trouble. I see your characterization of (b) as missing my fundamental point. We don't enforce encyclopedic standards because we want to reduce drama; we do it because we're an encyclopedia. The fact that trying to add the quest for justice to our project here creates volatile situations is taken into consideration as part of that project. Please note as well that my suggestion also amounts to "block, revert, ignore". I'm just suggesting we do it because the links have no encyclopedic value, and not because they're determined to come from some kind of bogey-site. I would see it as a no-brainer, except there are clearly intelligent and rational people on both sides, so I can't call it that in fairness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an attack because of intent to discredit. Being called an "ED contributor" on Wikipedia is an attempt to discredit the other person, and not engage in the issues at hand. That's why it is incivil and an attack. It doesn't address the issues, it addresses the person. SchmuckyTheCat

A COI violation is always ad hominem. The person's arguments are at fault because the person making them has a COI. The merits of the argument are secondary to COI. If that's incivil or a personal attack, then you should address it on the WP:COI policy page and change the policy. --DHeyward 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see the point in exposing COIs, although I'm happy enough to acknowledge my associations. Why talk about the person's COI when you could just talk about verifiable material in reliable sources? In the case of a policy discussion, why discuss COI when you could just discuss the arguments being advanced based on their merits, and not on who makes them? Seems kind of... off topic, to start talking about whose idea we agree or disagree with. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Couching Mongo's habitual personal attacks as merely "speculating about COI" is all well and good, but we may well remember that some of the most vile personal attacks we've seen here have also been couched in terms of "speculating about Conficts of Interests". If MONGO had politely commented, once or twice, on potential COI concerns, we would all be fine with that. In reality, he has brought up speculation of bad faith in practically every discussion on this subject. He has gone far beyond merely point out potential COI, he's crossed the line into persistent namecalling. Worst of all, he's made accusations that were utterly false, made speculations based on little-to-no evidence, and has cast aspersions at every turn. --Alecmconroy 06:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that your constant insinuations that I am incivil smack of incivility as well. The ongoing character assassinations you seem to enagage in are not helpful either. I am not making false accusations when there is no doubt that SOME editors have a COI. If an editor is a participant in a malicious website and has made efforts to minimize policy which bans linking to these websites, then that is indeed a COI.--MONGO 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I'm being incivil in expressing my concerns about your behavior, but I don't know how else to solve the problem except to raise them here, and to try to convince you to stop attacking others. I might point out, for example, that even the very post I'm responding to is another instance of the problem-- you invariably respond to good-faith disagreement by attacking the character of others-- accusing me of performing an incivl "character assassination". That's kinda what we're trying to get at here, and find a way to stop. --Alecmconroy 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your other statement: "I am not making false accusations when there is no doubt that SOME editors have a COI." If you accuse 100 people of being communists, and only 2 of them are-- you've been making some false accusations. You've often implied that EVERYONE who opposes you has a COI, ED affiliation, and bad-faith. ED is like any open forum-- there are some very bad apples and some fine people. Absent evidence that they were involved in harassment, merely having once edited ED is not, in my eyes, a scarlet letter that classifies a person as worthless or immoral.

The clear truth is that vast majority of participants in the BADSITES discussion have no COI when it comes to ED-- but that's a truth you either don't see or that you try to bury. Furthermore, COIs don't justify not listening to people's comments, or responding rudely, or inserting policy texts that have consensus. Even if a few of the people who opposed BADSITES have a conflict of interest, that just means you should scrutinize their arguments more closely-- not that you should ignore them, revert them on site, or use it as a tool to attack them at every turn. You may want to make people aware of it, if they're not already-- but a COI is NOT a community ban, as you seem to wish it were.

Even someone with a COI deserves to have their opinions judged on merit. I might add, Mongo, that I practice what I preach. There is not a single person on this encyclopedia who has bigger conflict of interest in regard to ED and BADSITES than you, Mongo. You have been vilely attacked by ED, and as such, you have a vested interest in prohibiting links to ED (and promoting BADSITES). If I were really as "out to get you" as you think I am, I could easily allege that your only interest is in preventing people from seeing the attacks that have been made on you, and that as someone who is so utterly conflicted, you should have no input whatsoever into ED or BADSITES, because you have such a strong personal interest in minimizing ED's traffic. But I've never tried to do that, and I'm not trying to do it now. Your views on BADSITES and ED aren't self-serving, and they're not for yourself, they're for the next person who might be their victim. --Alecmconroy 08:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be a COI, but that does not mean that the editor's arguments should not be considered on merits. I'm frustrated by a refusal to engage what I see as my substantial arguments by some on the pro-BADSITES "side". The fact that I may have a conflict of interest does not automatically make me wrong. That applies to everyone here, right?

For the record, I have no desire to "minimize policy which bans linking to these websites", I have a desire to avoid destructive and redundant policy which hurts our project in a real and concrete way. My way involves all the same links being removed, but for the right reasons, and minus the disadvantages. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is not an issue here. It's just another red herring meant to discreit those MONGO disagrees with. Having told MONGO directly on multiple pages now, explicitly, that I don't want to see links to ED anywhere, I think I can safely conclude that this assertion is no longer being made with anything that could be confused with good faith. Milto LOL pia 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about MONGO's good faith. He's at least as frustrated with the situation as you are. While I agree that conflict of interest is not an issue, I don't mind answering those who ask about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind answering questions about it either but this is not MONGO asking us if we have a conflict of interest, or even asking us to be sure that we're not motivated at all by wanting to link to that other website. I'll leave it at that before I rescind into whining, but MONGO if you're reading this then I'm more than willing to take it on faith that you're making this claim sincerely if you're willing to ask me to examine my own motives and then take my honest answer about it on faith as well. But one way or another the issue needs to be settled. If you're not willing to take me up on my offer please post to WP:COIN, get some administrator input, and then drop it. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember that old article?

Do you remember when we had an article about ED? It was nominated for deletion something like 18 times, and kept closing as no consensus, or being speedy kept as too soon after the last AfD, or being deleted and then recreated... the point is, it didn't go away. After the last AfD, it finally went away. Do you know why? What was different about that one? Well, enough people finally decided that we needed to delete the article for boring encyclopedic reasons, and not because we find its subject offensive. Everyone (ok, many) managed to leave their moral outrage outside the room for a few hours. We managed to get a group of people to look objectively at sourcing, and whaddya know, there wasn't sufficient sourcing to have an article.

For a few more months, some of us guarded the deleted-again, back-again talk page, and make sure that it was always explained to inquirers that the page was deleted for lack of sourcing, and not because those racist, homophobic, baby-eating, so-and-sos appall us so much. It can't have anything to do with being "appalled".

Now, it appears that people are arguing that we not learn from history. Shall we conduct ourselves as we did at the 17 unsuccessful AfDs? Why not give the encyclopedia a chance; what's going to happen? Will Wikipedia Review suddenly become a reliable source, linked at the bottom of every article like the IMDb? Look at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Link to WR?. That's the idea. I got a bit frustrated in that case, but I hope you can see what I was pointing towards, and that it worked, and will continue to work. Let's try it. Let's learn from the past.

DHeyward, thanks for putting a succinct phrase to "symbolically stripping protection". That helps me understand the perception that I don't want to project, because that's not remotely my idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the attention it got from when I was being harassed by the contributors there ensured that the article was deleted...beforehand, whenever the article was nominated for deletion, ED partisans showed up in enough numbers to keep it from being deleted. In the end, their tactics worked against them, and this website finally enforced guidelines on the matter via relaible sources, and there were none. It failed notability.--MONGO 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It failed notability, not on some moral or defensive grounds. It failed for the right reason. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Like inditing Al Capone for tax evasion.—AL ^FOCUS! 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't (in my opinion) need to have a special policy against linking certain sites; as GTBacchus points out we already have sufficient means in policy to remove any links which are unencyclopedic, and without creating the drama and free publicity for these sites that MONGO's course of action seems to have precipitated.

However, the origins of the frustration that led to the edit-warring and incivility are moot. It needs to be clearly understood that all users, especially experienced ones, are bound by our policies. Anyone unable or unwilling to conform to that needs to be blocked. I would hope we can all agree on that. --John 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a new wikipedian - well, I say new, I've had this account since 2004, and I've been an avid reader, and only just recently decided to become a frequent editor. From a purely outside perspective it does seem that MONGO has, time and time again, pursued a relentless anti-*something* agenda, an agenda not unlike editors convicted by ArbCom or the community got slapped with an indefinite block because of. I do think it is a double standard. Again, I am a new editor here, and my opinion is not worth much. But I think someone objective needs to look at this situation - which will be hard cos nearly all of the community has been involved in this issue from the beginning - and decide whether to block MONGO or not. My opinion? A block is needed, and an indefinite one. But I am likely to be wrong. I just wish this issue would go away so we can concentrate on editing for once. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent...) I would wholeheartedly disagree with the indef block. He is a productive user and has created tons of very nice content for the project. All I ask is that the rules that apply to everyone else are applied equally. That is the heart of my argument. Spryde 10:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think MONGO may be headed for stronger sanctions, but I can't believe it would really take an indefinite block to stop his behavior. I hope, perhaps naively, that this discussion itself was all that it will take to get through to him. If not, stronger messages will be needed-- but an indefinitely block-- a wikideath penalty-- would be an incredible loss to the community, and I can't fathom it will truly have to come to that.

Without in any way calling MONGO immature, I'll use an analogy-- If an elementary school student insists on testing the limits of acceptable behavior, the solution is to provide clear limits and reliable consequences. Until you've done that, there's no reason whatsoever to contemplate expulsion. --Alecmconroy 14:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the same openness that lets me or Dan T contribute here also lets MONGO contribute here. Wikipedia would be a much less interesting project without him.—AL ^FOCUS! 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO does more good on Wikipedia than harm, far, far more. Milto LOL pia 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Closing discussions contrary to apparant consensus

I thought it was an isolated incident when looking at this delete decision, but after looking at other discussions closed by this user, it appears he is using the same rationale on others as well - in short, "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", regardless of whether that action reflects any apparant consensus, policy, or anything else. I've been advised by another admin that this should be posted here for discussion, so here it is...

On the above cited discussion, there was only one delete argument - that of the nominator - and a relatively weak one as well (later stating that all categories used for collaboration should be replaced with userboxes!). The other "delete" vote was simply "Delete per nom" with no actual argument. There were five "keep" votes, all with well-reasoned arguments, including one pointing to all the past discussions for keeping the category, one stating how this category had greatly helped a user collaborate, etc., and generally completely outweighing the (single) delete argument, in terms of number, strength of argument, refutation of the single delete argument, and every other metric possibly used to determine consensus.

However, User:After Midnight closed it as "delete", providing the rationale that, in essence, he can chose to ignore any arguments he disagrees with. Since there was only one actual delete vote, this means he decided to simply ignore every keep argument, as no other action could have resulted in a delete decision.

Were this an isolated incident, it probably wouldn't belong here, but it appears to be a trend, and not isolated to this admin either. Other discussions ended in "delete" despite an apparant consensus to keep as well, and one that was kept despite an apparant consensus to delete, but the above-mentioned discussion is the most obvious example, so the one I chose to discuss here.

While we should appreciate that admins are tackling these often backlogged pages, the closer's job is to ensure the decision reflects community consensus, not to apply his or her personal opinions to determine the outcome. Regardless of these personal opinions on whether the categories mentioned should exist or not, something needs to be done about mis-closing dicussions based on them. DRVs have generally proved fruitless - no one bothers making arguments on whether the discussion was closed correctly, instead it just turns into a repeat discussion with content-based rather than process-based arguments - and the DRVs are then subject to the same mis-closings that happen with the original discussion.

For this example, the response seems pretty obvious (it was closed in error, reverse it; just need to find someone with a bot to repopulate the category, as it'll take a lot of edits!), but what should be done about this in the long term, and for other debates? Should other users make more of an effort to watch closings to ensure they reflect consensus? The one mentioned above is so blatant that I suspect someone could have immediately overturned it and discussed it later, regardless of their opinion on whether the category should exist or not. Perhaps some effort to make sure deletion reviews only discuss process-related arguments? As much as I'm not a fan of even more policies, should we create one on exactly what leeways a closing admin does and doesn't have when evaluating a discussion? Or maybe we need more guidelines on categories, rather than the-whims-of-any-discussion-and-its-closer, preventing so many extra debates? Thanks for reading (and your ideas), Bushytails 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

In this particular case, it appears that the closer reviewed the opinions and didn't find the argument of "building community" to be a compelling reason to keep based on the goal of building an encyclopedia. Given that XfD is not a numerical count or vote, Closers are usually give some level of leeway on closing provided they justify their decision. We have DRV explicitly so these decisions can be reviewed if someone feels they were not correct. Personally I don't think we need more "rules" on AFD closing... but that is just my opinion.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But the closer shouldn't be able to arbitarily decide to ignore all arguments on one side of the issue based on a personal opinion - doing so is no different than simply deciding the outcome based on ones opinion. Unless there is foundation policy or other strong reason to invalidate arguments, they can't simply be ignored. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But if the community consensus is that "buidling community" is a valid reason to keep, on what grounds can an admin over-ride it? Unless it is in direct opposition to policy, I think that an admin is bound to determine consensus, not to substitute their own judgment for that of the community. I don't think we need more rules, but I do think that admins need to keep their own opinions regarding an article in check when closing an AfD. -Chunky Rice 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think 7 participants in a CFD really adequately represent community consensus either way... Regardless, I still am strongly of the opinion that additional guidelines and policies concerning XfD closure are not demonstrably warranted off of one CFD close. This is a case for DRV if the participants feel the closer got it wrong.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing admins need to be able to make judgment calls when, say, there is consensus to keep "Furry wikipedians" but also consensus to delete "identification categories". They also should take strength of argument into account: not all arguments are created equal. --Kbdank71 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to delete self-identification user categories? I can respect the decision (but think we need to visit the issue) if there's a strong policy against grouping wikipedias by personal attributes (gender, nationality, geography, birthplace, political party, occupation, etc). If there is such a policy, though, then unless the categorization causes some technical difficulties or grave disruption, I would find it rather autocratic and out of step with the rest of the world, at least America, in terms of self-expression and personal freedom. Further, the fact that furry or GLBT users wish to self-identify is evidence of a lack of such consensus. The outcome here is anti-gay and POV in practice, even if not by intention. If there is no such policy, it exceeds a closing administrator's discretion to decide that sexual orientation isn't as worthy as some other distinction. That kind of decision has to be made project-wide and not rest on the whims and prejudices of a single Wikipedian. But why not just nominate this and the LGBT category for deletion review? Presumably the reviewing admin will overturn if there is a consensus to do so and no policy otherwise, and this admin will start to notice if his/her decisions are frequently overturned that they need to pay more heed to the arguments made. If that fails, then it may be time to consider AN/I, mediation, or whatever the next step is. What is the process if one has a reasonable dispute over the outcome of a DRV? Wikidemo 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See the DRV's here and here. --Kbdank71 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It looks like we have a larger issue of people pushing an agenda against Wikipedias expressing their personal differences via categories, and possibly one of anti-gay bias. Still dangerous waters for admins to wade into, and a decision that should be made in a wider forum than a category deletion or deletion review, but not a clearly improper decision by the closing admin. This isn't my issue (nor, I assure you, do I feel so passionately about anything right now at the moment), but for people who do have a principled objection to the outcome of a DRV, what's the next step up the dispute resolution chain? Wikidemo 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I nominated Category:Furry Wikipedians for deletion review. It was closed out because a small group have successfully deleted a variety of identity-based categories, and have used this to suggest that there is a "general consensus" to delete such categories. The closing admin of the deletion review apparently agreed with this, despite the significant support for the category displayed in response to the nomination. I don't think there is such a consensus, and the responses in this deletion show that others are of the same opinion. I think some editors - often the ones who are most actively interested in trimming categories - have been looking over time at various sparsely-populated or "joke" categories and saying "yeah, that's not useful". In many cases, they might be right. In this particular case, I and others think they were wrong, as was shown in responses to the original nomination. That is why these nominations got "keep" as a response rather than "delete". I don't believe they're pushing any particular POV myself - nomination does not signify an "anti-furry" or "anti-gay" bias, any more than attempting to delete a religious identity category signifies an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Protestant" bias - but I do think that each category should be considered individually (I guess it is possible that they were attempting to implement this meta-policy in a roundabout way, but I doubt it). The assumption that they don't support collaboration is a little unconvincing, because where do you think WikiProjects come from? Successful projects are not started on a dime - they are at their root collections of users interested in a particular topic, and the easiest way to collect them in the first place and ongoing is to have an identity category. It is hard to show other tangible benefits to identity categories - just like it's hard to say why userboxes are worthwhile - but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Certainly where there is a demonstrated use for the category and no particular cost to the encyclopedia, they should be kept. Honestly, these I don't think the categories would cost anyone anything if they weren't constantly being nominated for deletion out of a sense of tidiness. The people who spent the time hunting them down and deleting them would undoubtedly like a simple rule such as "delete all identity categories", but I think an even better rule would be "don't bother nominating them unless a particular category does demonstrated harm." Then we could focus on the things that are actually causing a problem for editors - or, perhaps, on the people causing the problem ("categories don't start edit wars, people start edit wars"). GreenReaper 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that... when I started the metalworking wikiproject, I had to go through quite a bit of effort to find members to consult, by looking at page histories to see who had edit patterns that looked like they'd might want to contribute to a wikiproject, etc - if there were a "Wikipedian Metalworkers" category, it would have made it much easier! Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see: you (plural) didn't get the result you wanted in the UCFd discussion, So you posted a DRV. YOu didn't get the result you wanted there, so now you're posting here. At what point is this "asking the other parent"?

As far as I can tell, all the concerns illustrated above were discussed both in the UCfD and the DRV. And please remember that consensus, not voting, is how discussions are resolved.

That aside, I understand that identification can be considered a personal thing for some people. You shouldn't take the nomination personally, however. They were (and are) about cleaning up the Wikipedian category structure. If your concern is that you'd like a larger forum for the idea that "identification-based" Wikipedian categories should be kept, then please feel free to start a Village pump discussion concerning it. But please don't start attacking good faith editors because you didn't get your way. - jc37 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the result of the ucfd _was_ keep. Like everyone expected. The problem is that decision was ignored by the closing admin - "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." This is not the proper way for a wikipedia administrator to act - except for foundation issues, consensus trumps just about everything, especially one person's opinions. That one category is but a drop in the lake of admin actions not agreeing with consensus or policy, and just serves as a good example. The DRV serves as another example - most of the "endorse" votes were about the content of the category, rather than the process of deletion - exactly NOT what DRV is for. Of the three remaining endorse votes, two of them were "because it's a sexuality category, and we just deleted those" - wrong because it's not a sexuality category, and wrong because having just deleted something else (in a controversial and abuse-prone decision) does not automatically make policy. That leaves only ONE actual endorse vote... the original closer defending his right to ignore all who disagree with his opinions. And he lumped it in with the unrelated sexuality categories as well. There wasn't actually ANY argument for endorsing the deletion made there other than the category-lumping one by the original closer, and several for its undeletion ("I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. ... Starblind 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)", etc, indicating significant concern for consensus not being reflection in the decision) yet it was closed as "endorsed".

Your opinion is the category shouldn't exist. Fine, you are allowed to have that opinion. But you must keep in mind that the obvious result of the discussion was that it should - you were the only person to make an argument as to why it shouldn't, while every other person who made an argument said it should. As to good faith... while I try to assume it of everyone, I am forced to conclude otherwise in this case. Someone can not simply ignore one side of the debate and be assumed to be acting to benefit the community they just ignored.

This discussion isn't about a category, it's about the ability for an admin to say "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". As soon as that is acceptable, we might as well toss the concept of consensus out the window - something I hope no one here agrees with. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Busytails, you provided a link to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Furry Wikipedians. In it User:After Midnight says "Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited DRV. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated." However, you have stated that they said "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." and "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". Could you please provide links to where After Midnight said that he would ignore them? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Bushytails was offering his own paraphrasing of what After Midnight was saying rather than providing direct quotes. However, that has been the effect - the consensus of the people who actually showed up at this particular UCfD was dismissed, due to prior deletions of different user categories. I was honestly surprised when I saw that closure, because it didn't seem to make sense. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How can what After Midnight said be turned into "ignore"? His statement is quite clear and in no way dismisses the other arguments. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As there was only one argument to delete (and a weak one based entirely on the nominator's personal opinion), the only way the decision could have been "delete" is if the five keep arguments, summed together, were given less weight than a single weak delete argument. I believe this would fit the defintion of "ignore". Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

jc37, since when did being tidy become a reason to delete things that have shown themselves to be useful? Try to understand: You have deleted a whole lot of categories that nobody really cared about. This has been generally regarded as a good thing. You are now getting more people saying "keep" rather than "delete". This is the point at which to stop, and say "Mission accomplished", rather than start deleting things people have actually been using to build user communities on Wikipedia. The creation of a general rule for user identification categories to override such discussions is not required, nor desirable. These decisions should be made by individual consensus in UCfD, just like articles.

If you want a guide for nominations, consider "categories covering a topic smaller or larger than that which could reasonably be covered by a single WikiProject." This would exclude both the "silly small" categories such as "Wikipedians who are fans of Ozy and Millie" or "Wikipedians who like Amnesiac" (but not "Furry Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who are fans of Radiohead") as well as the silly large ones, like "Wikipedians who read books" or "Wikipedians who like food". Basically, if you can't ever imagine having an "Infobox X", it's probably too small, and if that infobox would be a whole page by itself, it's possibly too big. In between that, it's the right size to start gathering a community of editors. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best answer to this "cause" of "IWANTIT" is to remind you all that the place to contest the closure of User:After Midnight was DRV. And DRV endorsed the closure. That pretty much puts a terminus on all your arguements about him. (And personally, I think you owe him an apology.)

But, to continue this "crusade" is risking becoming disruptive.

If you consider a "crusade" for getting admins to follow consensus, it might make a bit more sense to you. I believe "crusading" for proper admin actions to be far more useful than, say, crusading to break up all informal collaborative groups on wikipedia. (please note again that you were the _only_ person to provide an argument on the ucfd as to why they should be deleted... "IDONTWANTIT"?) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before: If you want to start a discussion about the relevance of idetification categories in general, please feel free to start a talk page discussion somewhere. The Village Pump is an excellent place, for example. - jc37 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. At Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians by interest, well before the category in question was deleted. It was not significantly replied to, even though I pointed people to it in the discussion about LGBT Wikipedians. If I have to take it to the pump, I'll take it there. But I think you should ask yourself the same question about disruptive crusades. Nobody asked you to go around nominating these user categories for deletion. You thought it was a good idea, and you did it. And that's how wikis work, so I have no problem with that. But it's come to the point where what you are nominating them, and people are coming up and saying "hey, we were using that" - and actually telling you how, and have others come in without being asked and agree with that - and they're being deleted anyway. That's not good, not when there's no compelling reason for deletion but a sense of tidyness. GreenReaper 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is starting to border on being disruptive - DRV is the place to contest the closure of an XfD, and when DRV does not get you the result you want, that does not mean the appropriate "next step" is to seek out yet another forum of complaint in hopes of getting the result one wants. There is no process of endless appeals here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I discussed the DRV above - other than After Midnight's vote for proper colsure, there weren't any good arguments for why it should have been delete - the other "endorse" votes were all about content, and didn't mention the process of closure. Since the point of DRV is to discuss the process of the deletion, not to re-argue for/against the content, DRV failed at its purpose, so, as I was advised, I picked a better forum where the actual process of the deletion may be discussed. Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bushytails, before I answer your questions here, could you please answer these for me? After I deleted the category, and my bot removed it from your user page, you made this edit with an edit summary of "go fuck yourselves. you know who you are. people who do nothing buy try to destroy wikipedia do not deserve the right to live." In the edit, you state "This user only has a userbox because certain fuckwits decided that categories, even for the purpose of helping to find users for collaboration, should be replaced by userboxes. If you see one of these fuckwits, please shoot them for the benefit of the encyclopedia, as they seem to go out of their way to try to destroy it, and ridding the planet of ilk like them can only help our goal of encyclopedia creation.". I would like to know, am I one of the fuckwits that you would wish for someone to please kill? And whether this refers to me or not, why should you be allowed to continue to edit on this site, where death threats are not permitted? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you claim that an admin directed you to bring this discussion here, can you please link to this recommendation, since I see nothing in your edit history regarding any such conversation. Also, did this admin not also mention to you that "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so)."? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I re-worded that a bit less harshly, deciding threats might not be the best way to get the point across that certain users do not benefit the environment they're in, and thus shouldn't be in it. It doesn't change my opinion, however, that admins who ignore consensus are a major problem for wikipedia, and should be dealt with appropriately, as should users taking other actions that damage the ability to create an encyclopedia or the community that creates it. Don't forget we're here to create an encyclopedia, after all. Doing things that hurt the encyclopedia is contrary to creating an encyclopedia, and users doing such actions should not be here. (A single rogue admin action is _far_ more damaging than random vandalism, something that routinely results in long-term removal from the site.) And as I was advised on IRC, there will be no link (and, no, I was not advised of that. I also figured that as an active admin, you'd notice soon enough! :) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you were less harsh because "threats might not be the best way to get the point across"? I would have hoped that you withdrew the threat because it was immoral, illegal and uncivil, but it appears you withdrew it only because you were getting reverted on your edit or because you think it didn't help your argument. Either way, your credibility here is shot and at this time, you don't deserve further discussion from me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, you know, actually try responding to arguments people have made. Attacking me won't change the issue. Bushytails 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, you know, actually try to apologize for suggesting that someone should kill me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the strength of the statement made, but not for the message I was trying to convey. That I would do shortly after I see an apology (and not to me personally; I'm just one user of many) from the various users involved for their efforts to damage our great encyclopedia and the community that creates it... However, as I said before, this is the place for a debate, not for attacks. If you don't plan on responding to the actual arguments, one must assume you don't have a case. Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I missed that. Is a permaban the correct response for a death threat? --Kbdank71 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While village pump may be a better location to discuss the usefulness of user categories in general, this isn't about user categories; it's about admins ignoring apparant consensus when making closing decisions. Hardly appropriate for village pump... Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Key phrase : apparent consensus. Consensus is not vote counting and it is not uncommon to see cases closed where the consensus reached was not even a majority opinion. It is not only a right but a duty of administrators to interpret a debate based on the strengths of the arguments therein, not just the numbers. In any case, After Midnight is an administrator because at one point the community deemed him fluent enough in policy to decide these matters and trustworthy enough to close such discussions. That you do not agree with his closure is painfully evident, and thus the problem was brought up at DRV. The discussion at DRV reinforced the fact that his interpretation of the debate was correct. You still disagree. Tough. That an admin "ignored" your chosen interpretation of "consensus" is not a reason to file a greivance on AN/I. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the DRV didn't reinforce the fact at all - the _only_ person to say process was followed properly was After Midnight himself! Perhaps you should actually check the DRV is question? Contrary to what DRV is for, all the other endorse comments were about the content of the item, not the process that was followed. Multiple undelete comments saying process was not followed, however. Hence why it's here, where a proper discussion on the process of closing might be possible.

"Not a majority opinion" would be an understatement, and "strength of arguments" does not include "assigning zero strength to arguments I disagree with". All of the keep votes had relatively strong arguments, while the single delete vote had a relatively weak argument, so any application of unbiased strength-based weighting would still have ended in keep. Again, did you actually read it? Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I participated in the DRV in question, which is why I am here at all. I did read the UCFD. The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD and endorsed the result. Endlessly railing on against the administrator who closed the argument and making thinly veiled accusations of impropriety is not going to help your cause any. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should read it again; "The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD" - actually, at least three people _did_ find something improper with the UCFD. Other than After Midnight's own response, _no one_ said anything positive about the process by which consensus was determined. The only endorse votes were "I don't like it"s about user categories, and made no comment on the closing process at all. Since some of the users pasted the same comment in every drv, I suspect most didn't even read the ucfd. Bushytails 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Look - sometimes you just lose an argument. You didn't like the deletion of the category and you did the proper thing in bringing it up on DRV. When you don't like the outcome of a DRV, however, it's not proper to come running to AN/I to try and get your way. In any case it should be clear that this filing is not going to result in a reversal of that decision, nor is it going to result in any actions against the admin. It should be pretty evident by this juncture that what you are doing here is chasing windmills; but if that is what makes you happy, be my guest. I don't want to go blue in the face, however, so I'm going to move on. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to elaborate in the core Wikipedia principles, "Consensus means that community input is solicited, then the admin does what he wants"? Seriously, having a call for discussion where half a dozen people look at whether a category is needed or not only to be ignored wastes more time than thirty vandalism edits. If the admin did no wrong then the DRV process is defective. 70.15.116.59 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman banned

Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor of two years plus, with thousands of edits and no prior blocks, was recently blocked indefinitely by Jimbo Wales, who noted in the block log that the name suggests a "role account". I doubt an editor of such long standing can be considered a "role account" and I don't believe Jimbo realizes this; in any case an indefinite block for such a tenured editor is not the only means of preventing the person from posting inappropriate links. I've posted a note on Jimbo's talk but he's rarely online so I doubt he'll even see it. Obviously no one should be wheel warring with Jimbo but maybe if anyone agrees with me they can mention something on User talk:Jimbo to increase the visibility? Milto LOL pia 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean towards Jimbo's side on this one. The name could easily confuse new users into thinking the user had some special status. Is there some reason why the name can't be changed to something less confusing? Ronnotel 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

? What? That wasn't the meat of the block, just an indication that Jimbo didn't realize the guy has made a career here. But if the guy's been editing for over two years and the username is a problem, then why don't you point out where it has caused a problem int he two years+ the guy's been editing. Surely such a problematic username has caused such problems given the long time of his activity. Milto LOL pia 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand the confusion about the name, perma-blocking the guy seems more than a bit harsh. Couldn't he just have Ombudsman's name changed? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is also the harassment block, not just the username. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved at all in the BADSITES nonsense (no opinion implied either way there, BTW) but Ombudsman has been a massively tendentious editor for years on vaccine and psychiatry-related articles. His behavior resulted in an RFC and an arbcom hearing, and he was almost certainly editing in violation of his arbcom-imposed restrictions. I also think the name issue was raised in the past, though I haven't dug enough to find it. I'm amazed his block log remained clean until now. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this issue. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes it is, because you are promoting him as a good editor, when he was far from it. Skinwalker 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• There was some previous discussion of possible problems with this username. Concerns were also raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman. See also m:Ombudsman commission --JWSchmidt 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, but there's also the issue of the harassment and whether or not an indef block is the best way to deal with it. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming the account. Is that possible, or does he have to create another one? -- ChrisO 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest looking closely at Ombudsman's contributions rather than solely the length of his tenure. He's a highly tendentious soapbox-style editor, and recognized as such and sanctioned by ArbCom. Since then he's edited less frequently but no less tendentiously, generally throwing around charges of vandalism, whitewashing, etc. Here are some recent (and entirely typical) highlights:

• "Restore unscrupulously vandalized article" (for an article PRODDED and deleted without comment)
• [7] (not even sure how to describe this)
• More of the same

It would appear that Jimbo's block was based on repetitive insertion of a particular link, but before anyone agitates too strongly that this guy be unblocked because he's been here awhile, I would strongly encourage a more detailed review of his tenure and impact here. The username thing has been done to death and deemed not to be a violation in the past, but there is more than enough reason for this editor to be banned. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Block has been reduced to a week. I suggest those of you with other problems pursue dispute resolution, but my involvement here is done. Thanks everyone for your comments. Milto LOL pia 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Milto LOL pia. A permaban out of the blue did not seem right, at least I could not find a reason for it. Guido den Broeder 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The one week block seems reasonable. The attempted link placement seemed like a clear cut-case of trolling/harassment. JoshuaZ 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Righteous block. Restoring links to harassment has zero tolerance. This is a very direct and clear message. Don't link to harassment. Especially don't restore links to harassment or revert those who are deleting them. It's unfortunate that editors want to soften written policy on this when in practice it is not soft and should not be tolerated. --DHeyward 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, there's no consensus for WP:BADSITES or anything similar. This is at this point well-established. The reason this was a good block was because it was linking to the site to harass, not because it was a link to an OH-NOS BADSITE. JoshuaZ 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

StevenBlack repeatedly removing AfD template

Could someone else please talk to this user? I tried explaining the policy to him but he says I'm bullying him. It's my AfD nom and he's called me a whole bunch of names, so I don't feel right blocking him myself. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed he's now moved it to the bottom of the page. Less problematic but still not where it belongs. -- But|seriously|folks  20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by StevenBlack: My view: It is simply not proper, nor fair to volunteer contributors, to be strafing a topics within the first few minutes or hours of a topic's appearance. I live, work, and play on Lake Ontario, and I have first-hand knowledge and experience in this area. If you look at my contributions I've given a lot to Wikipedia about Eastern Ontario. I've also been a Wikipedian for many years, and I've been operating a very successful technical wiki since 1999. I must tell you: I have NEVER been bullied like I have been bullied today, firstly by the arbitrary deletion of the L.O.W. topic by Butseriouslyfolks (with no backup available!) then the slobbering of that AfD box on the topic within the first hour, well that's too much! Please knock it off, and show due respect for nascent topics. - StevenBlack 01:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content and/or context should be left alone to "cook"? JuJube 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: C'mon, that's disingenuous. Wikipedia is, by definition, a work in process. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what's disingenuous is you bypassing my question. I repeat, show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content/context get a pass because you think other people will expand on them someday. JuJube 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We're very pleased for your contributions — however, if there are concerns about the notability of a group you've written about, the correct procedure is to address them calmly and carefully at the proper venue. In this case, AfD. It is inappropriate to attack other editors, and to unilaterally remove tags. The first deletion was not "arbitrary" — the text was a copyright violation. --Haemo 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Please show how the text was a copyright violation. Also, the notability of the group in question cannot be ascertained in the first hour of a topic's appearance in an outline form. No? Thank you. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The original article consisted of four sentences. One was copied verbatim from this page. Another was taken from part of a sentence but had two words changed. The remaining sentences were copied verbatim from a single sentence in the source, but split into two sentences with a few words added to one of them. That's a copyvio. -- But|seriously|folks  05:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the discussion page before you deleted it, the description of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper was NOT taken from the website you cite. The website you site is a DIRECTORY full of such summary descriptions of related and allied groups. The text I posted was taken directly from the source: the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper website itself and was modified for NPOV and in other ways I deemed appropriate at the time for the very early stages, the first stages, of fleshing a completely new topic. I was only a few minutes into my work when you, sir, deleted my work in progress, with no explanation, no warning, and apparently, without ANY wider community oversight. You have been repeatedly accused of heavy handedness. I find your behavior boorish and not quite in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Do you know what I did this morning? I had to completely re-trace and redo my work because of YOUR BOORISH and ARBITRARY and INSTANTANEOUS application of power. There was no historical record of my work that I could find, and I have little recourse other than, in my utter frustration, to face a plethora of roused admins that you summoned from this very page. Please, STOP THE BULLYING. I have spent far more time defending this article's right to exist than I have spent actually contributing. Does anyone else find that warped? StevenBlack 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ALSO: One of the so-called "copyright infringements" was (I assume -- I have access to no records) the line "Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is led by President and environmental lawyer, Mark Mattson and vice president, Krystyn Tully." That is a simple statement of fact in an article that was, at the time, barely minutes old. Can you please explain to me how this justifies your unilateral actions, Butseriouslyfolks? StevenBlack 09:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(link, since none has been provided before now.) Any particular reason not to take Chunk Rice's advice from 6.5 hours ago and userfy? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? --barneca (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

People: If you have problems with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper at this stage, less than a day old, then why not the same flak for San Francisco Baykeeper?? What about Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper?? What about most of those listed under "United States" in List of environmental organizations?? Is this, in fact, Wikipedia.us  ?? What's really going on here?? StevenBlack 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles that should not be here. We're working on it. Feel free to help out and tag them. -- But|seriously|folks  05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. Please stay on topic. The acid test here is, sir: does Butseriouslyfolks have the rectitude, and the courage of his convictions, to fight for the deletion of the San Francisco Baykeeper article, or is Butseriouslyfolks a wiki admin "bully" who is picking on a new article for petty reasons? See, in Wikepedia we have corporations documented down to the minutest detail in some cases. We have consumer-society products and excesses documented in minute detail. But is there no place in Wikipedia to document established, registered and active groups of people who speak for waterfront and the environment? I argue that there is PLENTY of scope for this in Wikipedia. Clearly you disagree. Butseriouslyfolks, plain and simple, put up, or knock it off. I wager that if you were to apply your logic to San Francisco Baykeeper, you would be soundly defeated and, in my view, rightfully so. StevenBlack 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly relevant to the topic. The existence or non-existence of other similar articles doesn't give any article the right to make an end-run around policy. (Also, this is wiki.en, as in English. We have plenty of articles about things outside of the United States, as indeed we should.) shoy 12:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Steven, AFD'd articles must remain up for discussion for at least five days - this gives you at least five days to ensure the article becomes suitable for Wikipedia. It's not doomed as soon as it is tagged. Many of our best articles are ones which were rescued from the AFD process. Neil ☎ 10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if the article is deleted that you ask any one of many admins willing to recreate material in userspace to do just that, and work on the article in your userspace until you are certain it will pass an AfD. That's what I've learned to do with my drafts, many of which are just random collections of links and notes... users with long positive contribution histories are given wide latitude to draft articles in their userspace, free of worry about whether the item already shows notability or not, as it's clear that the article is a work in progress. Just don't add it to articlespace categories or use articlespace specific templates that do that, till you are ready. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting tired of the personal attacks here

This diff is way over the top.--SarekOfVulcan 11:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have given Steven a final warning. Neil ☎ 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How much abuse do I have to take before I'm allowed to reciprocate in kind? -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it. [8]. -- But|seriously|folks  17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to respond in kind to inappropriate comments. It is appropriate to seek third party intervention. Since I don't know either of you from Adam, let me take a look... GRBerry 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, already blocked for 24 hours by Neil. GRBerry 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible editing on Archimedes Plutonium

Later Addition

Although the page in question has been deleted, against the vote of the AfD, the discussion here is more relevant than ever.Likebox 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It has just dawned on me that the discussion here is not relevant at all. I apologize to Artie-poo, for falsely accusing him of smearing Mr. Archimedes Plutonium. He was not doing any such thing, and his comments were not libelous in any way. He was just politically well aware, through discussions with other administrators and as part of the Wikipedia aristocracy, that it was a foregone conclusion that the page was to disappear. As such, he was just trying to dissuade me from writing the page, by providing antagonistic pressure. I suggest that he could have done it in a way which was less liable to misinterpretation on my part.

I am very sorry that I misunderstood the situation. I am writing this here so that it is clear that I will no longer contribute to wikipedia. I only regret that I cannot erase my numerous contributions to date.Likebox 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to apologize to Ed Johnston, who also was in on the game.Likebox 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the old discussion

I have been involved in editing the page Archimedes Plutonium, and I would like to bring a matter of some concern. The case involves unfortunate editing of the page, which I tried repeatedly to correct.

The editor in question is User:Arthur Rubin. Similar additions were made by User:EdJohnston.

The subject of the page was questioned about a murder, and I didn't know very much about the case then. I wrote that the accusations were groundless (specious was the word I used), and the next thing I know, it reads (specious). While I accept that in any other circumstances this is a legitemate and supportable tag, in this case the effect of the tag on an unsuspecting reader is to sew suspicion. It would have been more responsible to rephrase this section directly, instead of putting tags which have the effect of casting shadows on the subject's character.

Just to be clear about the known facts: Archimedes Plutonium was living in another state for two years at the time of the murder, and he was at home online at the time of the murder. The murderers were two teenagers who confessed to the crime, and fingerprints, boottracks, purchases, matched the scene. Nobody considers the case in the least bit open, and the chance that anyone else was involved is zero.

Further, I was writing about this as an example of the way in which this eccentric character has been harassed because of his notability.

I changed the tags, and tried different wordings, but each time the wording changed back to again be ambiguous about his culpability. No matter what wording I chose, I could not edit this page to make it unambiguous, despite bringing up the comments on the talk page of the two users. EdJohnston placed an incriminating link on the talk page of Archimedes Plutonium, and I had to place a link to a later page on the same site, where the whole thing is solved in order to (hopefully) correct the misleading impression that the previous comments made.

After many days of back and forth, the wording eventually settled down to an acceptably unambiguous phrase, the intermediate stages were so fraught with libel, that I was on edge for many days. I tried to explain my concerns to Arthur Rubin, because at first I thought this was done out of ignorance. But his responses were so bureaucratic and unhelpful, and did not alleveate the dangerous ambiguity. Then I came to the conclusion that this was happening as a result of either gross irresponsibility or of malice.

A representative sample of the edits in question are contained in these links::[9] [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The relevant comments made on the talk page Talk:Archimedes Plutonium under the section heading "Harrasment, Specious, etc.", although I later added a link and a bolded statement to remove insinuations of culpability. The comments on Arthur Rubin's talk page were made during the same period of time, and the briefer comments on EdJohnston page also.

I would like to point out that the amount of insinuation was so large, that I personally began to think that the two users had some extra incriminating information about Archimedes Plutonium. They never made a single mention of the fact that this case is closed, either on the talk page or in the main page. I had to actively read about the case in great detail to convince myself that indeed he wasn't involved, and then fight with them to get this wording into the page, again and again.

I believe these actions are a blight on wikipedia, and reflect gross abuses by the editors in question, whether they were done out of irresponsibility or malice. I hope that something can be done to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.Likebox 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear, but LB is using "specious" to imply "unjustified", but the sources only imply "inaccurate" (and not considered credible by the local police chief, who may not have involved in the actual investigation.) As for "harassment", you would need a source other than AP that he was unjustly harassed.

For what it's worth, that AP was home online at the time of the murder was not known at the time, and would have been difficult to verify even if it had been suspected. (If I had reason to believe I would be suspected of the murder, I could easily set up an anonymizer at my home PC, and connect through it.) The parenthetical remark is WP:OR, but can easily be seen to discredit the unsourced assertion that the police knew that he was home online at the time of the murder.

The "blight" on wikipedia is the recreation of an article deleted under authority of the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be perfectly legalall-right to speculate if the case weren't solved and you were speculating in your own home. To speculate that AP used an anonymizer to go out to another state, put on some teenagers boots, steal a knife from their home, stab a professor and his associate, put the bloody boots back in the teenager's home, and then go back to his home state is Original Research, and more fanciful than anything that Archimedes Plutonium has ever written.

The fact that sources do not say explicitly that he wasn't involved is because it is so bloody obvious that he wasn't involved that they don't feel the need to say it. The only reason the books mention him at all is because he is so interesting and notable. After the obligatory Fun Archimedes Plutonium facts, they go back to talking about the actual case, which goes on and on, and is eventually solved. If you were actually ignorant of the facts of the case, that would have been ok. It should only take a small discussion to explain that he wasn't involved, and the page would be reasonable. But I am not completely sure that you were ignorant of the facts of the case, when you persisted in making ambiguous edits despite pleading and begging on my part. All I was asking was to find some way, any way, to state unambiguously that he was not involved. Eventually, such a way was found, by me, after many, many attempts, but it cost me a few gray hairs.

In my opinion, this is the definition of irresponsibility.Likebox 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. But, AfD4 has closed with a delete outcome, so it probably doesn't matter. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you disagree or not, the talk page needs to be kept as evidence for other editors to take a look at, and determine if indeed you acted irresponsibly, and if so, if any other actions need to be taken. The fact that the page has been deleted does not matter, because AP is notable enough and brilliant enough for his page to be recreated along largely the same lines in the future. Your possible wrongdoing, though, is evidenced in the talk page and discussion page. The evidence is overwhelming. The talk page needs to be looked at, as also the edits.

For future reference, the vote on the AfD was a definite keep, and the person who brought it up voted to keep, with no hesitation, and once he understood who AP was, wrote "I am withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET".Likebox 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion has no relation to the page. I will only close it after the issue of irresponsibility is settled by a review by other administrators.23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Specious and inaccurate mean different things, especially in context. If you say specious, and another user says the sources say inaccurate, then a request for souring was valid. --Haemo 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. He didn't say "inaccurate", he just put tags on the "specious" (although, to be fair, he later took out the ). Please go through the records. Then I changed it to something else. I didn't know what he wanted. I was completely at a loss.Likebox 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I know it follows the letter of the law. But I later changed the phrase to "Nobody suspects him of any involvement" using the present tense, and it got reverted. I tried "but he was never under serious suspicion" or words to that effect, and it got deleted, later it got to work the opposite effect of my intention. I racked my brain on this each time to come up with something new that would be OK with Rubin et al, but I couldn't think of anything they liked, and they wouldn't help. This was really jarring, because, I understand disagreements on dubious mathematical content. I also understand disagreements about notability. I understand the controversy about this page, and I sympathize. Even if the whole page is deleted, I understand. But this is an accusation of murder for God's sake. Where is the humanity? This is a human being here, and a human being that I respect very much. I thought I would get an apology at some point, or at least an acknowledgement of error. But all I got was more bureaucratese. This is not decent human behavior in my book, no matter what the disagreements on content.Likebox 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was at 3RR, so could only tag, rather than revert and modify to a correct statement. I'd consider the suggested change a revert. Perhaps I chose the wrong tag. Do we have a NPOV-word tag? Thinking back over it, that would have been better than {{or}}, and {{dubious}} was inappropriate because the word "specious" doesn't have a clear meaning. I don't recall the "nobody suspects him of any involvement", but that seems biased in context, as it appears he really was a suspect at the time (at least, we have no evidence to the contrary). That one, I probably should have just corrected to: "the case is closed and he is not considered to have been involved." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your 3RR explanation is honest and convincing. I think that other adminstrators should take your word here and not do the to check the deleted history logs and see for themselves.02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It also pains me that you can't bring yourself to say "The case is closed and he was not involved", even after all this.Likebox 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Suggestions

I have had some time to calm down, I am sorry I lost my temper. But I didn't sleep because I was worried those tags would show up again, and Plutonium would lose his job again or God knows what. I am still not going to contribute to Wikipedia in the foreseeable future, but I thought that it leaves everyone with a bad feeling if there is no resolution to disputes, and if all the comments are of a destructive nature.

So here are my editing suggestions, you administrative folks can do what you will:

1. The tags have got to go. They are tools of lazy editing, used in place of a thoughtful rewrite. I think there is a (very slight) possibility it just didn't occur to Rubin that tags can change meaning so drastically, even after I repeatedly tried to explain. If somebody wants to edit the page, let them edit the page by thinking and writing a sentence.
2. Recognize that any description, even a neutral encyclopedic one, involves some original reinterpretation in order to be coherent. It is ridiculous to assume that Wikipedia will be cobbled together from sentences and sentence fragments in scattered sources. Recognize that the editing process is political, and choose the political tools carefully. I think this is already recognized, and the policies in place are by and large sensible ones. But be careful to not whip out "original research" for something which does not involve a radically new idea, or a radically new synthesis of ideas. Be careful with the OR accusation, and use it for idea-units (paragraphs) and not individual sentences or words. The individual sentences or words should just be rewritten back and forth until they settle down.
3. Require edits to be made using a username. This will also cut down on vandalism. There is no reason that someone can't log in to make an edit, and there is no reason that someone can't make a new username if they want to edit anonymously. This is just to cut down on the chance of someone inserting tag-libel or other subtle vandalism.

And here are my political suggestions:

1. Get rid of the tools of brownnosing, those stupid (but well intentioned) barnstars that anyone can give to themselves and friends.
2. Do not select administrators by a vote of previous administrators. That's how aristocracies are made and perpetuated. It creates tiers of administrators and lackeys, who are vying for power. Recognize that wikipedia administration is a political office, and expand it slowly by some sort of vote restricted to non-administrators. Create separation of power, and make sure there are ombudsmen to control abuses of power.
3. In order to attract mathematical talent, it is essential that the people who contribute do not feel exploited. Writing a mathematical argument requires about ten times the effort of writing a usual exposition, and the work is underappreciated. You have to check and double check and yes, horrors of horrors, do original research. Otherwise your mathematical discussion will be shitty. In order to encourage mathematical contributors, you must assure them that their work will not get tagged into oblivion, and will be evaluated carefully. Fortunately for wikipedia, for the time being none of the current contributors can understand any math so the stuff all stays no matter how original and how good it is.
4. Do not allow academics to serve in any administrative capacity. They have an interest in perpetuating certain ideas and marginalizing others because that's how they eat. They should only contribute content. I do not have a PhD nor a serious academic position, so I can be fair to everybody. There is no reason that a layperson can't decide what is a competent exposition and what is not. But an academic administrator can just punish his academic competitors on a whim.
5. Be expansive in the topics you cover. I know there is a debate between the "restrictionists" and the "expansionists", but the debate is dumb. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (as you say) and there should be no debate. All the "restrictionists" are people who want to keep something marginalized.

End of comments. I will know that someone is listening when the Archimedes Plutonium page is back up. I think that will happen when hell freezes over.Likebox 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon rereading this I realized that point 3 could be misread as a bid for administratorship on my part. It's not. I would like to have an academic position in the future.Likebox 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy is back

DreamGuy is back, for barely 24 hours, and is already getting into a dust-up with another user over on the Jack the Ripper page and on his talk page. DreamGuy is subject to an arbcom ruling from a case during which he was absent. IMHO he is in violation of the case's rulings, specifically the AGF requirements (especially this edit comment), but as I had a (IMHO minor) editing conflict with him a while back, I do not feel comfortable taking admin action against him myself. So could an uninvolved admin please take a look at the arbcom ruling and his latest escalating dispute, and decide if enforcement of the arbcom ruling is required, or at least a warning that he's across the line. - TexasAndroid 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask him what's it abut before coming here? El_C 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Seems straightforward. [19] is incivil and assumes bad faith, therefore blocked for 24 hours. Neil ☎ 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to my question, why is that, Neil? El_C 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, El_C, I thought you were asking TexasAndroid. And I do apologise for failing to respond to your question for a whole 4 minutes. It doesn't matter what it's about. The case was closed just 8 days ago and is abundantly clear - any incivility or bad faith from Dreamguy = block. Neil ☎ 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no further comment at this time. El_C 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your question was directed at me, not Neil, but I've been trying to parse just what it is you wanted me to ask DreamGuy about before I came here. I'm really not sure what there is to ask. What the dispute on the JtR page is about? I'm not really certain that matters. The arbcom restrictions are about his behaviour, and are not mitigated by the subject or even whether he is right or wrong in his debates. - TexasAndroid 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're just not a very curious person... El_C 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Off to WP:AE with this thread, please. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You're right. While I generally followed this case, I try to avoid ArbCom drama as a general rule, and forgot that there was a specific board for these reports. I think that this one is pretty much done for today, and if I have further reports in the future I will be sure to send them to the correct place. - TexasAndroid 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this have just been a warning instead of a block? Given that there is history between them, and he put it fairly civilly given how he sees it? AGF is fine, but it gets tricky when there has been bad blood in the past. There was still room for admin discretion here - you could have talked about it with him without threatening to block or blocking. If he was being difficult/disruptive enough to warrant a block, I doubt one of the people he was disagreeing with would have followed him back to his talkpage to discuss the mattter. Petenotrepeat 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the blocking admin failed to address the administrative rollback that DG reverted (which does not appear evenhanded) or any of his other claims, I deem the current duration to be sufficient and I have granted DreamGuy's unblock request. Thx. El_C 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem with El_C's unblocking. DreamGuy needs to realise reverting good faith edits with incivil edit summaries and accusations of stalking are not helpful, and was pretty much mandated against in his Arbitration finding, and hopefully he has now done so. Neil ☎ 07:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I do have a problem with Arthur Rubin showing up, seemingly out of the blue, to click the rollback button. Out of respect for his on and off wiki work, I wouldn't call his action baiting, but seeing his past dispute with DG, greater sensitivity was due. El_C 08:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Is it worth asking Arthur Rubin not to revert DreamGuy's edits? If they are poor edits, someone else can revert them. Neil ☎ 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As Neil says, reverting good faith edits with uncivil edit summaries and accusations of stalking are not helpful... unfortunately I think Neil failed to look into the incident and chose to interpret a legitimate complaint of inappropriate behavior as mere namecalling. I believe that anyone who would take the time to look into Arthur Rubin's history of conflict with me -- by going to articles he had never edited in the past solely to blind revert my work without giving any rationale -- should honestly question whether there could be any good faith explanation for this behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&diff=166375433&oldid=166349952 His edit that I reverted] removed several footnotes I added to give scholarly references to sections that were tagged as requiring cites, removed a correction to an author's name that had been misspelled, added in old versions of the article so that whole sections were duplicated unnecessarily (the victims section ednded up being sections on their own as well as subsections of the main one), and otherwise cannot in any way be considered an improvement to the article. Seriously, can anyone look at the content of that edit and give an encyclopedic rationale for that behavior? Based upon the content and his long history of similar actions in the past, it seems safe to say that it was a blind revert for no other reason than to undo a series of edits I had done recently. While ArbCom ruled that I need to be more polite and more civil, the interpretation of the admin that was made here functionally means that anyone can take any action against me they want and if I make mention of it *I* will get blocked for it. If I say someone is harassing me, especially when the action in question was so blatant and in line with his past methods of the same abuse, admins must accept the possibility that such a claim is not mere insults but an accurate reporting of what's going on. It's a question of good faith and civil behavior on the part of admins enforcing rules, and the admin who blocked me did not entertain that possibility and chose to interpret it in the most unflattering light. Certainly if someone vandalized pages over and over and I revert another edit with the comment that it is vandalism I would hope nobody would block me for making mention of that. But who really knows, as there's no rhyme or reason to these things and no attempt to give a reasoned explanation for them after they happen. The mere presumption of wrongdoing without discussing it anywhere is all that some people need to try to justify their actions, which certainly has turned the whole Assume Good Faith and Civility policies on their ears. It seems to me that there needs to be more structure to these kinds of actions. As it stands the people who have a history of conflict with me can now do what they want and just shop around for any admin willing to interpret things to their side of the dispute.DreamGuy 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, DreamGuy, it was User:TexasAndroid, not Arthur Rubin, that made the complaint here. And from what I read, Neil did give a reasonable explanation for your short block. It seems to me that it might be advisable to just take a step back for a bit - your own comments here aren't really complying with WP:AGF either. After all, you are subject to the ruling of the ArbCom, and as such, you are going to be held to a stricter standard.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who made the complaint doesn't change the nature of User:Arthur Rubin's edits. You may disagree with my opinion of Neil's edit, but the admin who unblocked me agreed that there was no reasonable explanation, and other admins have also said via email the same thing.DreamGuy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to split semantic hairs here, but if you're referring to El_C's comment about unblocking you, I think you might be reading a bit too much between the lines. Of course, I can't speak for El_C, but then again, nobody can except him. If he has an issue with Neil's block, I'll them handle that between themselves. As for what others have said via email - I can't really comment on that either, since nobody you and they have seen those. In any case, I'd just offer my friendly $.02 - given that the ArbCom has ruled on your need for civilty, I'd take that ruling seriously and take an extra moment or two prior to posting, even when you feel like you're being baited or needled. Better to handle things calmly via the proper channels than to say something that might be regretted later. Cheers  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, DreamGuy's edit seems to have added material that should be somewhere in the article, but it broke sections which were already there and should remain. What are my choices: Revert to the pre-DreamGuy version, which is at least consistent, if incomplete; leave DreamGuy's version, which is not at all consistent, and had a few broken references; or spend 4 hours verifying sources, even if they were all available online? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, while that sounds like a nice explanation after the fact to the people who don't check the content of the revert you made, your edit comment on your own talk page shows an entirely different motivation for your action. Your characterization of my version of the article as "not at all consistent" and "broken references" is not accurate. Simply put, I am not sure how you intend to prove that you are not harassing me when you have today twice edited my own talk page despite the fact that I and a number of admins in the past have specifically told you that doing so comes across as harassing, you have argued with me about the block in edit comments on my talk page, and you are clearly watching my contribution history (as you showed up out of the blue to edit Jack the Ripper in the incident in question here and today have commented on an edit I made to false memory on your talk page). Honestly, if you want to show good faith, stop editing my talk page, stop watching my edits, stop blind reverting me with no rationale offered, and go on about editing Wikipedia on your own without worrying what I am up to. If you are unable or unwilling to do that then I think my case has been made for me. Good faith does not entail following me around after admins have warned you off. DreamGuy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I decline further comment, unless invited, except to say that El C frequently used "unjustified" for any action that he considers incorrect, whether or not "justified" or required by Wikipedia policy. As for false memory, I've been watching the article for some time, but didn't have the time to do research as to which of the edits you reverted were justified, although I think very few of them were. I'm afraid that "most" is not supported by those references, even though it's almost certainly accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the block I made, and the revert Arthur Rubin made ([20]), I think I owe DreamGuy an apology, which I shall now go and make. Neil ☎ 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very sincerely appreciated. DreamGuy 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Libellous material on AFD

An AFD has been started on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game) by User:SpigotMap and User:EvanCarroll (possibly a sockpuppet since they're both from Houston) to get the article PlaneShift (computer game) deleted, but the nominators have been using the AFD as a way to defame the director, Luca Pancallo, and his open source project [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Not much of what they say here in the above diffs can be backed up, and I don't appreciate their defamatory personal attacks against Luca—who has also edited Wikipedia [27]—or his project. A closer look into SpigotMap's very first edits on Wikipedia will reveal his conflict of interest: He has played the game under the pseudonym Link and has been banned from the game for quite a while [28] [29] [30] (for over five years to my knowledge), and he only registered a Wikipedia account to make sure this article gets deleted. SpigotMap aka Link is also the only reason Freenode staffer SportChick is in your IRC channel. Tuxide 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Edit: Removing Christel since that person is no longer on the channel Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the diffs you link appear to be innocuous. Statements like "the license is authoritarian", "It is a luke warm game", "proprietary junk", "I hope this project dies", are clearly not libelous or defamatory under United States law. Any suit based on those statements would be dismissed instantly. The first diff, with reference to "normal Luca lying about the project", is the closest thing, and it is obviously an expression of opinion (ie, protected) - not to mention that it's difficult to see how Mr. Pancallo could prove that it materially damaged his reputation! IANAL, but this kind of silliness is wasting everyone's time. Admins are not going to block anyone for saying mean things about your favorite person or project. <eleland/talkedits> 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Luca Pancallo has made it quite clear that this can be sued over, since he has no way to back up his statements, and the only reason such a case would not be accepted is that his project is not-for-profit. I have no reason to assume good faith in SpigotMap due to his first edits on Wikipedia and because I know him well enough. Furthermore, there really is no point to blocking anyone—he is already well known for ban evasion among Freenode staff, so it would be impossible to ban him here. My reason for bringing this up on AN/I is to address this to the closing admin. Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mr. Pantallo is incorrect. Libel is defined as a defamatory falsehood - that is, a knowingly untrue statement of fact which places the subject in a negative light. Statements of opinion, on the other hand, are protected speech under the First Amendment. As far as I can tell, all of the statements you refer to are statements of opinion and thus are not actionable libel. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but I've studied media law extensively.) FCYTravis 09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: He can sue; he just doesn't have any chance of winning, for the reasons that Travis states. I'd also advise Mr. Pantallo to stop talking about suing people for on-Wikipedia statements, or else the IP from which he's making those edits could end up being blocked per WP:NLT. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, to clarify, Luca Pancallo has never made a legal threat on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I've seen him make claims of libel elsewhere for remarks like these made outside of Wikipedia, however. Second, my issue is not whether this can be sued over, but that you wouldn't see claims like the ones SpigotMap and EvanCarroll have made in the article namespace—such claims would just get reverted as libel unless they really can be cited appropriately. Thus, I don't see why they should be present in the project namespace either. Furthermore, if Mr. Pancallo does have a reason to sue—and I highly doubt he will—it would probably be to find out who these people are and move on. Which really makes it no different than the Skutt Catholic lawsuit (which I clearly know all about). Tuxide 06:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham and Birmingham, United Kingdom

A rename and revert by a new user has left the Birmingham article without an edit history. The edit history is now at Birmingham, United Kingdom. Could someone do the appropriate delete and moves to fix it please? Ta. Mr Stephen 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:BrumBoy1234 moved Birmingham to Birmingham, United Kingdom, did a cut and paste move of the content of the article to Birmingham, then blanked Birmingham, United Kingdom and put a speedy delete tag on it. I have reverted the speedy delete tag, would somebody please move it back? Thank you. Corvus cornix 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be done. – Steel 23:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Thanks. Mr Stephen 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear - looks like Birmingham redirects to itself, and Birmingham, UK redirects to Birmingham. And the content is nowhere to be found. Am I missing something here? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just getting redirects to each other and i can't find the article history anywhere. Did you edit conf with Maxim, Steel? Woodym555 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit history was in Birmingham, United Kingdom, but it now seems to have gotten lost. Corvus cornix 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maxim went and re-broke everything after I fixed it. Joy. – Steel 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[thousand edit conflicts] And now a third admin has fixed it. – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been to Birmingham. I doubt if I'm alone in rejoicing its disappearance, even for a few minutes. Only in Wikipedia! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I can empathise with that :P – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's back.  :) Corvus cornix 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to live in Birmingham!. Brummies will unite ;) It has been fixed now. The logs look a mess though! Woodym555 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately only 6 people attended to this meet-up. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of thousand people set off - but they ended up in Alabama ;-) B1atv 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There were seven at this one, the trend is heading upwards. If and when we have one in Chester, I may finally have no exuse for not coming. Neil ☎ 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could he have been trying to get the history deleted? See also this vandalism from earlier: [31] —Random832 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting Website

The editor Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding ref links to the article Ahwaz territory that link to www.al-moharer.net. See diff, [32]. [Note added by Sarah: Guys, please be careful with these links. Admin Gnangarra said his antivirus and firewall went off when he followed one of the links. Sarah 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

This website is particularly disturbing and promotes terrorist activity against the US government and the Iraqi government: "The organization basically represents Iraq and comprises all the Iraqi people and its legitimate and bona fide resistance forces which the occupation wants to destroy, with the Iraqi national armed forces as a high-priority target." [33]

Again, "Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" [34]

Among other things, this website contends that there are "more similarities between Post-9/11 America and Third Reich Germany than just over-reliance on Blitzkrieg tactics. We finally determined that the two nations were following parallel political courses." The author of that articles is, supposedly, a US military officer. [35]

Another quote from a different article, "October 2nd, 2007, will be a milestone date in the history of the Movement for the Liberation of Iraq from American and Iranian Imperialism. On that day, the Supreme leadership of the Jihad liberation struggle, which is comprised of 22 fighting factions of the Armed Iraqi National Resistance, was founded." [36]

There are more, you can find them for yourself. I don't find any mention of Ahwaz anything on the site. I suggest that this site should be blacklisted, but I don't know who to take that to. I do not know if this individual is dangerous or where he is editing from. Note, I am unsure as to how secure this website is regarding viruses, etc. --Strothra 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of transparency, this article was the subject of this AFD and is currently under this DRV. Sarah 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First I would just suggest removing the link as an unreliable source. If that doesn't work, then you could considered listing it at WP:BLACKLIST as a spam web-site. Not sure it exactly fits what that was set up for, but it certainly seems like it might do the trick. Ronnotel 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the editor adding the links? I think that simply his addition of them is disturbing - should an admin not review that behavior? Is this vandalism - should I add vandal tags when he does this? --Strothra 03:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly the message that the governments in London and Washington would want conveyed, and I personally deplore calls to arms from any side; but leaving aside the flowery rhetoric, this is a website for or by those engaged in armed insurrection against the current Iraqi regime (or armed resistance, depending on PoV). Depending on POV, that may be seen as a wonderful thing or something to be expected or something terrible, but I see nothing wrong in referencing or linking to that site where such links are relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" seems to be directed at the whole Iraqi population and put into context promotes violence against US and Iraqi forces - it doesn't matter your POV, unless you're for violence you're not going to find this a reliable source. --Strothra 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(after 2 ecs)I've already removed it and I do not believe it is an appropriate site for us to link to. And I do think there is a problem here with this website, the editor, the various sockpuppets and this article. Sarah 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with the socks, but I do not think they are the same as Hisham since the socks seem to have a far superior command of English.--Strothra 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The latest sock has been blocked by Ryulong Sarah 04:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The website is clearly anti-American and anti-Iranian. But guys, you showed no evidence so far that it promotes terrorism yet you label it as a "terrorist" website. The link added by that user relates directly to the subject of the article. It is not a call tp violance but an article from a different POV about the Iraq-Iran conflict and its relation w/ Ahwaz. Please read it and do not fear about your firewall and anti-virus going off as if it was the case neither Strothra nor me would have read it while still having them on. You could argue using WP:RS and biased source as an argument instead as Ronnotel said but it is clearly not a "terrorist site". Most of the terms used are limited to "resistance" and "liberation". There is no bombing or mass killing mentioned. Please let me know if you got some clear mention to that. I have no particular interest on the issue (or in politics in general) but you guys have participated at the AfD so the idea of a content dispute comes to mind. I hope i was fair. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Note: This is also used as a source for a statement on Mujahideen Shura Council#Insurgency in Iraq (external link #12). It is also used as an external link in it:Michel Aflaq and is used on 3 pages in ar.wikipedia: ar:العرب وإيران, ar:يهود أشكناز, and an image ar:صورة:Khaled abdelmajid.jpg. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, I understand the content dispute issue, that's why when Strothra raised this with me, I advised him/her to bring it here and why I noted at the top there the AFD and DRV links. Thank you for your comments. Sarah 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The behavior of the use in question is another issue but i am going have some sleep in a while. Someone else can please have a gentle word w/ him. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal. It's clear, however, that it's Ba'athist and supports violence against the Iraqi and US government forces which I think still strongly goes toward the WP:RS and NPOV arguments. I'd hardly call the site a call to peaceful resistance. To be fair to Sarah, the terrorist label was my own - I point that out because you wrote "guys." Please note that I added a level 2 linkspam warning - I'll add a note that the website above is what I'm specifically referring to by it. --Strothra 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually i read it in English because it wouldn't make sense if i have read it in Arabic (basing my arguments on a version different than the one you used -the english version). Well, as i said, i am not involved much in politics and i'll leave that to the community though i'd have used WP:RS and biased source to end the story. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. No worries Strothra. I know you and i know Sarah and i know you are acting in good faith as always. It is not personal and i know of course that it was you who used the title but that wasn't my focus. I was more responding to both of your comments in general. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized I copied only part of the website address when putting it into my browser and so I kept getting the Arabic main site. I apologize for the confusion.--Strothra 03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the article itself should be up for deletion, but any severly biased content that was there before should be kept out. Some of the rhetoric you're describing is the same garbage that you'll find in a lot of far-left propaganda(the false parallels between the Third Reich and post-9/11 America), but it's still easy to see why this is more of a Ba'athist site. I assumed it might've been a Sunni jihadist propaganda site as well, until FayssalF pointed out that it was Ba'athist. I added a biased source tag on a site about some far-left political party in Bangladesh a month or so ago. ----DanTD 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User calls me a WP:DICK for linking to policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am closing this incident as it has been resolved and any further discussion would be counter-productive. R. Baley 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Recently, User:Rjd0060 called me a dick because I'm linking to policy, and went on to say "Most of us are as familiar (if not more familiar) with these policies/guidelines as you are." When I asked him not to jump to conclusions and make such strong accusations, he went on to say that I was "show[ing] everybody how smart [I am]." (See here for the conversation, which I won't rehash here.) Can someone please jump in here and diffuse the situation before it gets any more out-of-line? I'm extremely busy, and don't want to have to waste Wiki-time (or real-life-time) dealing with an issue that could be diffused by an admin or third party stepping in and asking this user to respect policy and other users. Thanks. --Cheeser1 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained to the user that it was not intended as a personal attack. If you (admin) think it was, then I guess you can warn/block me. Please go and read the conversations though, as the whole context is not explained here. - Rjd0060 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. This is all about whether or not one should link to policies in an AFD debate? Get a grip. Then get a life. You both have wasted too much time on this. It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. Just go do something else on Wikipedia. Or, failing that, leave your computers and go do something else in the "real world". Then maybe you'll get some perspective and get over this little squabble.

--Richard 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is a complaint about a personal attack and abusive comments, not about the issue of linking (yes, it is extraordinarily petty, which is exactly why Rjd0060 was so far out of line for hurling an accusation/attack at me for it). --Cheeser1 07:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He said he didn't intend a personal attack. What do you want? Rjd0060 please apologise for causing offence. Matter diffused. 08:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.90.193 (talk)

WP:NPA clearly states that the intent (or inability to articulate himself in a way that is not construed as a personal attack) is not relevant: Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding...personal attacks are not excused because of these factors (not to mention the more broad Comment on content, not on the contributor.). And then there's WP:DICK, clearly stating: don't bandy the criticism about lightly. Calling someone a dick because they link to policy "too much" is definitely bandying things about pretty lightly (especially when it's all a product of his bad faith assumption that doing so is an attempt to make myself feel smart). Such a flagrant and inappropriate personal attack / accusation may be worth letting go, but not when the editor in question insists that he has done nothing wrong. --Cheeser1 10:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Must...resist...urge to comment [37] EconomicsGuy 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize that the user interpreted this as a personal attack, as I've said a couple times, that is not how it was intended, at all. I have respected the users wishes and not pursed this anymore (on his talk page) because as he said above, he's to busy to waste his time with this? I will repeat myself one las time and after this, I will not leave any more comments about this, because I do have other things to do: I sincerely apologize for the fact that Cheeser1 misconstrued a comment as a personal attack, but it was a big stretch on his part...IMO anyways. I also believe that this discussion needs to come to an end, so that we don't waste anybody else's time, like this user's. - Rjd0060 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on this is a waste of everyone's time. Did you read the part about copeing with being labeled a dick? And this part: "Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?". By bringing this here, it looks like maybe you may be. Jeeny ^(talk) 15:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. Let's open the door for people to hurl about dick accusations left and right because it's not like anyone respects civility - it's too much of a hassle. --Cheeser1 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this thread since I saw it. I think the dick essay is useful for self reflection but should never be used to refer to another editor. It's like placing {{User warning-mentalhealth}} on another editor's user page. But we have an apology, and everybody reading this is now on notice that dicking somebody may be taken as offensive. So don't do it again! -- But|seriously|folks  18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with BSf above, however the "apology" seems disingenuous. If I call someone a dick for no reason, and then say, "I'm sorry. . .that you perceive that as an insult" when it is in fact clearly meant to be an insult, well, that's a non-apology. Better to just remove the link and say "I shouldn't have done that" with no apology at all. Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with the general community response here. And also, I think links are helpful, but they are especially appropriate in the AfD which started all of this link because there appears to be more than a couple of single purpose new accounts weighing in there. R. Baley 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The apology that I have given, is the only one I am going to give on this matter. It isn't my fault that people cannot take some constructive criticism on things that I have opinions about. Because that is all this is, difference in opinions. I didn't intend it as a personal attack, I think I would know what my intentions were better than anybody else would. So I am not going to apologize for saying it, as some people could benefit from reading that essay. I've apologized for the fact that people misinterpret comments that I've added, but thats it. I will say that had I known the comment would this much nonsense and a trip to ANI, I probably would not have said it. I don't know what this continuous conversation is going to help. - Rjd0060 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a dick is not constructive criticism. If you're suggesting that it's not reasonable and foreseeable that someone might interpret that as a personal attack, I think that's rather insensitive. Whatever your intention, you should have realized that it could very well and very reasonably be interpreted as an attack. So an unqualified apology would have been (and still would be) appropriate. -- But|seriously|folks  05:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it. I have apologized (and I do feel bad about it) for the fact that this comment I made was received as a personal attack, as that was clearly not my intention. Thats it! End of discussion (at least on my end). You people can dwell on this until hell freezes over, but what is that going to achieve? What do you want to come out of all this? I gave a proper apology as per censorship, I shouldn't need to worry about how comments are received by others, unless I am blatantly making a personal attack (which obviously people don't seem to think I have) or making a legal threat. I think WP:GETOVERIT needs to be entered into policy because this is, ridiculous. - Rjd0060 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I woulnd't receive this as a personal attack. As the essay suggests, I would examine my motivations,and try to figure out what behavior would cause this reception by other people. Apparently, for linking that article, I am was being a dick too, and I understand that now. I don't think know I will not refer anybody else to this essay. - Rjd0060 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[38] - Rjd0060 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

User:butseriouslyfolks - Harassment

Can somebody please show first steps towards bringing a harassment action against User:butseriouslyfolks for his actions on User:StevenBlack and in Lake Ontario Waterkeeper?

Is it possible, in policy, that an admin user be formally removed from interaction with specific users, or topics?

See, with this premature AfD that he instigated, completely disrupting article development, he's evidently not a disinterested party and I see no NPV at all here. Can this topic be confided to watchers in the Environment Project, perhaps? I don't know if User:butseriouslyfolks is qualified to deal with the article's subject matter, or me for that matter.

Please consider this a formal request. StevenBlack 07:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BSF is an administrator, and even if he weren't, anyone on Wikipedia is "qualified" to deal with anyone else. I don't see how someone can be unqualified to deal with another editor. BSF may have AfD'd the article prematurely, and he has certainly been open to discussion. He has done nothing, as far as I can tell, to harass, attack, or undermine you. On the other hand, you (repeatedly) removed the AfD notice, which is strictly prohibited. He nominated an article for deletion, in good faith. Bad timing, yes, but in good faith, which you're supposed to assume he did. To others, please note the ongoing at the Wikiquette alerts board here, regarding Steven Black's noncompliance with AfD procedures, his comments on BSF's talk page, at the WQA, in his edit summaries, and from the article in question. --Cheeser1 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, BSF's five posts to the thread vs. your 17. Who's harassing who here? JuJube 07:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anything, my early AfD accelerated development of the article. It was an A7able stub before it was listed for AfD. The author's getting a crash course, but I think he's starting to understand what the deficiencies are and how to go about correcting them. I only wish he would be more civil, but with the volume of stuff I delete, I'm developing quite a thick skin. (Really, it's all skin and no fat. And if you believe that . . . ) -- But|seriously|folks  08:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment; even if the AfD was premature, it did spur people (involved and not yet involved) to jump in and start making sure that the article established if/how the subject met notability policy. I do wonder why Steven Black requires a "crash course" (not to mention why his behavior seems to reflect an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia) - he's been contributing for years. --Cheeser1 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is troublesome. Also, I assumed from all of the procedural difficulties that he was new here. -- But|seriously|folks  08:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor seriously needs to cool down. Hostility, incivility, personal attacks, and frivolous complaints against others. Perhaps an uninvolved admin would like to assess the situation and take appropriate action, if necessary? --Cheeser1 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with butseriouslyfolks stepping back, as I have been requesting for a while now? SarekofVulcan definitely should step back, in my view. StevenBlack 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please show first steps towards bringing a harassment action against User:butseriouslyfolks for his actions on User:StevenBlack and in Lake Ontario Waterkeeper? / Try reading about "WP:RFAr" if you're really interested. ¶ Is it possible, in policy, that an admin user be formally removed from interaction with specific users, or topics? / It's possible for any user to be so removed. ¶ See, with this premature AfD that he instigated... / Er, which "premature AfD"? ¶ Please consider this a formal request. / I don't understand how a series of questions, comments and musings can be a "formal request". Anyway, you make a formal request on some page designed for formal requests. -- Hoary 11:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary. I have left a mediation request with Daniel, the mediation chair. StevenBlack 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you have to be civil with other editors, during mediation? You'll need to improve in this area if you're going to get anything out of mediation. --Haemo 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Apelbaum

Serious sockpuppet or meatpuppet problems here. Or WP:COI. Or WP:CIVIL. Take your pick! -- But|seriously|folks  09:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go with regular sockpuppetry and COI, with a side order of CIVIL.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Report it to WP:SSP and note it on the AFD so the closing admin is definitely aware. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Yabbadabbawho

This user repeatedly makes the same POV edit to Mary I of Scotland. I have given him a welcome, and later a warning, and he deleted the latter from his talk page with an offensive comment. I don't want to be the one to block him - any thoughts on how best to deal with this? Deb 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added another (hopefully friendly) NPOV warning to his talk page. I'd say that if he keeps it up, maybe a sterner warning about NPOV, then perhaps a short block to drive the point home. The account is a little suspicious, though - either he's a quick learner about the intricacies and culture of Wikipedia (account was created on 7 October), or it could be a sock account.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that. Thanks, anyway. Deb 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit summary is problematic. Corvus cornix 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just warned them for it, and for the edit-warring. --John 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked them for 24 hours for this. This user may need more eyes on them; they may also need an indefinite block as they have really not made any positive contributions. Thoughts? --John 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This comment doesn't really suggest that they'll be productive. That plus the other random disruption looks like persistent vandal behavior to me. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about merging without concensus

I cannot find all the relevant diffs. However the issue is the following. I suddenly found one day than an article I was working on, zaojing, had been redirected to another article name Caisson (Asian architecture), without any warning or discussion. The editor had copied material and its associated references from zaojing to Caisson (Asian architecture) which he had been working on and redirected zaojing to his. I inquired on ANI, asking what do to.

• Orignial ANI complaint:[39]. An admin posted on User:PalaceGuard008 talk page that a MERGE process was the method if informal discussion did not reach agreement. He has removed this message from his talk page so I cannot give a diff.

A third party I contacted said that each article name was equally valid and he could not recommend one over the other. He suggested involving other opinions or drawing straws. That message is also removed from PalaceGuard008's talk page so I cannot give a diff. The zaojing article information is focused on a much earlier time frame. Meanwhile, both the other editor and I have been working on our articles, his with the material and references copied from the one I am working on. I researched the article name question and suggested a merge of his article with Coffer as being more appropriate.

Meanwhile, I was distracted by User:Cyborg Ninja who stalked me to the article talk page and entered into the discussion. Cyborg Ninja has since been warned for stalking and personal attacks regarding me, including these posting on the talk page of Caisson (Asian architecture):

• [40]
• [41]
• [42]

Now I find that PalaceGuard008 seems to have responded to Cyborg Ninja's advice and has kept the material and associated references from zaojing incorporated in the article he is working on and removed the MERGE. PalaceGuard008 responded by saying I said the issue was closed. I did not. I was referring to the advice from ANI to use a MERGE, so that issue was closed as the merge templates were in place:

• [43]

So despite my arguments to the contrary on the article talk page including the suggested merge of his article with Coffer, the material and references copied from zaojing remain where palaceGuard008 copied them. I have asked the Architectural portal for advice on correct terminology. The article I was working on zaojing is actually part of a larger article on Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. Not only is the material copied from this article and placed into the one he is working on, but the references he copied are incorrect for the purpose and time frame he is using them for. I reverted the page back to the original status before the incorporation of zaojing material and references and including the MERGE. PalaceGuard008 has reverted to the version including material and references copied from zaojing.

Please advise on how to handle this situation. I would like to get the Architecture portals input as coffer, cupola and other terms are very similar and we need a common understanding. The Wiki Commons also uses the term "round ceiling" and "caisson" interchangeably.

Hope I am stating the situation clearly. Thanks! --Mattisse 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have notified PalaceGuard008 of this ANI posting on his talk page. --Mattisse 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anothr forum I should take this problem to? I don't care anymore about the redirect. I just don't want the copied text and references there. Mattisse 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merges (or unmerges) are best discussed on the talk page of the destination article. If the content should come out because it doesn't make the destination article a better article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the article it is in. If you want it removed because you were the original author, you should read the GFDL and realize that it ceased being solely yours the instant you pressed the "save" button; see also WP:OWN, and what is needed is 1) in the history of the merged to article an edit summary indicating that material was merged from the original source and 2) {{R from merge}} on the redirect. If you just need a third opinion, use the WP:3O or WP:RFC processes to gain ourside comment. GRBerry 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse seems to be forum shopping. I'm waiting for fuller input on policy at Village Pump (policy). As I have exhaustively listed the issues in this and related disputes on the same article here on AN/I and elsewhere, I won't repeat myself.

Suffice to say that I think Mattisse does not understand the collaborationist nature of Wikipedia and the GFDL licence.

One specific point: he says I removed the 3rd party user's comment in support of my view that the two articles are identical in subject matter - I did no such thing, and why would I? It's right there on my talk page, and if Mattisse can't find it, it is only because he insists on opening multiple threads on my talk page (and elsewhere) every time he posts a message, cluttering up these talk pages.

I am still waiting for Mattisse to return to the content discussion on the article talk page. No luck so far after asking him about 5 times to respond to my comments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Regiment

Resolved

Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has been causing a disruption on Template:Racism topics. He insists upon adding three articles to the template even though he has been asked multiple times by multiple editors for documentation which he has yet to provide. He has stated that the articles list the groups/ideologies as racist but the articles only state that some small groups which are at best polar opposites consider them racist if anything at all. He has been reported at the 3RR noticeboard once for a violation in spirit if not in letter of the 3RR rule and he recieved a 3 hour block. Since his block has expired he has made three more reverts on the page. Most concerning about this individual is his use of abusive language in accusing editors and Wikipedia in general of racism. CJ 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After I made this post, I checked the page again. And Regiment is now in violation of 3RR. CJ 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins, see here. Also, check the talk page. His "posse" has tried to practice apologetics, before getting me blocked, then asking for sources afterwards, then disagreeing with the nature of the source I MIGHT provide, even though Mexica Movement already describes the racial supremacism inherent within their agenda, even though some editors have refused to include statements from critical sources which use the term itself, "racist", in their criticism of Mexica. Who says that articles like that have to be sanitized? Who says that White people can't complain when Mexica treats them like shit? Its all edit warring now, since he has refused to accept sources from people he doesn't like. CNN isn't a good enough source? What about YouTube recordings of Mexica demonstrations and hate marches? That's plainly wrong right there. He doesn't really want to hear the other side, but he wants you to bully me. He set up the revert war just so I'd bite the bait and break the 3RR, but he's a vandal in my eyes and Wikipedia deserves to be an NPOV community. Regiment 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur CJ 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have chosen to not be NPOV and freely admitted it several times. Regiment 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: From a look at the related talk page section, editors asked for sources to indicate that the additions to the template were proper, were told they were being politically correct, and then declared to be "ideologically aligned" with the groups in question. YouTube videos are not considered a reliable source, as was pointed out on the talk page. Regiment appears to need to review Assume Good Faith and WP:CIVIL at the least, provide reliable sources for his/her argument, and really consider that coming off a block for disruption only to go on and do the thing he was blocked for (violating 3RR in the process) once again is probably not a good idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view: both have broken 3RR. I think the page needs bit of protection to let the war cool off a bit. Spryde 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I've inadvertently broken 3RR, although I don't think I have because all I've done is remove unsourced content, then I'll take whatever comes. All I've asked for from the very beginning is a source and some civility. CJ 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regiment is engaging in revisionist history. With the very first removal of his additions to the template (at 5:40 on 22 October), Crownjewel82 left a message on the Talk page (at 5:46) asking for "some clearer documentation of a specific racist agenda". Another message before Regiment's 3-hour block asked for WP:RS and explained that adding articles to the template without them was WP:OR. After his block, I left another such message at Template talk:Racism topics and a longer message at User talk:Regiment#Template:Racism topics. In the message at his Talk page, I again explained WP:RS and WP:OR; I also wrote about WP:AGF and the proper approach to getting his articles into the template if, in fact, they belong there. His claim that nobody told him he needed sources until after he was blocked is pure nonsense, and his behavior today is unacceptable after several editors have gone to such lengths to explain appropriate WP process to him. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• This user has now been blocked for a week following a report at AN3. The reasons for the block given [44] were deliberately breaking the 3RR having just come off a block for a previous 3RR violation, POV pushing and personal attacks concerning other editor's motives. I also noted that he did not constructively engage in discussion of the disputed edits. In short, we don't do it like this (well we shouldn't anyway) and I chose a length of block designed to clearly signal that the behaviour isn't acceptable and will not be tolerated. As with all my admin actions, this is open to comment, review and adjustment by others. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

75.162.105.19 (talk · contribs) on Andrew J. Moonen

Hi, Merope asked me to post this here after a WP:AIV report. This IP has advocated "vigilante" action against a BLP article subject here, and is making other incendiary edits with this summary. I'm not sure if any action should be taken but wanted to bring it up here just in case. • Lawrence Cohen 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

HaggerdlyOldMan (talk · contribs)

We all know "Hagger?????????????????" is constantly used by vandal Grawp. This account was UAA'd but declined. He has not responded to my comments and has not made any edits since he registed. Anyone think sleeper account? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I would watch the account. I though "Haggerd" was the correct spelling ("Haggard" is I have since found out). I have heard of a lot of people call themselves similar things so I would merely watch and wait. If they contribute positively, super! If not, the +10 sword of blocking, dicing and julienning can be used. Spryde 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm suspicious. Most people with any self-esteem wouldn't describe themselves as "haggard". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to watch Haggerdoldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created on 10/8. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey bull, you're not a Merle Haggard fan? I think he's great! --SGT Tex 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I declined the UAA report as there have been zero contributions and they could easily be good-faith accounts created by someone who doesn't spell well. I am watching for contributions from the first account and the second now, too. There have been HAGGER socks active since Haggerdoldman was created (Oct 8) which I hope means that it has nothing to do with HAGGER. But these socks are extremely disruptive. We could block the accounts and use a personal message explaining why (rather than {{subst:unb}}. I'd like more input here. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see if the account becomes a problem. I also think people are starting to jump at shadows here. --Carnildo 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do ya? Well, what if I told you that checking up on this report indicated that the following were all the same person?

1. Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Haggerdoldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Saidpenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Untilwhen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Darkranch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Givesnaked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Givesnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Iamzlookinatyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Poetboats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Giantgrawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oops, look at that last one. Quick, get the spray gun! (I've not blocked 'em yet). However, that being said...HaggerdlyOldMan isn't a 100% certain match as the rest of these are, but is indeed highly suspicious. So yeah, keep a close eye on him. And leave me a note if he starts acting up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So HaggerdlyOldMan is not related? –Crazytales talk/desk 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He's suspicious, but he isn's as much of a slam dunk as everyone else. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked all of the above, with the exception of HaggerdlyOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, If someone wanted to block that account, too, I'd be ok with that. I have tagged them as socks of User:Grawp.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've blocked User:HaggerdlyOldMan. According to the above, User:Haggerdoldman is almost definitely a sock, for HaggerdlyOldMan to not be a sock given all the above and Grawp's extensive use of sleepers, it would have to be the biggest coincidence I have seen in a while. Mr.Z-man 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block User:207.197.77.194 and delete all of their edits from the history?

User:207.197.77.194 has been adding somebody else's phone number to a large number of articles, that needs to get out of the history of the articles. Corvus cornix 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked one month. Did not find ph numbers, did that already get done too? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I sent an OVERSIGHT request in. Corvus cornix 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Snocrates on Laie Hawaii Temple

User:Snocrates is unilaterally deleting historically relevant content from Laie Hawaii Temple without discussion. He refused to discuss his reverts on the talk page, instead referring to me as a "dimwit" when I contacted him on his talk page,[45] claiming that I'm the one who needs to discuss his deletions.[46] Now that he has finally arrived on the talk page, he is insisting that structure-related articles cannot have history sections. —Viriditas | Talk 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this. It's mostly a content dispute where (IMO), Snocrates has appropriately explained his removal of the history section. Unless I missed something, he's not saying that history doesn't belong in architectural articles, just that the history in this article doesn't belong. He was uncivil in that edit summary and I'll leave a comment for him on his talk page about that. Hopefully this helps. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Snocrates didn't "appropriately explain his removal of the history section" until 21:33 on October 24. Prior to that, between 21:24, 23 October and 20:02 and 21:31 24 October, he failed to use the talk page. User:Snocrates deleted your message[47] claiming that he had "civilly asked" me not to edit his talk page. You will not be able to find any such message because he never made such a request. I watch the Hawaii recent changes watchlist very closely for vandalism, and after seeing Snocrates delete content from Laie Hawaii Temple without explanation on the talk page several times, I contacted him at 21:38, 24 October 2007.[48]. Apparently, during the time I was writing this message, he added a comment to the talk page at 21:33, approximately five minutes previous to my posted comment.[49] Nothing was said about editing his talk page. At 21:39, 24 October 2007 he deleted my message with the comment "Undid revision 166840410 by Viriditas (talk) already placed discussion on talk page, dimwit". After you warned him about civility, he replied, "what is my alternative when people choose to edit this page when I have civilly asked them not to? "pretty please"?[50] Contrary to Snocrates's claim, no such action by Snocrates ever occurred or was recorded in any edit history or summary. It is also important to point out that Snocrates's first edit to Wikipedia was to declare himself an "exopedian" who is "extrememly uninterested in trying to talk with other users here or on other talk pages".[51] This seems to go against the basic, fundamental Wikipedia idea of collaboration and is not conducive to editing. Further, looking at Snocrates (talk · contribs) in depth, I see a continuing pattern of deletion without discussion related to LDS articles. This needs to be looked into by other administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a range block?

Ras Kass is being hit by really offensive vandalism. It started with 142.29.133.72 (talk · contribs) who has had multiple warnings, and is now switched to 142.29.133.47 (talk · contribs), and then back to the original vandal again. I don't know how range blocks work, but would it be possible to range block the IPs in their range for an hour or two? Corvus cornix 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nasty stuff. Blocked the /24 for a few hours. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Conservative321

Conservative321 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly changing BCE to BC and CE to AD in articles, is blanking articles about gay topics, is repeatedly removing references to global warning and greenhouse gases, all without discussion (even going so far as to changing references to BCE in Talk pages that were put there by other users). I'm on uw-v3 on him/her, I tried to point them to the MoS discussion on dates, but they are either not reading their Talk page, or are ignoring it. With a User name like this, it looks like they've come here with an agenda, does somebody want to be less brusque with them than I usually am? I do try to be helpful, but sometimes I come across as more incivil than I intend to be... Corvus cornix 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, other people have reverted their edits over the last couple of days, but nobody made any comments on Conservative321's Talk page explaining the problem with their edits. Better communication, hm, people? Corvus cornix 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this [52] can be taken as a response to Corvos' notifications and clear explanation of policy regarding ... what do I call it? ... year labelling conventions?ThuranX 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that's a meaningful response. Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to continue with a uw-v4 next time, followed up by a WP:AIV report, if they continue. Corvus cornix 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When you file reports at AIV or elsewhere you should point out that this likely is the same person as Conservative765 (talk · contribs). Raymond Arritt 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, the username isn't that big of a hint towards their objective? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked both accounts. Besides the obvious issue with sockpuppetry and single-purpose vandalism/trolling accounts, BC/BCE trolling is kind of a red flag. MastCell ^Talk 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Sarvagnya's deletion of Talk:India page content

• Earlier today I made this post on the Talk:India page about some potential problems I foresaw with the rotation of images being currently tried in two sections of the India page. (I had earlier organized the straw poll for/against this rotation here.)
• Almost immediately after I made the post, user:Sarvagnya deleted it in this edit, with edit summary, "this is a discussion page. not a blog. blogs are free, go find one and record your idle musings about your "vivid experiences" with encarta or whatever."
• user:Sarvagnya's edit was soon reverted here by user:Dwaipayanc, however, user:Sarvagnya re-reverted here with edit summary, "rv abuse of talk page. see WP:TALK and WP:NOT."

This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.

• He deleted my post there in late August 2007, (see here).
• He then made a post in early September 2007 on the Talk:India page here, which ended with, "For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page?"
• This in turn elicited a polite but firmly opposing response here from user:Abecedare.
• However, when user:Sarvagnya persisted in the very next post here and, moreover, accused me of "defecating all over the talk page," he brought on a more aggressive response here from user:Hornplease, who threatened to report user:Sarvagnya to Wikiquette alerts.
• I should add that user:Sarvagnya is less than forgiving when he is at the receiving end; my edit once here that merely put his out-of-chronological order interruption in proper chronological order, elicited this response from him, with edit summary, "i will add my comment where I think fit.. stop moving other people's comments around!"

If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. Some one needs to warn him in no uncertain terms that this can't go on. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As a comment, this was also posted on WQA here, which seems a reasonable place for it. (And there's a response there). In the future, please don't cross-post. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posting is not forum-shopping. One is simultaneous, the other successive. Relata refero 06:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:28736285Bimbo0129547623094Wales

Unresolved

 – Blocked, as were subsequent socks

Would somebody kindly block 28736285Bimbo0129547623094Wales (talk · contribs)? Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If This account was only created today, why are they able to do page moves already? Is it because the pages being moved are in User space? Corvus cornix 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's no autoconfirm requirement for general page moves... — Scientizzle 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[53] :*Cough* Gah! 3 edit conflicts Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything with "Bimbo Wales" in the name can be hardblocked on sight as User:Connell66 socks, according to the response to an IP check I filed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added "Bimbo Wales" to the blacklist for that username-watching bot thingy yesterday, so they should generally get taken out pretty quickly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also adding the sockpuppet notes as per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Bimbo Wales. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, i thought you were already an admin! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. :). Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah.  :) I don't really want to be, either. Thanks. Corvus cornix 22:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Please take a look at Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. Editor Eleemosynary continues to remove information just because he disagrees with it. There are cited United States Army memos, in PDF format, being cited. These are RS and perfectly valid. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Content issue. Please discuss on the talk page or pursue a content RFC or third opinion. (However, one might wish to take a lesson from the Killian documents fiasco and wait to see if these pdf's from the drudge report ever get authenticated. ) Thatcher131 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more than a content issue. Eleemosynary has continued to lob personal attacks at User:Bluemarine (a.k.a. Matt Sanchez) long after that user stopped contributing to the article. These are homophobic attacks designed at discrediting the Bluemarine through Bluemarine's past experience in the gay porn industry. Eleemosynary has engaged in these personal attacks in edit summaries [54] [55]. I gave a polite warning to Eleemosynary regarding the homophobic violations of WP:NPA, but Eleemosynary called this "nonsense" and "trolling," [56] and instead decided to use even harsher and more homophobic language. (A prior warning was given in the context of a debate, and this not as polite: [57].)

In the past few hours, Eleemosynary has twice called Sanchez "Dirty Sanchez," [58] [59] a homophobic slur, one made to associate Mr. Sanchez with homosexuality and certain sexual acts that some people find rather disgusting and/or laughable. Contrary to Eleemosynary's claims, it is not a nickname given to Sanchez in the porn industry, where he did not use his own name, according to the article at Matt Sanchez. It was instead given to him by those who wished to defame him. Eleemosynary feigns ignorance of what "Dirty Sanchez" means, but one look at his history reveals his true nature. I have been very patient with his homophobia, but how many times must he be warned and his attacks tolerated before action is taken? Calbaer 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to clarify my final comment, no one's "taken action" in the past on this because it hasn't been reported, not because it's been reported and ignored. Actions have been taken against the user for other things, but not for this. Calbaer 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's more than a content dispute, it was brought up as a content dispute. Throwing the book at Eleem for the current personal attacks is perfectly fine by me, but it's a separate issue to the content dispute. Chris Cunningham 18:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reign of Terror

Resolved

Please lock the Reign of Terror. Its being repeatedly vandalized by non-users. AllStarZ 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Please refer to WP:RFPP next time. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure AllStarZ meant to say anon users, not non-users.  :) Corvus cornix 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee (From COI/N & BLP/N)

Copied as posted to BLP/N, where it was referred from COI/N.

Yesterday, new editor User:Shogun108 arrived, stating his declaritive intent to clean up the article[60]. I tried to clarify things about how we work via citation and consensus, but he was adamant that most o the stuff should be folded into 'political positions' or lost because it was negative about HuckabeeTalk:Mike_Huckabee#New_Editor_on_a_mission.. This AM, I found the following section, Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Regarding_new_editors, which explains that Shogun108 is one of a group now actively campaigning to 'fix' the article. They were solicited to fix it. One editor actively solicits peopel to become editors to game consensus: "Better yet, since edits run by consensus at Wikipedia, the best case scenario is for SEVERAL editors to keep the Huckabee entries honest. If only ONE editor from "here" changes things, the trolls will gather support and beat the one editor down. The rules are very loosey goosey over there. I've fought the good fight on several issues, and unless I get support, the lefties will gang up on you. " That editor's comment match this edit[61] by User:Mactogrpaher right down to the rationale and comments on the message board. Although Shogun108's comments seem less absolutist, he is still here as an SPA whose only edits are about Huckabee, and who came here specifically to 'clean up' the Huckabee page after solicitation off-wiki. Further, mactographer's comments indicate a generally dismissive tone about WIkipedia, so it is unlikely he will actively work to conform to our standards, and again, a solicited editor. I further wonder if Mactographer's open call to flood the page doesn't count as recruiting Meat Puppets. Thanks for reviewing this. Additionally, two editors at COI/N found this report credible, as seen here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Specific_off-wiki_campaign_to_purge_Mike_Huckabee_of_criticism.. Shogun108 is proving to be a SPA as well, please see his contribs: Special:Contributions/Shogun108. // ThuranX 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Further still, there is an IP into the mix now who seems to self-identify as Mactographer, but who can sometimes be bothered to sign in, and other times not. I'm Assuming AGF, and posting this here for ease of reading the releveant sections. I don't hink he's seriously trying any SOCK-ing with that, but that 24.6 IP is his.

I brign this here because although it got reviewing support at COI/N, BLP/N has been silent, and I'd like to cut this off fast. Extortionistic behvaiors like 'you better keep that other page the way I say, or I'll do what I want here' is NOT how we do things. Beyond that, I think the evidence above is quite clear. ThuranX 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had some good discussions with ThuranX and I seem to get along fine with him/her. However, I think the statements suggested here and the organized cabal is a bit of a stretch at this time. I was part of the discussion and I read the "extortionistic" behavior completely different and did not take it that way at all. I'm not saying that ThuranX is wrong, perhaps (s)he's had more experience with picking out such behavior but I'm just not seeing it yet. Morphh ^(talk) 2:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Active CANVASsing off-wiki to force POV edits into an article by getting new editors to constitute a new consensus is a problem. Demanding that I personally assure the state of another article, or else he'll do stuff to the Huckabee article? That reads like an extortion attempt to me. It's a stupid and crass attempt, one without teeth or credibility, but all the same, nothing like that should be alloweed to stand, and no editor should take it, nor any article be vulnerable to it.

More to the point, this campaign will continue, and Admins need to jump in now to help protect articles from such POV warriors. ThuranX 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any force POV edits and I haven't seen any force for a new consensus. I see a blog that is concerned about the neutrality of the article and discussing it, with a couple of editors working to address what they believe is bias. This is how many contributors start in Wikipedia, via articles of interest. I don't see any extortion. He didn't demand the article stay any particular way or that ThuranX keep it that way. He only stated that if a justification was used to remove an image on several articles, that if that justification was invalid on the other article, he would revert the removal on the discussed article. I'm wondering who the POV warriors really are... Morphh ^(talk) 3:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Huckabee08 was banned today for blanking parts of the article and general pro-huckabee vandalism to it, and negative vandalism to those of other candidates. Maybe it's amazing coincidence, or part of the same campaign. Either way, review of this would be good. ThuranX 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling and vandalism

This troll who is posting here at the ANI has been very active at WP:RFCN. This is one of the cases reported before withdrawing it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:78.146.211.125

Resolved

Already in violation of 3RR & has recently vandalised my warning on Talk:Blizzard Entertainment. Could we have a block please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:86.142.155.71

Resolved

History of vandalism this evening. Just blanked IP report from his talk page. Already warned. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for reporting standard vandalism, you're supposed to give the full set of warnings, then, if the vandalism continues, report them at WP:AIV--Jac16888 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Long-time infobox disrupter

Resolved

74.12.148.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has for months (under other anonymous IPs as well) disrupted infoboxes. The pattern of edits is always the same. S/he removes captions in the infobox, removes references in the infobox, removes the country name in the place of birth/death, replaces birthdate/deathdate templates with sole dates, or adds a fair use picture in the infobox when a fair use photo cannot be used. Could some admins warn the user about their behavior? It's been going on for far too long. 140.247.131.86 01:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 Note: Blocked by Riana (talk · contribs) for vandalism. ( arky ) 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Race warrior

The Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom has been a contentious entry, to say the least. Things have been relatively calm lately, until this edit. Its obviously inappropriate and has since been removed by another editor. I threw a final warning down on his talk page, but is this kind of edit ever acceptable. There's race baiting, clear WP:CIVIL violations, and a vague threat (which he did remove). His other contributions for the most part seem to be linking various celebrities to various ethnic groups, and he tried to do something on the page for Nazism (red flag)... but isn't this the kind of editor who should be banned on sight? AniMate 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, this report is about Mortifer. AniMate 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, these edits aren't acceptable, ever. I removed it earlier, along with some identical anon speech, which attacked another editor. I hope this is the end of it — not optimistic, though. --Haemo 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Throwaway account blocked

I've indeffed Scion87 (talk · contribs), as it seems to be an obvious throwaway account and likely sock, as it came in and immediately started edit warring over the name of the Mexican-American War (breaking links on the page in the process). It also seemed to have a remarkable knowledge of our sockpuppet tagging procedures [62]. In case I'm missing something, I'm posting here so others can check on this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I seem to recall other socks targeting the particular editor targeted by Scion87, but can't remember the details. Anyway, this was a good block of an obvious, disruptive throwaway sock account. MastCell ^Talk 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an absolute ream of them. I've personally blocked more than thirty. There's been a checkuser request in since the 6th, in a vain attempt to smoke out the sleeper accounts but there's been no action — something which has really frustrated both myself, and another editor whose been working on the article, and subsequently been the subject of a lot of abuse from these sockpuppets. I don't know what else to do but keep playing whack-a-mole. --Haemo 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote

In a sweeping nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), the Ashkenazi intelligence article was not listed as part of an original group in the AfD until a later user mentioned the article and then the nominator decided to add it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are still coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what the serious tinkering additions by the nominator were all about, or if he was even right to do so. Futhermore, being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. For the sake of clarity the Ashkenazi intelligence should be removed from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which it was included. The Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If anyone wishs to have a new nomination, they can go ahead, but it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Your input and intervention is requested. Thank you, IZAK 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ANI is the place to discuss this. I think, however, I will give my comment and let someone else moive this discussion to the proper location.

I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met:

1. There is a single place to discuss all the pages.
2. It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages.
3. They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created.

As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Mishehu: Thanks for the feedback. Please post your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence before the vote concludes. (P.S. Since this seemed a clear violation of protocal I was not sure where else to look for help.) Thanks so much, IZAK 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I just split this article off to a seperate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you indeed. IZAK 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

help please--unwarranted

Resolved

Dear administrators, The entry for Michael Talbot contains a very discouraging and unwarranted red box about "notability." This seems like a very overbearing use of administration powers. Please see discussion. Thanks very much for your kind attention. 98.207.21.3 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I've checked and confirmed notability of this author. His book is published by Harper and has a respectable sales ranking on Amazon. I've removed the notability template on the article. It's still a stub and needs work but there's no need for that particular template. --Parsifal _Hello 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with admins? The user who put the notability tag on the page, User:bsnowball, isn't an admin, and there was nothing that needed to be done by an admin. Corvus cornix 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much Parsifal. sorry for bothering you with this issue, I'm very new to wiki 98.207.21.3 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible serious irregularities in the closer of deletion discussion

The issue I am herby requesting a review of was a proposed deletion of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy and nearly all child categories contained in that parent category. The discussion can be found here. Several dozen user categories were nominated for deletion or rename (as subsections of the main deletion) by User: jc37 (an administrator).

A clear KEEP consensus was established on all categories, with the possible exceptions of Category:Realist Wikipedians, Category:Mystic Wikipedians, Category:Trystero Wikipedians, and Category:Surrealist Wikipedians, and Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians. However, on 24 October User:jc37 closed the deletion discussion him/her self with an outcome of Closed to be relisted. Since he was the one who originally nominated for deletion, and since he was a major participant in the discussion, I feel this shows a clear conflict of interest. In closing the discussion jc37 sites “extensive canvassing” and “personal attacks” as reason for this surprising outcome. When I asked for justification of these statements, jc37 refused. In spite of extinctive searching I find no evidence to back up these claims. Furthermore he has expressed the determination to immediately re-nominate for deletion. I believe this would simply be re-nomination in hopes of achieving a different consensus.

During the discussion a number of users also objected to the moving and merging of their comments by User: jc37 without there permission. There was also a widespread feeling that no clear reason was ever offered for the nomination despite repeated requests.

I strongly believe that this discussion should have been closed as KEEP or left for further comment because of the overwhelming positive consensus, the lack of a clear reason for nomination, the pattern of evasive action shown by some users, and because of the clear conflict of interests involved in the closer. --S.dedalus 06:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jc37 seems out to eliminate all signs of a wikipedia community by any means necessary; just about everything he's ever listed should be re-considered, imho. Bushytails 07:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware that you're not happy with the DRV results of "Furry Wikipedians". - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I find this a valid application of IAR since the UCFD was a trainwreck. Speedy closing your own nominations, especially when there are conflicting votes, is generally a bad idea but in this case I actually think it improves the process rather than disrupt it so IAR applies. EconomicsGuy 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And my not so extensive searching did find good signs of mild canvassing by User:BD2412, i.e. notifying people who were in one of these categories of the discussion. While no "voting advice" was given, such posts are bound to bring in mostly those who have a noted interest in the category and will skew the discussion in favour of keeping. Over 100 editors were thus notified[63]. Fram 08:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Though I was attempting to not "call on the carpet" another editor, since it seemed to me it would only further the disruption. - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I wish jc37 would have told me on my talk page when I asked however, as it would have saved BD2412 from being publicly “called on the carpet.” I see little evidence that the canvassing had a significant effect on the discussion however. --S.dedalus 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with S. Dedalus. JC37 removed user comments from the discussion, too, which likewise does not seem to be the right behaviour for an admin to be taking. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I merged the duplicative sopy/pasted comments to the umbrella nomination. I've also decided to wait to nominate the umbrella portion of the nom for a few days so as to also reduce that confusion as well. (Since some editors seemed confused about it.) - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest if you disagree with this result take it to deletion review. JoshuaZ 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to review since they weren't deleted. The nominator relisted them to be dealt with on their own merits. This is a storm in a very small glass of water. EconomicsGuy 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV could just as well DRV it arguing that the relisting was unacceptable and that they should have been closed by another admin. JoshuaZ 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose a deletion review request. Though, as I mentioned on the user's talk page (The diff to the full discussion is here), I wonder at the concern about further discussion. - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And as I pointed out then, I feel the discussion needs to focus on irregularities in how that discussion was closed.[64] --S.dedalus 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with S.dedalus. I was shocked to see that the discussion had been closed by the nominating editor when there was a clear keep consensus for the majority of the categories. The canvassing is only relevant idf there is evidence that the editors solicited by User:BD4212 actually had an influebnce on the discussion. I don't think there is any evidence of that when comparing the users canvassed to the users who actually commented during the discussion. — DIEGO ^talk 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV is that way. JoshuaZ 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ, there is an 'exceptional case' stipulation at DRV (#4 link here) which states that posting at ANI may be more appropriate. I think that is the case here and it would be overly cumbersome to redo this thread at DRV.. When I first noticed it, this closure struck me as inappropriate because it was made by the nominating admin . The discussion at the point of closure was running at least (from memory here) 14 to 3 opinions in favor of keeping the categories. That is clearly a consensus 'keep' with no official basis in policy supporting the delete !votes, which would be needed in order to override the overwhelming consensus. Overall, it gives the impression of wanting a 2nd bite at the apple. . . so to speak. The closure was inappropriate, and a 2nd admin should probably re-close as 'consensus keep' or in the alternative (though I favor this option less) re-open the discussion. R. Baley 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of "keep"s have been being closed as deletes lately, and things have been being listed repeatedly until they get deleted. Since this is a wider issue than any one category or closing, I agree here is a good place for it. Bushytails 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

14-3 certainly would be consensus, if consensus meant counting votes. Which it doesn't. --Kbdank71 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus also doesn't mean "whatever the admin wants". Bushytails 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is quite evident that consensus was established in favor of keep regardless of the number of votes (although keep did have a huge majority). The only reason for deletion offered was that the categories are “not useful.” Editors favoring keep pointed out extensive reasons why the categories ARE useful: fostering constructive collaboration, discussion, etc. A cursory examination should make this clear. --S.dedalus 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry at deletion review

Can someone possibly have a look at this. Open the Jamie Schzanyr (sp?) section. The only person to oppose the deletion is ShyGuy69. Looking at the contributions, it looks like he is a sock of someone. Click this and open the Jamie Schzanyr section. ThisDude62 wants it unsalted, and only ShyGuy69 wants it unsalting too. Almost certain sockpuppetry, given that ShyGuy69 has made only three edits. Davnel03 09:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you got any other evidence? (it could speed this up) Rudget _{Contributions} 10:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but it seems like the ShyGuy69 account is only been used for that only purpose. Davnel03 11:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, highly suspicious he'd open an account and go straight to a DRV. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking me!

Resolved

Hi. For personnal reasons, I'd like to be blocked during 130 days (so to be unblocked in the middle of March 2008). If it's possible, I'd just like to keep my user talk undblocked. Thanks for your help and comprehension. --Two Wings (jraf ) 10:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean have your user page protected? This is doable only if vandalism is very likely to occur or has occurred. If you mean blocking, you could just leave for 130 days and change your password if there's any risk of anyone else using it. This would not require any admin intervention (admins broadly speaking are rather busy). Orderinchaos 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that I don't want to have any temptation to use any Wikimedia project for a while because it's a personal drug and I have some exams to prepare! I don't contribute that much to the English WP but since I asked to be blocked on the French one, I might be tempted to come here instead! It's very weak but I have to do that if I want to be kind of cured (and succeed in my exams!). So I just want to be unable to contribute to WP English for 130 days. Isn't that possible? It's possible on WP French so I guess it is here also. --Two Wings (jraf ) 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stare at some paint dry, that should distract you while you fall asleep... Rudget _{Contributions} 10:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)In that case you can enforce a wikibreak on your account for an amount of time you specify. This will prevent you from being able to log in during this period. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer for instructions on how to do this. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 10:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec2) Different rules apply here though. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Self-requested blocks and Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is that impossible? I see no logical reason to forbid that! Anyway, I'll use that Wikibreak enforcer then... --Two Wings (jraf ) 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because people change their minds, and it creates a lot of work and hassle for the admins. If you say "Block me for 130 days", and then come back on day 60 and say "Wait unblock me", then what's the point? Admins are not your guardian angels, and they're not going to deny an unblock, which makes the whole situation useless. --Haemo 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Systematic page move vandalism using multiple accounts

Resolved

User:Pussy bait seems to be a single-purpose page-move-vandalism account, clearly created by an experienced Wikipedia vandal (e.g. the use of non-Latin homograph characters in page names). I've indefblocked it: can someone more experienced at undoing page-move vandalism please clean up the mess they've created? -- The Anome 11:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See also User:Internet Connection 1, same MO as above. -- The Anome 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about page move vandalism by Internet_Connection_1 as he has moved the User talk page archives of Daniel to different numbers. My concern is that undoing his vandalism will lead to more disruption - ie, if I revert "new page 8" to "old page 6"; before moving "new page 6" back to "old page 5" (etc) then I will end up deleting archive pages unintentionally. Can an experienced administrator please do the necessary. Thanks. B1atv 11:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly the vandal's intention. Strange how some people get their jollies. -- The Anome 11:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the archives back to their correct titles and speedied the resulting redirects. Looks like its all fixed. WjBscribe 11:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

TVM B1atv 11:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User Rogerfgay

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

Editor has two highly POV articles up for AfD and has now removed the AfD tag from both articles several times.[65] [66] [67] [68] He is also leaving inappropriate vandalism warnings for editors who restore the AfD tags and delete his other POV edits. [69] [70]. I've already reverted him twice today so I'd appreciate some intervention.DanielEng 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the two articles in dispute on my watchlist now, and am keeping an eye on his contributions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it's appreciated. He's now making claims that I've been "reported for vandalism" for reverting his AfD tags. I'm not concerned about it because I know I did nothing wrong here, but it's pretty ironic.DanielEng 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a warning and good advice.[71] Hopefully an outside perspective will help them realize that they need to stop. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. He doesn't seem to be listening (I'm back to being a vandal, LOL) but I really appreciate the assistance here. He doesn't seem to register what is being said to him here or elsewhere. Best, DanielEng 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Alexander.Keays - page move vandal

Resolved

• Alexander.Keays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It would appear that everything (recently) done by this user needs to be undone, starting with moving That's So recurring characters. (note trailing '.') back to List of recurring characters from That's So Raven. Many other edits then need to be undone: for example: [72]. --Jack Merridew 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be all back the way it was now.--Isotope23 ^talk 11:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. --Jack Merridew 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

1.1 Names

. . . If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:ANI, and an admin should be by shortly to process the requests. . . .

1.1.1 Users

Cambrant . . . 12:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Greer 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pusher who is suspected sock puppet of banned neo-Nazi

On October 7, 2007 I requested an IP check for User:Sviatoslav86, a suspected sock puppet of a permanently-banned individual. My request was dismissed out of hand because a particular administrator didn't want to make the effort. Subsequently on the administrator's talk page, that person was very unhelpful and wouldn't tell me what actions I should take. Sviatoslav86 is a disruptive editor who adds uncited and factually inaccurate content to articles related to skinheads and the far right racist movement. His edits are almost identical to those of the permanently-banned sock puppet accounts User:Laderov, User:ProudAryan, User:AryeitskiySaldat and User:EuropeanLynx (as well as several sock puppet IPs). Please take the appropriate actions to prevent Sviatoslav86 from adding false claims to articles and damaging the integrity of Wikipedia.Spylab 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Deskana did say what actions you should take, which is: to link to the diffs on your RFCU request. Since there's only a handful of users who can run checkusers, and that page is heavily backlogged right now, it helps them out tremendously if you do the legwork of getting all the evidence in one place. Then they just examine your evidence and act accordingly. Deskana's comment about "no time" was not meant to be dismissive IMHO, but a factual statement of the state of their situation. Arakunem 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana said I posted in the "wrong section" but did not tell me what the right section is. If administrators are too busy to fulfill requests and give concrete advice, they should leave those requests for other administrators instead of throwing them out. I have requested many IP checks before, and all of them have been fulfilled within days without any roadblocks. I am not sure why this case is any different. Pretty much every single edit in the edit histories of the above suspected sock puppets are very similar, in that they post uncited opinions posing as fact, and in that they promote a neo-Nazi agenda. With very little effort, one can click on any random edits in their edit histories to see that.Spylab 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sviatoslav86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left the building. – Steel 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anstatt (talk · contribs)

Another suspected sock of Laderov (talk · contribs) is Anstatt (talk · contribs) who continues to harrass and disrupt the talk page on British National Party. If anyone wants diffs then pick any random edit by Anstatt on that talk page and compare them to the reason Laderov was banned. Anstatt appeared on that talk page immediately after Sviatoslav86 was blocked. Since Anstatt is an obvious POV pushing SPA (he only edits that talk page) and stepped right into a heated debate with full knowledge of how things work on Wikipedia I honestly don't think we even need a checkuser to deal with this. Deskana may be busy and need more obvious evidence than what was presented but this needs to be dealt with. EconomicsGuy 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also left the building. – Steel 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The reason why admins are so busy, is because they are working on civility issues, 3RR, and yes I know, its one of the core policies, but it pales in comparason to this type of problem that needs more attention. So what that someone was called an idiot, or rude. Yes, it's not nice, but these types of editors and editing is the bigger problem, as it breaks all the core policies and is difficult for others to assume good faith, and much more unpleasant atmosphere than calling someone a silly name. "sticks and stones". Jeeny ^(talk) 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE on the Ref Desk

Could someone have a word with DirkvdM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about not biting the newbies on the Reference Desk In response to a question posted in ALL CAPS by an anonymous IP ([73]) – which I fully agree is an annoying practice and worth discouraging – Dirk responded with the comment

Don't shout. Shouting is rude. You are rude. I refuse to read your question. DirkvdM 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)(diff)

I left a note on Dirk's talk page asking him to try a little more explanation and a little less bite ([74]), as such an approach would be a bit more likely to produce the desired change in behaviour. I also added a comment of explanation to the Ref Desk to try to soften his comment: [75]. In response, Dirk decided that he would leave some additional stabs for the newbie on the Desk: "rude", "total lack of common sense" ([76], [77]). The full thread on the Reference Desk is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#TERRESTRIAL PLANT GROWING COMPLETELY IN WATER; the thread on Dirk's talk page is User talk:DirkvdM#SHOUTING on the Ref Desk.

Normally I wouldn't bring a little matter like this to AN/I, but I've had previous...discussions with Dirk that raise a couple of flags for me. For one, I don't want to issue warnings to an editor where I might have a conflict of interest, and for another, I'm concerned that he's being obstinate just because it is me who brought the problem to his attention. I'd appreciate it if a neutral third party could have a look over this situation and tell me if I'm completely off base here or not; if not, then perhaps some kind and constructive advice could be given to Dirk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that responses like this are totally unnecessary; people type in all caps often on the help desk simply because they don't know better. His response was quite WP:BITEy and assumed bad faith (assumed that the user was trying to be rude), however, unless this is a chronic problem, there is really nothing for admins to do here. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick check shows that the user is from New Dehli, India. They are likely not accustomed to writing in English, or may have different standards when communicating with other Indians in English. Some understanding would be appropriate. Leebo ^T/C 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is writing in all caps really that harsh on the eyes? Equating all caps writing to verbal shouting is a bit ridiculous. This isn't a chat room. Also, for many people familiar with a non-latin alphabet, reading and writing in all caps is easier to undertstand. — DIEGO ^talk 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not, it is widely accepted that typing in full caps is the online equivalent of shouting. _TheIslander 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with TheIslander here, for people who spend a lot of time on the internet using English this is the convention, and they will often react emotionally as if someone had shouted. In any event, there are more polite ways of explaining this to people. Something like "Please be aware that using ALL CAPS is frequently considered to be shouting on the internet. Please use lowercase lettering."JoshuaZ 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add that, quite stupidly really, I didn't read the rest of the thread. I would certainly agree that Dirk's comment was overly bite-y, and that in this case wasn't warrented. _TheIslander 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is "widely accepted that typing in full caps is the online equivalent of shouting". My point is that Wikipedia is global and a) it is sometimes a mistake to assume that our accepted conventions are accepted by everyone else, and b) we have an obligation to assume good faith and not react to something as inconsequential as all caps by biting another editor. It was obvious from the context of the question that this editor was not using all caps to indicate SHOUTING. A gentle instruction/reminder that the use of all-caps is generally frowned upon would have sufficed. — DIEGO ^talk 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it has nothing to do with TenOfAllTrades. I make it a habit to point out to people who write in all caps that that is rude and that therefore I did not read the question. (One might as well argue that Ten reacted because it was me who made the comment, but I won't utter such accusations.)

As I pointed out on the ref desk, if someone manages to figure out how to post a question on the ref desk, then one can assume they know enough about computers and the Internet to know the difference between normal typing and all caps. It's also a matter of common sense. I cannot imagine someone so accustomed to computers to not notice they have caps lock on. The fact that he is from India and therefore may not be accustomed to English doesn't make any sense either because he asked the question in near perfect English. Just one typo and some bad punctuation. Hell, he even used the word 'adventitious', which I had to look up, despite the fact that my English is pretty good.

The only thing I can think of is that keyboards in India are different in some manner that makes this mistake likely. But that would mean he didn't check the result of his typing on his monitor. Or am I missing something here?

'SHOUTING' WAS INDEED NOT EXACTLY THE RIGHT TERM. MORE PRECISE WOULD BE 'DRAWING UNDUE ATTENTION'. ALL CAPS STANDS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. ONE HAS TO ASSUME THAT PEOPLE HAVE ENOUGH SENSE TO SEE THAT. NOW TELL ME, WHEN YOU STARTED READING THIS POST , OR EVEN THIS THREAD, WERE YOUR EYES DRAWN TO THESE LINES? CHANCES ARE THEY WERE AND THAT IS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH ANY COMMON SENSE. ALL CAPS IS NOT THE STANDARD WAY TO TYPE. NOT HERE AND NOT IN INDIA. JUST GOOGLE SOMETHING ON INDIAN SITES (like here). HOW MUCH ALL CAPS DO YOU SEE THERE? NEXT TO NOTHING, SO THE FACT THAT HE IS FROM INDIA IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Instead off telling me off, you should go tell that rude guy to never do that again. DirkvdM 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith when dealing with new users. Its one thing to point out that it is discouraged, but saying "You are rude." is a personal attack. Mr.Z-man 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(E/C) Yup. There's no reason to assume bad faith, especially on the reference desk. You could have told him that CAPS was considered shouting while still remaining civil. There was no reason to respond in this manner. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were going to ask a question on another Wikipedia, where you have knowledge of the language but little familiarity with etiquette related to that Wikipedia, you could easily make such a mistake. To assume that the user wanted undue attention is to assume bad faith. To loosely refer to Hanlon's razor; "Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance." Leebo ^T/C 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DirkvdM, I appreciate that you consider it rude that someone write in all-caps, but can you please comment civilly to that effect and then, if you are unwilling to answer their question, simply let someone else answer? --Iamunknown 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only tangentially relevant to this matter, but I wanted to point out that my few interactions with Dirk on the reference desk have almost universally been positive. I've found him to be exceptionally helpful -- Samir 00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario Balotelli and alleged privacy issues

Mario Balotelli is an Italian footballer born to Ghanaian parents in Palermo, but then entrusted to a Northern Italy family. According to the Italian law and several sources, his full name is currently "Mario Balotelli Barwuah". All these facts were extensively deleted by User:Simonefrassanito, who claims to do this "for privacy and with mandate from Mario Balotelli" and feels he has the "right" not to have his full name published here. I continuously reverted all of his edits, but he keeps on removing all the facts I described earlier, lately asking me which law allows me to keep this information on the article. I would like to have some opinion from all of you; personally, I think all the information above should be kept on the article, because it is verifiable and sourceable. Thank you. --Angelo 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually see the claim for the Barwuah name sourced in the article, but if you can find a source then there shouldn't be an issue with it (google seems to show many possible sources). However, note that you should not have protected the article since you were an involved editor. JoshuaZ 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just added a couple of reliable sources about the Barwuah name, and unprotected the article. --Angelo 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Mormonboy74

Resolved

Mormonboy74 (talk · contribs) seems to have been spending the last year adding hoaxes to Wikipedia. At least, he has entered data which can not be verified by reliable sources. Two of his articles are now up for AfD because of the lack of verifiability. Just a heads up to keep an eye on his edits. Corvus cornix 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs (and his deleted contribs), this is pretty clearly a serial hoaxer. I've indefinitely blocked the account. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:AOL

An anonymous user put a Possible Copyright Violation notice on the Talk:AOL page on September 13, 2007, leaving no reasons why s/he did this. There's no listing on the September 13 copyright problems archive page, either. The IP address of the user is 90.201.195.17. Dr. Cash 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No copyvio there. That user basically screwed up the talk page. I was able to manually repair it (could have done it using undo, were it not for another editor making a null-edit at the top of that page, ugh...). — Edokter • Talk • 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig

Hi there, after a RfC link and discussion at ANI link this user was put under a topic ban on homeopathy pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. He was allowed to continue to edit Talk:Homeopathy, where he has begun to persistently push for speculative and unreliable sources to be included into the article. Could an admin look over his edits and think about either warning him or re-blocking him, because I think he is acting in a tenditious and disruptive fashion. Tim Vickers 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been placed on any topic ban whatsoever. I deny that I have pushed for unreliable sources. I am not blocked whatsoever. Whig 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's false. You have been community banned (link) from the homeopathy article, but you have not been blocked, yet. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic ban was on homeopathy, diff, where the current problem has occurred. This user was advised only 12 days ago to leave this topic alone and move to other areas diff. Tim Vickers 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the homeopathy article since the editing restriction was imposed. Whig 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If his editing at Talk:Homeopathy has been disruptive or tendentious, it would seem logical to extend the topic ban to include the talk page as well as the Homeopathy article itself. Raymond Arritt 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond, but I've been watching the talk page, and I think this falls short of that. He's basically been arguing that an absurd spiritualist-flavored article from a one-time physicist should be included. However, I think his misunderstandings of RS are good faith, and until he demonstrates otherwise, he shouldn't be entirely banned. Until then I agree with this comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As well as the "quantum mechanics" article, he was pushing in the section two above (link) for a speculative article on water memory to be included. This isn't a one-off incident but a long-term pattern. Whig has been editing Wikipedia since April 2004, if he hasn't grasped the core policies by now, I don't think there is much hope of him ever doing so. Tim Vickers 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused by the sock puppet accusation. I thought he was fairly a new user, but he should know better. In that case I would go along with any sanction others might find appropriate, including a total ban from Homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a difficult discussion because it is a polarizing topic. Most editors who are regularly involved have made it known by one means or another that they are anti-homeopathy.

I believe Whig tries to maintain a neutral POV. I can show instances to support this if anyone is interested.

Almost any time that the discussion hinges on POV, Whig is facing several others, most or all of whom are arguing against him. However, they are not necessarily arguing the same points, or taking the same line of argument. This must make it difficult, confusing, and frustrating.

As to the suggestion earlier today that Whig was a “sockpuppet” of Sm565, I think it was disgraceful and abusive. Anyone who followed the discussion when Sm565 was present should know that accusation was not true. When challenged, the editor who made the accusation admitted as much.

To me, it is unbelievable that someone could make the post they did AND then claim it was NOT a personal attack. Wanderer57 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false statements based on assumptions of bad faith. I asked Whig a straightforward question in very good faith. I did not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not accuse or suggest anything. I just asked a question and got a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately I clicked the wrong place and placed it in a section by itself, instead of my original intention to let it follow in a thread where Whig's disruptive editing style was being discussed. I then just gave it a heading, which made my comment seem alone and thus more provocative, instead of part of a situation and thread where it would have seemed more natural. I can see now that the talk page was not the place to do it and I then moved it to Whig's talk page. I apologize for my poor judgment. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) That sockpuppet idea was just strange, but what we are talking about here is a long-term inability of Whig to understand WP:NPOV and WP:V and how this leads to disruptive behaviour in homeopathy, a subject he seems obsessed with. Tim Vickers 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that I fail to understand those policies. I believe I have been maintaining NPOV. Whig 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just extend the ban of him editing the homeopathy to commenting on it's talk page. Problem solved. Who agrees? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with these monstrous and draconian measures. Whig has made numerous useful contributions to this talk page and has engendered good debate in a civil manner. These folks who complain are all anti homeopathy and act like vile gangsters who stifle discussion and who act as bullies. Just because they want GA status and then to use that to become admins. It stinks. Admins ought to stop the bullying and intimdation of editors to that article which is still crap and will remain so because of the antics of these editors who complain here about Whig. My ten cents FWIW. Peter morrell 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Characterizing editors who disagree with you as "vile gangsters" engaged in "antics" is extremely helpful, and contributes strongly to reasoned debate. Raymond Arritt 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article that Whig has been pushing to be included doesn't really appear to be a reliable source to me. (Although I would commend everyone in the talk forum for being polite during the whole discussion). I don't know enough of the history to have an opinion on a warning/ban though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing by User:MoritzB

User:MoritzB has four times attempted to include inflammatory racist remarks [78] [79] [80] [81] from a newspaper interview with Nobel Laureate James D. Watson in the article Race and intelligence. These remarks have created a furore in the UK and the USA. Even when Watson retracted his comments, MoritzB continued to argue that his views were useful for WP. [82] MoritzB similarly attempts to push the scientifically discredited statistical methods of Richard Lynn on Eugenics, Dysgenics and Race and intelligence. More worrying is the way he has dug out contemporary newspaper articles to paint the victims of lynchings as criminal scum. [83] All his contributions appear to conform to a racist agenda; he has sided with racists like User:fourdee, permabanned by Jimbo Wales himself. --Mathsci 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Killed the ref tags, we have no {Reflist} tag here :) Spryde 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MoritzB is a long-standing single-purpose POV-pushing account of a particuarly distasteful sort. If WP:CSN was still alive, it would be worth considering a topic ban. As is, not sure what the best next step is. MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly re-inserting identical material is classic tendentious editing. This is aggravated by the fact that he did not note that Watson later retracted the remarks, which raises serious WP:BLP concerns. Blocked for 48 hours. Review welcome as always. Raymond Arritt 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No argument here; the behavior is tendentious and it's difficult to identify any positive contributions to the encyclopedia from this user. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had exchnages with this editors and I agree with MastCell's assessment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this block as opposed to nothing, but think an indefinite one would be better. Otherwise he'll come back, behave for a bit, and then launch back into this. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have experienced this editor, and he is the last one standing from the racist group, that I know of, (User:Fourdee, User:KarenAER, User:Phral, and User:Hayden5650), who has managed to avoid being banned along with them for gross racist POV pushing and soapboxing. In addition to the above articles mentioned by Mathsci, he has done, and doing the same thing on articles and talk pages of Race and Ancient Egypt, Race, Nubians, Race and genetics, Negroid and others. All with a racist-pseudo-science and white supremacy POV. He and the others have helped make my time here very uncomfortable... so much so, that I have lost respect for Wikipedia, and one of the main reasons my editing here as decreased. This type of stain, needs to be wiped off Wikipedia. It's sickening, and a disgrace. Jeeny ^(talk) 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the about one year I've dealt with this editor, he has always struck me as not just POV-pushing, but editing tendentiously towards racialist, if not overtly racist (and sexist) positions, and far from showing any kind of subtlety, he seemed to demonstrate a liking of editing for shock value, such as inserting outdated, demeaning comments towards Blacks and also towards women, in what seemed like an attempt to provoke an outraged reaction.--Ramdrake 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Small point here, he has been here since July 2007. ~3 months. Spryde 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Feels like longer than that we've been putting up with this bunch. Maybe I just can't tell them apart any more. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB made a few contributions to Homosexuality in ancient Greece that struck me as POV-pushing rather than genuine attempts to improve the encyclopedia. What I've seen of his race-related edits looks far worse, and I don't see any reason to keep racist soapboxing editors like MoritzB around. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) After reviewing his contributions, he is one well read, well sourced disruptive editor. I will give him that. His views are his own and would be a case of WP:FRINGE. Some of them seem to be content additions that would be valuable (Not 100% as I am not a expert on homosexuality in ancient Greece) while others appear only to push buttons. Anyway, my US$0.02. Spryde 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his sourcing on Homosexuality in ancient Greece was fairly poor--he was giving quotes from specialist literature, but it was clear that he was picking up the quotes from non-specialist (and very slanted) websites, so his quotes were out of context and misinterpreted. I can't say if this is the case with his edits on other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been at least two previous threads about this editor, and an indefinite block was suggested both times - but never implemented. Why not? Can some uninvolved admins reading this please determine whether MoritzB should be editing at all, after all this disruption? It's embarrassing how long it's taking to close the door on this disruptive, biased editing. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As the admin who placed the current block, I would have no objections at all if it were extended to indef. Before this he'd only had a single 24-hour block. I was a little concerned about having to deal with the crowd who come out of the woodwork to defend disruptive editors because they haven't been given a bazillion and eight warnings, 17 gradually escalating blocks, and 12 last chances. Raymond Arritt 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you said that If WP:CSN was still alive, it would be worth considering a topic ban. It is still alive. It's been transferred here. Please read its AfD closing ceremony: Keep, but merge role and functionality back into AN/I. Now, is MoritzB willing to keep it cool and stop abusing and violating WP:NPOV? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka community discussion

The thread "Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed" and its subthreads was 92K long, so FayssalF moved it here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed. I agree it is a now a better location. All concerned please go there to continue working this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blockitis/false accusations

Looks like these are WAY off base: [84][85][86][87][88] Just trying to help here Mysticpairs 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an admitted sockpuppet of blocked User:Mysticpair‎. Corvus cornix 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

HMMMM; the notice still seems important. The 1st. 4 links accuse Ahwaz,one of the admins, of having 3 sockpuppets (seems to be a case of mixing up an article titled Ahwaz with User Ahwaz which the Blocking admin. only corrected on one of the alleged socks' pages) Reayreu 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who's not a trolling sockpuppet see anything of concern here? MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. This is ridiculous. --Strothra 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM Dalmatia final decision breach

This matter concerns the final decision of the Dalmatia Arbitration Committee and its final decision (here [89]) wich restricted User:Giovanni Giove and myself to "one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)", and it is required we discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
With this final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: [90]) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page [91]).
In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits ([92]).
In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

To whom it may concern, I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) i made only one revert per week per article, along with a thorough discussion each time ([93], [94], [95], [96]).
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement is probably a better place for this report, where it will get more eyes, and can be subject to discussion. As this board is rather highly-trafficked, it may remain unnoticed or be archived in the middle of discussion. --Iamunknown 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ESPN IP removing criticism

• 192.234.2.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• WhoIs

This IP, today, removed sourced allegations of sexual harassment against Woody Paige diff and Jay Crawford diff. Both Paige and Crawford work for ESPN, and the material removed details a lawsuit against these individuals and ESPN. The IP traces directly to ESPN's offices. Other edits to ESPN related articles include some poor attempts at expanding some entries. I haven't dug to deeply, more investigation is needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a WP:COI notice; we'll just have to keep an eye on it. Remember, COI does not prohibit editing, it just requires more care and oversight. -- Avi 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to avoid plopping some template there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What's to avoid? Now there can be no plausible deniability of policy. -- Avi 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I was drafting a personalized response, one less cookie cutter that can drive home the problems with COI editing. Templates are evil. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Although infrequent, this IP has done this in the past. See these two: [97][98] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a first-hit on Google for both of those people's names. The allegations are sourced, but are extremely negative, and I understand why anyone would wish to redact them. Can we please consider carefully whether this material is needed? I, for one, don't think so. --Iamunknown 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue, try those articles' talk pages. Milto LOL pia 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider the content of biographies of living persons to be an admin as well as a content issue. Thanks for your suggestion, though. I don't think this will get very much attention. --Iamunknown 01:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you even tried the talk page at all? It's worth a shot. And if you don't think it will gain much attention, maybe just remove it yourself, post a note on talk, and then if no one responds it's all good :-) Milto LOL pia 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

False accusations

Without any check user, Alex Bakharev has accused a number of sockpuppets of being me, even though none have edited the pages I have contributed to. See: [[99]]. I wish to make a formal complaint against this admin. I am sick of being victimised, threatened and falsely accused.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody's socking, who is a more complicated question. I'd be curious to see some evidence? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Try the CU guys otherwise this dispute won't end soon. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mitanni

[100] Some weird edit war is going on. FYI. -- Cat ^chi? 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I am missing something here, but there only seems to have been 7 edits (including 4 reverts) in the last 8 days [101]. Not really an edit war, and what do you feel is weird about it? Thanks TigerShark 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive304#Vandalism from a number of IP addresses against pages edited by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is what rather alarms me and the fact that the account was recently created-- Cat ^chi? 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

156.34.238.220 is...

A WikiOgre on the loose and needs to be banned. He/ she keeps making unneccesary edits in abundance.Navnløs 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am simply trying to correct information based on the given example shown in the Template:Infobox musical artist. All my edits clearly follow all Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Have a nice day. 156.34.238.220 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please point out what "unnecessary" edits he is making. The ones I see glancing at his contribs look like non-pointless gnomish edits. Someguy1221 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just a formatting dispute. Personal attacks and calls for bans don't help. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit and edit summary are inappropriate, however. Corvus cornix 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My AGF is thin to none on most days.... I lost it about 20000 edits ago :D. I will have a tea and ponder my temper tantrum :D 156.34.238.220 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark

We are currently in discussion about a possible BLP violation at this article. Per BLP, I have removed the material in question. Shot info (talk · contribs) has continued to restore the material without any meaningful contribution to the ongoing discussion.

Shot info's reversions:

• 03:20, 24 October 2007
• 03:37, 24 October 2007
• 22:54, 25 October 2007
• 23:05, 25 October 2007
• 23:06, 25 October 2007
• 23:14, 25 October 2007

Please note that the matter has been posted at BLP/N and we are awaiting outside opinions on this matter.

Shot info seems to think that a consensus is needed for someone to remove possible BLP violations. I don't believe this to be the case. What I would like to see is the material in question be removed until the BLP policy issues which I have brought up can be addressed. I don't want to edit war any more (even though I am quite certain that WP:3RR does not apply when dealing with possible BLP violations).

Any third party help/input here would be welcomed by me... even if you just tell me that I am completely wrong here. ;-) Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The allowance to remove potentially libelous material on site and without discussion is specifically meant for material that could be considered derogatory if untrue. A reference is provided, an affidavit written and/or signed by a deputy attourney general from the state of Indiana. Unless you suspect quackwatch.org to have fabricated or altered this affidavit, it's a legitimate source for the complaint. The issue then, is a somewhat editorial decision as to whether this is of significance to the article or is fairly presented. Someguy1221 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That is precisely the kind of answer I was seeking. I am surprised that I got it here before BLPN. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shot info is stopping an editor who has clearly articulated his purpose on the article's Talk Page from removing verifiable information from reliable sources from a BLP without consensus. I note that I have been involved in the discussions unfortunately Levine thinks that he can run roughshod over the article, here, BLP/N, everywhere trying to get an answer that he wants, without trying to develop a consensus first. He is merely gaming the system to prove a point, the point being, he doesn't think that a RS is an RS. Rather than actually discussing the merits in the context of the article, he just reverts, claiming BLP issues, and then engages in a editwar. This is vandalism on his part, and using TW to revert as well. Shot info 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained to User:Levine2112 dozens of times: The duty to remove contentious material on sight and without discussion is specifically meant for unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. The only consensus needed for re-inclusion of the disputed content is that the sources are acceptable (usually: published in a reliable third-party secondary source). This consensus should be clear from article edits and/or discussion on the talk page (or anywhere else, but see WP:CANVASS). Avb 00:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been an uninvolved lurker in this mess for quite a while. Levine2112 seems to have a strong personal dislike for Stephen Barrett. I invite anyone to view the megabytes of filibusters he's dropped at Talk:Stephen Barrett and Talk:Quackwatch over the (literally) years. His latest effort is a large-scale purge of Barrett-related links from altmed articles, which the Hulda Clark kerfluffle is but a small part of. He's also been blocked several times over Barrett-related articles, which doesn't seem to slow him down in the slightest. I think it's high time for an RFC, with the goal of a topic ban from articles involving Stephen Barrett and altmed-related areas if he doesn't change his behavior. Skinwalker 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Skinwalker is being very tactful when he writes "strong personal dislike" above. It is that and much more. This is not just about Hulda Clark, but about yet another (yes, he has done it before) of Levine2112's deletion rampages aimed at eliminating references sourcing Quackwatch or Stephen Barrett from Wikipedia. He at times does it in such a manner that he doesn't violate policy, because he ends up pointing to the same content but from a more original source, which is fine....but his sights are mainly on Barrett and Quackwatch, which he wants to eliminate as much as a possible. A cursory examination of his recent edit history bears this out, and earlier rampages just as much. They are usually accompanied with edit summaries that use wikilawyering arguments as excuses for him to carry on his pro-quackery agenda (if one is anti anti-quackery, one is pro-quackery....it's the classic double negative situation by which he reveals his biases and condemns himself). His negative comments about Barrett and Quackwatch are numerous. He assumes bad faith on their part, and this affects his editing and leads to these deletion campaigns. A topic ban may be the answer. -- Fyslee / talk 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Before an edit war starts

Resolved

Please clarify something. I was told long ago, when I was still editing under just an IP that tags go below infoboxes so they are at the top of the article but do not mess up the page. User:Mattbr disagrees. Could you clarify? Best example is Las Vegas (TV series). Thank you for your input. CelticGreen 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article message boxes states they go on top. As a side note, both versions render just fine for me (on IE 7). Someguy1221 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Top being relative? Top of the article or top of the edit box? When you put it below the infobox template once saved, the tag goes on the top of the article and the info box is on the side, as the example of Las Vegas shows. I've been told to put it under the infobox template so the page orientation is not disrupted. It is severely disrupted on Firefox with a wide screen monitor. CelticGreen 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Top of the page.

{{pp-semi-vandalismCleanup|date=October 2007}}

{{infobox}}-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not protection. Clean up and trivia. I was definitely told the trivia goes under the section that needs to be cleaned. And I'd really like a couple admins, not just user editors.CelticGreen 00:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was just en example. Fixed now. He is right. You can revert yourself. As for trivia, you are right. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of admins doesn't (heck, shouldn't) carry any more weight than that of other Wikipedians. Indeed, this entire matter isn't an admin matter at all (no-one is going to get blocked, and no page protected). Please move this threat to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

...and that's why i advised CelticGreen to revert themselves because i am not entitled to do it at their place unless it becomes disruptive which is not the case at all since they came here for an advice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at that. I didn't even know that existed. I also thought the editors were the final be all end all say. Learn something everyday. Thanks for the suggestions. This person was putting the trivia tags at the top and telling me I was wrong, which I can be sometimes, that's why I asked here. I guess this is only for problems and that other page is for discussion. Thanks for steering me in the right direction. Finlay ~ you mean threaD, right, not threaT? I wasn't threatening anyone. CelticGreen 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

it just happens that the user you are referring to (Mattbr) is an admin himself :) He did the correct thing and thanks for your query. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin abusing page protection

• Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Admin protected the page in his preferred version and is abusing the mediation process (over a single sentence in the intro) to prevent anyone else from editing any part of the article.

Page needs a lot of work, but has been protected for three weeks now. See #Admin edit rights privilege abuse. — Omegatron 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. To call restoring the page to the version protected by admin user:Riana, after you unprotected it during the mediation, which was the second time you used the sysop ability to edit protected pages; the first being where you made an edit to the heart of the lead which under intense discussion, may possibly be reminiscent of that great Yiddish word, chutzpah .

See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation and unilateral edits by Omegatron (talk · contribs)
• User talk:Omegatron#Your edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
• Warned by Riana not to use sysop privs in edit dispute
• Unprotects page 01:41, October 22, 2007

-- Avi 02:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird

A few moments ago, I got a weird message from a Connell66 sock (the sock was blocked almost immediately afterwards by another user). When I mentioned that the username bot now has that string ("Bimbo Wales") flagged, Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry came by and said that he may be making socks specifically to point them out and get them blocked.

I am now officially confused. Any ideas on just what exactly is going on? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here. A new vandal/troll. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FLIR Systems anon IP campaign

FLIR Systems not sure what can be done beyond a semi-protect of the article, but I believe (based on all three IPs re-adding the same material) a single anon IP editor is responsible for the editing issues on the article.

• User talk:67.171.180.157
• User talk:67.171.181.43
• User talk:71.236.187.142

At first the editor was removing existing content while added nothing but negative info about the company, but now has turned mainly to just added negative info about the company. However, all the negative info is copy and paste info that is a copyright violation. This has been explained on the user talk pages, but they don’t seem to care. I’m speculating here, but I’m guessing there is a COI issue or former employee out for blood. Regardless, at a minimum the page needs a semi-protect for a week, but I was hoping admins might have better way of maybe reporting the user to their internet provider or such. Anything would be great. Aboutmovies 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All the IPs locate to the Portland, Oregon area. Bonus question: FLIR Systems is located in a suburb of what city in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.? Raymond Arritt 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani makes comments which are insulting and maybe even abusive toward other editors

In fighting with several users on several articles User:Nishidani is acting with disrepect to Wikipedia policies such as WP:AGF:

<blockqoute>::Nonsense. You want smear innuendoes in, and, at that, incompetent smear material. That is not an inflammatory summary, since several other editors have more or less said that is how they read the passage. Rewrite it as you like, tighten your seat belt and get into an edit war. It will not, I repeat, will not stay on this page, as if is a defamatory and highly vulgar characterisation of the plight of an entire people, and that you insist on retaining it flags a temper of contempt, not only for Palestinians, which is par for the course in much of the world, but for the discipline of history. If you put that into a paper at a UCLA history course, you'd be kicked up the coit for slumming it Nishidani 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[102]

she referes to other editors as "rag-and-bottle editors"[103] and may even go so far as accusae them in anti-Semitism:

[104]

This latest case deserve more details:

User:Nishidani has two days ago made this comment on a talk page:

"Many rabbis dealt with the Nazis, sending poorer Jews and Jewish communists off to the crematoria, where Jewish inmate slang called the victims who were condemned to the 'bakery' because unable to work anymore, 'Moslems', all this in exchange for their own and their family and friends' lives.

These accusations were in reply to my request to stop posting non-relevant data.

I find it offensive that one turn a discussion from :' what is relevant or not to an article' to accusations leveled against rabbis who can not respond.

What would any reasonable person do in their situation ? just kicking such stories around is something that fit anti-Semitic sites not Wikipedia.

Are such accusations correct ? but even if they are - why push stories on rabbis where they don't serve any useful purpose but to agitate an already hot situation. (there is a long debate in talk pages)

User:Nishidani later made this comment - directed at me(at least so it seems):

"because people who want that information ought to earn it, and people who might abuse it, should not have their antisemitism buttressed by facile access to someone's hard-earned notes.

the whole discussion is in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Adding_of_non_relevant_data. it is clear from the explanation she gave later that "someone's hard-earned notes" is her and "people who want that information", "people who might abuse it" and "should not have their anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access" is directed at me.

I wish someone who has better English than me (she does note that my English is not good and indeed her use of sophisticated words and style is above my level of understanding) would review her comments on talk and make sure to take the steps to stop this kind of sophisticated, yet insulting, use of the English language. Zeq 06:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The tactic of using non relevant information is something that this user is also doing in Wikipedia articles:

What does this [105] has to do with the subject of the article. Zeq 06:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)