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

Angie Y. - community ban time?

For at least the past 3 years, people have been telling Angie Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to add uncited personal opinion to articles. I ran across her recently when her editing on Willy Wonka-related articles was brought to ANI. Just about every time I trimmed something of hers out of an article, she would restore it with no discussion, even in the edit summary. Today she reminded us that her editing style isn't restricted to fiction: she edited the Priceline article, adding the text "One of Shatner's early commercials for the company had him sitting in a spaceship's captain's chair, in loving tribute to his famous Star Trek role." The existence of the commercial is uncited. Its position as "early" is uncited "Loving tribute" is opinion. "Famous" is WP:PEACOCKish.

As she has been told that this sort of thing is not acceptable for so long by so many people, I am forced to conclude that she is unwilling or unable to work within our community norms, and suggest that she be community-banned for at least a year.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem... but I see a lack of blocks to tell her that this is a problem. I see only one from a couple years ago.. Surely a series of escalating blocks should be attempted before an outright ban, right? Friday (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, she tends to skirt right under the edge of blockability for any one incident. It's the long-term pattern I'm looking at here, and that's harder for a single admin to act on without this kind of discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

She does seem to have a lot of warnings over the past few years telling her not to insert her POV into articles. Not sure what to do about it. Possibly assign her a mentor? Basket of Puppies 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like mentoring was tried, pursuant to her second RFC, but didn't go anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose editor is no doubt a pain but lack of long block log suggests lesser sanctions are not exhausted. Or you could have Willy feed her a candy bar that turns her into a huge helium balloon and the Oompa Loompas can sing as she floats away. Ooompa Loompa loopa de do ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree it is a seriously issue that needs to be dealt with. Also wondering at the lack of previous blocks beyond the one, when her user page also shows a lot off issues with incivility, ignoring or harassing other editors when they try to correct her, constant lack of edit summaries and just reverting when people undo her OR/opinions. Also curious as to whether there has been any recurrence of the meat puppet issues which caused her one block. Her response to your warning about the OR of "Ah yeah"[1] however also strongly shows that you are correct in that she seemingly doesn't care. Looking at her contribs, she pretty much ignores her own talk pages and rarely tries discussing anything with others on other user talks[2], while her contribs to article talks seems mostly to ask random questions[3]. I also worry how much truth there is in her edits to fictional topics, when she is fond of injecting her own opinion into topics, and if any of her edits are being checked in those areas? Not an admin, so I don't know the rules on blocking, but I do think some kind of block and an editing restriction, at the minimum, would be a good start. Any violations to the restriction gets escalating blocks, until she exhausts the usual set, then go for a ban. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor's behaviour has been discussed here several times previously. TFOWR^propaganda 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Forgot to mention her RFCs above.
  • 5 July 2007
  • 11 December 2007
• Granted, it's been a while since the last one... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for a while. No evidence she works around them, so going for a ban isn't necessary. But (as one who has warned and reverted her many times) she's royally painful to pin down. Pushes right to the edge of a block, then backs off either by moving away from the target-page of the moment, or by saying she will change her ways. Again and again. With some good edits too IIRC. Taken together, the Park Service needs to give this forest a block even if each ranger doesn't think any one tree is irredeemable. Enough community time-wasting. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for at least a week. This person seems adept at gaming the system here, and as I see it the record cited shows that. Too early for a ban, but count me in with those wanting accountability. User should be encouraged to discuss this issue here at ANI. Jusdafax 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, this user was once a pusher of birther arguments, pushing fringe sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berg v. Obama and at the main article. Old edits, yes, but this is clearly not a user that plays well with others. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't think that's really relevant to her current editing behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse blocking for around a week or two perhaps. With increasing durations for further problems. This may very well end up a ban, but I'd rather see us get there in a few steps than just one. Friday (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Issue stern final warning, then block I feel that she needs to be put on last notice, and that any further infractions will result in an immediate block. The stern final warning will be indefinite for duration- meaning that in 6 months if she makes an infraction she will still be blocked. No one is irredeemable but some need special circumstances due to the length of disruption. Basket of Puppies 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help in any way I can. Angie Y. (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Angie, is that the ways you try to help tend to make more work for everyone else. Even though many people have told you to add references to your edits, and not to put your personal opinions into articles, you keep doing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block now clear lack of competence, three years is generally enough time to determine if someone is capable of or willing to learn. Time sink, net detriment to the project on a review of the edits. Make it indefinite. If they cogently explain what they've been doing wrong and promise to never do it again, maybe unblock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have imposed an indefinite block; there isn't really an established community block process here, but reviewing many edits going back several years, plus her talk page history, convinces me that the concerns raised here are valid. I believe that she is editing in good faith, but the net result of editing in good faith but with poor understanding of project goals and policies, the difference between encyclopedic factual content and personal opinion, is disruptive. If she comes to understand the policies and issues and seems likely to comply going forwards, any administrator can unblock her without consulting me, though given the community input above I think that bringing it back to ANI for discussion would be wise (at least a notification afterwards). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment —I've encountered Angie in the past (circa 2+ years ago, I think) and tried to gently nudge her in the right direction. I've not seen the recent issues other people have concerns over. If there is further discussion of this, I'll root through history and the more recent events, and offer an opinion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• ... and I have declined her first unblock request with a couple of questions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block for only a week; an indefinite block is not necessary, in my opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block - indef. I was the admin who introduced her last AN/I (a few months ago). I have seen zero improvement since then, and her long history of non-improvement speaks for itself. I recommend she take up blogging instead where the rules are more lax. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block that has already been imposed. I don't see the sense in putting a timer on the block if there's nothing to guarantee that it won't just continue once the block expires. It's up to her on how long it takes her to understand, and this way, sanctions will only be in place for as long as necessary. Of course, without socking, I don't think an outright ban is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Amend to a couple of weeks to give her time to understand that no, we really mean it about the personal opinions. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef. The sanction can be lifted as soon as there is a reasonable undertaking to amend their approach to contributing; 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks... whatever. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Based on her interaction with the folks who have reviewed her request for an unblock, that will be a long time coming. She seems incapable of understanding what the problem is. (And as long as this is simply an indef block -- not a community ban -- I endorse this as an adequate response. A community ban in this case would be the equivalent of breaking a butterfly on a wheel.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse 1 week block - There needs to be some indication that this issue is taken seriously, but it's too early for an indef. Shadowjams (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Post-indef block comments

As there's been an indefinite block, some of the above comments are outdated. Further comments below. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate in this case. As discussed above, a progressive blocking structure would be more fair. This has clearly gotten Angie Y's attention. I would advocate a short-term block, followed by reconciliation, attempts at mentoring (I see above that's not worked before), and scrutiny. By indefinitely blocking we're just inviting a new username and alienation. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think it has to come to this quite yet. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Indefinite is not forever, the user does not seem to understand how to fix the problem (and seems to be suggesting that she has some issue personally that might make it impossible and that we should "understand") so indef is correct. I have left a suggestion that she try proposing some sourced NPOV changes on her talk page, to see if she can satisfy people that she can do it. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I share Shadowjams's concern, in as much as I feel that there should be a clear route back for Angie Y. That said, Guy has advised Angie Y. that there is a way back, so I'm happy with the indef block standing for now (i.e. until Angie Y. indicates that she's prepared to work constructively to end her block). TFOWR^propaganda 11:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Each case is distinct; using an indef block in all cases will obviously not be appropriate or ideal (and this should not be interpreted as establishing a precedent as such). In this particular case, my opinion has not changed - there is a clear way back and putting a timer on the block would not otherwise be helpful or sensible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I dislike indef blocks, in the manner that it's a kind of "closed door" to the blocked editor. Although technically they can appeal the block, sooner or later, almost always they either 1) have their unblock request denied, or 2) they never edit again, which would mean that we may lose a possibly productive user in the future. A short term block of a few weeks seems like the best solution, as it isn't an indefinite block, and it gives the editor (who in this case is Angie Y) some time to think about her actions. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• As someone who also has an autism-spectrum disorder (mine is PDD-NOS), let me just point out that it's very hard for many people on the spectrum to read between the lines. What may seem like a terminal case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't necessarily so. I left a short note of encouragement, because she doesn't seem too receptive to criticism at this point (not really all that surprising). I think JzG's suggestion is a good idea, and hopefully she'll go through with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to sound too harsh, but I do think that WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here. In short, she may have problems that may make it difficult for her to follow our policies, but that is no excuse for disruption. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with you, but my experience with people on the spectrum (I'm living proof of this) is that if you do give them enough chances, they'll catch on. I think a block may have been in order, but indefinite can be very intimidating. If this was made, say, a week or two weeks, that'd give her a chance to put everything in perspective and go from there. She does seem to realize now that there's a problem. Maybe if she had someone to bounce ideas off of if/when she gets unblocked- not a mentor, exactly, but just someone to help on the side. Hey, we gave someone else another second chance, and that seems to be working out all right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that we have been remarkably patient with this user already, as her pattern of disruption goes back to 2006. I have a hard time believing that she's only just now realized that there's a problem, judging by the messages on her talk page. If she actually has just realized this, Wikipedia:COMPETENCE should be considered. It's also important to remember that an indefinite block is not necessarily permanent. That said, I wouldn't object to her being unblocked on the condition that she found a mentor. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Some do catch on, but others... well, I won't invoke the name, but at least one refuses to catch on, and his mother hasn't been able to deter him at all. Suffice to say, we have to treat each one individually, and she's not quite getting it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of who you refer to above, but the issue there would seem to be much more severe- there are varying degrees. Anyways, we let the aforementioned user back after pulling some truly egregious stuff (I went back and looked) that was worse than what's going on here. This at least can be fixed fairly quickly. I also acknowledge that it goes back to 2006, but to jump to DefCon 5 1 ^whoops all of a sudden seems a bit... harsh. Perhaps this is the "final warning" she needed. Hey, reblocking is never too difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the length of time this has gone on for, I would argue that it wasn't properly dealt with then, and so implementing a more harsh sanction may be justified.RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the logic in your statement, now that I look at it again. I still hope she does get unblocked- she works in articles I wouldn't touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole- but I see where you're coming from. JzG/Guy gave her a way out, and I guess all we can do is hope she takes it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Although I endorse this block, I think it should be shortened to a fortnight. After all, it only takes a few clicks to block her again, should she choose not to learn from this (and if, on the contrary, she were to learn, we would gain a useful contributor). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's the same, slow pattern we've been seeing for three years. I don't think a fortnight will make a difference but, if it does, she'll be able to tell us how & why she's changed and we can unblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I undestand that blocks are necessary to prevent disruptive behaviour; however, personally, I don't like them and would always try to be optimistic (or naive, if you prefer). That's why I'd give her a second chance. I don't think it's all that risky, given how fast she can be reblocked, should the need arise. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

She has a way out, it's been offered pretty much from the outset. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently left a message on her talk page to this effect, but if appropriate, perhaps a succinct phrasing of the "way out" would be good either here or on the talk page. Just so there's a clear roadmap. Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That has already been done: User_talk:Angie_Y.#Suggestion Harry the Dog WOOF 09:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef. I agree it's a shame to jump straight to the indef rather than incremental blocks but there is a very clear way for her to come back. If she starts posting some editing suggestions (per Guy's suggestion on her talk page) which show that she now understands the problems with her adding her opinions and OR to articles, we can look at unblocking, but I don't think fixing a timer to that process is going to be helpful and it will likely undermine it. I think it's better to leave the block as an indef and to review again in due course when we get some indication that she understands - whether that be two days, two weeks, two months or whatever is entirely in her court. Sarah 06:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef Angie has been offered many ways out over the years. People have been extremely patient with her, and offers of help have been numerous, and generally rebuffed. As others say, indef does not mean forever. It is not banning, which has been advocated. People who cannot edit in conformity with the community guidelines are blocked. It's as simple as that. I don't believe that progressive blocks are needed in this case. There have been several times when a short block might have been imposed but Angie has evaded it by promising to change her behaviour. Her behaviour has not changed, and therefore I regard that as if a block had been imposed. It would have been but for assurances that were not subsequently met. Sadly, I don't think we can accept her assurances (repeated in the wake of this block) any more, and so an indef is required. If she can show that she really can conform to the community guidelines, she should be welcomed back. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

SirFloyd

While working on the Tito article, I looked up the reliablity of an author named Bernard Meares and rediscovered this little gem. It is the article "Titoism and Totalitarianism" that user SirFloyd created on en.wiki earlier but was later deleted due to its POV content. This is apparently a wikiclone which user SirFloyd uses to, among other things, stalk users and "strategize" his moves for the real wiki. Among the findings are:

• A page dedicated to countering user DIREKTOR's edits "Wikipedia & Political Agendas".
  • In it is a section "Wiki Articles that are manipulated by Neo-Communists" which contains a list of articles that user DIREKTOR has edited at one point or another.
  • In another entitled "Propaganda Pushing Editors" editors DIREKTOR, Ivan Stambuk, AlasdairGreen27, myself, BokicaK, and Zocky are listed alongside nationality and are apparently identified by SirFloyd as a clique.
• Another page "Nationalistic Editing on Wikipedia" discusses the "House of Bona" article which DIREKTOR and SirFloyd were engaged in. While he is careful to not mention names it is obvious at whom such quotes are directed at: "Wikipedia with its current group of editors is participating in that process [cultural genocide]."
  • Attempt at canvassing for the "House of Bona" article [4].

Taking this evidence into consideration, it is, in my opinion, that SirFloyd's intentions on Wikipedia are far from good faith. His actions are in violation of numerous policies including: WP:COI, WP:HOUND (stalking DIREKTOR), WP:NPOV (creating the POV fork "Tito and Totalitarianism" after his failure at the original article), WP:OWN (using a wikiclone to evade deletion and own an article), and WP:CANVAS. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Floyds intentions and contributions here have been very beneficial to the project. His contribution was deleted here and he is able to post it wherever he likes. He is perhaps in opposition to your group but that is good , we don't want everything from a single perspective do we. I also note that in those links you provide there is no mention at all of any specific people. I don't see anything requiring any Administration action.Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Director Croatian, Ivan Stambuk (Croatian), AlasdairGreen27 (Croatian), Producer (Bosnian), BokicaK (Serbian), Zocky (Slovenia) Wikipedia Administrator" ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@User:Off2riorob.

• 1) being in opposition to someone is fine, its a way to ensure against POV, mine included. However, User:Sir Floyd is not reported here for being opposed to someone.
• 2) You are, as you say, a "close friend" of User:Sir Floyd. It comes as no surprise that you would support him even after this was uncovered, and its certainly not a surprise that you would judge his "lobbying" as beneficial to the encyclopedia.
• 3) Finally User:Off2riorob, I cannot believe you are being honest when you say you "don't see any mention at all of any specific people". Have you noticed this link? You see, it lists all users who dared oppose Sir Floyd as "communist propaganda pushers". Add to this that User:Sir Floyd has been attempting to WP:OUT users on this project [5] and I think you'll find this is not only actionable, its indeff block material.

Finally, I don't think anyone here is prepared to pretend he/she is stupid. It is perfectly obvious that User:Sir Floyd has been stalking editors, following them around, and marking their edits (as well as themselves!) for the attentions of his buddies. This explains much of the suspicious coordinated MEAT that's been going on in this Wiki. The purpose of all this evidently seems to be outnumbering editors with meatpuppets and bypassing proper discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are mentioned there as a POV pushing editor, I did not search all the pages. I know and respect Sir Floyds contributions here. He was in dispute with user direktor when I met him and helped him to become a good contributor here. I still don't see any issues worthy of Wikipedia Administrator action. There is nothing to assert any meat issues at all with Sir Floyd. I don't see any stalking. As I said, we don't just want one side of the story do we. So you present a six month old ANI archived thread with no action at all as a claim to Sir Floyd outing, nothing happened then, never mind now and a wikibiz article http://www.mywikibiz.com/User_talk:Ockham/Wikipedia_&_Political_Agendas#Propaganda_Pushing_Editors complaining about POV editing on wikipedia, not very startling is it. Perhaps you could try dispute resolution, or we could topic ban you both from Yugoslavian articles. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh lol Off2riorob... We're not in any conflicts at all. I think you've conclusively demonstrated your "neutrality", not to mention a serious need to familiarize yourself with policy (WP:MEAT, WP:STALK, WP:OUT, WP:CANVASS etc.). I for one admire such dedication. Leave it for the guys here to read and decide, lets not clutter the thread up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I had one brief encounter with SirFloyd and after that it was clear to me that his motives are not good. If this does not convince others, then I don't know what will. -- Bojan  Talk  05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The GFDL says that any content of Wikipedia can be copied and distributed everywhere. If this content will be deleted the content distributed must not be deleted. Please give me the part of GFDL where the license says that the distributed content must be deleted and I will accept your position. I would invite all persons, most of all administrators, to understand the principles of GFDL in detail. Do you need that also the old dumps of database will be corrected? In this action I can only see a "programmatic" action of a group and surely I will start to open an investigation about this group. --Ilario (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, GFDL was abandoned in favor of Creative Commons few years ago. But this is not the question. The question is that what Direktor stated above. -- Bojan  Talk  08:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've only encountered SirFloyd on the Tito article. IMO, he does have a bit of a point - some of the ex-Yugoslav users do wear extra-rosy-tinted glasses when looking on their former country. However, in my experience, SirFloyd wasn't doing anything to counter that productively. His modus operandi consisted of pushing his (IMO rather extreme) POV by listing out-of-context quotes, often from extremist and/or amateur authors. That in itself wouldn't be a big problem, because it can be countered with other quotes and sources. But, he also incessantly engaged in accusing other editors of having sinister agendas, which sort of kills any sort of productive discussion.

All that said, I don't care much about what he writes on other websites. If there are good reasons to believe that his activities on Wikipedia as a whole are a net loss for the encyclopedia, we should probably do something about it. If not, water under the bridge. Zocky | picture popups 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In hereby calling for action on this and similar situations, I would remind readers of the WP:ARBMAC ruling, which all of us are beholden to apply. What requires action here is that s/he is displaying the most grotesque bad faith imaginable, and the most extreme Balkan nationalist aggressive POV. I would like to work on articles with editors who think I can contribute something. We can work together well. In what way is it possible to work collaboratively in the true spirit of Wikipedia with someone who derides the whole idea(l) of Wikipedia, who describes and derides good faith editors as communists, who describes our articles as communist propaganda and so on. The Balkan Wiki area is overpopulated with POV monsters as it is. If Sir Floyd is allowed to demonstrate such POV and total bad faith and continue to edit regardless, then we might as well ring fence all of our Balkan articles as POV garbage that no-one with a sane mind should read. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have un-archived this discussion as it appears to have been prematurely archived. Toddst1 (talk)

This is pretty clearly off-wiki harassment by Sir Floyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and calls for an indefinite block until such harassment is removed and ceases. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, no on can be judged in Wikipedia for something which is extermal to Wikipedia and most of all no one can be judged for his point of view. It seems to me a judgement of a person derived from some other persons who has the other extreme point of view. If Sir Ffloyd is extreme I cannot see that the persons who are judging him are neutral, absolutely wrong. I would add that in the article written by him there are also official documents and I am a little bit disappointed that their are judged like "secondary" sources. Sorry, but I would have a more neutral decision here. This is a discussion to judge a person where only few users are participating and most of all the users accused by him. In this case I think that the accused persons should not be considered to give to the community the opportunity to be more neutral and to don't consider the parts involved in the original discussion. --Ilario (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• As there are quite a few externals would the blocking Administrator please point directly to the "off wiki harassment" ones and the exact content the harassment is referring to as regards the alleged Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I Agree. Having a personal opinion about something inside wikipedia, and espressing it off-wiki is a very different thing that doing harrassment. So i suppose it's necessary the blocking Admin will point clearly what exactly he considered harassment, just in order to not make his decision an unclear or fuzzy precedent. Theirrulez (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not understand why Sir Floyd was blocked. I cannot see personal attacks in that pages. He only expressed an opinion. An opinion is not law.--Grifter72 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag. If I'm off base, please feel free to re-add, I won't object or consider that an issue. It just appears that this matter appears to remain under discussion. As far as I understand it's pretty clear that off-wikipedia behavior, however bad, does not by itself merit an on-wikipedia block. Nevertheless, off-Wikipedia statements can reasonably be interpreted as evidence that someone's presence on Wikipedia is not in good faith. Which is it? Incidentally, I have no idea what the underlying dispute is about and I don't think it's relevant to this particular question. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks doesnt'seem to support the decision. Off-wiki attacks paragraph doesn't (of course) contemplate any sanctions like blocks, because: «Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions.» - Theirrulez (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a WP:ARBMAC decision, and must be considered in that context. It is perhaps not surprising that the protesters that have surfaced since the block was made are three Italian editors (Ilario, Grifter72 and Theirrulez) that share SirFloyd's POV. I guess/suppose/am sure that the only reason that they all came here in a procession is that they all picked up the block on their watchlists. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems a bit of a "quid pro quo response": "You help us out with our POV-pushing, we'll help you out - maybe we can save the guy to fight another day, or shorten his block". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm here as well asking a decision about this absurd unfair, discrediting and offensive attack against me posted by AlasdairGreen27 on a an Admin talk page [6], followed by DIREKTOR's attack [7], and preceded by another astonishing DIREKTOR's attack [8]. These above mentioned harassment posts were not off-wiki, but incredibly on a wikipedian users talk page.
This is to be considered as an official report. Theirrulez (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be fun to use the word "attack", but commenting on single-purpose edit history is not really a violation of WP:NPA. I cannot guess why you're inserting this here, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, here: Wikipedia:Spa#Identifying_SPAs reads

Focusing on a single broad topic: When Identifying SPAs, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. Very broad subjects like music, medicine, sports, history, and physics are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not necessarily mean the user is an SPA. SPAs edit a group of tightly related pages or a group of unrelated pages in the same manner.

In my opinion, Theirrulez is not an WP:SPA. And, by the way, he is an editor in good standing on it.wiki (he has brought an article to WP:FA, that is to say it:Rodi Garganico) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'm not an WP:SPA. This is an attempt to lead us off-topic and the last try to influence other users discrediting me. After DIREKTOR replied here above, and after the admin GTBacchus clearly warned him and AlasdairGreen27 to stop the harassment, he demonstrated that he really doesn't matter to abuse wikipedia policy keep on harassing me more and more on the same admin talk page. And probably he and AlasdairGreen27 will continue until someone can stop them.

Anyways my contribution history is available, everyone who want to take a look it's welcomed. I want to remind to whoever could be interested about my contributions history to check also my former account User:Theirrules. After that please, I need urgent explanation about what reported above: the astonishing accuses I openly received. Theirrulez (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that SirFloyd has a point about Direktor being quite biased. That's my two cents on this issue. (LAz17 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

Apart from Sir Floyd's incident, I would like to point out how many vehement attacks AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) are used to making on other contributors, engaging in perpetual edit wars and immediately suggesting that there are planetary conspiracies. It's important to underline AlasdairGreen was called into this discussion by another user, PRODUCER (talk · contribs), just to create a firing squad ([9]). I would note that AlasdairGreen has been blocked once ([10]) for "personal attacks" and "harassment") and that he despises the Wikipedia project, having literally written (on an ARBCOM ruled article talk) he believes that Wikipedia (he says: "you know f..k all") is dominated by "the International Court of Wikipedia", formed by a panel of f..ing American Teenagers ([11]). Who at the time, few minute later, took care of removing the astonishing insult in AlasdairGreen's edit was "strangely" Direktor ([12]), coincidentally the very pair who point the accusing finger at me! How can all this be coincidence? And after talking about "clique" by others!

I would ask all of you to consider whether this is a good way to contribute to the project, since I always behaved correctly on enwiki. Theirrulez (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Who invited Theirrulez then? hmmmm I invited everyone that was relevant to the discussion per the list above. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you know what the word "violent" means. Please don't over-inflate this issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Violent" can also mean "marked by intensity", but if you prefer we can ask Theirrulez to replace it with "vehement"... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask AlasdairGreen, the one who said Sir Floyd is not compatible to the project, what exactly he means for f..k you all, referring to all wikipedians... I'm just curious to know.. Theirrulez (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest here. He said "You know fuck all about anything" not "fuck you all". Not civil but certainly he's not saying fuck you to all Wikipedians. AniMate 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me be more honest. He shouts that infamous and astonishing slur on the Tito talk page. ARBCOM rules there for Sir Floyd as same as for AlasdairGreen27. I want to hope. Theirrulez (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

I have indicated that material dear to another editor, which in fact led to that party being banned from the content for a year, has been once again reinserted without any indication that it does not violate WP:FRINGE, and more than a little serious question that it does. I have removed the material determined to be fringe per the Fringe Theories Noticeboard once again, and request the review of any interested administrator for their input regarding the correctness of doing so, and have indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide us a Fringe Theories noticeboard discussion archives link?

On first impression, the material is not what I think mainstream beliefs say, but it's sourced to sources from mainstream academic publishers, so there's nothing obvious to an "outsider" to the issue about what's truly fringe and what is not.

Also, you need to notify the other user ( {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page ).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion in the archives, prior to the ArbCom, which indicated that the Eisenman theory qualified as fringe. The discussion of the Tabor source can be found at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty. I have also included material from the three reviews I was able to find regarding the Tabor book toward the beginning of the Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA, which also at least indicates the material from the various encyclopediae I consulted which have all, so far as I can tell, pretty much ignored both Eisenman and Tabor. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? Neither you nor he is listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Involved parties ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites, when searched for correctly.

According to that, there were no findings of fringe information on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The only finding related to edit-warring, there were no content conclusions. This is a typical example of John Carter's misrepresentations. John Carter is pushing his Catholic-POV into the article. The article is already overly biased towards the Catholic conservative position (see article talk page.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The above editor seems to believe that Encyclopedia Britannica and various books by Brill Publishers, etc., all of which ignore Eisenman and Tabor, can also be ascribed to his allegations of "Catholic bias" as well. Also, please note the repeated requests made by me for any sort of other sources supporting Eisenman and Tabor, and that all such requests have been ignored. Regarding allegations of leaning toward Catholic sources, I don't think I have never actually heard such an allegation before, and certainly not without a clear representation of what other, non-biased, mainstream sources are available, and without an indication of what is contained in them, as is the case hereJohn Carter (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just expressed his view (which I agree with) that "you only seem capable of providing reviews written by religious dogmatists". Oh, and he provided an alternative review. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The material on the fringiness of Eisenman can be found basically at Talk:Ebionites/Archive 7 beginning around September 2007. That discussion seems to indicate that there are real WP:SYNTH and other concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(restoring apparently accidentally deleted section I posted)

Reading some outside reviews of the Tabor book, http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/jesus-dynasty-part-two.html and http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/mayweb-only/120-32.0.html for example, the criticism I am finding is from a Christian perspective, not a historical one. I am concerned by the confirmation bias issue User:Michael C Price brought up.

You may be right, but I'm not seeing any obvious disruption or lack of valid content dispute here; what is there for administrators to do here? What are you asking for? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that there have been repeated requests made of both parties to provide any indpendent sources which indicate the material in question has received mainstream support in any verifiable form, and that such requests have received no clear response. The question of historical criticism basically relates to the sourcing. The Encyclopedia of Religion, amond others, indicates that there is no evidence to link the various Ebionite attestations, and other sources indicate that there is insufficient material to say that the Ebionites, Nazoreans, et al. can be differentiated with any degree of certainty. Regarding the accusation of bias, J. Gordon Melton described the SLU library as being one of the best religious libraries on the planet, and didn't say anything about it having a Catholic bias, although, as a Jesuit school, I do note that it has more Catholic materials than otherwise. And, I guess, my request is to review my action, to see if it was appropriate, in part because another party on the article talk page seemed to threaten to bring my actions here anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I should not be used as a forum to force a decision over content. That is supposed to be achieved by consensus among the editors or through mediation. I have already requested that Jayjg provide informal mediation to smooth out some of these process difficulties, see User_talk:Jayjg#Request for informal mediation. The issue of WP:SYNTH is a separate matter of conflation of sourced content. That has been addressed by temporarily removing the content in question to the talk page where it can be be sorted out later. This trip to AN/I seems to be an end-run to avoid mediation and request a summary judgment. Ovadyah (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot control the opinions of others. I came here to receive a judgement on my actions, nothing more, and have placed my reasons for my taking the actions I have. If I am found to have behaved incorrectly by individuals not previously involved in the discussion, then, obviously, I would welcome the reversal. That is all. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I should also correct a factual misstatement. The paragraph in question by John Carter was not recently added into the article. It was content supported by multiple sources that John Carter deleted from the article without discussion. That deletion was reverted. The material in question was not contributed by Michael C. Price. It was mostly contributed by Str1377 who was editing collaboratively with me at the time in an effort to improve the content during FAR. Ovadyah (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Admit the editor above may be correct. However, I note once again that for all the "commentary", no independent sources indicating the material is not regarded as qualifying as fringe have been produced, despite repeated requests for same and evidence to the contrary produced. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your request is very unusual. I don't recall many literature reviews where the reviewers pronounce articles to be "mainstream". Anyway, even critical reviewers that question Tabor's conclusions claim that he is speculating too far beyond his primary sources. They don't claim they are due to a lack of scholarship. He is making a conjecture about what may have happened, not proving a theory based on experimental data. Ovadyah (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are not particularly usual either. And WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE remain policy and guideline anyway. Regardless of certain parties apparent failure to assume good faith about my stated reasons for my actions, which, as I have indicated, were prompted by a comment about possibly having them bring this matter to this page, what is the reason for continued conversation which doesn't directly relate to the base subject? John Carter (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to my comment on the article talk page about AN/I, I made it clear that was a step to be considered only if mediation fails or is rejected by the parties. I don't want to waste anymore admin time, so unless we are still missing some important facts that relate to this incident, I am done here. Ovadyah (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out just what the bone of contention is here. I would assume that the disputed material is collected in this diff, but if this is the case, then the dispute is over whether to include 2 books (FWIW, although Eisenman's book has been reviewed as a serious work,, I found it almost unreadable & somewhat bizarre) & the relationship between the Christian community at Jerusalem led by James the Just, Judaic-Christianity, & the Ebionites cult. However, the two sides seem inexplicably entrenched over such a minor disagreement, & maybe the three individuals here -- John Carter, Ovadyah, & Michael C Price -- should all walk away from this article (remember -- to repeat the old saying -- there are 3.3 million other articles) & let some new editors work on this article. Otherwise, everyone involved is going to either get themselves banned or burned out over this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As I noted previously on my talk page, this article seems to attract editors that either have a POV to push or an axe to grind diff. Unfortunately (for me), I know a lot about this subject, having actually read the books and publications, and I keep getting dragged back into it. I only became involved because John Carter contacted me about bringing the article back up to FA quality. My involvement, however, does not include any schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war to get him banned from Wikipedia. I am out of it once proper oversight can be established to return the article to FA quality. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, to an extent. And my involvement only extends to getting individuals who may be either SPA or have only a limited interest in the topic, such, as for instance, being involved only to the extent of promoting a single book or two, to perhaps recognize that those books seem to be out of the mainstream and not deserving of the amount of space they have in the article, and, if they continue to refuse to address the issue of weight given those fringe theories, to perhaps act in accord to the guidelines at WP:COI. Ovadyah has requested the input of a former arbitrator, and I would welcome his input. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In case readers are puzzled by Ovadyah's reference to

"schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war to get him banned from Wikipedia."

Ovadyah refers to John Carter's email attempts to include Ovadyah in John Carter's tag team. This, and John Carter's attempt to supress this leak does not reflect well on John Carter's integrity. I believe these actions seriously call into question John Carter's ability to edit the Ebionite article in a NPOV fashion, to put it mildly, and perhaps his role as a Wikipedia editor in general.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I can and will produce the original document to anyone who is interested. What I said was along the lines that it seemed likely to me, given his refusal to ever address matters of policy and/or guidelines, and his previous one year sanction regarding this topic, a permanent sanction would almost always be what follows.

I agree. I was confused at first about why John Carter was slamming my qualifications for working on the article - citing SPA and COI - when he approached me about resuming work on the article in the first place. But the reason is now clear to me. He couldn't have me perma-banned from an article I hadn't touched in over two and a half years. He had to convince me to resume editing on the article first. The content dispute is just a smokescreen. That's why no one can make any sense of it. The admins should understand that these plans will simply be put on hold again until a new crop of admins comes along, unless a more permanent solution is found. Ovadyah (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The above statement by Ovadyah is extremely amusing. Ovadyah has long maintained on his talk page a link to current Ebionite groups. It is also fairly obvious from his own response to the comment I made on his talk page that, at the time, he knew it was because of his statement that those who call themselves Ebionites today and Messianic Jews do not get along. Considering that Ebionites are almost his sole interest here (at least so far as I have seen), that he clearly indicated by that comment a degree of knowledge of the otherwise apparently non-notable current Ebionites which is itself remarkable, it seemed logical at the time, and still does, to question whether he is in fact an adherent of some sort of this neo-Ebionitism and whether that would constitue a COI problem as per WP:COI. The fact that the FA version of the article also apparently failed to address any issues which might indicate that the Ebionites were hard to distinguish from other Jewish-Christian groups at the time, thus weakening any claims to neo-Ebionites as opposed to more notable neo-Essenes, possible neo-Nazoreans, etc. and seems to have all but ignored the "evyonim" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, makes the question of possible bias even more obvious. Regarding the alleged attempt to get Price blocked, I am willing to forward the email sent to any uninvolved parties asking for it. However, what was basically said and implied was that, given the long-term history Price has had of making comments which do nothing to address the matter of sourcing, which are clearly visible from the talk page, refusing to provide sourcing, and otherwise generally non-constructive behavior, it seemed and honestly still seems likely to me that, should such behavior continue, he in time would face additional sanctions. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a religious test being applied to editors that determines what articles they can work on. Maybe Orthodox Jews should be informed they can't work on articles related to Judaism or Israel because, after all, they are Jews. If there is such a policy in place I would like to hear about it. The conversation John Carter keeps coming back to, where I found out that modern Ebionites don't get along with Messianic Jews, took place almost four years ago when Loremaster and I were doing some research on the Modern Ebionites section of the article. Keep talking John Carter. Ovadyah (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who actually looks over the comments will find that my basic comments were regarding fringe theories, which all involved except Ovadyah and Michael seem to agree that they are, that despite that Ovadyah has insisted that this almost completely panned fringe theory be included, and that it was he who had the hissy fit when I pointed out his logic and statements were less than rational. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note John Carter's logic: Ovadyah has a strong interest in the article, therefore he has a (presumed) religious POV, therefore a COI and should be barred. By contrast John Carter's Catholic POV does not disqualify himself from editting the article. Why is that?

I note that John Carter has admitted the tag-teaming charge.

As for constructive comments, I long ago suggested that, in view of the radically opposing POVs present about Ebionites, the article present the different POVs in different sections. John Carter rejected this suggestion, prefering to impose his POV (The Truth, as far as he is concerned) on the entire article. This he does by maintaining that any view he doesn't like is a minority/fringe view, and then deletes it; the truth is that all POVs about Ebionites are minority views; there is no mainstream consensus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is inaccurate. It is policy and guidelines which do not like giving fringe theories undue weight. Trying to apply policy and guidelines could be seen as being something individuals other than myself object to, however. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The real purpose of this incident report is to cleanse the Ebionites article of the corrupting influences of atheists and heretics. That is to be accomplished by perma-banning anyone who is suspected of holding beliefs different from the right-belief of John Carter. Now is the time to witness to your faith John Carter. Confess or Deny. Isn't that the reason we are here? Ovadyah (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, this again is a total misrepresentation of what I said. Somehow, however, given the blatantly emotional conduct Ovadyah has displayed when I noted his favorite fringe theory doesn't by policy and guideline deserve the attention it has received, that doesn't really surprise me. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Q. "Did you order the Code Red?" A. "Y___ ____ _____ _ __d." I was not being emotional. I was simply trying to communicate with you in words that you can understand. Ovadyah (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments like this do not help your argument that you're being emotionally detached. Might be best to take a break from ANI for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

Agreed. Best regards. Ovadyah (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, what about partitioning the article into POV sections, as has been done with some other controversial religious topics, such as Moses and Jesus, for example? This is the only way for the article to achieve stability and NPOV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't that much material to justify POV sections on this subject -- at least based on what has been written here. And discussing that proposal should be done on the talk page. Proposing here a revision to the article only confuses the issue more -- & beyond Ovadyah & you being upset with John Carter, I still don't understand what the actual issue is. Anyway, Ovadyah has made it clear she/he is walking away from the matter; it might be good idea for you & John Carter to do likewise. -- llywrch (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problems with the article are longer lasting and deeper than just the diff indicates, and stems from more than the presence of three editors. The article frequently attracts editors with a strong POV, each one who attempts a disruptive synthesis; partioning the article is the obvious solution, and one widely adopted elsewhere for controversial subjects. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

I've been trying very hard not to get sucked into silly edit- and flame-wars with User:Mathsci, but even the very first comment that disagree with him brought forth an immediate barrage of personal attacks. A WQA alert eventually got a non-apology apology, but personal attacks and blatantly offensive edit summaries have continued, and he seems hell-bent on edit-warring to write whatever he wants regardless of input from other editors. There's no question he's made some terrific contributions, but this kind of behavior can't be tolerated. May I suggest a one-day block to help him cool off and reconsider his approach? Rvcx (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am simply calloused and scarred from exposure to Climate Change Probation related pages, but I am struggling to see these personal attacks you complain of and can only think that your understanding of the phrase "knee jerk" involves some activity I would rather not be familiar with. I am seeing someone who is explaining how WP uses its sources, the need for comment to be sustained by reliable third party references, that quoting something accurately cannot be libelous, and that personal appraisal of an original source is not permissible. However that latter is clearly in the domain of content dispute, which is beyond the remit of this board. Unless you can specify what part of Mathsci's comment contravene WP:NPA, I very much doubt you will get much traction here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing feedback on whether the cited sources support the statements in WP articles because I'm an "amateur" (used many times, of course never for Mathsci himself), accusing people of "making remarks off the tops of your head without any lengthy attempt to look at the sources" (despite repeated reminders that I have actually read the sources) and commenting "like a teenager playing a video game", demanding that I "get some grip on reality (unless of course you want ArbCom to be involved)", yet more allegations that I "hasn't read the sources- just knee jerk reaction", and the reversion of an edit supported by others on the grounds that "if you want to move towardss your 300th content edit do it elsewhere" seem a lot more like attacks directed at me (requiring very childish arguing over who has more "expertise" on the subject) than discussion of the content at hand. I don't deny Matsci's points about how primary and secondary sources should be used; I simply have not been able to verify the original phrasing of the text in secondary sources, and the primary sources suggest there's a good reason for that... Rvcx (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My review of the comments leads me to believe that although probably within the realms of a WQA referral - can you provide a link? - Mathsci was contrasting the findings of the third party sources with your own appraisals and, notwithstanding that you may or may not be an expert in the field, that would tend to be in the realm of Wikipedia:Original research and therefore not allowable (beyond the fact that Mathsci apparently believes your conclusions contrast to that of the reliable sources). I should note that I am not an expert at anything much than me, but a review of Mathsci's later comments - with the spelling mistakes and grammar - makes me believe that they were a little frustrated and might not have expressed themselves as respectfully as they might have. I would like to see Mathsci's comments upon this. Presently, I feel that this is a content dispute that has veered away from the preferred norms of interaction. Perhaps if Mathsci reviews the matter there might be some kind words exchanged about past comments and everyone can get on with the discussion? I will gently request that he takes a look at this section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LHvU for letting me know about this and your truly horrible wikipun :)

• Rvcx's edits did not match the secondary source used [13]; he attempted to analyse the Jensen article himself
• There was no original research, just a summary of what appears in the secondary sources, a lot of which had been used for History of the race and intelligence controversy. Having produced 80,000 bytes of content with over 80 references, I can't really pretend not to be slightly familiar with the subject, often described as one of the most controversial papers in the history of psychology. A number of other people - from memory these include Slrubenstein, Maunus, Professor marginalia and RegentsPark - confirmed what I said.
• I did apologize for any misunderstanding twice here [14] (see in particular the final two statements). Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• 11 hours after your backhanded apology, you reverted an edit with the inappropriate edit summary "Rvcx (talk) no thanks - if you want to move towards your 300th content edit do it elsewhere". (You reverted Rvcx's edit 2 hours after it was made, despite the fact that he noted it on the talk page and appeared to receive acceptance from Professor marginalia, among others, prior to your revert). Your apology appears to lack any sincerity, and it appears 2 hours was not enough to read the discussion that was underway on the talk page. About an hour later, you were reverted on the basis that there was consensus on the talk page that Rvcx's edit was fine, but you edit-warred by reverting yet again here, failing to discuss your content reversion on the talk page. What is so difficult to understand about the fact you need to discuss reversions you make on the talk page and make appropriate edit summaries that don't go against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Are experienced administrators failing to teach you how to appropriately deal with perceived or actual POV pushing, or is it a matter of being stubborn? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And now Mathsci has reverted three times despite an apparent consensus and without a single comment on the talk page where the (minor) change was discussed. Rvcx (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally I see a potential sign of improvement - he's begun discussing his concerns on the talk page here; hopefully the edits in that discussion and in edit-summaries now comply with the relevant policies and preferred norms of interaction, even during perceived or actual difficult situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No such luck; "howlers" right out of the gate. Honestly, there has never been any indication that Mathsci has anything but disdain for third-party input. Rvcx (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Rvcx is editing too fast and not checking secondary sources. Here is what the secondary source says; [15]:

But he felt that 'the technique for rasing intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological sciences than in psychology or eduaction'; eugenic reform rather than compensatory educationheld out the solution to the problem of the nation's intelligence.

I paraphrased this in two distinct ways, the first (diff 1) with the words "in" and "than" missing, and the second (diff 2 and 3) slightly closer to Wooldridge.

• He felt that the solution lay eugenic reform rather compensatory education surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".
• He felt that the solution to this problem was through eugenic reform rather than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".

I did leave a message on the talk page [16] but Rvcx must have been editing too fast to read them, His version tht he and Captain Occam have edit-warred back into the article reads:

• He felt that eugenic reform would prevent this more effectively than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".

This is not what the secondary source says. Indeed as the secondary sources say, Jensen's paper starts off with "Compensatory education has been tried and it has apparently failed". There are no comparatives. Anyway since there are two versions I have only reverted twice. On the talk page, Rvcx discusses what the quote means in the primary sources. He says, it means "changing people's biology", [17] but of course it doesn't mean that all. As the secondary source states, "biological sciences" means eugenics: population control, which in these cases - as several of the secondary sources also say - means either birth control or sterilization. Certainly that is what is in the rest of the summary. Our task is just to paraphrase Wooldridge, the secondary source. This kind of error, apparent with the mention of "Changing people's biology" in interpreting the primary source, shows exactly why we use secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that when this issue was brought up at the BLP noticeboard, Jimbo Wales became involved in the discussion, and left this comment about it. His comment is about a slightly different piece of content than the one that Mathsci is edit warring over currently, but the same principle clearly applies. According to Jimbo Wales, we can’t claim that Jensen has advocated something unless Jensen has specifically stated that he advocates it—“we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.” In the case of eugenics, even though some of Jensen’s critics have claimed in secondary sources that Jensen has advocated this, all that Jensen himself has stated is that eugenics is more likely to raise the IQs of low-IQ people than compensatory education is. Mathsci is not only edit warring to try and change the article against consensus; he is repeatedly inserting material that according to Jimbo Wales is probably a BLP violation.

And this is in addition to his repeated personal attacks, which have been near-constant for the past several months. I can provide diffs of some of the more egregious examples from before Rvcx became involved in this dispute, if anyone needs them. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I decided against getting involved in the WQA thread, but now that this has been taken to AN/I, I figured I should offer my opinion about it as someone who’s been the target of numerous personal attacks from Mathsci in the past. In general, the attitude I’ve observed from him is that no criticism of his behavior is ever appropriate because he’s a “user in good standing”. For an example of this, see his exchange with Keegan here. His attitude appears to be that “good standing” is a status that becomes irrevocable once it is earned, and grants immunity from any censure or negative consequences in response to policy violations.

I would certainly hope that isn’t how Wikipedia works. For a user to remain in good standing should be contingent on their staying civil, and not engaging in disruptive behavior, and I don’t think Mathsci can reasonably expect to stay in good standing after his behavior towards Rvcx and David.Kane during the past week, as well as his behavior towards me, Varoon Arya and Ludwigs2 over the previous several months. Assuming it’s the case that Mathsci’s history of contributions does not excuse him from having to abide by policies such as WP:NPA, I think it would be beneficial for an administrator to give him a hard dose of reality about this, and that it would help avoid similar problems from Mathsci in the future if an admin could make him aware that he does not have free reign to ignore WP policy without any fear of negative consequences. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with LHVU. This matter is related to the endless disputes about Race and intelligence. User:David.Kane made a post on WP:BLPN essentially arguing that academic sources have made libelous claims about Arthur Jensen, and has been supported in this position by User:Off2riorob and User:Rvcx. Mathsci has pointed out that there is substantial scholarly coverage of Jensen's positions and has explained the substance of this coverage and given citations and links to where it appears. Off2riorob and Rvcx do not appear to have followed up on these citations/links, and Mathsci is expressing frustration that other editors are not doing their reading. I find Mathsci's reaction entirely understandable; sadly, Wikipedia editors cannot be graded down when they show that they don't have command of the sources. In any event, nothing that Mathsci has said in the diffs provided is uncivil, and bringing the matter to ANI borders on the vexatious. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For more background (not related to Rvcx) see this. In short, several SPA editors have been using WP:CPUSH to promote their views across a wide range of race and intelligence articles. Mathsci is about the only obstacle preventing SPAs and other enthusiastic editors from having free reign. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not consistent with what happened. Off2riorob and Rvcx followed up on the only citation necessary to validate a BLP violation, the writing of the subject. The violation has recently been corrected as a result of this. Mathsci made efforts for several months to maintain his virulent anti-Jensen material. His behaviour towards other editors during this time was appalling. mikemikev (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think the content dispute here is that significant. It's crazy that such a protracted discussion was needed to change just a few words to ensure the text is verified by sources (both primary and secondary—let's not get into a lengthy debate here, but suffice it to say I think both are relevant). I have no particular interest in views across that article space.

What is significant is Mathsci's stubborn and confrontational attitude, and his assumption that he is entitled to insult and ignore everyone who disagrees with him, even over the smallest details, on the basis of his "score" in terms of number of edits. I didn't think that was the way Wikipedia was supposed to work. Rvcx (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My view, after reviewing what is written since I logged out, is that there is a content dispute relating to the subject, that Mathsci has used terminology that is not optimum, and those instances are being pursued in an effort to limit Mathsci's input in the dispute. The latter is not going to work, so I suggest that the point of contention is taken to dispute resolution; RfC or WP:3O would be my suggestion. To the parties I would comment, Mathsci might consider choosing their words a bit more carefully, and Rvcx, Off2riorob and others should separate the content dispute from the civility issues and find a way to get consensus on the content matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems like LHvU is trying to taint other editors with MathSci's bad behavior. I have been incredibly careful to separate civility issues from content issues; thus the attempt to discuss civility here and at WQA and focus entirely on content at BLPN and the article talk pages. It is consistently MathSci who employs ad-hominem in content disputes and tries to deflect civility complaints with arguments over content. It is consistently MathSci who argues that other editors have no right to provide input, purely on the basis of who they are. It is MathSci who laces every comment with "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and they should fuck off" attacks, on multiple occasions actually threatening to escalate to ArbCom purely because an editor had the temerity to suggest that he could be in the wrong. I don't think any one comment is particularly egregious, but the overall message, sense of entitlement, and pattern of personal intimidation are both clear and intentional. At some point administrators should intervene to let him know that such an attitude is not acceptable, regardless of how many "content edits" he has made. Rvcx (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus: 1) If you are going to make claims about me, then you ought to have the courtesy of making a direct link to the material. Here is the BLPN section in which I raised the issue about Arthur Jensen. 2) The first two uninvolved editors (talk and Rvcx) to comment agreed with me. Jimbo Wales was also supportive. And MathSci has given up on defending the specific edit that we had a problem with, that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." And the reason that he has given up defending it is that Jensen did no such thing. Now, we all make mistakes. If MathSci would just admit that this claim does not belong in Wikipedia, we could all move on. But, as is his usual practice, he engages in a blizzard of irrelevant citations and ad hominem attacks. This issue in this thread is whether or not such attacks belong on Wikipedia and, if not, what ought to be done about MathSci's behavior. Do you really believe that MathSci's behavior here and elsewhere is not "uncivil?" David.Kane (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some editors in this thread seem unconvinced that MathSci's behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps they are right. But they should look at the history of MathSci's behavior as discussed in previous ANI threads: [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. Note that other examples are available. My point is not to claim that MathSci is always wrong (or always right) in these debates. My point, counter Johnuniq, is that complaints about MathSci's behavior are not specific to his edits of Race and Intelligence related articles. His behavior is consistent, as best I can tell, across the range of his interactions at Wikipedia. Rvcx's experience with MathSci is completely typical. Is this what experienced admins want to see at Wikipedia? If so, I have little doubt that MathSci will continue to give it to us good and hard. David.Kane (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just take a look at the diffs shall we? The first two diffs refer to: A.K.Nole (talk · contribs). It was determined by a member of ArbCom that this user was wikihounding me and continued to so under a new account: they have been iinstructed by that member of ArbCom to deists. Next diff from 2008 ends as follows: I would like to add that this matter is resolved, as far as I am concerned. It was unfortunate that Mathsci and I got off to a bad start but the situation has calmed down and I'm sure we'll be able to co-operate in a constructive way in the future. I most certainly do not want to see Mathsci blocked, he has made many constructive edits and is valuable to Wikipedia. He has offered his apologies and I've offered mine for our heated exchange and I believe that no more needs to be said about it. I wish to thank the other users and administrators involved in this discussions for constructive and meaningful comments that helped to diffuse the situation. JdeJ (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC) The fourth diff was about Ethnic groups of Europe where a Suomi editor was removing good edits by Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) which are still in the article. Normal nationalist issues there. The fifth diff is by Danko Georgiev, MD, who was blocked for a week for attempting to out me as Alan Weinstein, then head of department in Berkeley,and actualy a friend of mine. So you get a γ- for accuracy but an α+ for misrepresentation and attempted harrassment. Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Note as an uninvolved editor, I have made a temporary change to stop the edit-war short of protection and blocks. See my comments at the talk and come to a consensus that does not violate policy. Enough is enough - if anyone involved wants to continue edit-warring about this matter, they proceed at their own risk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about it and there is no ongoing edit war as you claim. So I have restored Rvcx's version, despite its very mild inaccuracy, which I don't really care that much about. However I do care about secondary sources as they represent one of the pillars of wikipedia editing policy and I hope other editors will continue to respect and abide by those policies. I'm sorry for spoiling the fun for the peanut gallery. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think others can assess for themselves whether there is an ongoing edit-war from just looking at your reversions [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. That is, the same person usually doesn't make 3 identical reverts on the same page within 24 hours if that person doesn't "feel very strongly" about something, nor do they wait until the third revert before even bothering to discuss their issue(s). Some people take a long time to learn, but I suppose it would be better late than never. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if this instance of edit warring ends up being resolved here, I hope there can also be a solution to the problem of Mathsci’s repeated personal attacks. This problem has been going on for as long as I’ve been interacting consistently with Mathsci, which is for around four months, and unless an admin does something about it I doubt it’ll be changing anytime soon. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, by now all these AN/I discussions have become part of "History of the race and intelligence controversy" as well. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be an end to the personal attacks on Mathsci, as well. Some of Mathsci's comments do appear to be personal attacks, but so do most of the edits of the people complaining. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment At the moment it does seem to be a team of editors picking on me all over wikipedia. It includesd the familiar WP:SPAs: David.Kane, Mikemikev, Captain Ocaam and Varoon Arya. I edit Bach Organ Music. I'm editing Orgelbüchlein at the moment. I have the two main English languages source books by Russel Stinson and by Peter Williams (both edition). I also have also have severaal version of the scores. Previously I created Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes and Canonic Variations. Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) has followed me to this article and has started questioning the sources and the standard orthography. However, in all Bach editions there is now a standard spelling which I am adhering to. Breitkopf used a different convention in the nineteenth century, but adopted a different convention along with all other publishers of urtext editions from 1969. I have both of the German Breitkopf editions. In his edit summaries Varoon Arya has started questioning all those sources: the scores, the definitive book by Peter Williams, The Organ Music of J.S. Bach, Cambridge University Press and The Orgelbüchlein by Russell Stinson, Oxford University Press, the only book wholly devoted to the subject. [29][30] I am preparing a long table with 164 entries and he inserted apostrophes of the 19C version, which has now been dropped, probably beacuse of adherence to the autograph, now available in facsimile. Why is he leaving such sneering comments, why isc heasting doubt on the sources and why has he followed me to this article? I think this a concerted attempt by a team of 3 or 4 users to wikihound me. Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: even if that’s true, I think when you look at some of the worse examples of this from Mathsci, they’re of a different caliber than anything that’s coming from the people who are annoyed at him. Here’s a small sampling of some of the worse examples of this from Mathsci. There are a lot more than this that I could provide, but I think these are probably sufficient to demonstrate the point I’m making.

<= The onslaught continues here [31]. I think Varron Arya is trying to provoke an edit war. Fortunately the German 1991 Breitkopf edition is in exact agreement with the two books in its spelling and use of apostrophes.Mathsci (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

[32] In response to a detailed explanation from Varoon Arya of why Mathsci’s preferred version of an article violated NPOV, Mathsci writes “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.” (This was Mathsci’s entire response to VA.) He considered this a sufficient rebuttal to Varoon Arya’s points to revert any efforts to address the NPOV concerns that VA was raising. I don’t think any of the rest of us consider snide comments like this a sufficient response to policy-based arguments that Mathsci makes.

[33] “BTW if you revert my edits you are very likely to be blocked for a considerable period of time, possibly by ArbCom.” I don’t think any of the rest of us have threatened Mathsci with blocks to try and scare him out of reverting our edits. He’s also done the same thing in some of his edit summaries, such as this one: “you'll be blocked if you repeat this POV-pushing”.

[34] “From the blog previously linked to his user page, Captain Occam has an extreme point of view in real life, which also extends to forms of holocaust denial.” I think this is probably the worst example, both because it’s false, defamatory and completely unsupported by anything in my blog or elsewhere; and also because I’m of Ashkenazi (European) Jewish ancestry and had relatives who died in the holocaust. The fact that I’m of Ashkenazi ancestry is mentioned in one of the userboxes on my userpage, which I know Mathsci has looked at, because at several points he’s brought up information he found at external sites that I’ve linked to there. I think he could have known both that this comment was false, and also how offensive I’d find it. And obviously, none of the rest of us have made these sorts of defamatory personal claims about him. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, could you back that up with diffs? Honestly, "most" of the edits from people complaining are personal attacks? I don't see a single instance on BLPN or the race/intelligence talk pages where I've made a personal attack against Mathsci. This thread contains links to dozens of diffs where Mathsci has. The attempt to paint everyone with the same brush in an attempt to exonerate Mathsci's uncivil and domineering behavior is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. When are you people going to realize that Mathsci - no matter how much support he has from certain editors and admins - is an inveterate troll who uses intimidation, harassment, political gamesmanship, and other emotional tactics to try to dictate wikipedia content. He is simply not worth the trouble he causes. It's truculent ciphers like Mathsci that make editing wikipedia an excruciating experience.

So long as you all allow Mathsci to turn every page he touches into a full-scale cockfight, Wikipedia will not be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and it won't be a pleasant place to edit at all, at least not for anyone who doesn't kiss Mathsci's a$$.

No point in belaboring this issue, so I'll leave it at that. do with it what you will. --Ludwigs2 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you come here after this invitation from [35] Captain Occam (talk · contribs)? He has a habit of requesting "help" from other editors, either here, on other noticeboards or articles he's trying push his point of view on. Mathsci (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Because a polite "this may be of relevance to you" is far worse than soliciting allies with personal attacks. Rvcx (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Mathsci; all Occam did was point out that you are (once again) engaging in bad behavior. If I had noticed on my own I would have made the same comment. I do not need help or invitations from other editors to recognize how badly you pervert the principles of Wikipedia. I am, in fact, shocked that other editors seem to think your behavior is acceptable. but that is between them and their own consciences. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwig2, yes your characterization of Mathsci's techniques are fairly correct. That said, they are also tactics being used by you and many of the SPA accounts that Mathsci mentions. The main difference between his edits and the others using similar tactics is that his edits are generally solid, whereas the edits of others are symptomatic of pov pushing. His behavior is not excused by the higher quality of his edits, and neither are the edits and behavior of the SPA editors excused by Mathsci's behavior. At the heart of the matter is the ability to edit wikipedia using well sourced secondary sources with a neutral point of view. Shining a spotlight on his behavior without discussing the underlying context and editing problems is a perfect example of tolling behavior. A.Prock (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, are you accusing me of being an SPA account? Are you accusing me of trolling? Or are you simply diverting attention from the complaint about Mathsci's behavior? I'm sorry, but given the number of people that have had problems with Mathsci, it's a bit ridiculous to argue that all of them were at fault. The pattern is Mathsci himself; if you want to start threads about other editors (including me) then feel free. Rvcx (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

@ A.Prock: AProck - I've never had a squabble with you (or even thought badly of you). In fact, I can count the people I've had squabbles with on Wikipedia on one hand - everyone else on Wikipedia I communicate with well and cooperate with carefully and thoughtfully. My problem with Mathsci is that despite (or perhaps because of) his obvious skills as an editor, he treats other editors in a rude and supercilious fashion, one that I (personally) refuse to put up with. If he were to interact with me in a civil and restrained manner, then I would have the highest opinion of him, and we'd get along well. Because he insists on treating me like vermin, however, I find myself consistently having to clip his wings. I have no use for people who think they are God's gift to Wikipedia, and I have no compunctions about telling them what I think about their bad behavior.

No one gets trouble from me unless they bring the fight to my door, but I have little tolerance for bullies. Mathsci has a long track record of bad behavior, and he has brought the fight to my door more than once. Until he cleans up his act he should not expect me to be gentle or silent in my disapproval. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mathsci's behavior does cross into the realm of inexcusable on occasion. If you read the WP:CPUSH essay, you'll see that Mathsci's uncivil reactions are one of the typical outcomes for editors working on articles where WP:CPUSH is ongoing. A big part of the problem here is that there is an attempt to move the discussion away from content and editing issues to personal civility issues. This is a big reason why there are so many problems dealing with the WP:CPUSH problems. For uninvolved editors, civility issues are a lot easier to identify, pursue and discuss than content issues. A.Prock (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Aprock. The problem here is your attempt to move the discussion away from civility issues (which is what this complaint is about) to content disputes (for which this is not the right venue). Mathsci's behavior cannot be dismissed as an understandable reaction to manipulative POV-pushers—he has consistently treated every editor who disagrees with him in the same uncivil way from the very start. It would great if a good writer and researcher were also good at working with other editors, but unfortunately that's not the case here. Pretending there is not a problem with Mathsci hasn't worked so far and unless something is done about him the problems will continue in the future. Rvcx (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• We're never going to resolve this dispute at AN/I or via RfCs: I think only ArbCom can deal with this situation. Long-term POV pushing by single-purpose accounts has turned the whole area of race and intelligence into an intractable battleground. I'd like to see all SPAs in this area topic banned. Fences&Windows 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree entirely. The continued attacks on Mathsci here and elsewhere are a distraction and a blot on the project -- no one should be subject to such vitriol simply because they're trying to uphold core Wikipedia standards. The SPA activity needs to be curtailed, and these accounts blocked from editing, or, at the very least, put under severe editing restrictions regarding both the "race and intelligence" subject area and attacks and complaints about Mathsci. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fences and Beyond My Ken: 1) This complaint against MathSci was bought by Rvcx. Would you describe him as engaging in "vitriol" or as an "SPA"? 2) Am I one of the editors who you seek to block? The only reason that I engaged in this thread is because Akhilleus mentioned by name in a misleading fashion. David.Kane (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all a smoke screen. If we step back and look at the bigger picture, Mathsci may be involved in a few minor incidents from time to time, but he is not the problem on race related articles. Rather it is civil POV pushing, tag teaming, edit warring SPAs who are creating an atmosphere conducive for incidents. The solution to this problem already exists, topic ban POV pushing SPAs, and repeated threads on ANI will reduce or cease altogether. Unfortunately there has not been enough political will to implement this solution, though almost everyone, including the SPAs themselves, have acknowledged the existence of POV pushing SPA editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda: Given your rampant sock-puppetry in the past, you are probably doing MathSci more harm than good by chiming in here. I, at least, have never "acknowledged the existence of POV pushing SPA editing." David.Kane (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy excuse to divert from the main problem and I have heard it countless times whenever editors try to discredit any edits I make. From my experience, it doesn't work very often which is why I am still quite active on Wikipedia. If a suggestion is good for this encyclopedia, it really shouldn't matter, and it usually doesn't matter who it is coming from. There might be a tendency to focus only on the negative, but there are some positives, I've been editing Wikipedia for five years now and I have experienced many of these controversies before. During that unfortunate period, Mathsci did participate in getting me blocked. But from my time on Wikipedia, I have encountered Mathsci's edits in a diverse range of articles. Most are uncontroversial and of good quality, so I am confident that Mathsci is not a POV pushing SPA, and that when this particular flare-up is over, he will move on to work on other articles. Overall he is a net plus to the encyclopedia. I cannot say the same for the band of SPAs currently holding a number of race related articles hostage. Captain Occam, Mikemikev, Bpesta have all acknowledged in one way or another that they are SPAs. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(convenience break)

I find it incredibly discouraging to see that even in the face of conduct from Mathsci of the sort that Rvcx and I have linked to above, behavior which has no equivalent from any of the users complaining about Mathsci in this thread, Beyond my Ken and Fences & Windows both believe that the solution is to punish everyone but Mathsci. It really seems like what Ludwigs2 described might be the case: that there are certain administrators who will support Mathsci regardless of what he does, and that since Mathsci is aware of this fact, he knows that he has free reign to violate any policies here without any fear of negative consequences.

Aren’t either of the admins who are saying this aware that at this point, no more than half of the users currently complaining about Mathsci’s behavior are SPAs? The only users currently making these complaints who could arguably fit that definition are me, David.Kane and Mikemikev. Rvcx, Ncmvocalist, and Ludwigs2 clearly aren’t SPAs, and the first two became involved in the article only as a result of it being brought up at the BLP noticeboard. The current conflict between them and Mathsci is the result of them trying to remove material that (as I explained above) according to Jimbo Wales is a BLP violation, and Mathsci edit warring to reinsert it. Following Jimbo Wales’ instructions about how to comply with BLP policy is not POV-pushing, and the editors who initiated this complaint because of how Mathsci reacted when they tried to do this aren’t SPAs. In this situation, do you seriously think the problem is just with “POV-pushing SPAs”? If David.Kane and I weren’t involved in these articles, and it were only Rvcx and Ncmvocalist trying to remove the BLP violations, is there any evidence that Mathsci would be treating them any differently from how he currently is?

I really hope I can get through to you about what’s actually going on here, although I don’t have all that much hope about it. My understanding of the current situation is that Mathsci knows he can ignore whatever policies that he wants here, because he expects admins like the two of you to support him regardless of what evidence or arguments are presented against him. And judging by what I’ve seen thus far, it looks like he might be right that this is the case. If he is, then we may as well abandon all pretense of users being judged objectively on the basis of their behavior—apparently, the only thing that really matters is who the admins personally like or dislike. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam canvassing [36], and forum shopping [37]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If they were no POV pushing SPAs, would many of these incidents exist. The history of these articles suggests not. This dispute has been running for eight months, Mathsci was not initially involved and during the mediation he did not participate for 2-3 months. During Mathsci's absence there was still name-calling, incivility, edit warring and blocks. It is evident that the real problem is the existence of SPAs rather than Mathsci's edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 may not be an SPA, but Mathsci was, for some time, the only remaining editor complaining about his (sorry, I can't think of a word which is both accurate and not a personal attack, ummm, let me think), "mediation" on Race and intelligence. He has a personal interest in Mathsci's being discredited, as it's the only way that his "mediation" might not be considered a reason for a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The characterisation of the personal behaviour on Wikipedia of Mathsci by Ludwigs2, although strongly expressed, has much truth in it. Apart from that, the edits by Mathsci and his supporters to the article History of the race and intelligence controversy‎ seem to me and to several other people to be tendentious and slanted. Attempts to place a NPOV flag on that article have been repulsed. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

There is zero truth in Ludwigs2's unfortunate characterization of Mathsci as an "inveterate troll", a few paragraphs above. Mathsci doesn't make "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors" (see WP:TROLL). On the contrary, a deep care for the encyclopedia seems to be what motivates Mathsci (and, admittedly, sometimes make him lash out in crude hyperbole). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Captain Occam canvassing [38], and forum shopping [39]."

Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to look into what's actually going on before making these sorts of accusations about me? I contacted Black Kite because he specifically asked me to contact him if there's more edit warring on these articles. As for Ludwigs2, I contacted him because during the four months that I've been interacting with Mathsci, he's the only person who's been the subject of more personal attacks from Mathsci than I have, and in a thread about Mathsci's personal attacks it seemed like it would be appropriate to have Ludwig's input.

If you look through the three AN/I threads in which Mathsci tried to get Ludwigs2 banned because of his actions as mediator, the first two of which were started by other users and hijacked by Mathsci, you'll see that Ludwig was begging Mathsci to raise his content disputes within the mediation itself, and Mathsci repeatedly refused. Mathsci's complaints in all three of these threads were almost exclusively either personal attacks on Ludwig, or content disputes over the article that he was attempting to resolve via administrative action against the user he disagreed with without attempting any form of dispute resolution with them, even when the user he disagreed with was specifically requesting this. This last thing is something he's done several times with me and David.Kane also.

Arthur Rubin and Beyond My Ken, are you going to make any attempt to address the points I've made about the attitude you're expressing here? Or are you going to continue expressing what appears to be blind support for Mathsci, while refusing to acknowledge any of the evidence that's being presented that his behavior really is his own fault, and not someone else's? --Captain Occam (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm not going to make an attempt to address the points you've made. I agree that Mathsci can be abrasive, but, as he's not violating any of the Pillars, the good of the encyclopedia should be considered. Mathsci has made more constructive contributions than all the people who have complained about him, combined.

For those who consider this contrary to my view of Betacommand, so be it. His bots may have made more constructive edits than his detractors, but they also made more nonconstructive edits than his detractors made constructive edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the diffs that I and others have posted are sufficient to demonstrate that Mathsci is violating the fourth of the five pillars: “Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner”. Mathsci isn’t avoiding personal attacks, he isn’t avoiding edit wars, and he isn’t assuming good faith about just about any of the users that he disagrees with. I agree that he’s made a lot of constructive contributions also, but I don’t think that should grant him carte blanche permission to ignore policies such as WP:Civility and WP:NPA, which seems to be both his own attitude and the attitude of several of the admins who’ve commented here. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the many posts I have read of yours over the past months are more than sufficient to show that you are a civil POV-pushing single purpose account whose contributions are not conducive to improving an encyclopedia writen from a neutral point of view. As such, your comments get from me exactly as much consideration as they deserve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what Ludwigs2 and I are talking about. I guess it’s good that you aren’t afraid to state it publicly: that as an administrator, your decisions in cases like this one will be based on your personal opinions of the editors in question, and will disregard any evidence that’s presented if you don’t like the users posting it. Is there anyone else who feels this way? If there are any other admins who’ve decided ahead of time that they aren’t interested in handling situations like this one objectively, I think it’s useful for those of us who are the targets of Mathsci’s personal attacks to know about that. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, will never be an administrator, and as far as I know have never presented myself as an administrator. Were I an administrator, you would have been blocked long before now. My judgment is that you are a net negative for the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone please topic ban the SPAs already

Or is it necessary to go to Arbcom every time that a topic ban of a POV pusher is needed? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal. Clearly the normal processes of editing on these pages have broken down, and all parties are now convinced that they, and they alone, are in the right amid competing and increasingly acrimonious demands for retribution and justice. Justice is something that this board is never going to be able to supply, and so the problem comes back time after time. When this sort of train-wreck happens, I suggest to the community that everyone, but everyone, be barred from the page for a period of say three months. That is, nobody who has edited this page or its talk page in the past may edit either for a period of three months from the date of their last edit (enforced by a block of commensurate length if violated). This isn't intended to be "fair" or "right", because that's not we can or should aim to do here. Instead, that's what the orderly construction of the encyclopedia demands. The encyclopedia does not, and never will, require these particular people to be editing this particular article at this particular time. There are thousands of people who might be able to make a better job of it, and they can have the chance. 94.196.217.26 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's necessary to go to ArbCom. Or at least see if consensus can be built on this board for banning someone. Even if I thought someone should be banned (and I'm not saying that, because I haven't looked deeply into the matter), I wouldn't do it unilaterally, because I have no desire to be dragged through the wikilawyering that would inevitably ensue. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Promotional, copyvio edits from an account with a conflict of interest

ESWI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely the owner/employee/etc of Education Solutions Worldwide Inc.[40], his edits are only to 3 or 4 articles directly related to that subject and his most recent edits were to restore a promotional copyvio to the Silent Way article [41]. Also possibly related is 206.223.177.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the only other account to edit the Words in Color, which could probably be deleted as purely promotional. Most of their edits seem to be here to promote the concepts associated with their business and put links to various product pages in the articles. The other related article was on the academic himself Caleb Gattegno. I just removed the biography as a copyvio of another website. The rest of it is written to promote and explain the teaching method. Not the individual.--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you requesting of admins, and (since I can guess) would this not be better noted at WP:COIN? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess what he's asking for is fairly obvious, but COIN may be a better venue. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just placed a G11 speedy tag on the Silent Way article as primarily promotional and incapable of improvement by normal editing. The first half of it, as discussed on its talk p., is also a copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If this was an otherwise established editor with a track record who was editing one article inappropriately maybe COIN would be better. But this is a SPA whose sole intent seems to be promotional in nature and who is willing to violate copyright policies to push that promotional intent. In this case I think the COIN is secondary to the SPA/promotional/copyright issues.--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• As an aside, I have seen one or two cases where a new user is genuinely confused by the subsequent deletion of text as an advert after it has been deleted and then released for copyright. If any admins are discussing copyright release with a user, it is probably better to check whether the text is so blatantly promotional as to be unusable, with or without release, beforehand. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  Even if copyright was released, we don't copy and paste about pages or press releases into articles. They aren't usually remotely neutral. In this case there were several promotional links littered through the articles (to product pages) and the sole purpose of this account seemed to promote this academic and his work.--Crossmr (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Mystic Researcher

Resolved

 – WP:BOOMERANGed back on OMR, now blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk · contribs) is a new account that appears to be doing nothing but nominating articles for deletion that were created by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). Since RAN has been in conflict with another editor for nominating his images for deletion (discussion on his talk page), this seems like a very pointy editor. Admin attention would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor notified on his talk page. He also just dumped 13, count 'em, 13 deletion notices onto RAN's page [42] Dayewalker (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well all the deletions are probably in order as the subjects aren't that notable. The fact that the user came here and nominated thirteen articles without making any other edits outside of that article makes me think that this is either Dalejenkins or a sock of a user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Each of the articles that were nominated for deletion was nominated because the article legitimately fell short of the guidelines for notable topics. Richard Arthur has written some great and interesting articles, I read a good number of them, far more than I nominated. Those that I did nominate had no assertion of notability. I invite you all to take a look at the the nominations I made and I'm sure you will agree. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that I agree with you on the nominations, but I have a question: Have you ever edited before on Wikipedia? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) OMR, what other account(s) have you recently used to edit the encyclopedia, and why the current interest in Richard Arthur Noroton's articles and their notability? If you cannot come up with a plausible explanation I would suggest that your account be indefinitely blocked, and all of the nominations procedurally reverted or closed irrespective of their merits (which, looking at them, are questionable) per WP:DENY - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not edited Wikipedia in years. My last account was User:Purplefeltangel back when I was 14. I still read Wikipedia pages sometimes, on and off. I noticed Richard Arthur Norton when I was reading the recent ANI reports about his files being deleted or something. I decided to read up on his articles, and found a few that fell, as I felt, short of notability guidelines. I didn't nominate all the articles that I read. Some of them were obviously significant, like supreme court judges and elected officials and such. I do stand by my nominations and certainly do not mean any disruption or harm. If you do block me, I am sure that someone here will second my nominations, or re-nominate the articles, since they are obviously non-notable. Just have a look at them please. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Looking over these, none of these are either clearly non-notable or WP:SNOW cases of notability. One or two of these nominations in isolation from a legitimate account under normal circumstances would be entitled to an assumption of good faith and should proceed. However, (1) simultaneously nominating thirteen articles created by the same user (2) who is currently blocked (3) for behavior relating to his claim that a wikistalker is nominating his files for deletion (4) from a brand new WP:SPA account created two hours after the block, does seem WP:DUCK-ish (after ec - but please do note the plausible explanation for the SPA given above). The suggestion that others will engage in WP:POINT-y renominations does not seem too helpful. We'd end up with a drama-fest, with people voting to keep or oppose the articles for reasons other than a straightforward review of their notability. It is unlikely that a slug of deletion nominations can be handled in a fair and reasonable way, particularly with the article creator's account blocked. Even if it were not blocked, it would appear to be unduly punitive to force a longtime established editor to deal simultaneously with thirteen nominations of his articles. As an intermediate measure to avoid confusion and wasted effort, it seems best to put a template message on the deletion discussions that points to this report, urging people to hold off on commenting or closing until there is some clear decision how to proceed. My recommendation would be a speedy procedural close without prejudice to a legitimate nomination at a controlled rate of any of these articles that a legitimate editor believes in good faith to lack notability after the article creator is unblocked (and a suggestion to apply WP:BEFORE as well). - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a legitimate editor, I am acting in good faith, and the articles are nominated for valid reasons. Some of them have even gotten "delete" comments already. Besides, the focus should be on the article, not the author, and not the nominator. If the article lacks a place in Wikipedia, it should be nominated for deletion, regardless who wrote it, or what collateral issues we may be having. Thank you. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of them have even gotten "delete" comments already. Yes, from the same editor, User:Mono, whose purpose in WikiLife, judging from their contributions, is to delete things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, in isolation the individual nominations would be in good faith. I don't happen to agree with some of them but that's beside the point. Things have to proceed in an orderly way. Even giving Ocean Mystic Researcher every benefit of the doubt with respect to good faith and sincere intentions, nominating a bunch of articles for deletion at the same time, all created by a blocked editor, because you see that the editor is involved in an AN/I report over claims of stalking/harassment and deletion nominations, is not a good way to go. We could let the nominations run their course, a few may be deleted, others may be kept - but if so, at a minimum we should unblock the article creator so they can comment here and on the deletion nominations. I still don't think it's fair to subject an already-beleaguered editor to that kind of pressure. How far does he have to go to get some relief from being beleaguered? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This does have a pretty unpleasant feel to it: dropping 13 deletion notices in the lap of a blocked inclusionist is not a good situation, somewhat akin to poking a stick at a caged animal. That said, I have a hard time justifying procedural closings: the articles should have been created in a state that would allow them to survive AFD, so there shouldn't be any particular strain in defending 13 at once. If RAN was on a long block, there wouldn't be a good case for refusing to nominate articles he had created, and in that case he couldn't defend them at all.

However, people may want to look at WP:ILLEGIT: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". If people decide this is a sock (and a speedy checkuser might be in order), then the account and the sockpuppeteer should be blocked, and I would endorse closing the AFDs in that case.—Kww(talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my only current account. I disclosed that I was Purplefeltangel, and I last used that account five years ago. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest going down that route without a checkuser to verify your statement.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec - addressing Kww) Agreed, except the comment about creating articles that can withstand AfD without one's further involvement. Most or all of these articles contain unambiguous assertions of notability, sourced to major mentions in reliable sources. Principled arguments for why they are or are not notable will turn on the finer points of the various notability guidelines, e.g. does a local farm that's had a bunch of articles written about its activities and operations fail because it's of local interest only? Is a source that a woman was one of the richest people in her state not really helpful because it's more or less an obituary? 3 days is a mid-range block. For a productive editor who has created scores of articles to be unavailable to comment or improve an article for the first 3 days of a deletion nomination is already a bit sketchy - and would at a minimum weigh in favor of an unblock. But if the nominations are determined to be in bad faith, we can't reward that. Plus, even assuming the best of faith, combing over an editors entire article creation history to systematically nominate a bunch of them for deletion may be an activity we want to prohibit. If that's the punishment for getting into an AN/I fight, it creates a chilling effect. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just can't bring myself to support trying to prohibit articles from being nominated while their creator is blocked, which is the basic result of what you are saying. I think a checkuser is in order, and hopefully quickly. Can someone with access to IM get a checkuser to look at this situation pronto?—Kww(talk) 06:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please factor in as well that it is a holiday weekend here in the States: editing is likely to be below normal levels until Tuesday. (Somehow this situation feels something like a "data dump", where huge amounts of data are dumped on news organizations on Friday, knowing that they will probably not go after it full-bore until Monday, thus buying some time while, simultaneously, being able to claim "full disclosure".) The timing seems suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jdelanoy is gone from the SPI channel on IRC and the two other ones are idle. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This does seem rather pointy and conveniently timed. There's no policy against going through a particular user's contributions and vetting them, but it doesn't seem like the wisest course at this particular point in time. It could be in good faith, but it looks pretty suspicious. That said, it looks as if all of the discussions already have several comments aside from the nominator's, so I'm not entirely comfortable with closing as a procedural keep. I also agree with Kww; I don't think it's a good idea to establish the idea that an article can't be AfDed while its creator is blocked, even if that might have been the better way to go in this particular case. Shimeru (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I can't imagine that the nominations were in good faith, certainly not as a new user's first activity. I think a Checkuser would be in order. (I've recused myself from the AfDs in question for hopefully obvious reasons of propriety.) ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely, yes. Strains belief. But I don't suppose it's entirely impossible. Given this user's admitted method of seeking out these articles in particular, it seems like looking for trouble, at best. Shimeru (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an inflexible rule that an AfD can't occur while the article creator is blocked. But 13 AfDs culled from a single blocked editor's list of contributions based on an AN/I thread related to his block isn't right. You can decide for yourself where we should draw that line, but wherever we draw it this is probably on the other side. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Everything about those AfDs... stinks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Taken altogether and given the timing, these don't look at all like good faith noms. The topics are on the edge of, or barely peeking over, the horizon of GNG, clearly harvested for a pointy spree. Hopefully a CU will have a look at this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• A "brand new user" whose first and only action is to nominate a batch of articles by a user who has an ongoing dispute with one or more other editors over deletions. This is so obvious that, regardless of whose sock it is, I am blocking it as a transparent violation of WP:SOCK. The assertions of good faith by the user are simply implausible. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  Good move on the block. I've got a horrible feeling about where the subtext of, "regardless of whose sock it is" is going, and would just like to say that it is not me and I object to no scrutiny and/or Checkuser to confirm this. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 09:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I do find it very hard to believe that someone without an active account would create an account and flawlessly put together over a dozen AfDs on topics at the bleeding edge of the inclusionist/exclusionist kerfluffles minutes after their creator has been blocked. Moreover, all of the AfDed articles are cleanly written and built, with no worries other than perhaps a need for some talk page discussion as to whether further sourcing might help to show notability more straightforwardly. So even without the timing, templating anyone with a batch of AfDs on articles like this would make me wonder. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• What Bullshit: Those AfDs should be deleted as harassment. Whether any of them are legitimate, a renom for another editor is always available. But if these stand, it just makes harrassing users even easier than it already is.--Milowent (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Would anyone mind if I speedy close them all as disruption posted by a likely sock? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Any article with legit issues can be resubmitted, and hopefully by an account with recent editing history and a good rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing stuff at the computer all this afternoon so I'm here. I'll check back in about two hours and if I don't hear otherwise, I'm going to delete the AfDs altogether as disruption by a likely sock, so as not to muddy up the AfD logs and history. It's ok if some editors think they shouldn't be deleted, rather than speedied, please chime in here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No objection here, Gwen. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted all the AfDs that did not have useful or non-sockpuppet delete votes. The rest should stay, but I am going to strike the votes of Ocean Mystic Researcher. NW (Talk) 12:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors should keep in mind that the likely sock may not be a banned user, although you noted it that way through the handy drop down deletion log menu. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference between block evading sockpuppet and banned user is pretty slight, in my opinion. If I were closing an AFD, I would give both the same amount of weight. NW (Talk) 12:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think the drop-down log summary can be taken as fitting closely enough. I was only reminding, we don't know who did the (very likely) socking, we don't even know if they were evading a block (looks to me like something else is behind this, by the way). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is looking into this situation. Ocean Mystic Researcher and Treasury Tag are  Unrelated. (Of course, the block of Ocean Mystic Researcher is nonetheless correct.) I will report back if we discover any further information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's helpful to know, though for what it's worth, I wasn't thinking of TT. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'd be interested to find out who Ocean is a sock of, though, if/when the time comes. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, to Gwen Gale) It's not the only possibility being looked at. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I understood that from your last post, thanks for having a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Owing to NW's input, rather than deleting the AfDs that were left, I have done a procedural close on all the undeleted AfDs, so that the good faith comments made by editors can be seen later by anyone thinking of starting another AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

May I compliment the involved admins and other users for their handling of this? I was a bit worried about how it was going to be dealt with, but I believe that you all have done the right thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, in his unblock request he claims that I put him up to it, which is, of course, untrue. See my statement on his talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's the person that goes around attempting to get other editors in trouble by copying their editing styles using obvious socks? Could be another instance here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pickbothmanlol??Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Light current is another one, the sockmaster for Anne Maxight is another, Pioneercourthouse may be another. I like to think of them as all just one guy, because they're really (1) indistinguishable and (2) of no value whatsoever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for adding a Barnstar to User talk:Wiooiw

Let's try again: WP:DENY Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – WP:ANI semi-protected for a little bit to prevent the excessive socking. –MuZemike 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Hey you can add me to for a checkuser, I will admit it already, I am evading a block. But could someone at least tell me why this edit needs to be reverted. It is just a barnstar. He earned it for reporting me. I seriously think you guys turned this into an edit war. Now his userpage is protected for what... adding a barnstar. This is pretty pathetic. You can block me, but dont remove this. You will just be avoiding the real issue. GSmith555x (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Also note, if you remove this, i will keep adding it to his talk page (so indef his talk) unless someone is open for a discussion. Not that hard. GSmith555x (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Nice. Something really to get blocked over. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC) If they are admittedly evading a block, yeah, that will get you blocked in a heartbeat, barnstar or not. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Well, now I am Banned for it. Could someone nicely put it back on, or tell him about this section and the Sock investigation so he can do it himself. also block me too. 45garry4 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Silly sock is silly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC) This is not resolved yet because nobody told me why the barnstar cant be put back. I also made a new oneGgg564sss (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) sigh. Barnstars are for positive recognition, not to ridicule, harass or intimidate other users. Just because you removed profanity from it doesn't change the fact that you gave it to someone for the wrong reason. Please stop creating socks too. I'd suggest going back to your original account and using {{unblock}} and make a really good case for being unblocked. Thanks —Tommy2010 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I suspect even the original account was a sock of someone, and that he'll never get unblocked. Also, Spartaz (talk · contribs) has just blocked this latest sock, we can archive this thread if no one wants it. —Soap— 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Tommy2010, you have been the most helpfull person. I would give you a barnstar but somebody would have it removed. Now, look at the barnstar [43]. I am giving it to him because he Repored me. Thats why i gave it to him. GGGSSSGS (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Another block coming right up, I hope... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Yep. Blocked them as another sock. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane's disruptive blanking: Jensen and his writings on "American Negroes"

• David.Kane (talk · contribs)
• History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mainstream Science on Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruptive blanking:

• Adrian Wooldridge (Cambridge University Press) [44] (summary of Wooldridge's precis of book)
• William H. Tucker (University of Illinois Press) [45]
• Michael Byrd and and Linda Clayton (Routledge)[46]
• Joan Freeman (Springer Verlag) [47][48]
• Donald T. Campbell, [49], [50]

Forum shopping on WP:BLPN [51], [52], [53]

Typical example

• Jensen quote blanked by David.Kane: "well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve [the] lot" of blacks
• Actual long Jensen quote: "As a social policy, avoidance of the issue could be harmful to everyone in the long run, especially to future generations of Negroes, who could suffer the most from well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve their lot."

David.Kane is an editor who mostly edits race-related articles where he engages in WP:CPUSH. This editor has somehow decided that Arthur Jensen wrote no articles mentioning African Americans and their learning problems. This is manifestly untrue and is reported in multiple secondary sources (history books, commentaries, academic papers and books) as well as in Jensen's original articles and books. Now, for whatever reason, he has decided that if there there is a statement in a secondary source about Jensen that he doesn't like, he can just remove it as a BLP violation. This he seems to regard as his passport for removing all content where Jensen makes remarks about African Americans: Jensen referred to African Americans as "Negroes" or "American Negroes" in articles and papers in the late 60s and early 70s. So far David.Kane has challenged material written by Donald T. Campbell, and William H. Tucker, on the grounds that they were written maliciously and misrepresented Jensen. However, the material is repeated in many secondary sources. William H. Tucker is still alive so allegations of this kind on wikipedia amount to some form of libel. Now he has removed text on the same subject by Joan Freeman, an English psychologist specialising in gifted education. Researchers in this particular area are extremely pro IQ-tests and in general have welcomed Jensen's work. So the idea that Joan Freeman is writing maliciosly in a Springer Verlag text book is highly unreasonable. It is another example of David.Kane trying to remove all connection between Jensen and his documented statements on American Negroes. Similarly he has removed a section in the lede of History of the race and intelligence controversy which was a simple extract of what was is still in the main text taken from the book of Adrian Wooldridge, historian and managemant editor of The Economist. Similarly he removed a passage cited in a textbook of Michael Byrd and Linda Clayton (also cited in Tucker). I have no idea why David.Kane is doing this. Does he really seriously expect other wikipedians to believe that all these authors, many still living, are deliberately misrepresenting Jensen? In no cases so far have David.Kane's objections been in any way justified. He is using this as another method of WP:CPUSH to waste other editors' time, as pointed out to him by other users on the talk of the History article (notably Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)).

A few weeks ago he decided that all material of this kind was fine, leaving "Kudos!" messages about the content. Now he is attempting to remove the very same factual statements, appearing in multiple secondary sources, on the tenuous and usually unsupportable grounds that they are BLP violations. David.Kane is a single purpose user who is edit warring on History of the race and intelligence controversy to remove any mention of the documented fact that Jensen discussed possible policies involving African Americans.

It is absurd that he suggests that the En[glish academic Joan Freeman could be writing malicious falsehoods in a book published by Springer Verlag. That really is going one step too far and is clearly an unreasonable excuse for removing properly referenced content. On the basis of his edits today, he will continue to remove any statements that don't suit him, claiming that they are BLP violations. That will exclude him from the 3RR rule. However it now makes it tremendously difficult in those circumstances to use any secondary sources, no matter how realiable or how eminent the author, when writing about Jensen. This does not seem reasonable and seems to be a misuse of WP editing policies. He has removed material four or more times in 24 hours, which normally would result in a block for breaking the 3RR rule. Please could administrators look at the way he is trying to misinterpret wikipedia editing policy to cause disruption. I have no idea what his motives are. Apart from occasionally editing articles related to Williams College, he only edits race-related articles and usually from the hereditaraian point of view, that is, the recorded fact that African Americans score lower on average on IQ tests than White Americans has an inherent genetic cause connected with their race. Usually David.Kane is supported by editors that include Captain Occam, Mikemikev and Varoon Arya. Distributivejustice was another supporter but he retired as an editor (around about the time Ludwigs2 was blocked by BozMo). Many of these users almost exclusively edit race-related articles from the same point of view as David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder along the same lines as Mathsci here: these claims are made by otherwise reputable, reliable sources and therefore are acceptable, at least as being their authors' interpretation of what Jensen said. Specifically because it seems there may be issues as to where (and maybe whether) Jensen said exactly those things, it would be prudent not to put them in Wikipedia's voice, but to attribute them to their various authors. However, the fact that the same comments can be found in different sources lends strong credence to the fact that Jensen actually said those things. As long as proper attribution is maintained, I don't see that there is a problem to include them; indeed, I can see where Mathsci can contend that excluding them on the basis that these several authors are "misrepresenting Jensen's words" can be construed as a BLP violation of those otherwise reputable researchers. So, let's just make sure the comments on Jensen are properly attributed to their authors and let it go at that. I fail to see a BLP violation there at all.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:37, 31 Ma]]y 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake. It's about time, however, that something was done to reign in single-purpose POV pushers on these articles. Perhaps a long-duration topic ban for David Kane and Occam is appropriate, at this point? Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

More disruptive blanking and misrepresentation by David.Kane who has undisclosed WP:COI

• Allan Ornstein (1982) [54][55]

David.Kane's blanking is continuing. He has also claimed that the new material, properly credited to a professor of adminsitrative administration, is another BLP violation. Thats frivolous assertion seems to be false. He also claims that new 1982 source added by me just yesterday has alereadt been discussed. He wrote this in his second edit summary, but it is untrue. In fact David.Kane appears to have an undisclosed and very serious conflict of interest here. In 2009 he created an article which since has been deleted and its content userfied at User:David.Kane/EphBlog. During the AfD, David.Kane admitted that he was the person of the same name who had started the blog when queried about WP:COI by User:Blueboar. Now on this blog in February 2010 David.Kane made the following statement [56] about African Americans in elite colleges in the US:

Looking at the 6 year data from the Diversity Initiatives, you are three times more likely to fail to graduate from Williams if you are black then if you are white. Does Williams have an obligation to tell this to admitted students?

I suspect that this is not so much as race issue as an academic rating issue. I bet that US students with AR 1 have a 98% graduation rate while US students with AR 4 or below are at 80% or worse. If so, shouldn’t Williams be honest about that discrepancy? Would those students be better off at a different, less competitive school?

This is a very extreme statement. These views conflict with David.Kane's claim to be neutral and "agnostic". It indicates a WP:COI. Already this was the case when he volunteered as a "neutral third party" to write the draft of the modified version of Race and intelligence in March 2010 during the last stages of mediation. His continuing tendentious and disruptive blanking of material from reliable secondary sources on History of the race and intelligence controversy is certainly not designed to improve this encylopedia. Another plausible explanation, differing from the many constantly changing reasons offered so far, is that David.kane is removing this material from wikipedia for very strong personal reasons connected with not having his heated arguments on ephblog undercut by wikipedia.

David.Kane has now been disrupting the writing of this article by spuriously blanking the same material from completely different reliable academic sources multiple times. It's time he was blocked for edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

His tag team member Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring in the same way, blanking material from reliable secondary sources without explanation at all, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This, by the way, is typical behaviour for the single puprose account. Just disruption with no desire whatsoever to build a reliable encyclopedia. Instead of content to wikipedia, these two users are tendentiously removing without any justification.[57][58] I have which has written most of the 82,000 bytes of content of History of the race and intelligence controversy. All these SPAs do is tendetniously and dsiruptively remove content that conflicts with their extreme personal points of view. In this case Occam should not have edit warred (for which he blocked three times) but discussed what was wrong with the sourced material on the talk page of the article. Apparently he doesn't feel the need to do that. Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is creepy. Following DK around to find that he's concerned with why people drop out of college. This is a content dispute, deal with it. 94.196.104.45 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He’s done this to me also. My userpage used to have a link to my DeviantArt account, so even after I’d removed the link Mathsci has sometimes dug through my account there and brought up stuff he’d found in it on-wiki in an attempt to cast me in a negative light. For example, his accusation that I’m a holocaust denier was based on an old blog post he’d found from before I became a Wikipedian, which I’d never linked to on-Wiki, so apparently he’d searched through all of my blog posts from before I became active here to see what sort of dirt he could dig up there. (The post he’d found also didn’t support his claim about this—all I’d said in it was that the victorious allies committed war crimes also.) I wish WP:NPA would be enforced about stuff like this. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "creepy" about this. D.K admitted to being the author of the blog in question. That's not "following DK around." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the very definition of ad hominem, and a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest. MathSci is effectively labeling David.Kane a racist on the basis of this blog entry and arguing that such a viewpoint renders him incapable of editing on Wikipedia. The premise is absurd, and the logic that any private political stance could invalidate an editor's contributions is simply wrong on more levels than I could list. Rvcx (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

-

Having and voicing an opinion isn't a COI. While I agree with Mathsci that assing criticisms of Jensen is never a BLP issue when sourced to reliable sources this is just a waste of time taking the focus from the real problems at the Race and Intelligence related pages. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Mikemikev (talk · contribs)

Here is the latest bout of edit warring in action, where this tag team continues to blank sourced content indiscriminately from reliable secondary source without any cogent reasons:

1. David.Kane [59]
2. Captain Occam [60]
3. Mikemikev [61]
4. Mikemikev [62]
5. Mikemikev [63]

There has been more forum shopping at WP:BPLN here, where so far no support has emerged for the tag team's claim of BLP violations. There are a lot of reliable secondary sources which contain the same material and they have existed for years. What is slightly disrutbing is that these are removing actual factual content about Jensen's theory of Level I and Level II theories of learning which he did actually apply to explain the low IQ scores of African Americans. If David.Kane, Captain Occam or Mikemikev have some doubt about this, they should presumably explain, because the theory is repeated in countless psychology textbooks. Are they trying to WP:CENSOR wikipedia because this material doesn't suit [[their point of view? Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

In light of the page move vandalism that's been going on in the past hour or so, are there any scripts or other tools to help automate revision deletion? It's a bit tedious cleaning up the mess one-by-one. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As it's still quite new, I would suggest probably not. I haven't rev deleted anything yet, so what exactly were you finding troublesome? Ale_Jrb^talk 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The page moves (back and forth) and subsequent deletions create quite a few log entries, which can be tedious to fix, but I think most of the stuff actually did not require log redaction. Of course, some of it did. decltype (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reverting moves is the issue I usually have with these situations - you need to manually move, rollback doesn't work. Typically I find myself - not necessarily correctly - thinking that speed is the most important thing. Earlier I stuck a db-attack tag on a page, then realised it was only the page title that was an attack. All very avoidable, but less than convenient in a "crisis" (not that these incidents are crises, but it feels like that when you see another editor being attacked). It would be good if rollback was a one-stop-shop for incidents like this, i.e. if it worked on page moves and new pages. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the history of at least one user page was accidentally broken by an admin who were cleaning up, and I'm not sure if fixing it is worth creating a lot of new move summaries / log entries that would have to be redacted. decltype (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert2.js – Anti-page move vandalism script. Use with care. Unfortunately, it does not also revdelete logs. NW (Talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Please do not use if there are oversighted logs in the way; I don't believe the script can handle that. NW (Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I have proposed restricting userspace moves here. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

JIDF at Gaza flotilla clash

JIDF is bringing people to Gaza flotilla clash http://www.thejidf.org/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-wikipedia-continues-to-be.html

In only a couple of hours many new editors registered today have stared editing the article. Is there some way anyone can lock the article so that no new editors can edit it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's protection, but... since this is a current event I'd personally prefer to avoid that if it all possible (and I'll concede that it may not be...)

Apparently we're "group-thinking terror sympathizers and leftists" (per the JIDF), so I suppose steering new editors towards working on articles... like... these won't necessarily be to their tastes, but I do feel we should be welcoming these editors, even if their initial contributions may be less than helpful.

Disclaimer: I'm opposed to "the State", not "the State of Israel".

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Protection has already been requested. I'm inclined to move towards "yes please, let's protect and get edit requests onto the talk page instead", but purely because editing is no longer easy/possible due to edit conflicts. Crap reason for supporting protection, I know... TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support semiprotection. Definitely needed; the sheer volume of editing from IPs is making life difficult all round. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've granted both requests. You might want to consider whether full protection is appropriate, but I'll leave it for another admin to determine that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I don't think full protection is appropriate at this stage but let's keep an eye on things to see how they develop. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I love the way anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel is automatically an anti-Zionist and anti-Semite. Way to go, guys, that kind of attitude makes it much easier to spot and ban you. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Preaching to the wrong choir, JzG. No one here fits that description.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, any chance of getting 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip put under the same protection for the time being ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I like everything in this area to go strictly by the book, so put in the formal request at WP:RFPP and in the meantime, I will look to see what is going on with the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it and do not see much going on there. Very little vandalism. I probably wouldn't grant the request, but what I will do is not respond to it and let you take your luck with another admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have been protected by Wehwalt. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not too bad at 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip yet so I'll see how it goes. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, Wehwalt. They are cranks, pure and simple - it's just nice to have an unambiguous one every now and then when people actively flag themselves as needing removal from a subject. Much easier than the climate change war. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Those new editors pushing POV should be blocked (by their IP)Lihaas (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• More eyes certainly wouldn't hurt, but I've just commented on one editor's talk page that the overall conduct seems to be pretty good, considering the highly-charged atmosphere offline. Plenty of POV pushing by both sides, but it's pretty obvious and t'other side and more neutral editors are counter-balancing it. TFOWR^{is this too long?} 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oversight required

Resolved

 – Request withdrawn. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I not from my watchlist that some reent good faith and necessary edits by User:Amalthea actually need oversighting, as their content is still very visible.  Giacomo  12:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't understand these things, they are not showing as her contribs, but as "(Deletion log); 10:53 . . Amalthea (talk | contribs) deleted..." - anyway there is a quite a few of them. all showing as red links. also edits of "(Protection log); 10:49 . . MER-C."  Giacomo  12:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea has the tools to take care of that himself if he so chooses. —DoRD (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK leave these vile statements or whatever they are where they are then for all to see.  Giacomo  12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I revdeleted some myself, and had notified Oversight (although I'm sure they knew already) who went through revisions and logs. I'd leave the rest of the log entries visible since they appear to be "merely" vandalism, including the one you refer to. Amalthea 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake, do I have to spell it out - a clear real life Arb's Christian name and full name of an ex-arb are mentioned "???? is an old hag who loves censorship and hates freedom of speech. She is also ???? ??????'s whore. It and the others like it need oversighting. There are also numerous mentions of the same arb its username leaving peope in no doubt of the Arb's name. an earlier now removed summary was a "complete outing". They need to go.  Giacomo  13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the one being referred to was oversighted, as I recall revdeleting the action myself. Many others have been appropriately revdeleted. Giacomo it's taken a few hours to clean up this mess. If there's any left, feel free to contact oversight or an admin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I emailed them hours ago and nothing happened. The one mentioning a Christian name has just a moment ago dissapeared, but various others remain.  Giacomo  13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight apparently have been around. But tell me whose contributions and I'll get on to it. There have been many hundreds of edits involved in this cleanup. It won't be surprising if one or two are missed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The worst seems to have no gone, some 2feline refeences remain, but i am sure we have all read worse. However, this remains as a red link [64] perhaps that needs oversighting too. It is not flattering or true.  Giacomo  13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if unflattering and untrue fit the criteria for log redaction. However thank you for bringing the others to attention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a holiday weekend in both the US and the UK, so many of the oversighters (along with everyone else) are away. Additionally, the vandal may be thinking he or she is taking advantage of the results of the Oversight/Checkuser election, which were announced yesterday. The Arbitration Committee is discussing how to proceed in light of those results, and input on the issue is welcome (see WP:AC/N for announcement). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Perhaps it would be a good idea if I have oversight tool myself. Then I could efficiently deal with the various taxing matter which I encounter myself.  Giacomo  18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember, admins don't have full oversight powers, we merely revdelete so only admins can see. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, and a very god job they do too. I just think, as I'm very astute, if I have oversight, it would negate so many litle problems that I could deal with myself amd make the site so much more relaxing for us all.  Giacomo  20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing on Tenet Healthcare

{{resolved|1=[[Tenet Healthcare]] is temporarily semi-protected. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•[[User:MC10/Guestbook|GB]]•[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=MC10 L])</font></small>'''</span> 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolved

See the recent history.-Regancy42 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Locked for three days, user given words of advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PP states "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." This was an isolated case, so the article should have been left unprotected while the editor should have been blocked. Basket of Puppies 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in this case, believing that the user in question is editing in good faith, and while competency is required we also should not bite </bluelink horror>. According to user talk page, he seems unfamiliar with Wiki-editing. Protection = less edit warring until user educated, blocking = bye bye potential contributor :( S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting of alleged personal information

Resolved

 – Chloe81375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked, and his revisions are deleted. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Chloe81375 has posted alleged personal information in a discussion on Talk:Bill Phillips (author)‎ with threats to post additional information on other users. See [65]. This is obviously a violation of Wikipedia's privacy policy (even if untrue). --Yankees76 (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a clear case of WP:OUTING. I see the editor has already been warned, though; should he redo this, I think he ought to be blocked.

In the meantime, an admin might consider using his magical REVDEL tool... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already REVDEV'd it, and I've indef'd the user. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Even though the user wasn't even close - it was more harassment than outing - thanks for taking care of the issue. Cheers. --Yankees76 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Community ban of User:B9 hummingbird hovering

For background and numerous diffs see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering

• I'm afraid I feel it's the end of the line for this user. For the past two years numerous users have tried to get him to tone down his extremely verbose and unwieldy writing style, mostly in the already obscure area of Tibetan Buddhism. Attempts have been made to explain to him that this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be written for a general audience and that it's content should be comprehensible to the average person, but he has steadfastly ignored or belittled those who have tried to speak to him about these matters. A full user conduct RFC was initiated last month, and B9 refused to participate, twice announcing his "retirement" only to return a few days later. My attempt to get him to participate in the RFC was met with this reply [66] in which he once again categorically denies that any editing he has done has caused problems and rejects the very idea of consensus based decision making. The RFC includes many diffs showing his overuse of dense, flowery language in contradiction to the WP:MOS advice on the subject: "Articles are supposed to introduce readers to topics, or remind them of what they had half-forgotten: it is not their purpose to dazzle readers with editors' learning or vocabulary. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, vague phrases, and unnecessary complexity."" The shame of all this is that he is clearly knowledgeable in these areas, but refuses to express that knowledge in a plain, comprehensible manner as required in an encyclopedia.

• Relevant policy pages:

• WP:OWN
• WP:CON
• WP:MOS
• WP:CIVIL

• Seeing as B9 has refused to acknowledge there is a problem and will not participate in any meaningful way in a discussion of his editing, taking this to ArbCom would very likely be an exercise in futility. A lesser editing restriction would require acknowledgement of the problem on B9s part, which to date has not happened. A ban discussion seems the best remaining avenue as attempts to come to a voluntary agreement have failed due to B9s refusal to participate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not interacted with the user in question, but I read through some of the material and it all seems rather surreal and bizarre. This request for banning does raise one question though: has the issue ever been taken to Arbcom? It seems to me that that would be the next logical step. Or if the issue has been reviewed by Arbcom, could you please provide a link? (Note: I've been editing here about a year now, and am just now starting to watch these admin pages, so please forgive me if I'm missing something about how this all is supposed to work.) Yworo (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is not a requirement for a community ban. We just need to see if the user in question has exhausted the community's patience. AniMate 19:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom cases is for complex disputes that can't be resolved by normal dispute resolution channels. That's why Beeblebrox took it to this level, from what I'm seeing as an uninvolved user--this seems to be a simple case of a user who isn't willing to interact with others. For that reason, I endorse Beeblebrox's proposal. Blueboy96 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suspect someone who refused to participate in an RFC about himself wouldn't participate in an arbitration case either, so most likely any attempt at arbitration would simply delay action on the matter, but it did seem like the obvious next step to me. Yworo (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is why I specifically explained in my initial statement above why I did not go that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies: I guess I read the first bullet point and the links and then forgot to read the last or had glazed over by then. :-) Yworo (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've run into this editor briefly recently and have been looking at his edit and old talk page comments. It seems pretty clear he doesn't engage in serious communication with other editors, and his edits are rarely helpful to readers and may be self-indulgent. I don't see any chance of his changing this behavior, Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'd support this under WP:COMPETENCE. I was involved in an early ANI post on this user's conduct (thought I never did get around to certifying the RFCU), and it is genuinely disruptive of the project; any article on Tibetan Buddhism watched by B2HH gradually backslides into an impenetrable wall of jargon, and he demonstrably has no interest in changing his behaviour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Competence is clearly an issue here. The user's unwillingness to participate in a valid RfC doesn't bode well either. AniMate 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - after reviewing many of this contributor's edits and interactions with other editors in edit comments and on talk pages, I don't see that any other solution would be possible. Yworo (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. You can't squeeze blood from a rock: apparently, he's not here to edit in a collegial fashion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per above and my comments at the RFC/U PlainJain (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support clearly not a collaborative editor - that is a requirement for editing here.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It always makes me sad to ban based on WP:COMPETENCE, because I'm a teacher. But when teaching has failed, the encyclopedia's good needs to be considered, and I think that allowing him to continue editing will simply put us in the position of perpetually trying to restore readability to these articles, which his writing turns into gibberish. I'm a person with two degrees in English literature. Big words and complex sentences don't alarm me. I think James Joyce's Ulysses is a great book, and I understand it (well, a lot of it). This user's writing isn't the complex, flowing language of someone who is expressing big ideas and forgetting an audience of laymen... it's the language of someone using complex, flowering language to obscure ideas. It's not reminiscent of Joyce's complex language. It's reminiscent of a student using lots of big words to cover the fact that she doesn't actually understand the material. Read it slowly and carefully, untangle the complicated sentences, define the unfamiliar words, and at the end, you see that a lot of what he's writing doesn't mean anything at all. Since he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that this is a problem, and has done for several years, I don't see it getting better, ever. I have to sadly agree that the encyclopedia needs his absence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Look what he did to Nondualism (before after). Especially this sentence, which he placed in the lede:

Traditions of nonduality may be identified in the Ancient World Traditions such as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Persia and Ancient India whose influences pervade the modern world; in the Classical traditions of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, Dharmic Traditions of theistic religions and non-theistic traditions origins rooted in the ground of the Indian subcontinent but are now globally pervasive; Abrahamic Traditions such as Christianity and Judaism; and Indigenous Traditions such as the Navajo Nation of the Americas, in a number of philosophers such as Buber for example, critical theorists such as Gadamer[1] and Derrida[2], and various mystics within traditions orthodox and heterodox proper or arising outside of any tradition, amongst others.

B9 leaves it to other editors to translate this impenetrable pseudo-academic obstructionism into standard written English. — goethean ॐ 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's a fair example of his writing, it's not good. Ironically, the proposal here is to give B9 a lengthy sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I was only made aware of this ANI discussion (and the prior RFC) as a result of a message on my talk page here and having looked at B9's contributions and the discussions on their talk page, on the RFC and here, I am forced to agree that despite being asked to write in a manner which is consistent with the style of the English Wikipedia, they have not been willing to do so. They do not appear to be willing to work in a collobarative way. Their writing style is needlessly verbose and complicated - I do not think that I'm stupid (although I know that I am a long way from being very intelligent!), but I found several examples of their edits hard to follow. If they are unwilling to follow the guidelines (including the MoS) and to work with other editors, then a ban is in order. If this means that they believe me to be part of the group "bullying" them (as per the accusation on my talk page which ironically got me to look into this), then I'm sorry: but I do not see bullying here of anyone. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support having read the diffs, RfC etc. Communicating in this text-only medium is problematic enough without complicating it, especially when we're writing for a global audience of all ages and abilities. It's the dismissal of reams of good advice that's most concerning though. In common with others I don't see any bullying; this is merely an unpleasant duty made necessary by B9's own refusal to learn. EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(the) Ohio State University

Resolved

 – This is a content discussion and belongs on Talk:Ohio State University, not here.

User:75.23.202.149 has made multiple reverts of content related to Ohio State University by placing the word "the" in front of "Ohio State University" -- normally, something that could be handled through discussions. To make matters worse, the user may actually be technically right in these reverts even though it appears that consensus may not be supporting such moves.

I first asked the user and other interested parties to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#More "THE" OSU B.S. (which isn't exactly a "neutral point of view" name but the discussion was already started) about the topic. To my knowledge, the user has not approached the discussion.

The user has revereted changes for at least two users, calling them "vandalism" -- one at the article Edwin Sweetland by User:Jweiss11 and another at Paul Bixler by myself.

The user has made mutliple changes in multiple articles around this topic, and it looks like we might need an outside admin to come and take a look to provide some guidance. What's the best approach to take from here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the institution's formal name is "The Ohio State University", but in colloquial usage it's normally called "Ohio State University." As such, the "The" should be in the bold text at the top of the article, and then not used for the remainder of the piece. The article name should be the common name, which is "Ohio State University". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article name should be the common name, which is "Ohio State University" or "The Ohio State University". According to which source which name is the most common name. How did editors decide which name is most common. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Every single time an OSU graduate announces where he's from, they invariably say "The" Ohio State University, and make sure to stress the "The". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your omniscience on the matter overwhelms me. Yworo (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Nasty, much? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there are a few more people in the world than just OSU graduates, and it is common usage which prevails. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example, a Google search on "The Ohio State University" brings a little under 4 million hits, which, of course, includes all instances where the "The" is just incidental and not part of a formal title. A search on "Ohio State University" excluding instances of "the Ohio State University" brings up 6.7 million hits. Not conclusive, but indicative. Real-life experience is the confirmation: use of "The Ohio State University" is actually quite rare, and comes across as terribly pedantic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is for the same reason as the emphasis in Official Monster Raving Loony Party, yes? Guy (Help!) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I actually considered attending OSU. Pretty much everywhere you see it printed the "the" is left off. I would imagine the emphasis by alumns on the "the" is because they want to differentiate themselves from the well known party school Ohio University over in Athens. My parents didn't even want us to apply there because they worried we'd have cirrhosis by graduation... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • All I can say is, "Muck Fichigan" ;> Doc9871 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see there are some buckeyes in the crowd... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Buckeye fan for sure (and I can be a poisonous nut myself sometimes). As I said in my edit summary, my father simply calls it "Ohio State", and would scoff at "The Ohio State University". No offense to Everard's friends... :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox hit it on the head. The folks who emphasize it are distinguishing themselves from OU in Athens. It's nothing to do with the actual university name. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The official name is clearly "The Ohio State University", but I agree with BMK, Beeblebrox and Hand. I went to "The George Washington University", but we all call it "George Washington", or simply "GW". Hope this helps more than hurts. "Welcome to Ohio State!" :> Doc9871 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the quarterback of the football team knows best, and he calls it University of Ohio State. Case closed. WolverineFootball2008 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(Growl) Okay, Wolverine! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that commonly people will abbreviate Ohio State as "tOSU" (lowercase 't' for "the") no as not to confuse with OSU, also the common abbreviation for Oklahoma State University. But who am I to talk? I pledge allegiance to the almighty Bucky Badger. –MuZemike 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Oregon State University? What do they do? ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "ORST" is what they use, but I'm not 100%. –MuZemike 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I won't "badger" you about it... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit ridiculous. It is standard practice in English to remove the word "the" before titles. Therefore, "Ohio State University" is correct, not "the Ohio State University". —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; but not always true... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that tOSU is more an internet thing than an actual official abbreviation - it's fine for informal conversation or message board smack talk, but shouldn't be used in an article. But yes, tOSU does emphasize the "the" - watch College Football Live just about any day and you'll see the announcers kid them about it by stressing the word "the" (THE Ohio State University). It's either "Ohio State" or "the Ohio State University" (an editorial decision which to use), but the editor is correct that it's not "Ohio State University". --B (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll never understand why the University of Kentucky is "UK" but the University of Kanses is "KU". When I went to Lawrence to do a show there and called it "UK", our driver got indignent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because people are weird. As for any "officialness" to calling it OSU, look at the top image here [67] not to mention the fact that the official website is "osu.edu." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at the official website, it seems that usages with or without "The" are both frequent, along with "OSU". And there's no indication that it's a small "t", as the school's seal, for example, has it as "The". But the common name is "Ohio State University". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh! I just knew you'd chime in hewe, you wascal! Doc9871 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And not that that we should model ourselves after Google, but: "OSU" - About 8,420,000 results (w/the official website at the top). "tOSU" - About 355,000 results. "Next!" ;> Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's most definitely "The" Ohio State, and it's hardly a technical interpretation, but the common usage. As for other school names, the people that live in the area pronounce it right. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronounce what right, now? In which area are these people? Is this some sort of "Jedi mind trick"? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last sentence at all... Doc9871 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The people that "live in the area" call University of Minnesota "The U", but nationally it's "University of Minnesota", just as it's "Ohio State University" on a national basis. No "The" prefixed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of the above discussion should be discussed on the related article talk pages. Not here.--Rockfang (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed I just wanted to know what to do next...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mdupont

Hello. Just wanted to ask someone (preferably admin) to help User:Mdupont with his edits. User add Albanian names wherever he find needed ([68]) constantly uses underscore in article space ([69]) uses some weird signature without links, ([70]) while his articles are in complete mess (Mosque Katip Sinan Qelebi). He also back up all of his articles in every possible place, including article talk page ([71]), his personal pages, (most of them meaningless) and his talk page. I tried to help him, and explain, ([72], [73], ) but he didn't reacted on my advices and guidance links. As a final act of misunderstanding, he tried to open arbitration, but filled it wrongly. Last dialog can be seen here. (User talk:Mdupont#Districts) User is not vandal, or anything like that, it looks like he love wikipedia, and we is here for long years, but he just need some help that will explain him everything CLEARLY and UNDERSTANDABLY. I just tried to help as some other users did in the past ([74]), but he didn't liked my help, per bit problematic point of view, that was already recognized earlier ([75]). As i will not talk with user anymore, please, i ask from some neutral admin to send him link or two with some guidelines, and help him implement those. As users articles topic is under WP:ARBMAC restriction, his adding of Albanian language everywhere may be problem. For more, sure, i am here. :) --Tadija^speaks 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Posted something to his talkpage. EyeSerene^talk 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User Jayjg

Resolved

 – Good faith discussion on a talk page is not disruptive.

I would like an administrator to block User:Jayjg from editing the article Criticism of Judaism for a month or two, until we can get the article into a decent condition. He has been engaging in disruptive behavior, in violation of WP:Disruptive editing. Details of his behavior can be found at the Talk page at Talk:Criticism of Judaism. A brief summary of events is:

• May 6: The Criticism of Judaism article was proposed for deletion, here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination)
• May 12: The article was locked to force editors to build consensus
• May 13: AfD is closed, with consensus for "Keep"
• May 14: Two alternative proposals, called A and B, were proposed for the article's scope. See Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3) What is the scope of the article?.
• May 15: Several editors discuss proposed scopes. Proposal A received four (4) endorsements (in addition to the proposer); proposal B received zero (0) endorsements.
• May 18: Consensus was achieved that the article will be WP:Summary Style
• May 26: Discussion on sources such as Uriel da Costa and Hegel at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Another section for sources
• May 27: Discussion begins on best organization/outline for the article, at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Possible outlines for this article
• May 28: Two weeks after proposals A and B were made, no further proposals for scope have been made. Clearly "A" has consensus, and that conclusion is documented at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Progress on consensus-building

During the critical time period following the lock, from May 12 to May 27, Jayjg did not participate in the article or Talk page. Most importantly, he did not collaborate to build consensus in the key period after the article was locked (from may 12 to May 20). Then, on May 28, Jayjg disrupted the consensus-building process by, out of the blue, proposing an incomprehensible a disruptive proposal here [76]. That edit was made without any acknowledgement or reference to the work other editors had been engaging in for the prior two weeks, and was very disruptive.

Then, Jayjg made this edit: [77] in which he brags about how many edits he has made, and how his role as an admin makes his opinion more worthy.

Then came [78] which is even more provocative.

On the face of it, his edits don't look too bad. But look at the context: we are trying to work on a very contentious article, and he is basically throwing grenades into a crowded room.

If it was his first offense, that would be one thing, but there was the behavior exactly 12 months ago in the Judaea/Samaria episode: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges.

And two years ago was the "Will you watch my back" episode: [79], where he improperly communicated with some of the same editors that are currently disrupting Criticism of Judaism.

To repeat the request: could some admin topic-ban Jayjg for a month or two from Criticism of Judaism, so the rest of the editors can continue working in a collaborative fashion, without having to address all the distractions he is bringing? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a very odd request. Jayjg hasn't even edited the article recently, only the talk page. And noting editor experience with Wikipedia policy isn't inherently bragging, even if you view it was such. Looks to me like you just want to suppress opinions you find inconvenient. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with engaging with editors of diverse opinions. My point was that he is engaging in disruptive behavior, in violation of WP:Disruptive editing, in particular Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22. Clearly, disruptive behavior can take place on a Talk page as well as the article itself, particularly when it is a contentious article. --Noleander (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have to note that I find the proposal that you characterize as "incomprehensible" to be perfectly clear. And also in line with Wikipedia policy at least as I understand it. Regardless of any consensus achieved, policy still has to be followed. Yworo (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the on-going discussion in the Talk page, the proposal is incomprehensible. Perhaps a better word for those not familiar with the article would be "disruptive". --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd call it bragging, but it was a petty attempt at an argument. This happens often though. One editor citing his or her experience is a sign that the discussion has utterly deteriorated. In this case the user also cites his position as an admin, and that others on his side are admins while his opponents aren't, which is even more petty.

On the other points, I haven't actually checked to see if Jayjg abstained from discussion during the protection period only to make edits after it passed, but if that's the case then I'd say Jay should be topic-banned from the article, or something. There's nothing more counter-productive than someone who remains conspicuously absent from the discussion that should be resolving tensions while the article is locked, only to come back when it's not and turn the consensus established in that time on its rear. Protection is to force discussion, not for a party to wait until it passes so they can continue editing how ever they see fit. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what happened: the article was locked on 12 May, and some very excellent discussion ensued: lots of collaboration and cooperation. Jayjg did not participate at all. Then, after 15 days had elapsed, when consensus had been finally achieved, he made several very disruptive edits in the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, reading through the talk page, it appears to me that the responses to Jayjg are much more disruptive than what he posted. It also looks like he is a simple minority. So ignore him. (P.S. I'm not an admin, I'm aspiring to get more involved in admin activities). Don't make a mountain out a a molehill. :-) Yworo (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but the article is a very contentious article, and it is important that editors engage in civil and respectful behavior. Jayjg has a history of disruptive editing, and I'm suggesting that he should be admonished so that progress can be made on the article. --Noleander (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) that thing about "coming back to edit" would be a point -- but Jayjg hasn't touched the article (I went back through all the contribs since March!) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct: the disruptive behavior is on the Talk page, not the article itself. --Noleander (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but to abstain from the discussion following the lock for that length of time and only start arguing again once it was unlocked and consensus had been reached, is, if not disruptive, then also not exactly helpful. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:02, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Really, Equazcion and Noleander, there is no requirement that an editor stay continually engaged. An editor can be absent for many reasons, including real world events, and there is nothing wrong with staying out of a discussion to see which way the wind ends up blowing before commenting on the outcome. That kind of attitude verges on article ownership. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, there is no requirement. That's why I said I agree that this isn't exactly disruptive. It's still unhelpful, though, to argue with a consensus that already formed when you hadn't participated in it. The point of article protection is so that parties in disagreement can discuss things collegially. There's nothing technically wrong with abstaining from that discussion even if you are one of the parties in disagreement, but again, it doesn't help, since the protection was put in place for you, as an involved party, to come to some consensus with your opponents. And I don't edit that article so I'd appreciate not being accused of ownership. I'm a proponent in this case of participating in discussion during the protection period, not of any one person's opinion on the issue being argued over. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:10, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)

I don't see wehat the problem is with this edit's points are. It seems like a very basic step to avoid synthesis. i.e. an eminently sensible compromise really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. This whole article (and this entire class of articles) is synthesis; I fail to understand how it's not obvious that "A; however, B" is synthesis unless we have a source saying "A, however B". It's argumentation, and in this article, it's unsourced argumentation. Judaism has been intensely debated for centuries; it's easy to find published criticisms with counter-arguments -- and if we can't source such pairings, we shouldn't be including such pairings. As far as banning Jayjg from an article he hasn't edited in two months -- that's simply absurd. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Block review request of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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.

block overturned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello there.

I have just blocked Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · logs) for repeated violations of WP:BATTLE and baiting. Earlier violations, [80] have resulted in strong words of advice that a block would be issued if it continued by Gwen Gale and myself. He was then blocked by another user, wrong in my opinion, however this was quickly undone and shouldn't reflect on the current block.

The issue, as we are aware, revolves around TresureyTag's tagging of several articles for deletion. As I have said, I don't view the marking of material which meets deletion criteria as harassment, even if it does result in floods of messages, however given that RAN has been told repeatedly and has continued this most recent time I have hence given a 24 hour block.

I feel, after he returns from his block if it is upheld, RAN (who, disappointingly, appears to be an otherwise strong contributor) he needs to be told to drop the issue. Likewise, TT - if he is following RAN looking for instances of non-stick-dropping - also needs to be advised to step back and let it all pass.

I am happy to have my decision reviewed and overturned if consensus suggests. Though I have seen some incivility in past discussions of RAN, so please keep your critique civil :). Thanks, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am going offline now, so if an unblock is the order of the day, please can another admin take care of it and pass on my apologies. Cheers, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have not been privy to much of this dispute but that seemed like a pretty mild statement to me, and all based on content except the attirbution at the bottom. And even longer stretch if actually true. On first glance I'd say the block was unwarranted. I will look over at commons later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you issuing a block for a remark made on Commons? Surely behavior there is the baliwick of the Commons admins and not those of en.Wikipedia? Given the situation, I'd say a bad block all around, should be undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad block, for a number of reasons.

1. The comment was on commons, this is the English Wikipedia
2. The post was mostly about content, with only a short bit at the end about another editor.
3. If the allegations about the other editor are true (that is, they nominated every single photo of his for deletion), then the comment is entirely appropriate.

Buddy431 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My input as an uninvolved administrator (no other capacity) is that the block should be overturned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had disagreements with this editor regarding other issues over the years, however, I fail to see how anyone can justify a block on this site based on interpretation of edits on commons. This is entirely inappropriate in my view, and considering that what I see is that nearly every upload by this editor has been nominated for deletion, I can certainly see why he would feel picked on. Since when is simply stating that he feels deletion nominations are inappropriate considered rationale for a block? He didn't rant and rave, he said something. I'm clearly perplexed why anything said on another site would be valid rationale for blocking here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked. Although I'm another of the admins who'd warned this user about his comments, I don't believe we have any authority to enact blocks based on edits made on other wikis. Had he made the same edit to a discussion on en, it might be appropriate. I will also spell out the issue for him. Shimeru (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Someone maliciously impersonating me off-wiki

Resolved

 – User to post a disclaimer on their user page

Someone impersonating me has registered a blog here: [81], where they attempt to impugn my character, including making it seem as though I oppose freedom of speech and making comments about various edits I've made to Wikipedia. The "fake blog" also not-so-subtly links to the website of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (in an apparent attempt to tag me as a pedophile and/or sympathizer). The person creating this blog is not me; I have no idea who it actually is, but it's quite scary. The website hosting this blog (Blogspot) says it is only able to investigate real-name impersonation, not screen-name impersonation. Cases like this make me glad I don't use my real name for editing on Wikipedia; there are a lot of really scary people out there. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, since this attack page directly concerns my activities on Wikipedia, I thought it would be worth mentioning here, in case there's anything the Administrators can do to help me out. Again, I'm not sure who is responsible for this attack page, although I have a few hunches as to who it might be, which I would be willing to share with anyone who asks. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Man, that's a pretty nasty thing to do. I'm at a loss for ideas as to how to figure out who it is. I've actually seen a very similar thing done to another (non-Wikipedia-related) person, including the attempted NAMBLA association, but the likelihood that it's the same person seems extremely low (however, I'd be happy to fill you in via email, just in case). Have you considered changing your Wikipedia user name? (I know that's extreme, but...) Yworo (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty crude; any non-moron will quickly see that it's a hatchet job. I think I'd put a simple disclaimer on my user page ("The blog under my name at Blogger is not mine, in case you couldn't tell; my real blog is at..."). I suspect the attacker will quickly get bored with the game. Yes, this is why we don't use our real names- I shudder to think what some of the nutcases who've stalked me on-wiki would do with my real-world identity. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, as far as the guy who I think might be responsible, his initials are C. C., he is a white supremacist, and he has a website whose name contains the word "pod" in it. Is this the same guy who you think might have been behind the other sliming attempt? The reason why I think it might be him is because I got into a dispute with him on-wiki a while back which led to his being indefinitely blocked. Also, there appears to be someone on "his" website who is impersonating me with the name Stonemason89, just like the person who created the fake website is doing. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the disclaimer to my user-page. Thanks for your advice! Stonemason89 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not the initials of the person in the case I am aware of. Info about changing your Wikipedia user name can be found at WP:UNC. It can be confusing, though, as it will change the name on all your edits (in edit history), but not on the signature on existing comments. FisherQueen's suggestion might be better... Yworo (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I did; I posted a disclaimer emphasizing that this person is not me. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stntn

Resolved

 – User blocked and page deleted by User:Tim Song. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Adamstanton (talk · contribs) created the above page for Stntn (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked user. Adamstanton has made zero contributions outside of that edit, and his talk page is already a redirect to the talk page of Stntn (here). Can someone block Adamstanton for block evasion/sockpuppeting and delete the Requests for adminship page? On further review, it appears that Stntn was originally Adamstanton before changing usernames, and has now re-created the Adamstanton account after his Stntn account was indeffed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla clash protected and removed from In The News

Resolved

 – Article unprotected and placed under 1RR. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the decision of User:HJ Mitchell to delete Gaza flotilla clash from In The News [82] and fully protect the article for a week. This seems very unwise, given that the story is the biggest news story in the world at the moment [83] - a genuine international crisis. It simply isn't credible for Wikipedia to lack coverage of it in ITN, and the editing on the article itself, while brisk, does not seem to merit full protection - certainly not for such a long time. I don't for a moment doubt HJ's good faith, but this seems to be a very inadvisable decision. He has indicated that he will not object if admins decide that his decision needs to be overturned [84]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think locking it down is a fantastic idea. A week seems too much but a couple days of people chilling out, collecting sources, and discussing might be useful. There is always the editprotect template if people can get along enough to use it.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. Semiprotection yes, full protection no. While of course the editing was fast and furious, progress was being made, and disagreements didn't rise to the level of meriting full protection.John Z (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone that has been involved in the editing there, I totally agree with HJ Mitchell protection and removal from the In the news list. There are multiple issues there and there was edit warring and reverting beginning to occur and the content has also multiple issues that we should not publicize it as if it is a good thing, POV citations and POV commentary, clearly it is heated issue, what we have now will benefit from full protection for the time being and any tweaks can be made through the editprotected template. In the future we can reconsider but HJ has made a good decision at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not protecting it was a good idea, I can see no good reason whatsoever for removing it from In The News. It's the biggest news story in the world right now. Omitting it from ITN just makes us look silly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) I agree that removing it from "in the news" is silly; it's absence is terribly conspicuous when compared to what is up there, especially Ebola. Full protection is probably a good idea, though. Does full protection disqualify it from ITN? Buddy431 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, I'm not remotely bothered if someone wants to unprotect the article, but I'm vehemently opposed to putting it back on ITN. ITN items don't go up solely because it's an important story, the article has to be of sufficient quality and that article is a mess. Putting an unstable article with possible POV problems right on our front page makes us look a whole lot sillier than omitting it altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you expect it to be improved if it's protected for a week? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not protected for a week, it is simply protected right now...when issues change we can and of course will re-evaluate. Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)FWIW - earlier today I noticed the article on Google news, and it's still listed there, so it's getting exposure outside of Wikipedia. Might be a good idea to get editors to help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3) Just noting that Terrorismattackwatch (talk · contribs) added this incident to List of terrorist incidents, 2010 twice [85][86] despite it having not been labelled "terrorism" (not even by Al Jazeera, the news organization quoted in the additions). I removed this incident from that list. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to unprotect, and aggressively watch the article for developing problems, perhaps with an edit-notice that edit warring, whether or not 3RR is violated, will lead to blocks. This is the biggest news story in the world right now, and should be on ITN, and the article allowed to develop as harmoniously as possible... and of course semi-protection is fully justified here. (ec x5, as well. Yikes.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is a massive news story; it's developing all the time; it's hugely controversial; of course you are going to get disputes on it. That's normal. If editors violate 3RR or get incivil, then counsel them and block them if you have to. But in my experience these issues get worked out over time. The disputes are over relatively small areas of the article. Most of it is fairly stable already. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c x5) Wikinews is that way; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not only the opposite of silly to exclude an unstable article from ITN, it is practically required. If it's balanced and stable, that's another story; if not, there are dozens of topics that can better represent what Wikipedia is all about. We are, above all else, an encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And we also happen to be the place that everyone comes to document news events. Wikinews, for all its value, is not. Do you see Wikinews links next to Google News' story summaries? Like it or not, whatever we might like to be in theory, that is not how people use Wikipedia in practice. Think of it as the invisible hand in action... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We are responsible for making sure we are what we say we are. It's far less relevant what other people think we are.  Frank  |  talk  01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If people want to document ongoing news events of historic importance, that actually adds value to Wikipedia and doesn't undermine its core mission. Our coverage of current events has been commended more than once by the media. The process is messy but the end results are more than worth it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The article will (and maybe already does) add value to Wikipedia; the question is whether or not the article is suitable for inclusion in ITN. This project doesn't exist in order to be "commended more than once by the media"; that isn't one of its pillars, policies, or goals, despite how some people view it (from within or without).  Frank  |  talk  01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Removal from In The News is more than silly, IMHO. There are edit conflicts on the article, but such things are very common for for stories covering current events. The viewing statistics for 2010-05-31UTC are only 61k: when Michael Jackson died, we got 4 million hits on the article in a single day. I don't wish to accuse HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of any ulterior motives – we have often worked well together at WP:ITN – but this is a crazy decision to pull the blurb. It should be immediately reversed. Physchim62 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'll help it it were unprotected (which in my view it should be). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There've been protected articles on ITN before now, these are two different issues. Physchim62 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant I'd help with the article. The lead needs a quick copyedit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestions will be most useful at Talk:Gaza flotilla clash.  Frank  |  talk  01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well we tried to semi-protect, but the melee didnt cease, maybe the talk facility can be more actively used.Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've reverted my removal and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reduced the protection with the aim of enforcing a 1RR restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ. I've marked this as resolved. Let's get on with improving the article! -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Today's featured article on Front Page

Resolved

The Today's featured article section on the front page is ripe with redirects, same with the lead (only looked there) of the actual article, Baltimore City College. These should have been fixed prior to this making the front page and should be fixed now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. 86.41.74.14 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are frowned upon in GAs, why would FAs be any different? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the guideline and all will be revealed. 86.41.74.14 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is not an "incident". WP:ERRORS is the correct forum for this, but i might have a look to see if they are all necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just went where the admins were. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Mystic Researcher redux

Take a look at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). My finger is ready to block Gattosby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the basis that nominating yet another group of RAN created articles within hours of another RAN blocking event just can't possibly be unrelated.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do it. I consider mass deletion nominations like that disruptive at the best of times and I agree that, given the history, it;s unlikely to be coincidental. I'm contemplating closing all the AfDs as bad faith nominations... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let your finger do the talking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Only question is, whether to ask who it is first or just block striaghtaway as a badhand account and run a checkuser to see whose it might be in this ongoing saga Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare has already blocked. Closing the AfDs seems like the right thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Having taken a look, I believe that this account, along with Sapporod1965 and Ocean Mystic Researcher, is very likely to be Torkmann—who is in turn likely to be Wiki brah. Torkmann is a user who has targeted Richard with AfD nominations in the past, as you can see from some of their other sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torkmann. Dominic·t 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare procedurally closed some of the AFDs, and I got one more. Two had already received arguments for deletion before the problem was noted, so those have been left untouched.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've closed a couple more, and simply deleted the MfD nomination of the userfied article (no point preserving a record there). We don't want to reward trolling any more when people actually take the bait than when they don't. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the editor's contribution history, and confirmed that their other edits to the encyclopedia are either harmless or in good faith. This leaves two things pending. First, they created an article Allen Dorfman, that appears legitimate if weakly sourced. Second, an AfD nomination for the sub-stub article, Brazil–Japan relations. That wasn't one of Richard Arthur Norton's articles, so there is no harassment issue there. Also, I'm not sure what the general result was in the earlier mass nominations of the "X-Y relations articles a year or two back. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The result was "no consensus", and the more recent run of bilateral relations nominations by LibStar have similarly failed to result in anything more than long, circular argument and bad blood. Procedurally speaking the Brazil–Japan relations AfD should probably be allowed to run but I suspect we'd get along as a community much better if it fell into an early "no consensus" closure. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave the Dorfman article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems ridiculous. I would note though that RAN is attracting a lot of attention as of late. I don't think any of this drama has been productive (full disclosure, I've been opposed in 2 [of an infinite number] of bilateral relations afd debates) Shadowjams (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for crap's sake. I'm beginning to wonder if a couple of our indefinitely banned users are in on this. –MuZemike 07:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just informed that my assumption as incorrect. My ESP must be out of sync with the CheckUsers' magic 8-ball. –MuZemike 07:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who did you just checkuser to determine that? Seems pretty duckish to me. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet attempting to impersonate me

Resolved

 – Impersonator hardblocked. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sable2322 (talk · contribs)

I was alerted to this user who had made a series of edits removing content from Pickup truck in a similar pattern to User:70.52.202.169, who also has an account, User:Spun883. Interestingly enough, this new account's first edit was blanking the AN/I thread regarding the IP and Spun883 account. It's obvious that this is a sockpuppet and that the intent of this account is to harass me.

Since this falls under both UAA and SPI I decided to start here first so there was a central report on it. If it's better to make two separate reports at those pages please let me know. --Sable232 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to request a checkuser to determine for certain that this is a sock of Spun883? --Sable232 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have enough evidence, file the SPI, but regardless the complained's username is blocked. A CU isn't going to run a check on an already-blocked user unless there's a reasonable risk of sockpuppetry. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

AIV backlog of 8, many of which are pretty obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Resolved

Removed link

User has posted their e-mail address on their user page, reporting as suggested by: Wikipedia:Personal information. I have redacted it as far as I am able to. --Wintonian (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a couple other editors do this as well. I wouldn't say it is smart, but I don't know if it falls under the personal information guideline. An admin might disagree though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Having just seen the big red text at the top and looking at: Wikipedia:Requests for oversight I'll just speedy it, but god knows under whar criteria.

User with a grudge

Resolved

I am writing this here since I don't really know where else to go. Earlier today, I was surprised to find that two of my user subpages were vandalized from an editor I had no prior experience with, User:村上ミチル. As far as I can tell, they edited under the IP 98.215.211.220 earlier this month and the user's first edit was to that IP's talk page where I had previously left a note about vandalism. Going to the user's userpage, I find they have a grudge against me, whether because of this single isolated incident or some other previous experience, I don't know. I even added a note about attacking other editors, but the user left another antagonistic message. I'm concerned that the user will come back soon to vandalize my user pages or pages I work on, and would like to know what I should do in this case.--十八 09:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Attack page deleted, vandalism rolled back, user indeffed. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hagger - please block

Resolved

 – indeff'd

NoolinDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[87]. One of the NPPs reverted [88] already. Appears to be Hagger. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already indef'd. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Two minutes after I posted. Excellent! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate content

With a long history of deletions+2+3+4, this user (+smpile:+es:+AH+...) was now blocked in de:. As I am not well versed with legal issues in en:wiki, perhaps so. else could look over this? Thank you. --Trofobi (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All your links point to soxred's tools, rather than diffs for dodgy content, so I'm not sure what the problem is. He seems to have been blocked for vandalism and spamming on de, he's not blocked on Simple or Spanish. There isn't a problem with him keeping that school essay summary of WWII on his userpage as long as it's not a copyright violation. He does seem keen to spam it into an article, but it would fail as a duplication of existing content on all Wikipedias I suspect - it's been turfed here already. The swastika image might alarm people, but the text is not pro german (in fact, it's an accurate if very simplistic summary of what happened in WWII). We wouldn't usually block a user here for disruption elsewhere on the project - such users usually manage to do enough to get blocked here as well!! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, WP:ROPE... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gross Harrassment of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Posting on Treasury Tag's page today I noticed an edit by NewYorkBrad which led me to what I think is the most vile and obvious case of wiki-hrassment I have come accross in 6 years here. I cannot be doing with all the diffs, but I have made my feelings clear here [89]. Yesterday as the result of soliciting by Treasury Tag [90] 2 edits there you can see his earlier soliciting above the editor was wrongly blocked [91], it now seems the victim had every cause to be so upset much of his work is nominated for deletion on one fould swoop, much of it by yes, you got it Treasury Tag! Perhaps some of these pages do meet criteria for deletion, I have not looked through them all, but have yet to find one, but the way this is being handled by treaury Taf, seemingly supported by certain others is vile and needs stopping. One of you Admins needs to step in and close the show down and see what exactly is going on.  Giacomo  14:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• See the previous ANI thread about this, which concluded that there was no inappropriate behaviour on my part. I have no further comment ot make on this issue at this time. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  You are bullying and harassing.  Giacomo  14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Like Giacomo, I've not looked at them all here, but the same is going on at Commons now. Richard Arthur Norton is a longstanding productive member of this community and targeting his user space content and images here and at Commons seems like a very low blow. Unless there is evidence of egregious copyright problems - which I don't believe is the case - this needs to end now. Wknight94 ^talk 14:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  So the day after TreasuryTag files a 3RR case about you (now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132), you come here to complain about TreasuryTag bullying and harassing someone else (a case which had been looked into before here and found wanting), and go around voting keep on AfD's he nominated, going even so far as to revert comments he makes, with a personal attack edit summary to boot[92]? I would suggest that you leave this well alone, or you may have an acute case of WP:BOOMERANG. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Competely correct. If I were not on TT's page I would never have seen Brad's message telling him to back off! You may find a respected editor like RAN being driven to distraction a fine spectator sport - I do not!  Giacomo  14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My situation precisely. If I hadn't run into Richard in an unrelated venue, I would never have discovered his history of copyright and WP:NOTWEBHOST violations. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's not uncommon when finding copyright violations or other image problems from a user to look through their other image contributions for problems. There are plenty of users (not Richard) who think it's acceptable to upload every image they find on the internet so for the most part, if you find one image with copyright problems from a user, you're going to find more. This isn't harassment. --B (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• TT said: "See the previous ANI thread about this, which concluded that there was no inappropriate behaviour on my part." This is not an accurate depiction, its not like TT was absolved. Like almost all issues raised at ANI, there's no jury verdict rendered at the end of a discussion, there's usually just some throwing-up-of-hands at the inanity of it all. GiacomoReturned took the time to review what is going on, and its no shock that he found it abhorrent.--Milowent (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I find this comment at Commons (threat of summary block by user:Axpde for anyone "complaining of harassment") to be utterly contrary to the spirit of either project. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Just like Richard Arthur Norton's block for a comment made on Commons was a mistake, discussion of other comments, threats, warnings made about this on Commons are out of bounds here. But if such a comment was made on Wikipedia, it would not be "unterly contrary to the spirit", but just a logical conclusion of "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly" (from Wikipedia:Harassment). Fram (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Surely both sides are in the wrong? Unless I'm mistaken, people wouldn't be deeming no harassment has occurred unless there was a problem with the contribution - therefore, the upload should not have been made or should have been removed or something. Unless I'm mistaken, people would not be alleging harassment unless the other editor did something similar to templating the regular as opposed to informally/gently raising the concern, and only if they were unreceptive, begin taking more formal steps (and even then, escalate rather than start at the top extreme). This is probably a completely different school of thought...but that's how it seems to me, based on what little I've read of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, so you feel the contents list of this page [93] is gentle do you? I can think of some editors it would drive to the nearest canal! It is harrassment on a grand scale!  Giacomo  14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Silly question: suppose there existed a prolific editor who had uploaded some large amount of problematic content. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that he had contributed 5000 photos, 500 of which were poorly sourced, irrelevant to the project, or otherwise unacceptable. What would be the proper method of dealing with the problematic ones? I'm sorry, but I don't see how to differentiate between what you say is harassment and a good-faith effort to cull a user's uploads for ones not acceptable to the project. --B (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure if it was my wording or if you misinterpreted my comment Giano, so I'll try to clarify. Some people say no harassment occurs because there was an issue with editor X's upload and therefore editor Y is justified in going through editor X's stuff. On the flipside (where I referred to 'gentle'), I was trying to convey the point that if editor Y had a concern that editor X's stuff remaining uploaded on Wikipedia, they should gently raise that concern informally...etc. When that doesn't happen, we have a situation where editors feel harassment has occurred because it seems more like editor Y is engaging in an antagonising exercise. Sometimes that is intentional; sometimes that is not. Unfortunately, I still don't know enough about this to come to a conclusion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo, would you mind explaining how this is constructive?

User:Cy Q. Faunce

Recently, I was involved in a deletion discussion regarding recently-deleted article Bullshido.net (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)), where Cy Q. Faunce was an active participant. Then this morning, I received this message, from JMU:

“ I work for the Office of the Registrar at JMU and we received a request for information about you from a Chuck Hardin, chardin@gmail.com, which included your DOB & SSN. Are you aware that this individual has your private information?

DeeAnn Diaczynsky

”

I called up the person at JMU and also did a little research, and found evidence that indicates that Cy Q. Faunce and Chuck Hardin are the same person. Cy Q. Faunce's first edit and the majority of that account's edits (see Special:Contributions/Cy Q. Faunce) have been in regards to the deletion discussion of Bullshido.net.

Considering the real-life stalking that appears to be going on here, putting in a request to JMU and such, I was tempted to indef-block for harrassment, but would prefer that an uninvolved admin look at things and see what's going on. I'm not so worried about myself - I've filed a fraud report with the credit agencies, and if they do attempt to do anything along those lines, that's a criminal offense, so I think I'm safe there. However, this kind of behavior is disruptive, and appears to be an attempt to intimidate users. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Cy Q. Faunce (talk · contribs · logs) <- for ease of admins, here are the user's links. I too would view this as a stalking-harrassment issue and move to block. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Indef blocked as unacceptable harassment; review of this block is welcomed. I was going to note that you're also outing, but he outs himself on Bullshido.net. Fences&Windows 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Good block, and we might as well consider that a community ban. I doubt that any admin would be willing to unblock after this. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• There probably should be a checkuser to find/block this persion's other accounts. This one obviously was not his first and harassment like this is completely unacceptable. SchuminWeb, you may want to consider contacting the police if you have not already done so. --B (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)