Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

Disruptive edits & inserting problematic material into a BLP at Linda McMahon

User Screwball23 is persistently reintroducing large blocks of material that several other editors have agreed should be removed. He has done this at least 8 times in the past 4 days. The material is particularly problematic as this is a BLP, and the content attempts to tie the subject to acts such as the sexual abuse of minors and illegal steroid drug sales in an extremely tangential manner.

UPDATED at 20:53 5 September 2010: Adding latest reversions

Direct revisions in the last 24 hours alone, at Linda McMahon, and Linda McMahon, 2010 Senate Campaign:

• [1]
• [2] (five reversions in series)
• [3] (two reversions in series)
• [4] (two reversions in series)
• [5]

Other reversions in last few days, again at Linda McMahon:

• [6] (Reverted user Discospinster)
• [7] (Reverted user Collect)
• [8] (Reverted user Off2RioRob)
• [9]
• [10]

Several of these reversions were done immediately after Screwball23 was given a 3RR/edit warring warning by Admin Everard Proudfoot. The editor is also making abusive remarks on the article's talk page.

Latest example of reinserting unsourced contentious material into the BLP:

• [11]

Note: Screwball attached a source link to the content -- but nowhere in that source is the claim actually supported. This is a common theme.

Besides myself, editors Collect, Off2riorob, and Nikki311 have either attempted to remove this material or posted objections to talk. User has also been warned repeatedly at his talk page about 3RR and overriding consensus:

• [12]

Fell Gleaming^talk 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never edited either article about Linda McMahon, and that I have no strong personal interest in this. But I promised diffs re FellGleaming's part in the edit war she's engaged in. I haven't bothered to look for more 3RR violations; this isn't my fight. I actually saw what I'm now taking the time to document below several days ago, but didn't really want to get involved in a feud. I did inform Screwball on his talk page, that I thought, at that time, based on a cursory look, that he was at 2RR and that FellGleaming was at 3RR. ( Btw, I've positioned this post immediately after FellGleaming's diffs accusing Screwball23 as per the rules documented at wp:indent designed to keep related posts in a thread together. )

FellGleaming saw my comments on 2RR and 3RR and took offense. She asked me to look more closely at her reverts, and so I did:

• [13] 10:09 30 August 2010

• [14] 11:08 30 August 2010

• [15] 02:48 31 August 2010

• [16] 03:48 31 August 2010

• [17] 10:44 01 September 2010 User Collect stepped in at this point and made the same revert, his second edit to the article. Not comprised in the 3RR+ count, of course.

Some of the edits above are embedded in a stream of multiple consecutive edits by FellGleaming, but the ones I've listed here all have intervening edits by other users between them. I found these reverts especially troubling because, while they do revert some inappropriate material, the overall effect of her edits really is to whitewash this public figure, just as Screwball has claimed, presumably for the purpose of improving her chance of gaining the Senate seat she's spending $50 million of her own fortune to try to obtain. The reversions, for example, removed the $50M spending plan from the lede and, more troubling, well-sourced evidence of the candidate's having obstructed a Federal investigation.

FellGleaming, at least, is not really focused on simply trying to improve the encyclopedia in her editing on this She's focused instead on trying to get her preferred candidate into the Senate, imo. Screwball may be a little less sophisticated in the way he's pursuing this edit war ( there's been no one to step in on his side when he's been at 3RR ) but FellGleaming is at least as culpable in the battle as he is. Perhaps she's more culpable, actually: I find her edits to exhibit a more extreme POV tendency than Screwball's do in the opposite direction, although Screwball's not going to win any NPOV prizes here, either. Btw, FellGleaming, I'd appreciate it if you'd use boldface more sparingly, perhaps using italics or limited underlining, instead. It's distracting, and we can all read regularly-entered text every bit as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OhioStandard, I ask you again to stop making false claims. Of your five links posted above, the first two aren't reversions at all, they're simply two edits of material that wasn't previously under any sort of dispute, and the "intervening edit" by user Collect didn't conflict in any way. The three following that are reverts -- however that's only 3, and the last is more than 24 hours after the first, meaning I didn't even go over 2RR, much less 3RR. It was at this point that I stopped reverting, and began seeking conflict resolution. User Screwball, however, has continued the mass reversions, against not only myself but two other editors. When you first made this accusation on talk, I attempted to explain it to you there, but you didn't bother to answer me. Also, could you please stop mislabelling me as female as well?

As for the content removed, when I began editing the article, there was a vast emount of contentious negative material, much of it either unsupported by sources, misrepresenting the source, or using an attack blog or other nonreliable source as the citation. When reliable sources were cited, all positive references were scrubbed from the source. As one example, there was a very lengthy section on a disgruntled ex employee who threatened a sexual harrassment suit against a company McMahon headed. The entry, however, misrepresented that as sexual molestation, made no mention that the accusation was made by a former employee who only came forward years later and who never filed a criminal complaint. The entry contains speculation and loaded language to portray McMahon in the worst possible light, and leaves out the fact that the cited source says the accuser praised McMahon for her handling of the situation. It also presents as facts uncited statements such as McMahon "repeatedly challenged Cole (the accuser) in unemployment hearings with a company lawyer". This is the type of material we were working with in the initial article -- several paragraphs of misleading, biased innuendo, near the very top of the article itself, for material only tangentially related to McMahon. A much shorter and neutral version of these events now appears in the article; it is vastly improved, and I stand by my work 100% here. I challenge ANY uninvolved editor to look at the before and after versions and not support me here: [18].

Yikes! I'm terribly sorry for mistaking your gender! I thought I saw you addressed previously as female, but evidently not since I can't find that now. I think it must have been a mental connection between the prominent photo of McMahon on her page and your very frequent presence there. It was a dumb mistake, but a good-faith one, I assure you. You have my sincere apology for having addressed you incorrectly.

I won't respond to your assertions about content; we obviously have differing opinions as to the effect of your edits, and this isn't the venue to discuss content at length anyway. I will say, though, that you'd do better to stop suggesting that I've been telling "lies", "falsehoods", or that I've been making false claims. You're perfectly free to disagree with me as vehemently as you like, and to dispute the accuracy of anything I might say. But to consistently say or imply (you've done both) that I might not believe the statements I've made here to be true is ... well, rubbish, not to mention snide. I'd appreciate it if you'd address the content without casting aspersions on my veracity or motives.

As to the 3RR documentation diffs, it's possible that we have a different understanding as to what kind of edits are covered under the 3RR rules. It's not my impression from what I read in the docs that it matters whether text is under dispute or not, for example. The policy says, "A 'revert' in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." The way I understand that, when you delete something another editor added, whether in whole or in part, you've made a reversion that counts toward 3RR. I'd welcome clarification from uninvolved users who are familiar with the policy on this point, since I've never had occasion to notice the rule until now.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we not discuss anything but 3RR at this page location, though, please? It was okay for me to post the diffs I did after yours, under talk page rules for keeping like with like (paraphrasing wp:indent), but if this goes on much longer here it will tend to obscure Screwball's reply, below. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page, I lay my position very clear. It is not tangential, and her involvement in the tipoff memo is well-documented, as is her interaction with Tom Cole during the Ring Boy Affair. It is unfair to say that there is consensus when the only arguments that have been leveled against the material is that it might not be good for her image. It want to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored, and Fell Gleaming's accusations that I am tying the subject, Linda McMahon, to abuse of minors or steroid sales is absurd. She was an executive in the company who took positions on handling these issues within her company. They are very notable, are well-referenced, and have been repeatedly been raised during the last year. Also, please keep in mind that the subject, Linda McMahon, is currently in a Senate campaign, and there are multiple editors who are eager to whitewash this article for political motives.--Screwball23 talk 17:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23 seems intent on acting when the consensus on the talk page is clear - it is not proper per WP:BLP and per JW [19]. The accusation of "whitewash" is untrue, and poisons discussions. [20] demonstrates that the sole reason for the scurrilous material is political " I know this article is being searched by people who are more familiar with her political run than her WWE career, and I believe it is short-sighted and a bit narrow-minded to assume people will know what the Monday Night Wars or the Ring boy affair are." is quite clear as to Screwball's motivation. The accusation that this is all bout deletionism is raised "Again, to engage in a productive discussion, avoid personal attacks, please cite the individual paragraph you wish to discuss, and above all else, remember that deletionists are always the last people to learn things on Wikipedia." by the same editor. Also "This is complete BS, the editor in question is blatantly whitewashing the article, and this is damaging to any future readers of the page. Remember that Linda's senate campaign article has links to the Tip-off memo, and if it can't be posted here, no one will be able to read about it." making even more clear that the motives are not to include material, but to specifically include political campaign charges. I submit that such is an intrinsic misue of the project. Collect (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I did have a look and thought the content tangential and undue as to her part in the issue, I also thought his insistence on inserting a picture of an off shore oil rig was excessive, just because the huffington post and some opinionated CBS blog and tpmdc whoever they are say she supports it is a bit undue, are we to have a picture of all the things she supports or just the off shore oil rig. User has also contributed most of this article Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010which also seems a bit of a negative portrayal. Repeatedly inserting content disputed by multiple users is never going to be a long term solution. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither User:Screwball23 nor User:FellGleaming has been editing appropriately here, the former reinserting material going against consensus, and the latter claiming consensus by attributing his own beliefs to other editors, myself included. For example, with the "ring boy" material, I and other editors thought the material should be trimmed to focus on Linda's clear involvement, and I produced an edited version which saw no immediate objection when run on the Talk page, including a basic approval from Screwball23 (he wanted a fine-tune). The entire section was then deleted without consensus, then restored to its former extended state without consensus; the closest I came to approving either was undoing a restoration of the extended version at a time when I didn't have the time to go back and dig out the shortened version. McMahon's involvement in the ring boy situation speaks to what sort of actions she took as WWE President; the steroid situation speaks to the situation which surrounded her rise to president. That the WWE can be lurid in various ways is not irrelevant to her life and her position in it; the luridness of the organization has been a factor in her entire political career (as the sourced comments about those who considered her for her position on the education board attest.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nat, this edit of yours here [21] reverts out Screwball's reinsertion of the content under dispute. I took that to mean you were one of the editors who supported its removal. My apologies if that wasn't correct. I'll let Off2riorob and Collect speak to their own positions. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I would like to remind everyone on this one that with regards to biographies of living people, our policy stance (as evidenced in WP:BLP) shifts to precautionary exclusion rather than our normal generally inclusionistic if sourced approach. That can be overturned by community consensus that BLP isn't an issue with a particular item, but if there's a doubt and a dispute, leave it out until and unless a consensus evolves that it should be in.

This is particularly important with high visibility people and people running for political office, as there's a strong tendency by opponents to want to tar and feather people on Wikipedia as a cheap campaign tactic.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23 should not continue to insert text when the consensus is against it. He should either work to change consensus with the other editors on the talk page and, since that avenue has appeared to be exhausted, use content dispute resolution, e.g., post to the BLP notice board or set up a content RfC. However the correct place for to complain about edit-warring is the edit-warring noticeboard.

It is not clear to me that the content violates BLP and in any case there is no evidence that the complainant has taken the issue to the BLP noticeboard. The subject is a Republican Party candidate for the U. S. Senate, and all editors must be careful that their political viewpoints do not influence their decision about what to include or what weight it deserves. Whether or not the text added should be there or what weight it deserves depends on the degree of coverage it has received. The article should neither draw readers attention to something that the media has neglected or omit something that has received media coverage. TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I did in fact take this issue to the BLP noticeboard, which brought at least one uninvolved editor who Screwball is overriding with his edit reversions. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for the reminder: participants in this conflict need to keep your final sentence more firmly in mind. FellGleaming did indeed post to BLPN, and I'm one of the people that her post attracted. I've never edited the article, though, but I did add a comment to its talk page in response to her BLPN entry. I said, in summary, that I thought she was overreacting by trying to present a legitimate content dispute as a BLP violation. If I had been as familiar then with the specific issues ( e.g. the candidate's memo to tip off her company's steroid-dispensing consulting physician about an impending federal investigation ) as I have since become, I would have been more forceful in stating my belief that bringing the matter to BLPN was unwarranted, at least. For example, FellGleaming wrote at BLPN:

McMahon's only connection to the (physician) appears to be that he worked previously for a company she took control of after he had already been fired and convicted. Given no source even claims she was involved in any way, this appears to be a simple "smear by association"...

It's hard for me to understand how she comes to make these assertions despite her extensive familiarity with the facts and sources. See, for example, this report of the candidate's involvement, from one of the papers in Connecticut, the state McMahon wants to represent in the Senate. Screwball wanted the topic and the references to support it kept in the article, and FellGleaming wanted them out. To be fair, FellGleaming has also objected, rightly, to the inclusion of poorly-sourced material that doesn't belong in the article. But I'm far from being convinced that she's the consensus-driven NPOV editor she presents herself to be, or that her imlicit claim to the moral high ground in this conflict has any merit. Rather, it's my impression that FellGleaming has demonstrated a strongly partisan bias with respect to this article, and that she has persistently fought to exclude any content at all that might reflect unflatteringly on Linda McMahon.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, just reading the edits that Screwball made in the three links that introduced this section were enough for me. Screw is definitely pushing an agenda. While some of the eidts might be ok, if trimmed, there are whole sections that simply do not belong in there, and your edits are in every case attempting to paint a negatie, not neutral image. Screwball, you need to revisit BLP and POV. Your edits are POV to the extreme and in many cases cross over BLP---often in regards to other people (you basically declare that Hulk Hogan, British Bulldogs, Lex Luger, etc left the WWE to join the WCW because they were using steroids.) You also made a number of edits which were pov laden. Also if something a debut, then you don't need "first debut" not only is that redundant, but it doesn't make sense.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I've never edited this article, although I posted once to its talk page. The "sigh" is because I'd hoped I wouldn't have to take the time and trouble to get involved in this, or to document it, but FellGleaming who brought this to ANI is herself over 3RR. Further, she and Collect, along with another editor I can't recall at the moment – and no time to look-up, again, just now – have repeatedly removed the candidate's well-sourced statement that she intends to spend $50 million of her own money on her campaign for the Senate. ( If that's not worthy of inclusion in a candidate's article then I don't what is. But the statement is back in the article at the moment, I see. ) Also, FellGleaming presented this matter in her opening paragraph here in a way that gives the very false impression that Screwball attempted some kind of BLP/smear violation. He didn't. I don't have time to add more or to document FellGleaming's 3RR+ violation right now: I've made this post mostly to ask admins to refrain from closing this thread prematurely, as sometimes occurs. But I'll be back with supporting diffs within 24 hours.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting claim about my edits - I did not seek to remove a claim as to amount of money in any revert or edit on this article - [22] was my first edit here - and was specifically on the lengthy "ring boy" BLP violation and the extensive material which might belong under WWE, but which is not in any way "biographical". [23] second edit was a revert of Screwball's total reinsertion if everything under the sun. I made no other edits on this article that I can find, I ask that the false claims above as to how many edits I have mde to Linda McMahon and the nature of those edits be corrected as soon as possible. Charges made here which are inaccurate, as these are, do not help anyone at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you'll scroll down ten or twenty lines in your second diff, depending on the size of the browser window you have open, you'll see that you deleted the following, a statement and its corresponding ref that FellGleaming and another editor had deleted three times in the preceding two days:

McMahon has stated a willingness to spend $50 million in the race.^[10]

10. ^ Altimari, Daniela (2009-08-15). "Wrestling CEO weighs Senate Run". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2009-08-21.

I'm sure you just missed your deletion of this, just as I missed the fact that the same statement occurs again in a section of the article that's not represented in the diffs, and that therefore requires a very long scroll downwards, and a careful reading of that version of the article, to discover. Were you aware of the statement's presence there, in the body of the quickly-changing article, across multiple versions, I wonder? If so, and you were focused on the occurence of the statement in the body of the article, unaware of the same statement on the "left" side near the top of all the deletion diffs, while I was conversely focused on the same statement occuring in the "left" side of the deletion diffs and had similarly overlooked its duplicatation in the body of the article, well that would explain a great deal. ( Fyi, that sentence took a long time to write intelligibly! )

If that's what happened, I can well-understand your vexation, and will certainly say that I regret that so complex a confusion should have put us on the wrong foot with one another. Your objection to my having lumped you in with FellGleaming in the reference I made above to deletions of the candidate's $50 million spending plan statement having been made "repeatedly" is also quite understandable. I was operating from fallible memory and had the mistaken impression that you'd echoed her reversions of what you call, with some justification, Screwball's "everything under the sun" material more than just the one time you did. I didn't intend to imply that you had greater involvement than you actually did have with just your one reversion that included the $50 million spending plan, and only one instance of its two occurences in the article, at that. Sorry if it seemed otherwise; I should have been more clear.

It's a little funny in retrospect, but by reviewing this in such great detail, I found that you would have had some justification for intentionally deleting the cited reference for the first instance of the claim, if not the actual claim itself. The ref for its first instance was rubbish, a broken link. Either when it was created, or via successive editing, it became confounded with one or more other refs. Its url pointed to the Chicago Tribune, when this Hartford Courant article, which doesn't even mention the $50 million figure, may have been the intended target. Or it may have been the intended target at some point in the article's evolution, at least. At the moment I write this, however, the statement in the body of the article that McMahon plans to spend $50 million to win the Senate seat is completely unreferenced... No, that does not mean that you or any of McMahon's supporters can remove it. It means that as a good, NPOV editor whose primary interest is in improving the article rather than in promoting any political agenda with respect to Ms. McManon, you need to find a valid reference for it in a reliable source. :-)

Anway, if it makes you feel better knowing it, I'll disclose that you've certainly had your revenge for my part in the confusion around this: it has taken me literally hours to sort what probably happened here. I wish there were a way to step through article versions much more quickly, and a more efficient way to note the changes that occur across versions. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement that I violated 3RR at any point is a flat-out lie, which the diffs will show. When Screwball began mass reverting the changes of myself, Collect, and Off2Riorob, I sought resolution at the BLP noticeboard, then here. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohio, you've made two false statements here I ask you to retract. The statement that I violated 3RR at any point is flatly incorrect, which the diffs will show. When Screwball began mass reverting the changes of myself, Collect, and Off2Riorob, I sought resolution. The second falsehood is regards the statement that McMahon intended to spend $50M on her campaign. In fact, I left it in the lede of her Senate campaign article, and in the body of her main article. I simply removed it from the lede of her main article. It has no place in a five-sentence lede. Ohio, please do the right thing and correct your statements. Fell Gleamingtalk 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FallGleaming: I've restored the initial address you made to me, and presumably thought better of subsequently, since you deleted it and added the one immediatlely above a couple hours later, even though you knew from my quick wp:indent cleanup that I'd already seen it. It's not that I appreciated your initial comment so very much, but you're demanding a very public retraction from me here, urging me from that moral high-ground you appear to favor to "do the right thing", as if I had done the wrong thing previously. It just seems a little odd that you wouldn't enjoy having the same opportunity yourself and would prefer to make a retraction on the quiet.

I am glad to learn that I've been demoted from being a liar to just telling "falsehoods", in your view, though: it takes a lot of energy to be very wicked, you know. More to the point, wp:redact recommends against simply removing your comments from a shared talk page, and I'd say that applies doubly in any quasi-judicial forum like this one. You can also consult wp:redact for the correct method to indicate that you wish to retract a statement, btw. ( Hint: <del></del>. )

Responding thus far as carefully and as fully as the occasion has called for has consumed much more time than I budgeted for or expected, however. I don't have leisure to continue with this right now, FellGleaming. I'll give you the balance of my follow-up as soon as possible.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, but I can't follow your drift with all this. I do know, however, that you accused me of (a) violating 3RR when I did not, and (b) removing material from the article when I simply removed it from the lede, leaving it in the body. You're complaining about me "calling you out publicly" on this, but I first asked you politely on your talk page. And you STILL have not corrected this falsehood. Further, you complained my objections about the steroid trial section were misplaced, when the version you reviewed was already the massively edited version that I and Collect had edited, not the problematic original copy. Fell Gleaming^talk 04:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now posted the relevant diffs showing your 3RR+ above, per wp:indent, just after the ones you posted accusing Screwball. Since you say you can't understand what you call "my drift", I'll be more explicit: You tried to quietly retract your having called me a liar and substitute a softer version just accusing me of telling "falsehoods", which I certainly haven't done, either. You're not allowed to remove comments from this page, even your own. I pointed you to wp:indent for the proper method to issue your retraction, since you seem so keen on others making them. You use the "del" tag to strike through the text you're retracting, you don't just delete the text. The rules are less strict about that re your own talk page, btw, but they must be followed here. So this would be the time to strike through your "flat-out lie" accusation, if you really are concerned with "doing the right thing" yourself, as you like to urge others to do.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what, FellGleaming? I'm going to drop my defensiveness for a moment, at least, and say that I don't need a retraction of your having given me the lie; that's generally a bad policy, imo, and anyway, my dignity isn't so fragile that it can't weather such a charge. I will say, though, that your having made it, having called an editor who hasn't been previously involved a liar, tells me you really could use some time away from editing controversial articles. In my first communication with you I stated that impression, and from what I've seen subsequently, you'd be doing yourself a favor to take at least a few days off. The world won't crumble in the meantime, and other editors will continue the work you've been doing on these two articles anyway. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your defensiveness doesn't bother me, your inaccurate statements do. You've included edits that were in no manner "reverts" to support your claim I violated 3RR in the article (see my reply above). You also chose not to support your claim that I removed funding data from article (I simply removed it from the lede, leaving it in the body). I ask you once again to stop making false accusations. It really isn't helpful. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your "not 3RR" statements above, in context. As to your pointing up "my defensiveness" that I mentioned, you'll find that people do become just the teensiest bit defensive when you say they're liars. But if you want to keep characterizing me as "making false accusations" and the like, then you'll soon find that's a pretty little game that two can play. So far I've refrained from responding in kind, but I can start saying "you're making false statements", saying you should retract, and generally characterizing your position in legitimately disputed points as "false", "falsehoods", "flat-out lies", and the like, to borrow from your language. Those kinds of "meta-statments" just throw fuel on the fire, especially when coupled with the condescending tone you favor in statements like "please do the right thing" and "it really isn't helpful". So I'll ask you one last time to stop using such rhetorical devices before I resort to the same tools you keep using to discredit my position.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that the article is too long. The natural choice would be to split of sections into separate article, as was already done here when Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010‎ was separated. Looking at the article history, it is clear that Screwball23 is not introducing new material, he is objecting to the removal of sourced material from the article, without a clear consensus to do so. Apparently some editors would like the article to focus more on her current political career and less on her former professional wrestling career (especially the steroid issues that come with the territory). This is understandable during a campaign season, but may be resentist and unencyclopedic in the long run. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthy may also be the fact, that Screwball23's Wikipedia interest starting from June 2006 seems to have focused on World Wrestling Entertainment, while at least two of the people mentioned as his "opponents" seem to be involved in every resent campaign related dispute. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside time? Note Screwball23 accounts for about half of ALL edits here. Compared to my two edits. And [24] wherein Jimbo affirms my position regarding political BLP edits. Do I follow BLPs? Yep. Including proposals for "pending changes" on them etc. I edited on Alex Sink, Huey Long and more. WP:BLP policy must be strictly enforced on WP, per WMF as well. There is no escuse at all for violating WP:BLP. None. Collect (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I ask you retract this false statement. What other "resent campaign related dispute" have I been involved in? This is, in fact, the only article of someone campaigning at ANY level I've edited in at least half a year, if not longer. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you keep saying Jimmy supports your position. Maybe, maybe not. But you should know that you're making an argumentum ad Jimbonem , which he advises against. And @FellGleaming: Is it really necessary to quote someone's spelling error back at them? We've all made them, aftre all. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish to highlight a pattern in that FellGleeming has a track record for wishing BLPs to be whitewashed or puff pieces along political lines. I fully agree with Ohiostandard and Petri Krohn's evidence and go further to suggest that FellGleaming has gamed rules on sourcing to the limit in attempts to make BLPs conform to her prefered POV. FellGleaming withdrew from the climate change area of wikipedia a few months ago, in my opinion just in time to avoid a certain ban. I had a conflict with her as I tried to clean up the BLP J. Scott Armstrong to make it less of a puff piece based around his own publications. Now it seems that she is employing very similar tactics to remove any negative criticism of McMahon. This appears to be political POV pushing and not a genuine concern for wikipedia rules. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

xenophobic postings

Unresolved

 – user is misusing Twinkle in disputes with D of P. Keeping this open for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A little bit ago I blocked DinDraithou (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing.[25] He sent me email telling me that he knew I was Scottish, and that this was why I blocked him (never seen him before). He's since been targeting articles in my interest, making fringe, highly ideological edits to medieval Scotttish articles and making offensive comments on talk pages designed to offend Scottish people.[26][27] I'm not sure if he's trying to get some kind of "revenge" by trying to stir up bad feeling, or if he genuinely believes this kind of stuff, but since he has already told me not to come to his page, I thought I'd let some other admin deal with this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

These are some pretty blatant racially-motivated personal attacks; I believe an indef block may be in order until the user understands and abides by WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I think I've been rather misrepresented by Deacon, and absolutely nothing has been racially motivated. From my point of view it is Deacon who has now been targeting articles in my interest, and without the proper background. The accusation is incredibly vague. Examples? Btw that addition to the talk page of Clann Somhairle was made before Deacon ever visited the article. By some coincidence (or not?) I posted the half-humorous musing last night, and he visited the article today. Misrepresentation at the very least.

In the case of Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone, he was later over-ruled by a vote of respectable editors and eventually another administrator. See Talk:Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone#Requested move. DinDraithou (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the comments were directed at this user or not, they were clearly directed at an individual, and comments like "He comes from nation with an extremely limited tradition of scholarship" and "I think it's tragic that most of the Clann Somhairle now have to suffer being Scottish" in the above diffs are totally unacceptable. How you can claim these aren't racially motivated, I'll never know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks racist and soapboxy to me, and I'll be happy to block for any repetition of this type of behavior. --John (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. If you knew anything about this little region of the world you would know that Irish, Picts, Welsh, and Scots all share pretty much the same genetics and ultimately lineages. So it's like heaping scorn on your first cousins! Yes we get to do that, just like the Swedes and the Danes. DinDraithou (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, no one has the right to make racial attacks on other editors or individuals. I suggest reading up on WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, they are not racial. They can't be. You just don't get it. DinDraithou (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that those are certainly violations of our rule against personal attacks. Since he has been blocked before, and since he is responding to correction by insisting that his edits are appropriate, I have no problem with a block. I would tend to support a one-week block rather than an indefinite one, to give him the opportunity to embrace a higher standard of civility in the future, but I haven't extensively reviewed his contribution history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

People tend to get angry when they have been unfairly blocked. After that happened, Deacon arrived at my talk page trying to force me to back down over the title of another article, where there was no move warring, by using his status as an administrator. I thought this was against the rules? To me he is clearly trying to force his POV this way. And recall he was eventually over-ruled about the form of that other title. DinDraithou (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

None of those excuse what you have said. If those are issues worthy of investigation please bring them up seperately. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only say I'll stop. I'll stop. But I've been guilty of rather less than Deacon. Believe it or not I'm a pretty excellent editor for the most part, and he has lost my confidence. DinDraithou (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou was move-warring with Mcferran (talk · contribs), daring him to revert.[28] I protected the page , moved the page back to its stable name and blocked him. If he's claiming he believes I was part of that revert war, he's talking in bad faith since previous posts indicate that he understood this wasn't the case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately you blocked me without giving any warning and restored the incorrect, unlearned form of the name. Then you tried to intimidate me concerning another title. Now here you're essentially making a few things up to have me banned so that you can have your way with those articles. I see an admission above and think you should step down. DinDraithou (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

These diffs [29][30] were not made up by Deacon, but by you. This diff and the edit summary here confirm Deacon's concerns. A person who obviously has a problem with Scots should at the very least be banned from editing articles relating to Scotland, broadly construed. To me, it is further questionable how this editor is capable to edit any article related to "Gaeldom" with respect to NPOV. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry DinDraithou. But having looked through the events of what happened it does not at all match what you accused above. Which is concerning. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages, most of it on mine. Talk pages, all three or four of them, one of which I own and another the article for which I am the creator. User:Angusmclellan is someone I know, although if he is a little disappointed with me now for going after the Picts a little hard that is understandable. Back to Deacon, I'm not surprised to see administrators defending another administrator and ignoring his failings. He is kind of like a Wiki-Peer and must be given the benefit of the doubt, right? What about the editor who had never been blocked before he showed up on an Irish subject page?

Now he's using that block primarily as evidence of a behavior I am not guilty of, namely following him around and messing things up. In fact he's the one guilty of that. But go ahead and ignore these misrepresentations and focus on anything you can find which might be interpreted as evidence of intra-Insular Celtic racism. It is laughable.

Clarification: "using as evidence", meaning it's the first thing he mentioned. Nice trick. DinDraithou (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT; DinDraithou is still referring to concerns about personal attacks as "laughable" and attempting to divert attention to the actions of another editor, giving fuzzy evidence which doesn't stand up to closer analysis. I'm still of the opinion that a block may be necessary until the user understands why his comments were not appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I heard that. I'm not stupid and have no intention of getting blocked. I am addressing the charges, which are mostly false. Do you think I have no rights now that you are convinced I am guilty of "blatant racially-motivated personal attacks"? You made your decision immediately and obviously didn't look into things. DinDraithou (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether they are racial or not is beside the point - they are disruptive personal attacks and frtankly beyond the pale. I will not hesitate to block you if you continue in that rut. This and its equivalent on your talkpage is the only warning I will give you. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to leave anything on my talk page. I use it for research and also don't like to be embarrassed, so it will be removed again and again. But I see your resolve.

Now back to the actual charges? DinDraithou (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to embarass you - but in that way an admin can see in the page history that you have received this warning. You are in your right to remove warnings - that is simply a sign that you have read them. The charges have been sufficiently explained to you and enough editors have agreed that you behaviour was unacceptable that for you to keep arguing details instead of accepting the criticism seems unproductive. As for the notion that people can make ethnically or religiously based attacks claim that "this is not racism (because its not biological)" that is a lost cause - race is not biology and racism in clude non race-based kinds of discrimination. I don't know about Ireland but in Denmark people have tried to make this argument in court after disparaging muslims and being charged after the racism paragraphs - and they have lost.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think I deserved this official warning, having said little that was actually disparaging. It was, if angry, only an academic argument. Sporrans? Cultural abyss? No, the ultimate problem here was a poorly behaving administrator still trying to justify a remarkably hasty block. Maybe he saw a report eventually coming attached to some other things. Sure what I've said was a little demeaning, and to some of my own ancestors, but I've read much worse in respectable published sources. If Wikipedia can't take it then it can't take it and as I've said I'll stop, whatever it actually was. Getting hot or being right? Again see Talk:Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone#Requested move. Embarrassing for Wikipedia. DinDraithou (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no additional context you can provide which makes it acceptable to leave blatantly racially-offensive comments; the matter you appear to be trying to drag up to divert attention is a completely separate matter, and so far there's no indication that your accusations have any basis either. Moreover, continuing to refer to the concerns of several editors over your personal attacks as "laughable" clearly indicates that you're not taking WP:NPA seriously. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you are being unfair. You were the first to allege genuine racism and are just sticking by that charge. Even Deacon I think understands a little better.

This is a pretty serious charge. Do you make it commonly? Who is part Scottish here? (I am: Maclachlan, Petrie, Oliphant, etc.) DinDraithou (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a productive line of discussion, and I see that the thread's now been marked resolved. You have promised to discontinue the personal attacks, so we'll WP:AGF that you'll do so. Take heed that at least two sysops have made it clear that they're willing to exercise a block if you make any further attacks, and knock it off. I'd also suggest that you review WP:NPA to ensure that you properly understand what constitutes a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that we're resolved how about you knock it off? I was hoping Angus or someone who might remember my old user page, or had looked through my talk archives or once talked with me, would chime in that I am in fact part Scottish on the mother's side. Through her I actually descend from one the older Scottish families in the United States (Claflin < Maclachlan), arrived 1651, and also from Scottish Canadians (Oliphant and Petrie). But I was worried it might look like a lie, and I got distracted. And I mistakenly thought I could make you see some other things first. Principle. DinDraithou (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to go on and on and realize this is over, but I would like to point out something I was not aware of throughout the discussion. While it was certainly his right to comment, it would appear that User:Giftiger_wunsch is not actually an administrator, and has only been around since April. Here I ended up defending mostly against him and just assumed he was one. But now I see that his behavior was too aggressive for one, and think his persistent charges of racism show he is unsuited for the position, although he claims to want it on his user page. And rather badly it would seem, or he wouldn't be here. If ever he is up for that I would love to be notified. I can't remember the word for what I have seen but I think most know what I'm talking about. In any case, I offer a limited apology to the real administrators, excluding one, for calling their behavior laughable. The debate was poisoned from the start. It happens. Also please note my last response to User:Maunus above if you have not read it. DinDraithou (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou, why don't you quit while your ahead....he claims to want it on his user page. And rather badly it would seem, or he wouldn't be here really isn't helpful, imho. --Threeafterthree (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GiftigerWunsch may not be an admin but he conducted himself as well as one would be expected to here. I'm an admin and I followed this exchange and I felt you were in the wrong this whole time. Let me warn you, the "I can insult you because I'm one too" doesn't work on Wikipedia, it's no immunity against accusation of personal attacks. For one thing, we're all mostly anonymous here and it's nearly impossible to verify anyone's personal claims about themselves. For another, sometimes even hearing an insult about your race or nationality from someone who shares it can be offensive. So knock it off. Please. Thanks. -- Atama頭 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GW doesn't belong here, and it looks like you don't either. What are you talking about? DinDraithou (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... what do you mean they "don't belong here", exactly? Doc9871 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They share an inappropriate behavior. I need no lecture at all from the second. This is long resolved. DinDraithou (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what the "inappropriate behaviour" we share is? The fact that we disagree that you should be exempted from WP:NPA? If you have an accusation to make, you're in the right venue, you could simply start a new thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll go far. End of this discussion for me. Unwatchlisted. (And don't show up on my talk page.) DinDraithou (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

An I'm not an admin either. But it is well accepted that non-admins are welcome to contribute an opinion here. We can do clerk like work and help with resolving issues that need no admin tools. In fact it is almost a pre-requisite for passing an RFA to have AN/I activity :) But now your using another avenue to undermine those who have told you that you made unacceptable comments. Honestly; just drop it. And Giftiger; I recommend not rising to it ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of Twinkle

This caught my eye today. As a blatant misus of Twinkle's rollback in a content dispute with the same user above, I've issued a single warning to DD regarding his Twinkle privileges. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As DD has stated that he has unwatched this page, and the issue is now again marked "unresolved" I'll comment here. DD acknowledged having read the warning concerning misuse of Twinkle with the following edit summary: What? I was unaware of it... and don't even need whatever it is[31] I guess this part of the issue could be marked as "resolved" again either by removing the Twinkle-access or consider DD warned and remove the access id further misuse should occur. If, for some reason, it is felt by someone that this is still "unresolved" DD should be notified about that. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by DeeMusil

Resolved

 – User warned; most appear to agree that a warning will suffice and further action will result in a block, and no one has gone ahead and blocked the user, so it seems we have consensus to wait for a repeat of the behaviour before a block is appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of attacking me. The last tim he compare me to the pedosexuals and zoosexuals and alleged me of wanting the special rights. It's outrageous and startling. I expect the radical approach here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_orientation&diff=382759804&oldid=382624002 --Destinero (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Warned.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I don't agree with the sentiments, the diff you provided doesn't strike me as a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He does comment on individual editors and make generalising remarks about "you homosexuals" instead of just argue his point. That is why I warned him. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

True, it certainly wasn't necessary to address other editors, but since he doesn't seem to actually be attacking homosexuals, I don't think this is a violation of WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I am uncertain, he does say that there is nothing different between Homosexual behaviour and behaviour that is illegal in most countries.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, neither pedophilia nor zoophilia are illegal in most countries; the terms refer to the psychological states, i.e. being sexually attracted to children or animals, not the practice of sexually abusing them. It's a valid point to compare psychology of different sexual attractions, even if it could have been better phrased. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be talking about pedosexuals and zoosexuals which implies acting on the desire - actions which are illegal in most countries. Anyway I agree it is not a strong personal attack. Also the fact that he is personalising the comparison is an aggravating fact imo.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger, are you really trying to say that comparing people who self-identify as homosexual to pedophiles and zoophiles is not in violation of Wikipedia rules? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on the context; the comment didn't seem to actually attack homosexuals, just stated an opinion that the psychology of homosexuality is similar to that of pedophilia and zoophilia; though I'm not happy with the way it was phrased as "you homosexuals", the following comment appeared to partly clarify the context to be referring to the psychology. As such, I don't think this is a personal attack, no. We don't have to agree with the sentiment to acknowledge that it is a valid opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I can really not see how you can possibly not interpret "you homosexuals are the same as pedophiles and zoophiles" as anything other than a personal attack. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not what quite was said, the user was criticising homosexuals for not extending their own rights to "zoosexuals and pedosexuals", in response to comments about pedophilia and zoophilia above, in the same thread. The user stated that pedophiles and zoophiles can make the same psychology argument as homosexuals. I fail to see where there was a personal attack here simply because the user expressed their opinion on the comparative psychology. Referring to other editors as "you homosexuals" is incivil perhaps, but that's the "personal" part; where's the attack? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"What I wonder is that you, homosexuals, want your special rights, but you don't want to share the same rights with others, "pedosexuals and zoosexuals". What is the difference? I do not see any. Why you do not support the real diversity in your agenda?" 1. The user clearly tagged me as a homosexual (who I am). 2. Immediately after he stated there is no difference between a homosexuality and a pedophilia and a zoophilia. 3. And that we homosexuals want special right. I have to say it is much outrageous mainly since in a imediately preceding paragraph on the Talk Page I've explain that pedophilia is connected to the age (= age orientation) of the person and zoophilia to the animals (spiece orientation), not to the people and that sexual orientation connected to the sex of the object (either the same or the opposite, perhaps none - asexuality). If somebody can't understand such a simple things and make those personall connections of me to pedophilia and zoophilia it is my opinion he is clearly not mentally and morally qualified to edit Wikipedia. --Destinero (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WTH? Of course this is not only a personal attack and an outrageously offensive one. Goes in the same bin with 'You Jews" and "You coloreds" of people who will bring the project into disrepute, and who should just be indeffed at the beginning to save everyone extra work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic. Saying something like "you Jews" isn't a personal attack unless you add additional context or offensive claims about Jewish people. "You Jews have been around for thousands of years and were the subject of genocide under Hitler's rule in Nazi Germany", for example, isn't a personal attack. Similarly, discussing the psychology of homosexuality isn't a personal attack unless an offensive remark is also made. I don't think it's civil to address people as "you homosexuals", but it's hardly a personal attack in itself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty important distinction to note that the comment diffed above is in the context of a discussion about sexual orientation, and that the author of the comment made it (relatively) clear that they were discussing the rights and psychologies of homosexuals, and what he termed "pedosexuals" and "zoosexuals". But I don't see anything disparaging in the comments, the closest perhaps being "Someone can say that both is bad, I personally do see pedophiles just more behind the line of normality.", but I still think that's borderline. The user then follows it up with "Pedophiles claim, that term "sexual orientation" includes their type of sexuality as well.", which makes it fairly clear that they are discussing the psychology, in the context of sexual orientation. I understand the urge to see homosexuality being compared to pedophilia and shout "personal attack", but I honestly don't think there's grounds to do so, given the context. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. The user is simply parroting the attacks against homosexuals made by our enemies- that homosexuality is morally equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. I am gay, and I can confirm that I have no problem identifying this person as someone who hates me and wishes to harm me based on this comment. I'm a little puzzled about why you don't see that, but I hope the fact that a number of others have disagreed with you will prompt you to consider the possibility that this user is being insulting in a way that you didn't pick up on. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I can see why some people might find it offensive, but I don't think this is a blatant personal attack, and would personally give the user the benefit of the doubt as they do appear to be discussing the psychology. I don't see any mention of "morality" being discussed here, and I strongly agree that attempting to claim that homosexuality is "morally unjustified" is a blatant personal attack. It's entirely possible that the user carefully phrased these comments to make it potentially ambiguous as something other than an attack, they certainly seem to have some sort of prejudice against homosexuals, but I haven't looked into their other edits. On the basis of this comment alone, however, I don't feel that a block would be warranted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that the preferred outcome is that the user strike the disruptive comment and rephrase it so as not to refer to other editors, and if they are referring to the psychological aspects, they should be clearer on that. If it's not, then perhaps I am assuming good faith which isn't there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(x2) I'm not gay, but this reads like a homophobic rant to me, too. And it is personalized to boot: "you, homosexuals". Besides the comparison to pedophiles and zoophiles, there's the lesser direct accusation that homosexuals have a sense of entitlement, wanting exclusive "special" privileges. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been misinterpreting this; I read this as "pedophiles and zoophiles have the right to defend their sexuality too", not "homosexuals don't have the right any more than pedophiles or zoophiles". I felt that this was a statement that pedophilia or zoophilia mentality isn't a choice any more than homosexuality, rather than stating that all three are equally invalid. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, if the consensus is that I'm taking WP:AGF a bit too far and that the comment is unambiguously a personal attack, then fair enough. At the very least I agree that it's uncivil and very poorly worded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, I just informed the user of this thread since they hadn't previously been informed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Some of us are probably a little bit involved here just because it's about homosexuality and I know I am as well, being a homosexual, but I also view this as a personal attack. If not against the OP, then against homosexuals in general. The "pedophiles and zoosexuals" argument is one that has been used by most detractors to homosexuality and it is extremely offensive to all of us. Using it in any context, really, can be construed as an attack on homosexuality. Silverseren^C 14:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Well the user has been warned, in no uncertain terms, by Maunus. Since I'm not convinced it was an outright personal attack I don't think a block is appropriate right now, but given Maunus' clear warning, and the fact that several users here are clearly offended by the user's comments (whether intentional or not, and despite assuming good faith, I'm certainly not 100% convinced that they're not), any repeat of this type of comment should result in a block. Any comments on that? If others are in agreement about that, I think an uninvolved admin should close this thread. (Though clearly at least a couple of users support a block already, so we should clarify consensus first). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Clarify consensus"? Have I missed something? Or is consensus perfectly clear, with only Giftiger wunsch persisting with an idiosyncratic point of view? The remark was clearly intended to be an attack. The fact that a strict reading of the logical content of the remark can take it as a neutral statement does not alter the fact that the whole tone and intention of it indicated an attack. In addition, the remark has to be taken in context. Destinero started this section by saying "This editor has a long history of attacking me ". Personally I think that is something of an overstatement, but an astonishingly high proportion of DeeMusil's edits are contradicting, criticising, or attempting to discredit, Destinero. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson; yes, you've missed something. Most users who have discussed this matter seem to agree that any further comments will warrant a block (including myself), a couple have expressed that an immediate block is warranted. I'm not asking for consensus on whether this is a personal attack, clearly consensus says that it is. I'm asking for consensus on whether the warning will suffice for now, or if a block is deemed appropriate regardless. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GiftigerWunsch, you missed something. The fact you are the only one in this discussion who don't want to block DeeMusil right now. Next time, he would know what is encyclopedia and cooperation about. --Destinero (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent consensus. Attempting to misrepresent a discussion on ANI to get your own way is foolish at best. Please note that I moved your comment to be below my comment which you were apparently answering. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd block for that comment, given that DeeMusil seems to have broken four months silence (he wasn't blocked, I checked) just to say it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I alrady have said in the first comment I expect the block of the DeeMusil right now as the majority of people who discuss it here. DeeMusil obviously broke up months of silence just to made the personal attack and nobody can dispute this fact. It was framed as a personall attack and it was a personal attack. --Destinero (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't block punitively, he has been warned that such behaviour will not be tolerated. If he repeats the offense then a block is in order.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, blocking for that comment would be ridiculous. If the user in question continues to make similar remarks, then blocking can be discussed. Buddy431 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Continual Recreation of Article under different titles

At one time there was an article Fledgling Jason Steed concerning a self-published book (Now apparently with a publisher and just about published by now). This was delted via AFD on two ocassions. The original author of that User:Beehold was never very pleased with that and kept a copy on their user page. At MFD it was determined that this content be moved to a user subpage. Earlier this year the user went dormant, however numerous other users have popped up and recreated the article at the original location, Jason_Steed_(Book_Series) and now at Jason Steed (Young adult novels). I've tagged this latest incarnation as CSD G4, though it is currently an unattributed copyvio of the User:Beehold user space draft. (Either that or the many users creating this are socks of the original author). The article has also been posted in a similar way on many other user pages (all since delted as copyvio's.

This seems a clear abuse of wikipedia, rather than getting the suitable references and getting the article reviewed, the continued recreation at different titles in order to avoid scrutiny is surely disruptive? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am User:Beehold that User:82.7.40.7 makes reference to. Except I can't remember my log-on password and have had to create a new account. (My password was stored on my computer and, when the hard drive crashed and had to be replaced, none of the remembered passwords could be recovered. (As you can see by the editing history, I haven't been able to edit under that name for several months).

As far as I can tell, User:82.7.40.7 is trying to make two complaints:

1. . That I have recreated the Jason Steed page, despite it being deleted in the past. True - but, now the book has been published, reviews and stories are slowly filtering through from recognised publications. See here for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cooperbook.jp. I am adding these as I find them, to ensure the article is as authoritive and informative as possible.
2. . User:82.7.40.7 claims that it is a "copy violation" to recreate this article. Hardly. Articles for Wikipedia are created under a free Creative Commons licence - CC-BY-SA 3.0 - which means they are available for anyone, and everyone to use. This arguement simply does not hold water.

Thirdly, and this is a complaint against User:82.7.40.7, it clearly states at the top of this page that "You must notify any user that you discuss." talk did not, and I only stumbled across this. Perhaps this is uncharitable of me to think this may have been deliberate, to keep me from presenting any defence to their claims.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the G4 nomination doesn't apply, as the deletion discussion was 14 months ago. That is not to say I think the article belongs, but such a discussion should happen at WP:AFD, not here. Having said that, User:Itshayfevertime removing the G4 tag from the article was also out of process.  Frank  |  talk  10:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP is correct. At the time the article Jason Steed (Young adult novels) was posted it violated Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text. Wikipedia uses Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The standard instructions at Help:Moving a page#Before moving a page apply. I've moved the version from Beehold over and restored the latest version. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and fixing that, CambridgeBayWeather. The specific guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Steed (Young adult novels), if anyone's interested one way or the other. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: also recreated on Beehold/HayFever's userpage. Again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  That I know of was previously at User:Onthemap (creator of one of the previous reincarnations), User:BonfireCharlie, User:Many A Flower and User_talk:Many A Flower. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have followed this subject closely. I am now certian that User SarekOfVulcan has a personal, shall we say 'interest' in this. Can anyone other than this one person tell me why every Joe Craig book is listed, many I have helped edit. Yet this one title has been rejected despite it being more popular in both the UK and the US. I can't find a single news story of a Joe Craig book in the US. If we look further, many books are given a page on wikipedia, some have even been set up by SarekOfVulcan yet they don't come anywhere close to meeting the guidlines Fledgling Jason Steed has. I enjoy editing on here and know much about YA novels. I am stunned that this single book with newspaper articles in the UK and US, reviews from authors, published by a major publishers and is constantly voted as the best YA book on almost every book website across the world is turned down? How can newspapers in different parts of the world write a story on this and yet it's called un-notible.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

Oliver, it's against Wikipedia rules to post in a discussion with multiple accounts in an attempt to sway consensus. If you aren't Beehold/ItsHayFeverTime, I'll eat my hat. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just on my way here to post the same thing - has anyone opened a SPI ? Because the quacking is distracting... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarek: "If you aren't Beehold/ItsHayFeverTime, I'll eat my hat." Go on then - I'd love to watch that on a webcam. I've already explained I was Beehold during the Jason Steed deletion discussion, but haven't edited under that name in months cos my compuer hard-drive died and left me without my password memories. I am now writing under Itshayfevertime. Sooooo - I watch this space with bated breath for a very big apology to Oliver0071, who is most certainly not me. If i went round making accusations like that, like sying User: 82.7.40.7 and Sarek are most definitely, certainly and undeniably the same person, that I'm sure i would be warned, if not banned. --Itshayfevertime (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the boat on that, I've already been accused of being various people including several admins, no one has been warned or banned for it (that I know of). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RussBot Problem

User:R'n'B's RussBot has been going through to hatlinks on any number of pages that link to a disambiguation page and adding "(disambiguation)" whether it is in the name of the page or not. This essentially creates a redirect to the already exsisting page. I noticed it when the bot made this edit to WTOP-FM earlier. I posted a question about it, thinking it is a goof and received this answer that in fact R'n'B has set the bot to deliberately go around and create nothing more than redirects. The explanation for all this is the edit summary: "Editing intentional link to disambiguation page in hatnote per WP:INTDABLINK (explanation)". I read the mumbo-jumbo explanation and the best I can bring out of it so things can be "readily identified" in "what links here" reports. This is just silly in my opinion and not necessary in the least. I would like this mess reverted by bot (probably the only way it can be done) and things reviewed so this doesn't happen again. Creating a redirect so "what links here" reports can be easy to read is just stupid and misuse of a bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the user of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying me. This task has been discussed ad nauseum and approved at every review. Most recently, it was advertised on both WP:CENT and WP:RFC for a full 30 days, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Redirects in hatnotes, and closed by an uninvolved admin who found a clear consensus in favor of the bot's operation. What else do I have to do???? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  Has this been approved by BAG? RussBot 5 seems to only approved the creation of the redirect pages, not purposely linking to them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RussBot 4 is the one that covers this task. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  Great, thanks :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Showing how this will improve things rather than just create needless redirects for "what links here" would be nice. I am sorry you had to go through so much to get this approved but I just don't feel it is helpful to the project to have countless redirects floating around out there, when most people go out of their way (at least I hope they do) to remove redirects so you get a direct link to the page in question and not go around Jake's barn. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, there is no reason to go around bypassing redirects. WP:R2D addresses that specifically. I'm sorry if you've been laboring under a misconception. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, there's not much point purposely not bypassing the redirects. The reason given in the BRfA seems to be it shows if linking to a disambiguation was intentional or not, but having a bot do this seems to defeat the object, since the bot just presumes that every single one is intentional... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See, to me, I would rather go to WTOP, then the redirect WTOP (disambiguation). You are getting the same information, but the redirect (while slightly unnecessary) just takes up space. Plus who is really going to type all that out when they can just type in "WTOP"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:R2D seems to be brought up a lot by people who create redirects to bypass perfectly good direct links. The essence of R2D is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and that applies in both directions. I think JaGa was spot on when he/she said, "Well, it is a bit confusing; you click a hatnote for XXX (disambiguation) and get redirected to XXX, and think, "Why didn't they just link directly to the dab?" I know there's nothing wrong with the policy, that redirects do not need to be "fixed", but all the same, the answer is not immediately obvious and we will have to explain why we do it this way again and again to the many future perfectly-good-faith-but-confused-and-thus-a-little-annoyed editors."[32] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up with him the other day as well but I didn't have the time. It seems ridiculous to be changing a direct link to an indirect link. And it is very much counter to WP:NOTBROKEN. This is definitely not an appropriate bot task. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Let me give you a thorough explanation, then, of why this is necessary. Links to disambiguation pages are generally wrong; they are intended to go to some page with a more specific title that can be found on the disambig page. For example, where an editor writes "[[Jeff Jorgenson]] was considered to be a great baseball player", he doesn't intend to create a link to the disambiguation page for "Jeff Jorgenson", but to the article "[[Jeff Jorgenson (baseball player)]]". There are approximately 925,000 of these ambiguous links today - down from 1.35 million a year ago, thanks to the efforts of disambiguators. In order to fix these links, we have programs that generate lists of all of the links to disambig pages. These programs can not tell if the author intended to point to a particular article, or to the disambig page, so if the sentence is "There are many people named [[Jeff Jorgenson]]", there's no way to know that this is actually intended to point to the disambig page unless a pair of human eyes fall on it and make that determination. However, we have many editors going over these lists all the time, and every time a disambig page is intentionally linked, every one of the editors going through that list will have to take the time to independently review that link and determine that it is intentional. In order to make it clear to the list-making programs (and editors running through the lists by hand) that these links are intentional, we pipe them so that they read "There are many people named [[Jeff Jorgenson (disambiguation)|Jeff Jorgenson]]". Look at the "What links here" list for the disambiguation page, James Smith. We can tell right away that all of the articles that are shown on that page to redirect to "James Smith" through James Smith (disambiguation) are intentional links to that page, and don't need to be checked. Multiply that time savings by the fifteen-thousand or so disambiguation pages (that we know of so far) that have, collectively, hundreds of thousands of intentional incoming links. If the link was set up as [[James Smith|James Smith (disambiguation)]], it would only appear to be fixed, but would still show up on the lists as needing to be fixed, and therefore waste thousands of hours of disambiguator time. bd2412 T 18:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• • [Kingpin13] - you said the bot is just indiscriminately assuming that all links to disambiguation pages are intentional; no, that is not what it is doing. It is only changing links in specific parameter positions in specific hatnote templates, which I selected based on the wording of the templates, because the context in which these templates are used (such as "For other uses see FOO") is such that any references to disambiguation pages can be presumed to be intentional. The particular templates and parameters to be changed were specified in the bot request for approval. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • [BD2412] - your description suggests that the links will be piped so that the word "(disambiguation)" is not displayed to the reader, but the consensus on WT:D was that the links should not be piped, because it may be helpful to the reader to give them this signal that the link will take them to a disambiguation page. I would have been happy to do it either way, with or without piping, but I followed the consensus. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were doing that. I was just making the case for piping through the redirect, and not merely creating the appearance of it (which some have suggested as a 'solution' in the past). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The fact they aren't piped is what probably is getting most people upset, as the unpiped versions look horrible at the top of the page. People know they are going to a disambiguation page because the sentence tells them they are. Adding the bracketed words is just repetitive. -DJSasso (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • [all] - I may not be able to respond to any further comments immediately, as I am trying to enjoy a relaxing weekend at the beach with my family and being on the computer all the time is not conducive to that. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just a couple of points from above:

• "Multiply that time savings by the fifteen-thousand or so disambiguation pages (that we know of so far) that have, collectively, hundreds of thousands of intentional incoming links." - Of course you're trading off some of that saving by creating umpteen thousand "[[Foo (disambiguation)]]" redirects that are not absolutely necessary. One could argue that the spirit of WP:R2D applies to disambiguation pages; There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects, so what's inherently wrong with linking to a disambiguation page? Having to click through a disambiguation page is no big deal. If anything it's likely to educate the reader to the fact that there are more than one uses for the term. As with anything else on Wikipedia, if the link is unintentional, somebody will pick it up and fix it. I know I do.
• "it may be helpful to the reader to give them this signal that the link will take them to a disambiguation page." - As per Djsasso's comment, when you see something like "For other rivers named Avon, see River Avon", it's a pretty clear indication that it's a link to a disambiguation page, not that many readers probably understand what disambiguation actually is. And then there are instances like Main North railway line, New South Wales where use of "(disambiguation)" results in a messy looking hatnote, at browser widths below 1280px, which is still about 25% of the computers in the world. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• On the first point, linking to a disambiguation page is much different than linking to a redirect. Clicking on a redirect link takes you immediately to the selected article; in fact, you have to look carefully to even notice that you went through a redirect. Clicking on a disambiguation page link takes you to a page that, in effect, says, "What did you mean by FOO? Did you mean John Foo, or Foo City, or ..."? That's very noticeable and affects the reader's experience in a way that redirects don't. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Does anyone find it a little dishearting that the user can't respond to comments due to a "relaxing weekend at the beach" yet can continue to operate his bot while on that same "relaxing weekend"? I recommend the bot be stopped pending the outcome of this thread or until R'n'B can get back from his weekend to respond to posts. If you can operate a bot (which has to be watched all the time) you can respond to this thread. -iting the it Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I can watch the bot and respond to comments; just not as quickly as I usually would. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• We don't expect operators to watch their bots all the time, just to respond to inquiries with in a reasonable amount of time (well, the word we use in policy is "promptly"). I don't really see a problem with the bot running while R'n'B is spending a weekend at a beach (where he apparently does have internet access). Although running the bot while users are discussing concerns might not be such a good idea, I normally expect bots to be paused while they're being discussed. Anyway, I think I've just about got my head around the point of this bot :D, it makes it much easier for users to find and think unintentional links to the disambiguation pages, since there are less intentional links getting in the way on the whatlinkshere page, seems clever to me. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can mark this resolved and closed. I've stopped the bot and don't plan to restart it. Somewhat embarrassingly and belatedly, I've realised that the same goal can be accomplished by editing the hatnnote templates, and won't require a bot to make changes to 20,000 articles. Sorry for wasting your time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that did occur to me, I notice that someone mentioned at least one of the templates already does this in one of the discussions about this bot. Will it be possible to make the templates do this even if some of the links have (disambiguation) at the end already, or will the bot have to go through the articles taking these out? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The template approach did not work, so I'm not doing anything at this point until I can come up with a better solution to the problem. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

User Reqluse

User Reqluse is going through fashion-related articles (mostly in Asia or Oceania) at a wild clip, asking for Deletion for many of them. I have been following him, reverting most of his requests. This is not productive. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Reqluce. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've only noticed his edits to Nico Didonna, but that certainly seems like a valid request for deletion on that article. He did restore a PROD tag after it had been removed, I've explained to him that the next step is AfD, not re-adding the PROD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you have not notified Reqluse of this discussion, which is required. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Everard Proudfoot for notifying me, and for informing me of the next step for AfD. Much appreciated. Reverting my edits simply because one has a belief that the subject 'is a successful businessman/woman "at the very least"' while being unable to provide any verifiable 3rd party references is not productive either. And no, just because the subject's name appears on a google search does not make it verifiable as in the case of Agnimitra Paul, where you accused me of not clicking the link you supplied. When in fact if you had gone through your supplied link, you would have discovered that 2 of the 4 mentions were dead links, one was a press release and the last an unreliable IMDB source. Hardly successful, nor notable.Reqluce (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to actually go to the Fashion wikiproject and expect the drawn out wait for any other editors to actually offer their opinion - it is clear the sense of purpose in this mission to sustain a view of notability is not patient enough to wait to see what others might think - and this is what we get - I only hope if there are active fashion project members - that they get a glimpse of what is happening - so that they might end up going to what appear to be inevitable AFD discussions - lets hope whoever does the AFD preparations - they remember to include the Fashion project and any closely related projects to go beyond 2 warring editors notion of resolving issues SatuSuro 04:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am another editor who has requested Reqluse's approach slows down, allows for more input from other editors, is more communicative and less combative, and accepts that patience may be required as it is clear that others want more time to be spent on the process than he would like. He does however seem to be taking some of this on board which is good. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where else would you discuss a deletion nomination BUT at AfD? And that gives you 7 days to answer how the articles meet policy, so I dont know why you're asking for patience and discussion, because he is providing exactly that. -- ۩ Mask 07:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty textbook case of an editor not reading the templates he's using (that clearly state they can be contested for any/no reason and should not be re-added). Rehevkor ✉ 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To echo AKMask, I don't understand why an editor needs to "slow down" and request Project assistance in tagging articles for AfD (I'm assuming s/he now understands the need to switch from PROD to AfD when contested). If an article doesn't meet guidelines and policies, it can rightly be nominated for deletion. No editor, group of editors, or Wikiproject should be able to exempt articles from complying with policy simply because they haven't gotten around to making the articles compliant yet. Requesting an article be deleted is not combative, it's keeping the quality of Wikipedia articles at a certain level. 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of wikiprojects have forgotten their purpose and think they have some special authority over articles in their area. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. WP:OWN applies to projects as much as it does to individuals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:LGBT parenting

User:Destinero seems to be removing fact with factual bias over on the article and is acting as the talk page's self-appointed protector. Based on the recently archived discussions he has been uncooperative with other users and is strongly asserting his opinions despite how factually incorrect they may be. The edit war has simmered down but I think that it is still present in some manner. I'm requesting an admin's opinion on the matter. Thanks Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that collegial discussion is better than edit warring. Was that the opinion you were looking for? ;-) If not, could you perhaps be a bit more specific (diffs?) as to the current problems and your desired administrator intervention? Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

User notified Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the MedCab request I checked the article's history, there has been a lot of edit-warring between Tobit2 and Destinero, given the long discussions in Archive 5 I gathered that Destinero was fighting a losing battle. His points were factually incorrect and one sided.

"Destinero, stop to use false arguments about others identity as "Perhaps since you are a Catholic...". this is inadequate, as somebody else can raise an issue, that "Perhaps you are a gay... (actually no doubts as you publicly point to your blog full of expressions that -you are- on Czech Wikipedia) and every your argument is based on liberal propaganda", and therefore you are removing all the content, which can possible harm the propaganda itself. So read please WP:NPOV, part "simple formulation" should be enough. You can't simply suppress facts about opinions, which have major support in States, and spread your bias only. Did you ever tried to "write for the enemy"?--83.208.153.249 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)" "Destinero, you can't commandeer a page like this. You have to allow opposing view points, especially valid ones such as these. Your responses to tobit have not been adequate - all you do is go on about how proven lgbt parenting is, and I agree that it is. It doesn't mean that opposing viewpoints should not be taken into account. You are too emotionally tied to this topic. -Javsav (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)"

As you can clearly establish Destinero is preventing the positive contributions on others and is asserting his biased opinions, like the IP user says this could be due to his religion. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 10:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You do know this has been to AN/I before and lots of people are now "eyes on" that topic. Why are you dragging up weeks old issues that have not repeated themselves? More to the point you seem to be very confused on the issue - due to his religion? I think even after a quick reading it should have been obvious that such a statement is pretty much the opposite of the issue that arose. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who rolled into the article space on the last ANI thread about this user and page I've attempted to moderate some of the more radical viewpoints and "standing on the rock of policy" ultimatiums that have occured. It essentially comes down to a self appointed guardian taking ownership of the page and using their interpertation of WP policy to keep the page in their prefered version. Hasteur (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay

Can I have some other editors have a look at the actions of Humaliwalay (talk · contribs), He first came to my attention when he bulked tagged a number of articles with tags he had copied from other articles with out explaining his rational (see warning here, he then cam to my attention again when he removed a source from Shi'a Islam in Pakistan with this claiming that "claim as it's highly dubious and citation is not reliable and refuted by multiple authentic and reliable sources." the source was Library of Congress Country Studies, I suggested that if he felt the source was not good then he should take it to WP:RS/N (see here).

He has continued to remove the Library of Congress Country Studies, and to refer to attempts to reinstate it as vandalism.

Also of concerns is the article Criticism of Sunni Islam which I felt has some issue that need addressing and tagged it {{expert}}, {{pov-check}} and {{synthesis}}(with this edit) and commented on the talk page, to which Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) reverted with "all references are proper" - see here.

One final point is that Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) has applied for the Reviewer right @ Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Codf1977 (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Notified Humaliwalay here

Please refer actions of Codf1977 for his repeated disruption of articles, geting into discussions and leaving it without reaching a consensus after multiple Warnings, this user even removes warnings from his talk page and is engaged in business of threatening and accusing, repeated request and Warnings have been deleted by this user like this [33] and this [34] from his talk page. All edits of this user are more or less based on no logical reasoning and without notifying the reason on talk page. This user is engaged in all these behavior leave no signs of discussion on talk page and then threatens to block me rather than discussing politely.

This user accuses others for lack of knowledge and when asked to justify quits discussion and deletes all discussed matter like this one [35]

Please review my request and take an action.

- Humaliwalay (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So how come Toddy1 also warned you about you calling other users edits vandalism here. Codf1977 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay: It is perfectly acceptable for users to remove warnings from their own talk page. Especially so in this case, where you obviously misuse the term vandalism in a content dispute. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Toddy was engaged in discussion with me , user did not warn me as such, it was just a discussion which was agreed by me. Humaliwalay (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you could elaborate? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama - Please refer the entire discussion again and then derive at the conclusion who uses inappropriately the term vandalism so often. Humaliwalay (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have and it is the same conclusion. You are the only one that have used the term "vandalism" in this dispute, specifically in the two "warnings" that you gave Codf1977. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid to mention but have to that your continuous biased judgment and siding with Codf1977 forced me to think if you are a sock-puppet of this user as you can see I provided you the link here [36] in which Codf1977 clearly used word vandalism first then I replied of not doing so and then discussion was on. Hope you visit that link and have review now. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your wanton use of allegations like this one in content disputes does not exactly help your case. Normally removing maintenance templates, without correcting the problem they are pointing out, is considered vandalism, however this stems from a content dispute and seems to be part of a larger scale edit war in the article. The dispute seems to be over the reliability of the Library of Congress Country Studies. But the conclusion at the RS/N-discussion seems to be that it is a reliable source, although since it disagrees with other reliable sources it should be so stated in the article. Thus it seems the dispute in this particular case is over. I am a bit worried about your readiness to categorise content disputes as vandalism and your allegations about sock-puppetry when editors does not take your side in a particular dispute. It might be a good idea in the future, if you again end up in these kind of situations, that you step away from the keyboard when tempers flare up, take a breather and relax before writing your answer. I assure you it will do wonders in resolving tense situations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you keep composing lengthy messages with no sense at all not a good Editor's and reader's etiquette, and I am not dependent on you to side with me. The only thing which does matter her is you biased judgment, so you pleas practice you advice and relax for some time so that your mind rejuvenates and refreshes and it will do wonders then. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

user:TechnoFaye user page - possible image violation?

Does her user page violate our guideline (scroll down to the second image)? I left her a message on her talk page and she responded to me that she rectified the problem.

I rectified the problem by removing the [| third pic] (a collage), which DID violate a policy/guideline I knew nothing about. If you have further problems, tell me and I'll address them. TechnoFaye Kane 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We are dealing with a guideline, not a policy, and this is I suppose subjective, thus, a gray area perhaps? I would appreciate another opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh, just delete the whole page methinks, far too inappropriate, and not relevant to Wikipedia - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. There is nothing wrong with the image; even going by the ridiculous and puritanical guideline, the intent here is clearly to act as a visual depiction of the editor and not as gratuitously "sexually provocative". 2. The material on the editor's userpage concerning non-consensual sex is inflammatory, and it would be irresponsible for us as a project to continue to host it as presented, even in userspace as one individual's opinions. Skomorokh 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(user notified) To be perfectly honest, I can't actually make out the second image. But agree with point number two, and have deleted the page for now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I am damned by God with the loathsome disease of autism, and that means I am INCAPABLE of detecting social impropriety "automatically". I MUST rely on published standards. That's the main reason I do Wikipedia, because it's rule-based, and (supoposedly), people's opinions are transparent here. If you'd care to ask, as so many others have, "How can someone so smart be so stupid?", the answer is: I JUST AM. IT'S NOT A CHOICE. I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER AND IT SCREWS UP MY LIFE.

2) When Rubinstein told me that this image on my user page violated WP guidelines:

File:Fayekanepics1.jpg <--- DON'T ARBITRARILY DELETE THIS FILE AGAIN WITH NO REQ FOR SPEEDY DELETION OR EXPLANATION WHILE IT IS THE TOPIC OF A DISCUSSION HERE AT ANB!!

I read the guideline, observed that he was correct, and removed the image immediately . I even apologized to him graciously, politely, and self-effacingly. If you don't like something I added to my page a few hours ago, then tell me what and why, and if you're correct, I'll delete or modify that too. Do NOT wholesale-delete an entire user's page without giving the user a chance to either defend the page or correct the problem, or worse, without even telling them you have a problem with it.

And PARTICULARLY do not do that with a user who has a biological disability that prevents them from having the heuristics normal people use and call "common sense". If WP were a workplace, this would be an EEOC issue I'd take to HR. The ad-hoc, contradictory social rules you normals make are not "common" to me; they are very difficult and complex, and that is specifically because they do not make "sense".

3) I restored my user page with hacker magic. I'd point out that I have "toned it down" since apparantly I talk too muchg about sex. At least, that's my best-guess estimate. I can't know for sure because no one has told me what's wrong with the text. Tell me what on it violates which policy and if you are not lying to me as so many other people do because they think it's funny, I will alter it to be consistent with policy.

file:Fayepic2.jpg Now as far, as the other image is concerned, I respectfully chose to defend this one. a) it is not even remotely obscene. Not that there'd be anything WRONG with that. b) where and how I live is an integral part of who I am, and I refer to it on my user page. The pic is relevant. c) It is critical in preventing something I am plagued with without the pic, which is people angrily informing me that I'm fake, an internet hoax, a man, multiple people, someone's master's thesis, a sociology research project (and once, even an AI program). I have NO IDEA why people can't accept me for how I am. But when they see my pic, they realize that I'm just a person. d) The guideline states: "activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories." I have well over 1,000 edits and have done more than edit, I was a very active participant in the arbitration of the R/I article (the cabal version of the arbitration).

TechnoFaye Kane 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed both the pictures to links. We all do not need to see the content if we do not want to. Please only link them, instead of transcluding them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, no problem! Another issue now: someone just DELETED the first pic from wikimedia, without an speedy RFD, even though IT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION. Don't you admins police each other? Or do you just let the other admins do whatever the hell they want to any user without discussing it first, saying why, or even telling anybody they're doing i? I am restoring it (as a link). TechnoFaye Kane 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked for the deletion, because the image was clearly out of Common's and Wikipedia's scope. There is no purpose what-so-ever to have a picture of you on your bed naked with the text whip me under it. Wikipedia is not a free web host. A picture of your face would be fine; it would show us you're a person, but a pornographic image, with text to boot that demonstrates it is porno, is completely outside of this project's scope.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. A cursory look at TechnoFaye's contributions seem to indicate at a minimum, questionable edits insofar as their constructiveness, and at worst, a pattern of rather disruptive editing. Particularly these: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44].   Thorncrag  05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Faye. While I appreciate that your autism may make it difficult for you to comply to social norms, this does not mean that we are going to effectivly let you run wild. As you say we have many policies which make it easier to detect "social impropriety", however, you claimed to have read through the USERPAGE guideline, and still can not see how your userpage violates it? Very well, I'll try to make it more clear. Your user page (before "toning down") seemed to support the idea of tortured and rape (support of grossly improper behaviors) and still seems to advocate rape. It's also completely unrelated to Wikipedia (excessive unrelated content), really your userpage should only be about things directly related to Wikipedia. Your entire userpage (except maybe the email address) seems inappropriate to me, which is why I deleted the whole thing (as well as to get it out of the history). Rubinstein actually pointed you towards the policy page, which also mentions that text can be a problem too, not just the image. I notice that you have restored your userpage, and have re-deleted it, I told you on your talk page not to restore it, and you seem to have ignored me, if you continue to restore inappropriate content, the userpage may be protected or you may be blocked, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Has this user ever added any referenced content? Looking at the edits above this looks like a lot of simple vandalism. Are we sure this is not just someone playing a joke on Wikipedia? Testing how much the community is willing to put up with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading through Thorn's diffs, I'm starting to think this person is not editing here in good-faith.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any referenced content that has been added by this user. Thus a minimum of a warning is required. BTW this is not the writing of someone who isautistic. Autism leads to an extreme indepth focus usually on a single topic. This user edits many different and unrelated pages with no great detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly the first thing I thought of when the user claimed autism was that this was a repeat of User:Sven70   Thorncrag  05:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Faye, as you have unilaterially restored(re: re-uploaded) the image, after I have clearly told you it violates WP:NOT, I have again asked for it to be deleted. Do not restore it. Under discussion or not, there is no reason for it to stay. I would suggest you not upload it again. Take this as a warning, that I will report you to the commons admins if you do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Any further violation should result in a ban of some duration.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They've been blocked indef on commons. They say that there were no warnings or logs of why the images were deleted, despite the clear message box at the top of the page stating 04:55, 6 September 2010 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Fayekanepics.jpg" ‎ (Commons is not an amateur porn site) (global usage; delinker log).

Hopefully they'll take it to heart now, that the image is not allowed, and refrain from re-uploading it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting development

Here, Faye not only deletes my above post, but they call an admin a coward for deleting their userpage, and refactor another user's post. I'm quickly losing any good-faith I have with this user. If they do it again, I would suggest a block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I reckon that was an edit conflict (not a good excuse anyway). Nevertheless, I made the mistake of making a check of this user's so-called "blog", and parlayed that it might shed some light on their mentality, and I was, let's just say, enlightened. While usually loathed to hold off-wiki activities against someone when it comes to their editing, coupled with this user's editing history, it seems patently obvious to me now that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.   Thorncrag  05:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

An edit conflict doesn't explain how they edited someone else's post to remove an at.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was informed the above was actually the result of the owner of the post doing the editing. So I guess it was an edit conflict.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(I replied to the part of that deleted message directed at me here) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that with the selective links Thorncrag posted above, and the irrelevant comment here about her blog, Thorncrag is letting his personal distaste for TechnoFaye influence his judgement. It's fairly absurd that she is being punished for violating vague rules and expressing unpopular opinions. I realize Faye tends to push things to the limit, but I would recommend that people focus on actual rules she has violated, and not let this whole mess get muddled because of your revulsion at her opinions about rape and race-based intelligence.—Chowbok ☠ 07:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with a "Wikipedia is not therapy" situation here. And the idea that WP is rules-based is an artifact of well-meaning but misguided fringe philosophy influencing WP's early policy-makers. (They are great people but had some funny ideas, just like all of us do). WP operates by good judgment and editors who try to make it operate by rules get into endless drama and conflict.

Faye, my best advice if you want to keep editing Wikipedia is to cultivate a neutral, fact-based writing style (including in talk and project pages); avoid personality displays or bringing your personal life into Wikipedia in any way; and avoid topics and areas (in article as well as project space) that tend to attract conflict between users. Art, science, and technology tend to be peaceful subjects and are (with exceptions) usually good choices. Anything connceted to religious or political tensions in the outside world (including scientific subjects with political implications, like "Race and intelligence" which you have been involved with) is probably not a good choice. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's either a crazy person or an eleborate troll. The self-professed beliefs make the following clear: 1. User is not capable of improving content in any important area and is likely to degrade it. 2. The pro-rape activism and general demeanor is so creepy that this editor is likely to drive away other more competent editors. 3. At some point, someone who babbles about the comparitive brain sizes of "black" vs. "white" embroyos needs to be tossed out on their ear. Doing the right thing here "shouldn't" be hard, but somehow it is for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I’ve seen TechnoFaye make some useful contributions, although not recently. (Although I also haven’t been paying attention recently.) When she was involved in the race and intelligence article this spring, she added some content to it that was well-sourced, but also kind of opinionated. The content that she added had to be cleaned up by other editors in order to make it satisfy NPOV policy, but several of the sources she added to that article are still part of it.

I agree that she can be abrasive, but I’m definitely able to assume good faith about her. What her behavior looks like to me is the result of a lot of ignorance about what sort of behavior is expected from her here, combined with some amount of laziness about looking up policies before someone tells her that she’s violating one of them. I also agree with Chowbok that we should be focusing on actual policies she’s violated, rather than her opinions. If this is the first time she’s gotten in trouble for putting an inappropriate image here, I think a warning would be sufficient. As far as I know, this would be the first time she’s been blocked or warned by an admin for anything in over three years. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide diffs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bali Ultimate (strongly favouring the latter hypothesis). Recommend indef ban. --JN466 16:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm reluctantly with JN466. Not everyone is capable of being a productive editor. The community does not need to tolerate people who do not, or cannot, work collaboratively, no matter what reason is put forward for that collegial failure. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY, and we are not required to permit people to disrupt the project just because they have a valid medical excuse (or claim to).

Captain, it's not an issue of good faith: A good-faith disruption is every bit as disruptive as a bad-faith disruption. The only difference is that most good-faith people eventually learn how not to be disruptive. There's no reason to expect this disruption to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Woah, Indeff ban? its still a bit early, She is unfamiliar with our rules and has misjudged them which is typical Austistic behavior. I dont see anything here that is irredemable in this user yet. (questionable behavior to be sure but not to the point of banning)Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to fallen into a "AGF trap" per some googling searching at a JN466 suggestion I am inclined to think we should probably pass the information she has provided to VA Law enforcement. This individual is sick and needs help that wikipedia can not assist with.Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on. Now you're just being ridiculous. —Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chow I tried to AGF especially being autistic myself, This person already has some notoriety on line for this type of behavior this appear to be just one instance on a wider trend of this person's disruption. If some one is doing this disruption for fun as a hoax thats cause for concern, if we take everything she has said at face value thats also cause for concern Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While I have no point of reference as the userpage has been deleted, I did have a look through her image uploads, and, via some searching, her blog. I will say that I find nothing particularly offensive about her image uploads. One is a very fuzzy one (apparently of herself) barely showing a nipple. The other is a collage that mostly seems to have pictures of her face, with a couple "nudie" photos that may be considered offensive. What I have not seen are any polite requests asking her to edit the photos, or to warn that they may be deleted if she does not revise them. And then there is a bar graph she created based on research apparently from a scholarly journal. Finally, her personal life (most notably her blog), whether or not she chooses to share details of it in public, is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia and has no bearing on her edits or whether or not she should be blocked. It is also nobody's business to file reports with law enforcement! What law has she broken? Writing a blog that shares her apparent enjoyment of bog-standard S&M activities? Her edit history does not indicate, to me, this this is a person here to damage the encyclopedia or play games, but someone simply volunteering their time as they see fit. There is no vandalism. I see nothing destructive or malicious, and I see a lot of bad faith being assumed of her. I really wish people would attempt to discuss and explain their issues to other users before immediately going to AN/I and creating a lot of drama. In any case, I do not think WP:COMPETENCY applies, as nobody has really taken the time to tell her specifically which photos she should not upload, and what she should and should not place on her userpage. She has shown plenty of willingness to make modifications if people will simply ask her politely and explain which rules she is breaking. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not basing my arguement on what she said off-wiki. I am basing off the pattern I see a pattern off-wiki that we are only the latest to fall for. Block her and hide this Thread per WP:DENY. Her edit are questionable not to mention she has already danced with ARBCOM? Now a substaitial block log? I see less and less worth keeping. If she is willing to got to WP:MENTOR we might hold out some hope. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This makes me think of lonelygirl15 as a point of reference. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. What on earth has she done that makes you say she should be arrested?—Chowbok ☠ 22:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoah, I see now where you get confused my statement above. contacting VA law as more for Health and safety purpose of this individual. A} she is appears to be mentally ill enough to need some help. B} If she is in the area she is in a tent the way she makes it sound then mostly likely she rigged up something that is not up to code and is likely siphoning off the grid in a less than safe way. Now that is assuming everything she says is true. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I don't think she's in that cave anymore. And none of this is relevant to the issue anyway.—Chowbok ☠ 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, I am not reading to in depth about this person only off the now deleted page, why Some of her views are revolting to me that is not the issue to me. The issue to me is this person's statements if they are true.... raise concerns to me about the safety of the editor in question. These combined statement are not a kink and some weird things to say but rather eivdence of severe mental problems. The same way if some one posted they were talking about killing themselve I think here we should be concerned about the health and safety of this person's habitation and mental state. The health safety of those around here campsite also is valid question due to the possibility of forest fire from the aforementioned electrial issues. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

it would be really helpful if people would actually stop and think, then look at this user's edit history, then consider whether overall this user is editing constructively or is just editing disruptively overall, instead of lingering on content issues. As a completely un-involved editor, I took a look over the first two pages of this user's contributions and saw nothing solidly constructive, but instead mostly disruption. I have never heard of the topics of race-based intelligence, nor this other pro-rape business. While admittedly naive to these and other topics the user frequents, they strike me very much as either fringe or downright hoaxacious. The users personal web site only buttresses what I and other reasonable editors have come to discern as an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing (that is, using Wikipedia as an extension to their own activities). Seems to me there may be, at best a real competency issue here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a personal web blog, nor therapy, and not a place to socialize and this user has a history of violating those rules. A block log substantiates this hypothesis. Perhaps an administrator can just issue a strong final warning and we can all move on.   Thorncrag  21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea that there are race-based differences in intelligence, while certainly controversial, is hardly "fringe". There are many legitimate scientists arguing that there is, in fact, something to that. It really sounds to me that people are ganging up on Faye due to her advocacy of an unpopular, but hardly unsupported, theory. It's also hardly fair to judge an editor who has been here for several years on only the "first two pages" of contributions. She's been here several years, it's not too much to ask that people to go back more than a few weeks in her history before making a judgement.—Chowbok ☠ 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And again, Thorncrag isn't even trying to hide that this is based largely on his personal revulsion at opinions she holds, hardly a legitimate reason to ask for a block, much less a permanent ban (!) or, as somebody else suggested, that she be turned over to the police (?!).—Chowbok ☠ 22:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me Chowbok, but you are not even reading my posts. My concern is founded upon the user's disruptive editing history, but buttressed by the user's other activities. I beg you to please stop and think before continuing to post your seemingly wild assertions.   Thorncrag  22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Way to not address anything I said. If I'm arguing with you, how could I not be reading what you wrote? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. By your own admission you only looked at her last couple pages of contributions. There have been lots of points of time when I would hate to have been judged on that. You have an obligation to look at more than two pages of contributions of a long-time editor before arguing she be banned. And I'll bet if everything was exactly the same except that she was arguing that there isn't a race component to intelligence, you would not be taking such a hard line.—Chowbok ☠ 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Plus you keep bringing up her blog, which shouldn't even be under consideration. It's hard to believe you're being even remotely objective about this.—Chowbok ☠ 22:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I do apologize if I gave the impression that I only looked at the recent edit history, I did look further. I was only trying to explain how I produced the series of diffs that I posted above which you seem to think was so unjust and prejudicial.   Thorncrag  22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to believe you are being objective yourself, Chow, given your history with this user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"My history with this user" before this ANI, in its entirety: 1) I complained to an admin about an inappropriate personal comment she made; 2) I told her I liked her setup in a cave. You can judge if that makes me hopelessly compromised.—Chowbok ☠ 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It definitely makes you involved, and you shouldn't be saying the opposite of others when you are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• From having spent a bit of time looking into this off-site, along with others, I am absolutely positive that Faye Kane is a sockpuppet persona, and here for other purposes than building an encyclopedia. It is an interesting story, but I have neither the desire, nor the option, of outing the puppeteer here. As far as WP is concerned, the editor should be treated as a troll. --JN466 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I really dont think so, "Faye Kane" with or without "Homeless Bumstress""into google and you'll see how elaborate this would be for someone just to sock here. this person has profiles across the web spouting similiar stuff. If its a sock is a dang elaborate one. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean a sock of another WP editor. I mean an online persona created by someone interested in creative writing, online identities, and a whole lot of other things besides. --JN466 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That I can believe, so can we end this now this now? Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with other people that this person is not really helpful on Wikipedia (as one of the identified edits [45] shows). We need an encyclopedia which is not written by clearly crazy people. I would recommend a ban. II | (t - c) 05:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would strongly object to a "no crazy people" rule on Wikipedia. There's no reason crazy people can't be valuable contributors. See William Chester Minor.—Chowbok ☠ 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • What do you think of the above edit, where less than a month ago she added "but all the men would die with a big smile on their face like the guy in that TV ad for fraudulant herbal viagra" to the gamma-ray burst article? II | (t - c) 07:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A summary

Okay, to summarize the points that have been made here about TechnoFaye:

1. She thinks women want to be raped.
2. She thinks there is a link between race and intelligence.
3. She's homeless.
4. She's crazy.

Can somebody please tell me how any of these are violations of Wikipedia policies?—Chowbok ☠ 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. WP:FRINGE
2. WP:NPOV
3. WP:SOCIAL... and if the user really is homeless how is she editing Wikipedia?
4. WP:COMPETENCE

...just for starters.

Now would you please stop waving your red herring arguments, and address the substance of the issue, which is the user's disruptive editing history NOT the personal challenges the user alleges?   Thorncrag  00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I love how you're the one bringing up all this personal information about her, like talking about her blog, and I'm the one going off-topic. Fine, whatever. I think a couple of the edits you link to were inappropriate of her, and she should be warned about them. Some of them were legitimate arguments and you're wrong to describe them as disruptive. I don't see any of it as block-worthy, much less ban-worthy. Does that address "the substance of the issue" however you're defining it currently?

Your links are inappropriate. Race-based IQ difference theories are not fringe, although they are a minority opinion, and just because you're clearly not familiar with the latest research in the area doesn't make it fringe. I don't see an NPOV violation in your links above, as the arguments she's making are on talk pages, not in article space (her inappropriate edits in article space are a matter of tone, not POV). WP:SOCIAL? Well, she probably did have too much personal stuff on her page, but that seems like a pretty arbitrarily-enforced rule, and I feel confident that she wouldn't be having problems if she had less controversial views. But yeah, she should trim that down. She did ask what would be appropriate and what wouldn't above, and nobody responded, which is unfair. Maybe somebody could just edit her page to something acceptable instead of just deleting the whole thing next time. WP:COMPETENCE is not even a policy.—Chowbok ☠ 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faye isn’t homeless anymore. Her blog entries from before a few months ago talk about her living in the cave, but some of her more recent entries (I’m not sure if they’re still accessible, since they were at [46], which doesn’t exist anymore) say that she’s now living with a psychologist named Tony Roberts.

Race and intelligence also isn’t completely a “fringe” topic, although there are definitely fringe theories about it. As an example of a non-fringe commentary about this topic, it was one of the main subjects of a report published by the American Psychological Association in 1995. Among other things, their report states that there’s a difference of around 1 standard deviation between the average IQs of blacks and whites, and that nobody knows what’s causing it. I don’t think the American Psychological Association could be considered “fringe” by any standard.

Now, I suppose one could claim that Faye has been advocating fringe theories about race and intelligence, although that hasn’t yet been demonstrated. But if this topic is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it, there’s nothing wrong with her having been involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ludwigs2 / refdesk

Resolved

 – IP blocked Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, User:Ludwigs2 encourages another user to commit rape. The comment was reverted later by an admin, but I feel this requires further action than a simple revert. Encouraging other users to commit illegal acts cannot be allowed on Wikipedia, and should not be dismissed with a simple revert as if it was a minor incident. 203.165.240.242 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, not on the basis of encouraging illegal acts, but on the basis of a personal attack. A scan of his talk page history shows that this is not a first offence. I was about to block him for it, when I saw that another admin was dealing wiht t, though more generously than I think was appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, and may in this case have constituted a NPA (which is why the admin removed it, and which may yet have some consequence for Ludwigs2 as it was rather a nasty thing to say; but it does not feature high in the incitement stakes. If I told you to go away and play on the motorway, would I be advocating Jaywalking?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: All concerned parties notified of this thread as the IP neglected to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with HJ Mitchell: (edit conflict) clearly not actually encouraging rape, but it's a pretty severe personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 lost it while dealing with banned editor Light current, a pernicious years-long presence at the RefDesks. Lc is quite good at goading other editors. Their comment was quite unacceptable for any number of reasons but I thought quiet removal was the better course. I didn't look back through their history though, to see if it's an ongoing problem, having never seen problems with the editor myself. Hopefully they will respond to quiet counselling. Franamax (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Im VERY goad at goading. 8-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuspiciousUser (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion was collapsed. I was offended by this comment. Even if he meant this to be humorous, jokes about rape are not funny. It was out of line and uncalled for regardless of who it was directed to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't mean it to be humorous.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he certainly wasn't serious about it. Let's ban the trolls, not the people who say something people get in a huff about. So you were offended, get over yourself. The real issue is the people constantly abusing the site. DreamGuy (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't give editors carte blanche to make comments like that, which are frankly vile. Nor is it the first time Ludqigs has made such comments—Two weeks ago he was warned for similar conduct and he has two previous blocks for personal attacks. I don;t think this outbusrt should just be shrugged off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, whatever. All I can say right now is that the IP who reported this here won't be editing for a while. –MuZemike 00:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but being a troll doesn't necessarily make their complaint invalid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a valid complaint, but I dealt with it on sight before the complaint was made. What are we going to do, enact a punitive block? If it happens again I can bring out Wonder Bat but I rather suspect it won't happen again. What more is there to do here? Franamax (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a tacky edit on Ludwig's part, but "be more sensitive next time" seems like enough of a response. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All: I acknowledge that the comment was tactless and in bad taste, and that I would have been wiser to have refrained. My apologies to anyone offended by it; I have an acid tongue that gets away from me sometimes, to my own detriment. However, it wasn't what has been suggested here, which is evident to anyone who reads the comment. I'll swallow the rude implication in the original thread header as just desserts for the rude implication I tossed at the IP, which strikes me as a fair balance, and (with your kind permission) we can all call this a day. If anyone would like to discuss the matter with me further, feel free to leave a note on my talk page; as I said, I was simply being acerbic, not aiming to offend anyone particularly, and I'm happy to make any necessary amends. --Ludwigs2 01:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, before my Internet went down, I was just going to say that the IP was blocked as a Tor node, which I can verify. –MuZemike 01:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh grow up, will ya? It was a joke in bad taste, it reeks of sarcasm. LiteralKa (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Rekordronny

User appears to be extremely biased to IRevo, Inc., as he created 2 pages extremely biased towards them (see also: Digital Door Lock. Is a block in order?  A p3rson ‽ 02:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not until you have a nice sit-down with them explaining WP:BFAQ. Unless they understand having a COI and writing about something they are affiliated with on Wikipedia, it's not nice to block them. Now, if they fail to heed warnings and continue to spam, a block is in order. But they haven't edited in months. So, I'd just leave it alone. —fetch·comms 03:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified them of this discussion? It is required.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary BLP violation by user:RolandR

user:RolandR writes about Steven Plaut in edit summaries:

1. "Removed BLP smear sourced to known libeller and extremist agitator"
2. "It is still an unacceptable smear from a known libeller"

Even, if we are to assume that the reverted edits were BLP violation, user:RolandR has no right to revert them with BLP violations on his own most of all in the edit summaries. It is anyway as reverting vandalism with vandalism or even worse. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How, praytell, are those BLP violations? Plaut has been found guilty of libel by a court of law, and a review of his biography indicates that he is an extremist agitator. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article states: "in February 2008 the court overturned all but one count relating to a publication in which Plaut had called Gordon "Judenrat Wannabe"". There's no single word in the article that names Steven Plaut "an extremist" or a "part of the extremist lunatic fringe" for that matter. I am not saying that the edits should not have been reverted because I did not look in that matter. I am only saying that the edit summaries they were reverted with are BLP violation.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"U.S.-born professor guilty of libeling colleague"; "Israeli Appeals Court Upholds Libel Judgment Against Academic but Reduces Damages". RolandR (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer this complaint more directly: Steven Plaut has been convicted by an Israeli court of libelling Israeli academic Neve Gordon. There has been constant sockpuppet vandalism on the Gordon article, with attempts to introduce not only the original libellous material, but further defamation of the judge in the case and of others. Sand has not (yet?) sued Plaut for libel, but we see the same pattern beginning to repeat itself -- make wild allegations of Nazi sympathies, then use Wikipedia, which has a much larger readership than Plaut's own mucksheets, to spread this defamation far and wide. We should not allow Wikipedia to become an accomplice in this campaign of defamation and abuse against those Plaut seeks to vilify. RolandR (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Convicted of libel otherwise, it's a violation of BLP to write contentious material about living persons, true or otherwise, without also providing reliable sources. As such, the edit summaries are a BLP violation and should be revdelled. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: regardless of the truth of the edit summary claim, it is both unnecessary and unhelpful. Edit summaries should avoid unnecessarily contentious statements because they cannot be revised, replied to or contextualised (although with RevDelete they can now be struck, but that requires admin action). Basically, make the point neutrally (eg "not a reliable source") and point to the talk page if you want to go into detail. Rd232 ^talk 09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that the latest edit summary, which the 2 uninvolved editors here (Giftiger_wunsch, Rd232) found to be an unnecessary and unhelpful BLP violation, came AFTER I had already raised this issue on WP:BLPN - here, had a consensus of people there agree that this was inappropriate behavior, and suggest that I politely ask him to stop. That I did, three times, on his Talk page ([47], [48], [49]). The response, by both RolandR and Malik (who also wrote nearly identical BLP-violating edit summaries at the same page) was defiance, refusing to even acknowledge they did anything wrong, and now the behavior continues. I think this calls for some administrative action at this point, as it is obvious the behavior will not change without one. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The first admin action necessary is to remove the inappropriate edit summaries. As it no longer takes an oversighter for this, I have done it. I don;t intend this to rule out other appropriate action DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for oversighting the summaries.

  I believe it is about time to deal user:RolandR somehow.His edit summaries is only a continuation of his POV pushing in any place he could find. His contributions are all rings of the same chain. For example he is using his user page to promote his political views, and simply ignores a few requests to remove soapboxing from his user page:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The edit summaries were wrong and the oversighting is appropriate. But I'm concerned that there's more worry about a potentially libelous edit summary, that few non-wikipedia editors were likely ever to see, than there is about content added to an article that says someone is a peddler of "antisemitic myths" popularized by "Neo-nazis," cited to an oped written by an economics professor who's (apparently -- going on what i read here) been found guilty of libel in an israeli court for similiar claims made against someone else. Those claims, in the body of an article, are likely to be seen by far more people and do far more harm to the reputation of someone than a nasty edit summary. Not saying the edit summaries get a free pass, but dealing with the insertion of such stuff into article text is the bigger of the two problems. (There is plenty of trenchant criticism of the book in question in the article -- Hastings, Schama, Halkin etc... -- from people both more qualified to criticize and without the particularly inflammatory talk of antisemitism and implication of association with neo-nazis.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  Please note this thread is not about content of the article, in editing of which you are very involved. This thread is about the conduct of the user User:RolandR.User:RolandR has problems that should be dealt with at last not to punish but to prevent them from happening over and over again.

  Here is one more of the user contributions: Here's a talk page of the user, who used language like that: "When did this version turn into Nazipedia? And why are you ... behaving like an totalitarian asshole?" "Are people really supporting his kind of fascistoid bullshit?" "Answer my questions instead of behaving like an Nazi asshole!" So what User:RolandR does to that user? Well, he gives him so called The Kafka Award desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer, and posting the image of Kafka next to the racist rant. Wikipedia is not censored, but as we see at the example of User:RolandR he will stop at nothing including BLP violation to promote his views.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Where on earth did this fantasy come from Mbz? Please note this thread is not about content of the article, in editing of which you are very involved. I've never edited that article. I'd never heard of the book in question, the author of the book, or the economist who called the author an antisemite until today, when i saw this thread. That's a patently false assertion -- so why did you make it Mbz?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my bad. I did strike my comment out, but the thread is still about User:RolandR's conduct.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Am I on trial for a comment I left on another editor's talk page three month's ago? Or even for a comment by another edoitor? What on earth is the relevance of this? RolandR (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the comments that Mbz objects to were added after I commented on the page. RolandR (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are 'on trial', but when a complaint has been lodged against you for violating wikipdia's BLP policy, it is reasonable to examine if this was a singular occurrence, or if it is part of a pattern of behavior which indicates a general lack of concern for BLPs. In that context, a BLP-violating comment made on a user's Talk page , even if made 3 months ago,is very relevant, as is your continued intransigence and refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, as demonstrated by your editing at Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are on trial for presenting a Kafka award. Marvelous. You can't make this stuff up. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The smear by association wasn't even in the ballpark (that is, the guy you gave the award to -- "desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer", made the offensive comments after you'd given him the award)? Wow. I guess Mbz has some more striking to do.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how there can be any BLP issue involved here. Even if Kafka were still alive (unfortunately, he died 86 years ago), it would be extremely hard to explain how invoking his name on another editor's talk page was a breach of the policy. RolandR (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to invoke the American football player whose name may not be spoken? A certain somebody can't deal with issues even remotely related to Israel and Palestine without becoming irrational. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there's nothing more for me to strike out. I hardly edit in I/P conflict area, and you know that. When I comment on the subject I am always rational. I simply despise all anti-Semites and antisemitic Jews in particular. Yes, I asked to remove that hate propaganda "a classic symbol from Nazi iconography" cartoon, as Jimbo put it, from the user page, and it hurt me enormously to see the picture of Kafka added to that user talk page as an award. If you believe it is "irrational" so it be.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Off topic comment...I've said before and I'm going to say it again, Wikipedia really ought to have an article about the visual propaganda of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal:

all involved agree

1. that edit summaries are a place to be careful, and to avoid writing contentious things which require more discussion and potentially contextualisation. Use the talk page as necessary to fully justify and source contentious BLP claims - whether it's about the subject of the article or someone else.
2. that people shouldn't edit war contentious BLP claims into articles. Go to the talk page, talk it out, allow a clear consensus to be reached (or existing consensus to be properly overturned).
3. Everything else in this thread is irrelevant here. WP:RFCU is that way.

Rd232 ^talk 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes³--intelati^(Call) 23:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, but I believe that the users should be at least warned about repeated BLP violations in edit summaries and reminded about the need to assume good faith too Disusing who is whose sock with no evidences at the talk pages has to stop.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"users should be at least warned about repeated BLP violations in edit summaries": that's covered by the first point, is it not? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin threatening to block for removing prods

Resolved

 – Djsasso correctly issued a warning to a disruptive editor, who was later blocked by an uninvolved admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Djsasso (an administrator) appears to be "threatening" to block a fellow user who removed some prods that Djsasso placed, and just as bad (if not worse), Djsasso appears to be deliberately giving the user false information concerning Wikipedia policy. The following is the exchange that took place on User:Macpl's talk page:

• Djsasso writes: Removing prod's just because there was no edit summary is considered disruptive editing. Continuing to do so will result in a block.
• Macpl responds: Prods can be removed for any reason, but the person nominating the article for deletion MUST leave an edit summary. It is written in the policy. *Note: It actually says “Make sure to provide an edit summary that clearly indicates that the article has been proposed for deletion.”
• Djsasso writes: Actually prods should only be removed for notability reasons. And you are supposed to discuss them on the talk page before removing them. Edit summaries are not required but are suggested.
• Djsasso explanation of wiki-policy appears to conflict with WP:PROD.

I am a non-involved editor who came across this because of the resulting AfDs. Moorsmur (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a cursory look at recent activity and would have to say Djsasso needs to take a step back and recollect himself. Comments like these, to people whom are simply trying to help out, are unnecessary as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Threatening a user with a block for removing a prod you placed is a seriously bad move. Djsasso needs to be reminded never to do something like this. There is no shortage of ArbCom or community decisions indicating an admin needs to refrain from such chilling effect. Basket of Puppies 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz → strong suspicion of socking. –MuZemike 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna say, Djsasso's diplomacy and policy knowledge could use some work, but the serial de-prods called for some kind of reaction. Looks like the SPI explains the situation. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to block the socks. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, however I should note that the comment I made earlier still stands. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are basically right about the earlier comment. Admins should be more skilled at that sort of dialogue. Look at Heymid's user talk for some of the back story though. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (edited)

• I don't really see why I am somewhat involved in this. But when I went back to Djsasso's talk page, I didn't appreciate this answer by h*m, especially using the word "ridiculous". Something seems to be wrong from h*s side right now. Seems I should keep myself away from h*m, at least for now.
• Djsasso has been an administrator since January 2008 (see the RFA). H*s recent edit summaries in this and this give me the impression that (s)he is not taking this project seriously. Although I have to admit that my comment at h*s user talk page was a little stupid, and that I should've probably kept it to myself, I still don't appreciate h*s comments./HeyMid (contributions) 07:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not too worried about those two edit summaries but the stuff on Djsasso's user talk isn't a good sign. Some admin coaching might be advisable. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree , not sure I see the issue with those edit summaries. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Also, Djsasso deleted two useful redirects created by me, as speedy deletion R3 criteria. Also, this unblocking comment was IMO not serious either. Also, (s)he seems to be watching my contribs log pretty often. Finally, remember that these are only my opinions, you have the absolute right to disagree with anybody, including me. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Heymid, that you are in some kind of conflict with Risker on your usertalk is itself a sign of not-very-good judgment on your part. One routine way admins help keep things running is by monitoring users with histories of poor judgment, since those are the users likeliest to do silly things that call for admin involvement. Djsasso is definitely making errors that need attention in their own right, but that doesn't change the general situation. If you provoke drama, you should expect onlookers. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree . Also, I think that (s)he is either currently in bad humor or my poor history at EnWp (and possibly my comment at h*s user talk page) have contributed to make h*m angry, or, if already, even more angrier. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • For clarification's sake, I'm pretty sure Djsasso is male. sonia♫ 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • The magic MediaWiki 8-Ball says … rattle, rattle … "xe"/"xem"/"xyr". Uncle G (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I had a similar situation with Djsasso recently (which I ultimately chose to drop) involving mis-stating policy on BLP PRODs. Djsasso claimed that a BLP PROD must be removed when any reference has been added to the article, regardless of whether or not the source could be a considered reliable. They cited a discussion at WT:BLPPROD which had been going for one day, and had three participants, to support that and to go against the explicit word of WP:BLPPROD, as well as the wording on the prodblp template; they edit-warred to remove the template until I decided it wasn't worth pursuing. This admin seems to dig in their heels when it comes to their own idea of what the policy should be, and ignore actual consensus. Not exactly productive, when new editors may trust djsasso, as an admin, to correctly explain policy to them. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've brought up the issue of this admin issuing threats of block for removing his PRODs on his talk page. He did not reply respectfully or coolly and is only digging in his heels. This seems to be on par for his behavior- to dig in and make the issue escalate and elevate to a point where it should have never gotten to. I have to admit- I am seriously uncomfortable with an admin who threatens blocks when involved and then digs in when he's called out on it. It doesn't appear that he's willing to see it any other way, tho I hope he will. What should be done? Basket of Puppies 18:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  I just said I did not threaten him. You accused me of threatening him in a less than civil way. I simply stated it was not a threat it was a warning. Your tone with me was inappropriate if you thought you were trying to coolly discuss something with me. I am more than willing to accept that possibly I used less than ideal wording, but it was clear that it was a sockpuppet who was serial prod remover. Someone needed to say something to him. I would not have been the one to actually take action against him as you seem to imply. I would have put it to SPI which someone else ended up doing and another admin blocked him. In the end, exactly what I was warning him about happened. Did I use the best language no perhaps not, but I did not use my tools inappropriately and take great offense at you suggesting that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Umm, BoP, he did "coolly" reply to your initial comment, explaining his viewpoint that his warning was valid. In fact, both of his responses to you were perfectly civil. The only issue with that entire discussion thread was HeyMid choosing to stick his nose where it doesn't belong, yet again, and going out of his way to try and escalate a situation with an implied threat of taking DJ to ArbCom for nothing more than issuing a warning. Resolute 19:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I guess we will have to agree to disagree. :) Basket of Puppies 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Djsasso's comments seem fine - the user removing PROD's was a) a serial de-prodded (I believe) and b) was deliberately mis-interpreting the PROD guidelines (the rationale was on the page, just not in the edit summary). A warning in that context with the advice that continuing the disruption might result in a block is fair and correct. It's fairly clear Djsasso was not threatening to block directly at that stage --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dj issued a warning & nothing more. This case should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes this thread ought to be closed with a very noodle like slap to Dj about being involved and cautioning use of admin tools. Basket of Puppies 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am very much struggling to see what he did wrong here in the slightest. The editor removed lots of prods and was cearly disruptive per WP:SPADE. If he said I will block you then, yes, you'd have a point. Otherwise I don't see why this is still an issue. :( --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read here, the worst Djsasso has done is slightly misrepresented the PROD policy. However, the warning was warranted (as confirmed by the later block, as had been warned), and there was no misuse of admin tools or "threats" made. I'm going to mark this as resolved now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Iqbal_Theba

Resolved

 – No admin attention required

1. In the Iqbal_Theba article it should be noted that he is Muslim. He is Muslim accodring to this article:http://www.currybear.com/wordpress/?p=3566 please put in as a reference. 2. Would could someone clean up my references on The Seventh Coin page? Could you help to see which references should go under production and which references should under Reception? I have the references of production and Reception mixed up thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these seem to need Administrator attention--you can make the edits yourself to the Theba article, although, before you do so, please check the article's talk page, as I'm about to leave you a message there. For The Seventh Coin, it's not up to administrators to fix your references; there appear to be problems with them, and I'll try to help if I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 08:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you feel a change should be made, you should simply make the change yourself; the article isn't protected, you can edit it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Selinker - WP:3P violation

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_29#Category:Transport What to do with blatant WP:3P violations? TruckCard (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting yourself, TruckCard. Are you aware that it's highly irregular to empty a category and populate an identical new one without discussion? Without proper process, we don't have too much chance of getting a good product; renaming major categories without discussion is very much out of process and in violation of policy. As well, you failed to observe the policy marker just above the edit window: "You must notify any user that you discuss"; Mike Selinker had no way of knowing about this discussion until I left him a note just now. Finally, I'm rather surprised that your very first edit used HotCat; typical new users take quite a while to discover such tools. Nyttend (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure you know that, but HotCat can be found in the settings area under gadgets. The transport categories were a mess (e.g. "Category:Something transport of A" existing at the same time as "Category:Something transportation of A" ). Per WP:BOLD I cleaned the mess. If Mike wants a revert he violates WP:3P. He wanted to broker deals with me on my talk, I can support your POV under this or that condition. This is attempted corruption. @"must notify" - didn't see that. Thanks for doing it for me. TruckCard (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that; however, new users don't often find specialised gadgets such as this one before they start editing. Please understand that there's no single proper way to name categories such as this — categories are an internal Wikipedia process, and the only real way that NPOV is applicable to categories is that they mustn't be POV-based or applied in a POV manner. British-American spelling differences aren't a matter of POV; it's only reasonable to attempt to engage in discussion about their proper forms. You must not make such changes without engaging in discussion, and agreements such as Mike has attempted to make are a natural part of that discussion. Kindly stop attacking him for following standard procedure. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a Am vs Brit Spelling. There was inconsistency and duplicate categories. I cleaned that up. Sometimes higher level categories used "transportation" while all subcategories used "transport". Also it is WP:Transport, Portal:Transport. Mike attempted to talk with me? Well, I was offline, see his threat of getting me blogged on my talk, his request to not change more names. Since I was offline, I didn't change anymore. But then I see I attempted to reach out to User:TruckCard on his talk page. That attempt failed. Since I don't want to support this behavior, I'm changing my vote to Speedily revert all out-of-process changes.' [53] - This is blatant WP:3P violation. Only because I was offline he changes his vote on a CONTENT issue. TruckCard (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:3P - the product matters:
  • 12,000+ categories use "transport" [54]
  • 3,900+ categories use "transportation" [55]

TruckCard (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I've never been the subject of an WP:ANI discussion before, so I don't know what the protocol is. I guess I'll explain what happened. TruckCard had a thought that we should have both "Transport" and "Transportation" categories (Edit: I meant to say he thought we should not have both). So he started depopulating and overwriting categories en masse towards that end. Some other editors did not like that, because the central tenet of WP:CFD is that we discuss before we reorganize categories. Since some debates over nationality-specific English words have been highly contentious, I suggested a compromise: we could discuss the out of process changes he was making, as long as he agreed to stop temporarily. And then this exchange occurred: User_talk:TruckCard#Inconsistency. I also changed my comment on the CfD page because it seemed that TruckCard was uninterested in listening to me. Regardless, he has stopped making the changes that concerned people. So, I thought the matter was done until I was notified by Nyttend that TruckCard had started this discussion over here—and that TruckCard was asking for my help with his Transportation->Transport changes. So for now I'm not going to weigh in on the merits of the category changes. Obviously, if consensus is that I stepped out of line, I would definitely change my behavior in the future.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record: The category searches above clearly show that I did NOT "decide(d) to have both "Transport" and "Transportation" categories." as Mike suggests. I only cleaned up some inconsistencies and improved the PRODUCT. Mike agreed that inconsistency is not good. And only because I have been offline Mike Selinker changed his vote for a speedily revert. The only reason given was "out-of-process". This is WP:3P violation. TruckCard (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You did notice that WP:3P is just an essay and not an actual policy. Though it could easily be said that you have ignored the second P. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a typo above: I meant to say that TruckCard thought we should not have both Transport and Transportation in categories. I should also clarify that the behavior I didn't want to support was the unrepentant desire to make sweeping changes without listening to others' opinions, and I felt that trumped any personal opinions I had about the content. Without respecting the validity of each other's opinions, the product is unlikely to improve.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ignore this ruse, otherwise we will have WP:3P violations ad infinitum. This is a novel but clumsy attempt to draw attention away from TruckCard's out-of-process emptying of categories. (We have plenty of categories with different spellings at different levels. There is Category:Organizations for instance.) The way to improve the product in such cases is via consensus following cfd. Occuli (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

• Triton Rocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Long-time fans of ANI will recall several prior threads about this editor and their enthusiasm for the term "british Isles". WT:BISE exists to consider usages of this term through the project, and Triton Rocker has been very active at WT:BISE. They were the first (and to date, only) editor to be subject to a topic ban, and have been blocked several times for violating the topic ban, disruptive editing and edit warring.

WT:BISE brings together multiple different groups of editors. It is vital that these disparate groups discuss issues with as little acrimony as possible. In short, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are as important at WT:BISE as they are elsewhere in the project. To that end I have been removing personal attacks and warning editors. Triton Rocker has been warned before about this.

Triton Rocker has just completed a week block for edit warring at Terminology of the British Isles. Two of their first edits, post block, were this one and this one. On the face of it, a humorous edit summary: "HighKing's nuts" (in a discussion which, among other things, did involve horse chestnuts) and a mostly on-topic post in which Triton Rocker's views on other editors' motivations played a relatively small part: "This is just another ridiculous and desperate attempt in a nationalistically motivated campaign, defying logic, that should not be entertained."

I've blocked Triton Rocker for these latter two edits. The block is indefinite, as it follows on from several blocks relating to editing in the British Isles area. I feel the block is justified because these two edits demonstrate that Triton Rocker has failed to take on board the concerns expressed by the community, here at ANI, and at WT:BISE. I do not accept that these edits are minor: they were, I am certain, calculated to allow the maximum wikilawyering possible: in short, they were designed to game the system and provide the editor with a degree of deniability. I do not regard that as acceptable. I regard both edits as overt/covert attacks on one or more editors.

I have told Triton Rocker that I would have no objection their block being lifted - if they make a commitment to addressing the issues raised in this and prior blocks. That offer stands. I've also offered to copy any comments Triton Rocker wishes to make here, to ANI, so that they are able to fully participate in this discussion. The last time I did this the comment I copied was, frankly, unacceptable and attacked several editors including am admin. Nevertheless, I remain prepared to assist Triton Rocker. I believe, deep down, there is a good editor there - one who is struggling to adapt to frustrations of working in POV areas.

As this block is an indefinite block against an established editor I am seeking review here. TFOWR 11:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit severe. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Triton needs to accept that he can not make any comment on BISE which could in any way be against the rules or considered as against the rules. If he agrees to finally accept that properly then the indef block should be lifted. He knows he is going to be watched closely, he knows there are people that may want him out of the way, i do not get why he continues to act in the way he does especially after just coming off a block. The only way to play this game is by the rules. I hope Triton accepts hes got to be far more careful with his comments so he can be given another chance. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Are nuts called conkers in Ireland? This whole BISE has become a POV joke. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Conkers are called Conkers in Ireland too yes, and conkers are nuts. The problematic bit of his comments is the "nationalistically motivated campaign" in my opinion. Whilst that is exactly what has happened (often known as the Crusades), and there is a clear case of censorship now taking place on Ireland articles, we are meant to avoid any comments on possible agendas on the BISE page. If triton agrees to avoid such comments again the indef block should be lifted. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I believe Horse Chestnuts do get called "conkers" when used in sport. Part of the problem with this, as with so many POV areas, is civility - rather than work together to drive the process forward, a popular past time is to see how far one can take incivility. In other POV arenas I've even seen editors question just how far they go, without any apparent trace of irony. The reason I've been removing WP:CIVIL-vios and warning editors is that civility (or a lack thereof) has a profound impact on the overall process: once the attacks start they continue, unless dealt with. I'm not keen on civility blocks, but I see no way to avoid them in POV areas where civility is seen as just another weapon in the POV warrior's toolkit. This is basically a vicious circle in several ways: incivility spawns further incivility, just as systematic removal of a term has resulted in systematic addition of the same term. TFOWR 12:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(in reply to Britishwatcher) Thats a big troupe of elephants (herd) in the room to not be able to mention. I think it would be better for Triton if he was unblocked and topic baned for a couple of months, that way he will get the chance to watch it all and see it for the joke it is. If TRocker can leave this issue behind him he has the look of a decent contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, TR is already topic banned. TFOWR 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So here we are again at AN/I discussing more British Isles related problems. I wonder when, if ever, the movers and shakers at Wikipedia will grasp the fact that all these problems, even the current one, can be traced back to one single user, HighKing, and his relentless drive to eliminate British Isles from Wikipedia. This user has developed a whole industry around getting rid of British Isles including "guidelines" and a special examples page at WP:BISE. It's that very page which has resulted in this latest uncalled-for block on an editor who just by chance came across the diabolical situation regarding British Isles and tryed to do something about it. He is the latest victim of the continuing, subtle crusade to remove British Isles. I urge his block be lifted and an immediate topic ban placed on all the protagonists at British Isles, otherwise we'll be back here again, and again and again and other editors who stumble into the mayhem will no doubt be consumed by it in the same way Triton Rocker has. Wake up to reality! LevenBoy (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR is "topic banned" is he? So tell me - what can I do regarding British Isles that he can't? LevenBoy (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR is topic baned. What you need there is TB3 which restricts him talking about it also. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not support any form of ban which restricts people from raising matters on the BISE page, unless we are ALL banned from talking about it. Id submit to a complete ban if certain editors were included. We could then all get on with our lives or other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You can add British Isles somewhere, Highking will revert it and then we will have to debate it for the next few weeks. If Triton adds it anywhere, it will be reverted and he will also get a block, of atleast 1 week. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that a lot of people closely related to this issue are having problems with HighKing and I feel that you would be remiss to deal with Triton but not address this other user's behaviour also. Having said that, it does appear to be wikilawering of the highest order. Especially if those are the first two edits after a block. A reasonable discussion with Triton about what other topics he may wish to edit if his band is lifted seems like a very good idea. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they were the 3rd and 4th edits after the prior block. If Triton Rocker were to edit outside the British Isles arena, I gather than British motorcycles is a subject with which they have a huge amount of familiarity, but I dare say there are other areas too.

I became involved at WT:BISE after this ANI thread, which named 2/3 editors as being "problematic". Since I've been involved none of these 2/3 editors has given me significant cause for concern. These 2/3 editors include High King (and a participant in this thread).

I absolutely do not accept that dealing with one editor's problematic behaviour requires that we also consider another editor's behaviour: each case can - and should be - considered individually, on its own merits/demerits. Otherwise it simply becomes a question of shouting loudly about one editor whenever a "comrade" is threatened. Take a read of WT:BISE (and its archives) and see how many threads degenerate into a "High King is responsible for global warming"-type rants. TFOWR 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While you're taking in the discussions at BISE and the archives, pay attention and see if you can identify the core group of editors who continually disrupt with breaches of CIVIL and other policies, full stop. And you may also with to note the tactic whereby any discussions of these editors at ANI or WQA or SPI also get hijacked into an anti-HighKing tirade (just like they're trying to do here). Thankfully the community is also wising up to this and Cailil made a good point at a previous ANI. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR lasted a total of 4h 25 min after coming off his last ban before he made an edit which got him this ban. TR needs to be taught a lesson and the ban is fully justified. This has nothing to do with HK or any other editor other than TR. No one else is to blame for his actions. Bjmullan (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an indefinite ban is a bit much, but agree that he has strayed past whatever thin lines of civility exist on BISE. I recommend his ban be lifted, but that he not participate on BISE for a period of time. Hopefully this will give him time to cool down. I disagree with the attacks on HighKing, he has a POV definitely, but as far as I can tell he does his best to remain civil at all times, even under attack. Chipmunkdavis (talk)

On a point of order: it's an indefinite block, not a ban. I opted for indefinite as it was clear that short-term blocks weren't working. However, being indefinite, i.e. not "infinite", it can be lifted at any point. Indeed, I've made clear to Triton Rocker what action I'd want to see in order for the block to be lifted. TFOWR 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the idea, above, of a Third option, whereby TR is banned from "British Isles" related topics - actually all British-nationalist-related topics, including Talk pages. Perhaps if this can be agreed at the BI general sanction as TB03, the indef block could be lifted and TB03 applied. --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Far too broad. TRocker should be able to edit articles related to the British Isles and any British Nationalist articles but is only to be restricted from inserting or removing or discussing the expression British Isles and it should have a time limit of some months. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is some form of ban on stopping people from even joining a debate at BISE then it has to be for a limited amount of time. Banning someone for a few months from even joining the debate, when some editors have been involved in this dispute for years seems extreme. But if he agrees to follow the rules and avoid any comments like he made today he should certainly have his indef block lifted. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The block is appropriate. Triton Rocker should remain blocked until he recognizes site policy and standards, per normal procedure with repeatedly blocked users operating under restriction. If TR acknowledges site policy and standards and agrees to abide by his restriction then he should be unblocked and the topic ban should be given a limited duration (ie 6 months from the time of unblock). I'd suggest adding civility parole but wouldn't make it conditional on an unblock.
  On a separate point it is becoming fairly clear that editors (on both "sides") don't understand that the 'British Isles' topic is under probation and therefore any edits (to articles or talk space) in that area will be scrutinized and if out of line will be sanctioned (that includes here) [56].
  @Off2riorob, Triton Rocker is already restricted as you suggest--Cailil ^talk 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A 6 month topic ban if he agrees to play by the rules is far too extreme. (if by topic ban, it means not being allowed to even discuss the BI issues.)BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, Triton Rocker is already topic banned and it is to that ban which I'm referring (the one that restricts him from adding/removing the term BI from articles). His ban currently has no duration which may mean Black Kite was imposing and indefinite topic ban. In light of that and the fact that a 6-12 month topic bans are the norm, this would be a step forward for TR. Also abiding by the rules is a minimum requirement for all editors, it should not be seen as an achievement for anyone to do so--Cailil ^talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite restriction from the whole wikipedia is not appropriate at all user Calil, its excessive. We are a contributory website and we are obliged to do our best to allowusers to contribute in some good faith way. This isn't a police state and his disruption is for minimal than deserves a site ban. I didn't apply it so I don't have to live with it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, Rob I didn't propose an indefinite restriction - my proposal is conditional unblock on agreement to abide by the rules.
Please do not misrepresent what others say Rob. I have not mentioned a 'site ban' in my above post at all--Cailil ^talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I believe you are commenting as an independent I was not surprised to see you are flying the I am proud to be Irish flag on your userpage. We are all requested to rise above our partisan opinions and allow this user to edit in whatever way possible, I did not misrepresent your comments, ban block call it what you like yo8u supported an indefinite restriction as appropriate, I don't. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob I stated that I would not allow anyone to be subject to personalized comments based solely on their nationality. You have directly speculated on my motivations based solely on my country of origin. I said in relation to Triton Rocker that I would escalate the matter then - I will do the same now - I will give you one chance to redact that remark if you don't take it I will escalate it immediately.
Also as a point of order there is a HUGE difference between a block and a ban. And I support the indef block as TFOWR applied it (which is one based on a conditional unblock)--Cailil ^talk 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a disgraceful comment and a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --HighKing (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No its not, its a simple statement without any accusations at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The whole point of an indef is that it can be listed IF the editor concerns undertakes to behave differently. Despite multiple blocks Triton persistently refused to admit any fault and immediately reverts to the same behaviour within hours of coming back. At this stage the community needs Triton to acknowledge the issue and undertake to behave differently. Otherwise I suggest a full topic ban (at the moment he just has a sanction not to add "British Isles") on the subject so he can do good work elsewhere. The demonisation of HighKink is getting silly - that editor has abided by all the rules for well over a year now. --Snowded ^TALK 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Demonisation, bit strong isn't it. I think it is clear that if Highking was removed from the issue there would be no issue at all, no problem , nothing to deal with, no threads at ANI no BISE action page, nothing just a calmer less disrupted wikipedia with a few links to Bisles that suggest such excessive terrible things such Conkers is not the correct word for all the BIsles and flaura and fawna perhaps should be only in the Northern Ireland and Uk. and such tedious miniscule issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, High King has co-operated fully with the nomination process. Also for the last few months the vast majority of cases are British Watcher, Triton etc. inserting (or nominating the insertion of) British Islands and/or related proposals on stable issues such as Derry/Londonderry. This whole area is not one where one group can place all the blame on others, or argue that removing one editor would mean the problem would go away. --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been exposed to HighKing's previous actions, but from what I've seen, no matter what he has done in the past, he has been an active, and constructive, contributor to the BISE page. Let's stick to the discussion of TR's block shall we? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually ever read essays like WP:TE and WP:CPUSH, or considered that WP:CIVIL is a behavioural guideline that is infact about a lot more than just being polite, and then actually taken a good long hard look at HighKing's long term contributions and tactics at venues like BISE? The idea that he is being 'demonised' is frankly ludicrous, it's borderline insulting to the intelligence of everyone who is familiar with this dispute, as is the often pushed idea that the pro-BI crowd's misbehaviours exists in a vacuum unrelated to him. The only thing 'silly' about this dispute, is that things like TE are routinely ignored, let alone the total apparent invisibility of guidelines like WP:GAME, even by the people supposedly monitoring the discussions, and people are getting blocked and gamed off the issue left right and centre, for simply calling a spade a spade and then flipping out, instead of not simply bending over and taking it when facing some extremely high-end acts of gamery and tendentious campaigning. There a a hundred and one behavioural policies that he breaches all the time, practically daily, when you realise what they actually say, which is really not constructive for the pedia when the underlying issue is just his complete and utter misunderstanding of content policies like NPOV. As can be seen by this yet another ANI, when it comes to oversight in this dispute, the only thing that anybody ever bothers with is the low-hanging fruit - the people who are just being meanies!, or providing block reasons to people on a plate. Everything else is simply left alone, in the obvious favour of those who have the greatest staying power and ideological will to play the long game. And in this dispute, the outstanding leader in that respect is HighKing, 100%. He's supposedly not a campaigner. Well, has he ever, ever, put sustained editing effort into any other cause on Wikipedia? MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mick, thanks for pointing out WP:CPUSH, I wasn't aware of it. Having now read it I find it quite astounding how it so accurately describes HighKing. Let's look at the introductory bullet points:

Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers. These are editors who are superficially polite while exhibiting some or all of the following behaviors:

• They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.
• They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like (PCCTL for short).
• They revert war over such edits.
• They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information.
• They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. *They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
• They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
• They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets.
• They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.
• They hang around forever wearing down more serious editors and become expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV.
• They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors.

Every single one of those is HighKing to a T; quite remarkable. LevenBoy (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please take the advice of Chipmunkdavis and stick to the discussion of TR's block and let's try and get away from the school boy excuse of he made me do it. Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Having only registered in November 2009, Chipmunkdavis's advice is probably not informed by the fact that most arbitration cases, and certainly all the repeat ones, are always founded on what you laughingly want to dismiss here as a school boy excuse. Can we? Probably. Should we? Absolutely not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I did only register recently, which is why I said that I judged HighKing based on what I've seen. If he's no longer running his campaign or whatever it was, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Did TR continue edit-warring, upon his block expiration? If so? indef. If not? don't indef. I don't wish to see anybody indef-blocked because of their posts and/or edit summaries. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker's response for ANI

Copied from Triton Rocker's talkpage per my offer and TR's request. TFOWR 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make three things clear:

a) I was not topic banned. The only thing I was "banned" from doing was adding the term "British Isles" from topics. I am allowed to edit any article.

b) My point of view (and interest) is non-political and relates solely to non-political uses of the term. A position which I have sustained clearly and accurately with academic quotes, e.g. "used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests", e.g. see: here.

c) I have been utterly consistent in this arguing against the politicisation and nationalist use of the term from any nationalist point of view. (I am not English and do not support British abuses of power in Ireland or anywhere else).

Now, please allow us to discuss the "elephant in room" for one moment and get a straight answer.

You have an Irish editor --- supported by others --- widely recognised to be engaged in a campaign to remove the term British Isles despite the above. What is HighKing's motivation?

What cracks me up is how far out of proportion with reality, or any reasonable responsibility to check the facts, his attempts are.

• Forget the distraction TFOWR is causing by scapegoating me just like Black Kite before him --- what we are really here discussing is conkers. It could equally have been Wych Elms.

HighKing claims no true Irishman calls them conkers to remove the term British Isles. Yet the Government of Ireland promotes Conker Championships.

HighKing claims there are no Wych Elms on the Isle of Man to remove the term British Isles. Yet the Government of the Isle of Man states they are the most common (and forget too 'Flora of Guernsey and the Lesser Channel Islands etc').

Now --- this 'opposition to reality' going on and on and on at WT:BISE. I could pick out at least tens of equivalently ridiculous examples and I am sure HighKing has a list more.

Why should we really have to bear the burden that such an 'opposition to reality' for the sake of a nationalist cause is causing just to keep the Wikipedia accurate?

If they have a problem with the naming convention, they need to go to the International Organization for Standardization to sort it out.

Not skew the Wikipedia. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

May I also ask, is this a typical trick, banning someone from editing so that they cannot defend themselves on an admin page? It is not the first time. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a mightly strange thing to do, I must say. LevenBoy (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Length of block

I do not consider it acceptable to follow up on a 1 week block with an indefinite block. Even arbcom does not do this is handing out sanctions: they double it each time. That's normally what we should be doing here; further, this was on a talk page, not article space. And no block longer than 1 week has been yet tried. I sense the frustration of those previous involved, but as someone with no prior involvement in this entire topic area, I have therefore shortened the block to 2 weeks. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a magnanimous move but I wonder, might you consider removing it altogether? Look at what was said, and the history behind this scandalous situation. TR is no better, nor worse, than the average contributor here. The problem stems from his original, and wholly inappropriate, restriction. If it was not for that then we wouldn't be here at this page (again) today. As I've said before - look at the fundamental problem here, not the symptoms that we now have. LevenBoy (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that LevenBoy's characterisation of TR's conduct as "no better, nor worse, than the average contributor here" (I assume by "here", we mean WP:BISE) is accurate. Triton has been substantially worse than many and in fact, I would say, all recently. Others like LevenBoy are also less than helpful to a calm, rational discoursive atmosphere. I am glad to see the rules being properly enforced, which is what we need. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that procedure should be followed here. If doubling the block is the way it has been done then it only seems reasonable. Especially so if Triton can be encouraged to not repeat any action (no matter how seemingly innocuous) that might trigger a large conflict with other editors or be seen as deliberately provocative. Encouraging him to engage in other topics for a while once the block is lifted appears to be a good solution. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is standard procedure? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think DGG's characterization here is an oversimplification. Doubling is not by any means a required or even standard procedure; it's just one way that can be used. No clear opinion on this particular reduction, but the notion that a one-week block cannot be followed by indef is not supported by policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be followed by indef, but it usually shouldn't; I was referring to what seems the customary arb com AE practice, as an example for us. I suppose we have the right to be more arbitrary than they even on smaller matters than they deal with, and escalate penalties when we are exasperated, instead of being judicious. Blocks are for prevention, and no block longer than a week has yet been tried & perhaps this may make an impression. I do not want to think that our penalties here have no proportion to the situation, but rather we take it upon ourself to judge whether someone is likely to be capable of improvement. A practice of routinely blocking for indef, and then change it if someone says sufficient to make us believe they've repented strikes me of being very much like BITE--it will perhaps induce someone to hypocritical statements of conformity, but it will bot produce improvement. Slow increase pressure is much more likely to do so, without driving away editors. The only way to judge improvement is to give the person a chance to show it. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible fix

How about we just restrict every editor that has ever posted on WT:BISE from adding or removing the term "British Isles" from articles? Such removal or addition could still be suggested on that page, but could only be actioned by an uninvolved admin. That wouldn't prevent the usual arguments at the talkpage, and we'd probably end up with a few mysterious new accounts/IPs doing the addition and removal, but that could be reverted (again by someone uninvolved) with a link to WT:BISE ... and frankly I can't think of anything else now. The only other option is a complete topic ban and that would be a nightmare to administer and might also stop those editors doing actually useful work. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Wowsers, that's what I've been practicing all along. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some editors, mentioning no names, think it's like that already. LevenBoy (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Each has his/her own way of volunteering for these things. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what the vast majority of editors are doing Black Kite, if you check out the BISE page then you will see progress being made. If you want to make a wikipedia wide restriction then that might make sense, but penalizing all editors who have ever contributed to the page is neither fair nor needed. All we have here is one editor who is consistently refusing to change their behaviour even after several blocks. --Snowded ^TALK 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It has merit BK, placing a list of editors (perhaps, as you suggest all of those who edited at WT:BISE- although as Snowded points out there are those from both sides who are not misbehaving) on a form of probation (ie banned from adding/removing the term 'British Isles' and placed on civility parole) and perhaps explaining/outlining how the topic is also under probation could work.
  Also as an FYI Þjóðólfr popped up again asking for a block review. They're claiming to have read this thread - which is a bit odd--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object. I for one have never added or inserted the term, but have taken a case by case approach to nominations for insertion or deletion by other editors. neither have I ever broken any civility rules. That is also true for the vast majority of editors who have engaged on the page. Placing those editors under probation is the equivalent of holding the whole school in detention because one kid has scrawled an obscenity on a wall. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I know Snowded, and I sympathise, but I'm trying to think of some way to prevent this continually bouncing back to ANI with little result. Please feel free to throw some more radical proposals our way, because I'm really struggling to think how to do this. (Well, I can think of a very simple method, but it wouldn't be too popular with the subset of editors that it would affect). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be very simple to (i) apply progressive bans to editors like Triton rather than a series of one week/one day ones despite no indication he has learnt (ii) adopt a zero tolerance to any personal accusations, speculation on motives etc. A few weeks of that would do the trick. To be honest the issue which keeps coming here is Triton, otherwise although there is a civility problem its not going too badly at the moment. I'm not going to even bother with controversial pages (and I have spent a very patient two years here and put up with a lot of abuse) if the reward is to be labeled as needing a "probation". --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I regularly contribute to that page with a view to attempting to create a rational, NPOV basis for each item discussed and hopefully not be too snippy with people. Under this proposal, would I end up with a block record which any future editor glancing at my profile will think indicates bad behaviour on my part? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you end up with a block record? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it that means I wouldn't. Fair enough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Hold on we're trying to thrash this out. BK has suggested every editor, I'm not 100% behind that and as I suggested a list. (the next logical step would be to discuss what/who would be on that list).
And James - no an editing restriction is effectively a contract made with the community it doesn't come up on a block log unless said agreement is violated.
Our other potion is a stricter form of topic probation. No warnings just escalating blocks for anything out of line comment/edit/report etc - I'm not sure how I feel about this or how it would be enforced though, but it's an option--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Id suport a complete ban on involved editors adding / removing British Isles from articles, i wouldnt say that should include every single editor thats ever posted on the BISE though. It has always struck me as odd that Triton is the only one actually prohibited from adding or removing British Isles. However i am unclear from the wording exactly what is being proposed. Are we saying that involved editors like myself and highking would not be allowed to propose changes at BISE, only allowed to debate them when raised by uninvolved editors. If that is the case, again i would support that on the condition we deal with all outstanding cases, because there are a few major ones that need resolving. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand BK's suggestion everyone could suggest changes - but per my proposal the restricted would be under a strict civility parole too.
My suggestion for a wording would be:

Listed editors are on probation in regard to the British Isles naming dispute. They are banned from inserting, removing or in any way editing the term British Isles or words associate with it anywhere in Wikipedia. Listed editors may still contribute to WT:BISE where they may suggest changes. An uninvolved admin will review these suggestions and may (or may not) make such changes. Listed editors are also subject to civility parole

--Cailil ^talk 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. I would ideally like TFOWR to continue as our "resident admin" if he is agreeable, although presumably others are welcome to take an interest too. Would this mean he would still make the final change for us? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont like the sound of this "civility parole". I do not mind submitting to a complete ban on adding / removing the term BI from wikipedia articles, and i do not mind being extra careful with my comments on the BISE page, but i can not volunteer to be held to a "higher civility" standard elsewhere on wikipedia that would put those of us who agree to this at a disadvantage in debates. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Ensuring that any insertion or deletion is discussed before a change is made is actual practice for the majority of editors already. So making it a general rule is a very good idea. Making it a probation should only apply to editors who have broken laws of civility or edit warred. If you want editors to spend considerable time, and put up with vandalism etc. on controversial pages then some support would be appreciated, not a very unfair label. So if you want to organise a review of the behaviour of all editors who have contributed and only "list" those who have not behaved properly, but don't start tarring everyone with the same brush. --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've thought about this again now, and you're probably right; still, there was no harm in a bit of blue sky thinking. As far as Triton's concerned, the next block should be indef. There are only so many times one can test the boundaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand too Snowded but we need to thrash things out and yes of course listed people would be those who violated policies. I recognize the good work you and others have done at WP:BISE and consider the topic lucky to have those of you how do work within site policy there.
As BK said we need to entertain these thoughts even if we decide not to implement them. And to be clear if in future broad disruption does occur I would support the above wording being implement only for those who are repeat offenders of site policy not all involved at WP:BISE--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood; I am just contributing to the "thrashing out" and your general interventions on this are most welcome. Personally (as I say below) I think the current sanctions are fine they just need enforcing (but I don't propose thrashing there although it is tempting) --Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, as far as I can tell that has been the de facto practice all along. My only issue with a general probation about the words and "words associated with them" would that it may hinder some editors form making constructive edits elsewhere. I feel that this may possibly be abused by some to try and lock other editors up. I'd prefer a little bit of leeway for editors who abide by the rules and conventions of the page, but I guess if a blanket ban is needed, the admins would have sufficient discretion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Beats the hell out of me why for this current situation, we appear to be having trouble managing "Triton Rock" for editing violations, and the hand-wringing and heart-wrenching appeals for run-arounds on what was threatened the last time (and the time before) he violated. And has he demonstrated that he recognizes what the problem is? His Talk page tells a very different story. And it bothers me, because hand on heart, I and others know that I wouldn't be treated so leniently. I've said it from the very start - it's time we applied stricter civility and behaviour standards. I recommend a review of individual editors recent civility and behavior should be done at BISE and other BISE-related pages and BISE-related postings. Persistent breaches should result in those editors being placed on a list. After that, no warnings just escalating blocks for anything out of line comment/edit/report. --HighKing (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Myself, I like Black Knights earlier suggest that none of the prior editors add or remove the term from where it or one of the disputed equivalents exist. But I will always oppose jumping to indefinite in situations like this--the situation could have been avoided if progressively longer blocks had been tried earlier, instead of repeated blocks for 1 week or less. We need to treat everyone fairly, & an editing ban about the term, applying to everyone involved, would be the fairest. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment only two editors, Triton and LevenBoy are adding the term without discussion at BISE, all other editors are respecting the BISE process. Not so long ago ANI agreed to sanction any editor who added or deleted BI without agreement. So far only Triton has been sanctioned, and has refused to accept the sanction, breaking it after each block. The remedy is in place and just needs enforcement, along with a no tolerance policy to breeches of WP:Civil. Fairness is all about enforcing community sanctions, it does not require treating people who have followed the letter and spirt of the rules in the same way as those who have flagrantly and persistently broken them. --Snowded ^TALK 04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

encyc: namespace

Resolved

In Cause 4 Concern I found several links of the form [[:encyc:Raiden|Raiden]. Clicking on the link takes the reader to http://encyc.org/wiki/Raiden. Encyc.org claims to be an "encyclopedia that you can edit. It is free for everyone to use and distribute. If you know something, then you can share it here. Encyc is a kinder, gentler wiki encyclopedia, with a close-knit group of writers and a family-friendly atmosphere."

Did someone sneak-in a custom namespace on us? There doesn't seem to be a way to show the actual namespaces in use by the software. The links are clearly inappropriate and I'll remove them as soon as I learn what weirdness is taking place in the software. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a true namespace; it's just an abbreviation for an external link. Such abbreviations have to be approved by people on meta.wikimedia.org (see meta:Interwiki_map), so that means that it must have been judged a worthy site at one time, but even that doesnt mean that every such link there is appropriate. It also may not even be the same website that was there when it was added to the interwiki map. —Soap— 12:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• m:Talk:Interwiki map is where you want to be. Please take such technical issues with the software and its configuration to the Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) next time. Administrators don't control the servers or the software. Developers monitor the Pump, and generally don't monitor here. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• I didn't realize that we had so many external shortcuts to non-WMF projects. I now see the ref buried at the bottom of Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links, but it's not very obvious. Thanks. --UncleDouggie (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha again

Banned user socking with IP. Most recent discussion here [57]. IP sock on same range blocked as consequence. Starting to edit one of the same articles Islamic pottery as previous sock. Current IP is User:173.52.181.113.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I have blocked the IP for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with an unregistered user editing the Porter-Cable article.

An unregistered user with the IP of 184.100.1.135 has edited the Porter-Cable article four times over the last two days adding vague and unsourced information. I've reverted the edits, with comments as to why they shouldn't be included as is, put a comment explaining my reasoning in the article's discussion page and even added a hidden comment in the place where the information is being added trying to get this person to talk about why their edits keep being reverted. I don't believe the editor is malicious, just uninformed about how Wikipedia works and I've exhausted all the means of resolving this I know of. I've never encountered this problem before and I don't know where to go from here. What is the proper procedure from this point on? Thank you for your time. --Lando242 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the best approach is to just keep at it. If the problem persists try WP:RFPP. I watchlisted the article to help out :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User Talk page protection review

I just locked User talk:Dago Dazzler. The material he's been introducing wasn't that bad, but he got blocked for it once and then stuck it on his talk page. Anyway, just wanted someone else to take a look since I had already been involved in closing the unblock request. --Selket ^Talk 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection looks good. Knowledge of Wikipedia acronyms by a brand-new account (who persists in adding nonsense) does suggest socking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Toa Nidhiki05

There is a somewhat contentious RFC on BlueRobe starting up and User:Toa Nidhiki05 appears a bit upset by it. He has posted what looks to me like a PA on one of the users opening the rfc. I asked him to consider removing it but he has refused. Might be worth keeping an eye on the whole thing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of "left-wing meatpuppets" referring to established editors does seem to indicate a problem here. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The left-wingers are on an unholy crusade against anyone (particularly BlueRobe and Darkstar1st) that disagrees with them; yeah, I'm upset and angry at this whole thing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the large number of potentially contentious userboxes you've created and display on your user page. Typically we discourage political position userboxes. Yworo (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when is that policy? I can display my opinions here, and if that means ticking someone off, so be it. FYI, I've seen 'established editors' with userboxes. Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See here for content restrictions related to userboxes. They don't help collaboration on Wikipedia. In fact, they are divisive and your comment "if that means ticking someone off, so be it" displays a divisive attitude. I have no problem with the use of standard Wikiboxes available at WP:USERBOX, but self-created "issue" userboxes aren't appropriate. Yworo (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...And Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to political userboxes. Yeah, I don't think that quite fits your opinion there. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa, please read WP:BATTLE - this is not what we do here. Exxolon (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am currently involved in this RfC and feel the use of WP:Meat to be an attack. I have no relationship with the editors in question and do not edit within their wheelhouse. I became involved after monitoring a discussion at a related notice board, but did not comment until the RfC was opened. I saw another accusation of meatpuppetry by Nidhiki at BlueRobe's talk page here [58]. Some of these editors seem to feel there is a far-reaching conspiracy against them and it is disruptive to the project as their paranoia grows to every user who so much as says a word they disagree with.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I, too, do not appreciate the baseless accusations of "meatpuppetry" from User:Toa Nidhiki05. His accusations that I am "trolling" are also not appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7

It has been brought to my attention that some Windows Phone 7 fan sites have been putting out a call for fans to go to the Windows Phone 7 article to "fix" it or remove text perceived as being negative.

The largest of all Windows Phone 7 sites is WMPoweruser.com, which recently wrote this article, asking fans to edit the Wikipedia article. Yes, the fan site attacked me, labelling me a troll against Windows Phone 7.

Recently, there have been more attempts at removing referenced content in the article, often by editors who edit no other articles or subjects. So I ask for advice on what can or should be done. Can some admins keep the article on their watchlists for a while?--Lester 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about the external article, but if edit warring happens on the article, it can simply be semi- or fully-protected as appropriate. In the meantime though, I'd just ignore that article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. The only obstacle is lester (talk · contribs)--intelati^(Call) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the community agrees with CalumCookable (talk · contribs) but he's afraid of a edit war with Lester.--intelati^(Call) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There has obviously been a content dispute going on for some time. Which of the processes at WP:DR have you been through? David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calumcookable has just begun the community consensus part. So far me and one other editor, have agreed with his changes.--intelati^(Call) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm that other editor. What are we supposed to do if there aren't many people (including Lester) contributing to the discussion of changing the article? We already posted up templates that gives the readers and other editors indication that there are multiple issues with the article being discussed on the talk page. Our ultimate goal is to simply make the article have a neutral point of view, and actually have the article discuss the product itself in a NPOV. Currently, that isn't that case. --Interframe (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC. Templates on the page itself help, but only catch the attention of people visiting the page. -- Atama頭 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now we wait. (Jeopardy theme song:)--intelati^(Call) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes are in the talk page. can someone change the wording (of the WP:RFC) so that it is a place for the people to place their views on the article and the changes?--intelati^(Call) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) never mind. :)--intelati^(Call) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalled SPI/block-evading user

My request for CU here was declined, and I'm not certain whether the banner at the top indicates the SPI is all done and over with, or whether there's just an admin. backlog on making this a non-RFCU sockpuppet look-see (cats at the bottom suggest the latter, but previous SPIs haven't had so long a lull in my experience). Meanwhile, the pretty obvious sock (205.211.213.218 (talk · contribs · 205.211.213.218 WHOIS) continues to edit despite an indef. block on the registered account. Should I refile as a non-RFCU SPI case, or just STFU and wait for an admin. to have time to agree with me that this fellow is evading a block? :-) --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As it says at the top, "the case is now awaiting administration" and your case should still be listed at WP:SPI. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

74.110.195.50

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks

74.110.195.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making a massive mess of List of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan episodes and I and others are getting tired of cleaning up after him roughly every few hours. The guy edits like he's six, warnings have no effect, and I sincerely doubt even notifying him of this discussion will accomplish anything. I'd rather not have the page SPed, as a fair amount of the IP edits actually are helpful

Could someone drop a house on him, please? HalfShadow 19:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• 2 weeks. Might possibly be clueless rather than malicious editing, but in the end the result is indistinguishable, WP:COMPETENCE applies and the IP hasn't acknowledged and of their 3 previous blocks. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathewignash

I believe that this is an unreasonable editing of Optimus Prime (Transformers) as I clearly wanna avoid an edit war but I have outlined my reasons to others [59]. 82.25.105.18 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For this sort of content issue, AN/I won't help you avoid an edit war. What will help is this principle, and a nice discussion on the article's talk page. Perhaps it is Scarlett's page that is in the wrong. In any case, there's nothing an admin can help with here. —fetch·comms 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the talk page approach, and wish that 82.25.105.18 would have used it before trying to completely rewrite a big article. The current format is the accepted format for the Transformera articles story section, but if the user has an alternative, please, suggest it for us to talk. Mathewignash (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding, but the thing about you and discussions in the talk page is you never respond to any ideas that approach improving any Transformers article. On at least two occasions I asked for your thoughts on the proposed suggestions to improve both the Starscream and Megatron articles, and you failed to respond. It was only when I attempted to make an unnotified drastic edit on both that you decided to respond. This gives the impression that you're only interested editing the article how you see them rather than how the guidelines dictate. So this wishing that 82.25.105.18 come to a discussion would be fruitless when you won't even respond back. I'm sorry if I'm sounding harsh. Sarujo (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Zaspino and user:Theobald Tiger

The two following threads are really one thread; I've joined them up so as to make them easier to discuss. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Zaspino

I would hereby like to report the user User:Zaspino as I feel harassed. This user has not made any edit which was not in an attempt to prevent me from editing (see). This user is continuing an argument that was present on nl.wiki here. Since the account has apparently been created simply to counter my edits I definitely feel harassed. Since the user is asking for ridiculous things and thinks these are solid points no argument has convinced this user of the correctness of my claims in the articles morality and teleology. The user insists on retracing steps and is asking for references of the references I made and is furthermore insensitive to any changes I made, explanations I offered and references I left.

Now, I am willing to listen to most everybody, but my patience has run out with this user since there appears to be no reason in him. Unfortunately it shows that my patience has run thin, but I hope this matter will be properly dealt with since this user is not editing here to benefit the encyclopedia in my opinion, although he claims otherwise.

--Faust (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling people trolls is not nice nor does it help your situation. —fetch·comms 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask.. --Faust (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would be clearer if you would refer to the specific differences link for the places where you feel that Zaspino has been harrassing you. Pointing us just at the whole talk page doesn't make it clear which particular action it is to which you are taking exception. One problem was that you got confused as to who said what, as shown at this diff; the words in question had been added in a section heading in this earlier edit by an IP, and not by Zaspino, but you refused to accept it when Theobald Tiger explained it to you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger

I would hereby like to report the user User:Theobald_Tiger as I feel harassed. This user has come to en.wiki to prevent me from making any edit here, after a dispute I have had with him on nl.wiki. Not a single edit since he has 're-awoken' on en.wiki is about anything else. Apart from that this user is insensitive to any and all arguments I have given in favor of my edits, including references, references of my references, explanations, dictionary suggestions, etc. I see no reason to continue discussion with this user since the user is clearly only interested in preventing my edits. That is why the user keeps retracing our steps and shows no recognition of changes I made on behalf of edits, nor recognition of clear sources........and worldwide recognition... --Faust (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• you will get a lot more sympathetic response if you quit calling them trolls and be more constructive in presenting your issues. Please provide some specific diffs where you believe admin action is required. Blocks are not punitive, rather they are invoked to stop future disruption. For that to be apparent i think you need to provide diffs of poor behaviour and examples where you have tried to go through the various dispute resolution stages :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask..

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, by "FTOWR" do you mean me? We've talked a bit recently, so it's possible, but I don't recall anything about this. Do you have a diff? I'll have a dig through my talkpage archives but a diff would greatly help. TFOWR 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went look at the Teleology talkpage to see the two famous "trolls" Zaspino and Theobald. I found two users who seemed knowledgeable and bent on improving the article. And one user, Faust, who was behaving in an uncivil and inappropriately condescending way: "I have adapted the above in a way that I think will be more comprehensible to Zaspino"... "Theobald, you are interrupting a discussion that might prove a learning experience to Zaspino... please stay out of this." Here is an appropriately critical post by Zaspino, and here Faust's response to it. If anybody there is to be called a troll (which we're not supposed to do anyway, yada yada), it's not Zaspino, nor Theobald. Advice to the community: it would be good if somebody kept an eye on this article (unfortunately I don't have the time myself). Advice to Faust: don't be so bloody rude. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Going by your posts on their talkpages, apparently you regard this ANI posting as a "request for blocks". I don't think Zaspino nor Theobald are in the slightest danger of being blocked. But you might be, if you carry on in the same way for much longer. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

@TFOWR, Yes, I meant you, apologies for the miswrite. I sent you several mails, but never got a reply. I also alerted Shell Kenny, but she is short on time I think. @Bishonen: I can understand your opinion, but I ask you to bear in mind that I knew I was being harassed from Zaspino's first edit here since it was a continuation of events on nl.wiki. That simply makes me lose my patience. Apart from that neither Theobald, not Zaspino are knowledgeable in the field, as is obvious from ALL comments they have made. They are only good at rhetorics. My case is made by the fact that I alerted TFOWR and Shell Kinney to what was going on at the very first post Zaspino made and predicted this chain of events. --Faust (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So you were in battle array from the very start? No... I'm afraid I don't see that as making your case. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Ah, email! That would explain it. Let me have a dig... apologies for not looking into it, I suspect yours isn't the only email I've missed. TFOWR 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Actually, it proves that I am not the one who was in battle array from the beginning and that I have been very patient without any reason for that. In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding. This explain his unreasonable denial of my references and his continual stating of falsities quite clearly. It shows that no matter what he will never accept anything other than his POV and is not interested in building an encyclopedia based on truth. Since Zaspino and Theobald are in a tagteam together, continuing a dispute from nl.wiki here I cannot understand why this would reflect negatively on me.--Faust (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 157.242.159.225 and 76.168.95.118 I would like to report the Ip's stated above, which are used by the same user. This user insists on places his personal definition in the morality article, without reaching consensus. I have undid the revision four times now and I think an edit-war is just not done. Although a majority is in favor of a revision, I am not convinced this should be done since the thoughts outlined in that revision are POV's explained elsewhere in the article, now being trumped as a general definition. I cannot escape the thought that they are in a tagteam with Zaspino and Theobald, since I can think of no good reason why such a user who would be interested in moral ethics would not have a user page, but suddenly come to the rescue of Zaspino and Theobald. --Faust (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Heymid

Heymid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I just blocked Heymid for one week for various unhelpful and uncivil comments. Heymid has been asked, advised and warned to stop meddling in dramas that don't concern him and I very recently warned him that his presence on the English Wikipedia would be untenable if he continued. The other day, he re-involved himself in the Marksell/Timothymarkell drama that he was advised by several admins to stay out of, resulting in yet more warnings, but today, he told an administrator that they would end up in front of ArbCom and [... lose their admin privileges]. I believe the block is justified based on the pattern of behaviour, the same pattern which lead to him being banned from the Swedish Wikipedia.

However, before anybody accuses me of being out to get Heymid, I have spent a lot of time trying to help him over the last few weeks, to the extent that I convinced another admin who was considering blocking Heymid that he should be given another chance. I am still willing to do everything I can to help Heymid, but I believe that the block is necessary to prevent further disruption in the form of fanning the flames of dramas in which Heymid is not a part. All comments are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also related discussion at User talk:Heymid#Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. HeyMid's comments were completely unnecessary and unhelpful, and a threat such as that could serve only to escalate what was at that point a fairly civil discussion between two other users of which HeyMid was not a party. HeyMid's archives for July and August are littered with warnings from many other users cautioning him against these very same things. Obviously warnings aren't enough, thus a block becomes the next logical step. Resolute 21:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I endorse the block, but FWIW, I'm not an admin and don't make a practice of following blocking policy. This editor has been so obtuse, disruptive and persistent in the "I just don't understand" responses, that I've given thought to whether s/he might be a Mattisse sock, but can't convince myself that's the case. In any case, it doesn't appear anything short of a block would end the disruptive comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the punishment fit the crime? I submit for your review that a week long block is mildly excessive and does not fit the crime. I suggest a shorter block along with a very stern final warning. Basket of Puppies 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid has had more than his fair share of warnings, stern and friendly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, but a week-long block seems a bit excessive. Basket of Puppies 21:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Eep. Maybe the long-term pattern is worse than I currently perceive, but on the face of it, this appears to be an atrocious block. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merit of the block, I really wish admins would ask for review here before making such blocks, not after. If you're really not sure about a block, so much that you need endorsement, do it beforehand. That way, if you were totally wrong at least the user won't have a spoiled block log. I otherwise don't understand the purposes of such threads - they're either a "Yep, good block" (which you thought anyway), or "Nope, bad block, why did you not check here first...". Please come here first before making blocks you feel you need support for. Aiken Drum 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The blocked user and another editor requested he make this thread. I don't think he doubts the validity of his block. -DJSasso (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but HeyMid initially accepted the block: "Last, but not least, thank you for the block. I believe it is needed, and I need to calm down." It was only after BoP challenged the block that HeyMid changed his mind on it. HJ posted the review here as a courtesty to HeyMid. Resolute 22:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't challenge the block- I asked for a review of the evidence and a review of the length of time of the block. Basket of Puppies 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is just a general comment - too often I'm seeing block first, check after threads on here. We should be getting consensus for blocks of established editors before making them, not after. Aiken Drum 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, Heymid has been singularly unhelpful in the last few weeks, inserting himself in various disagreements and dramas that he has not taken the time to understand. No individual action warrants a block on its own, but the continuing pattern certainly does given the warnings he's received. ~ mazca ^talk 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Heymid has been a pain to several users and across the project recently. Their snide remarks and comments to established users has been received with nothing but patience across the board. Heymid has received everything from polite reminders, to stern warnings, to users outright stating that they wish to be left alone. All of this to seemingly no avail. This isn't just an issue with certain recent comments, but an overall collective of issues that Heymid simply refuses to acknowledge, nor pay attention to. A week will hopefulyl give Heymid an opportunity to realize that they are just like every other user: held to the same standards, the same accountability, and the same opportunities. I previously thought an issue with language and translations were at fault, but it has become apparent in recent days that is not the issue at hand. Fully endorse. Jmlk17 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I watchlisted Heymid's talk a few weeks ago after some incident or another and am surprised that the block took this long to happen. After a thorough reading of his talk history, I'm convinced that this is a good block and that the duration isn't at all excessive. I believe that Heymid could one day become a productive contributor, but he may need to mature a bit before that happens. (Not posting his stated age here.) —DoRD (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I think heymid should stop jumping to conclusions about situations that he was not involved in. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I was on the verge of implementing a similar block no more than a week ago, but HJ convinced me not to. There are walls of text consisting of everything from friendly advice to stern warnings in his archives, none of which has been taken to heart. A week will give him time to actually read through it and hopefully reflect on what needs to change if he is to continue contributing to the project. decltype (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:WayKurat reverting unreferenced information from Encantadia

• Apparently, I have reverted these pages that are clearly violating WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA and most of all, WP: REF. All pages barely have any references to provide that the characters from a television show are notable enough to have their own page. They are clearly fan-created pages. There are over 50 pages created by these fanatics, and I, took the liberty of my time to redirect them to one page, however, this user: User:WayKurat, decided to revert the violating pages back again, and accused me to be a sockpuppet of my very own IP address, I know its ridiculous. He's probably a fanatic of the show and might be angry to the fact that the pages violate Wikipedia rules. Can someone please have word with him, Thank you. PS. Please view my contributions to see the pages I was talking about.--Beckerich (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As the matter of fact, if there arent so much of these pages, they shouldn't be redirected to the show, Encantadia. They must be deleted.--Beckerich (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are the pages created in related to the show. And I don't see anything that provides enough information to prove that they are notable enough to have their own pages, plus most of them are unreferenced. The pages were tagged to provide references over 3-4 years ago, and yet till now, nothing. This pages really ought to be deleted. It's like creating a page for every characters in World of Warcraft., ridiculous. Ornia, Memen, Naar (Encantadia) ,Lira (Encantadia), Ignis, Helena (Encantadia), Evades, Ether (Encantadia deity), Emre (Encantadia deity), Cassandra (Encantadia), Barkus, Bagwis, Odessa (Encantadia), Hagorn, Muyak, Kahlil, Armeo, Cassiopea (Encantadia), Aquil, Asval, Hitano, Anthony (Encantadia), Gurna, Avria, Enchanta, Raquim, Encantadia: Pag-ibig Hanggang Wakas, Amihan (Encantadia), Danaya, Pirena, Alena (Encantadia), List of places in Encantadia, Ybrahim, Flamara, Hathoria, Lireo, Sapiro, Jewels and Spirit-Guides, Genealogy of Encantadia, Timeline of Encantadia, Amarro, Andora (Encantadia), Pyr (Encantadia),Arman (Encantadia), Armea, Animus (Encantadia)

--Beckerich (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888 misusing TWINKLE

I believe User:Inka 888‎ is misusing TWINKLE. The user has previously marked himself for vandalism. He has on three seperate requested talk pages be speedied (and they were shockingly) for instances that weren't happening. The last was for patent nonsense, where there was none (I know, I declined the CSD). The user has gone so far as to revert and warn someone for updating templates (those being {{cn}}) and removing unsourced information...though they could have done without the edit summary. It shows the user isn't paying attention to what they are reverting.

This user was previously the subject of the far above thread Inka 888's Request for Rollback where the user showed they are not ready for Rollbackers access. I believe with the points stated above, they are not ready for TWINKLE either and it should be removed until the user matures just a tad. TWINKLE is not necessary to revert vandalism or place warnings.

I did try to speak to the user about this, but they never replied, hence I bring this to ANI's attention. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the user of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If i was not supposed to put those pages up for speedy deletion, then WHY would the deleting admin 1. go ahead and delete it 2. Not tell me that i should not put those pages up for speedy deletion. And G1 can apply to talk pages and if i remember correctly that is the criteria it fit under when put them up for speedy deletion. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is misusing it. People make mistakes... 2 hours to reply to a talk page post probably isn't long enough either, people need to sleep, and it's Labor Day in US, so Inka may have been doing something for that. All of those CSD taggings were valid, as the page itself was deleted. The admin can reject it if they want. As for the warning of user, I think that a warning may have been valid, but {{uw-agf1}} would've probably been more appropriate because saying "bullshit" as an edit summary 1.) Probably isn't Assuming Good Faith, and 2.) doesn't explain what they're changing... Pilif12p :  Yo  23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Give it a bit more time for a reply from the user. Then we can go from there as necessary. Jmlk17 23:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion can apply to talk pages correct? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#G8 I believe.--intelati^(Call) 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Other general criteria can also apply, but for other criteria (such as nonsense, vandalism, etc.) it's usually preferrable to blank the page (if that's the only content) instead, unless the only thing in the talk page's history is a personal attack or BLP violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The pages said things such as "EAT MY SHORTS" as the only thing on the page, and the other pages had things similar to that if that helps. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the almost universal practice to delete talk pages when the article is deleted, unless they contain important information about the reasons for deletion or possibilities for improvement--and , as mentioned, G8 was designed for just this purpose, & the talk p. deletion is built as an option into the deletion pages the admins use. Sometimes when there is potentially useful information, I copy it into the talk p. of the editor who submitted the article, especially when it contains a challenge to the deletion, to which I have replied with an explanation.

But in this case, the deletion reasons given were not the right one, but a variety of inapplicable reasons, indicating careless use of Twinkle. I'd suggest removing it if there are further errors. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also what you said on my talk page was not a warning, i took it as a suggestion what was i supposed to respond to? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The misuse continues. Inka 888 templated another talk page as CSD A1 ("No Context") and just as quickly removed it, but didn't remove the warning the template created. This is clear the user is either misusing TWINKLE or just hasn't a clue how to use it. I have directed them to the documentation on how to use it, but with a mistake like that, it is clear they haven't read it. Per DGG above, I again suggest TWINKLE be removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's view on this matter. And seeing how more misuse has occurred, I believe that this user's twinkle should be removed for some time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to add that this is not blatant vandalism and should not have been reverted as such. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:94tf11

Resolved

 – 23:50, 6 September 2010 Soap blocked 94tf11 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)

Can someone indef this editor. Entire contribution history consists of attack pages and BLP violations. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done —Soap— 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In future it's probably easier just to warn the user and then take them to AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting. Exxolon (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User AnonMoos personal attacks

I removed this talk page edit per WP:NPA policy:

Hey Harlan, your ranting tirade well displays your rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases, but it has no real direct relevance to the actual issues under discussion here. [60]

User AnonMoos restored it with and edit summary that says:

Harlan, if you can indulge yourself in raw hatemongering, I can point out your raw hatemongering [61]

I'd appreciate it if that could be removed and the user in question blocked. harlan (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Per WP:RPA, "Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I don't think this qualifies.
2. A quick glance at Harlan wilkerson (talk · contribs · count)'s contribs shows WP:CPUSH and other conflict over standard Israel-Palestine crap. So the complaint and block request look dubious to me on those grounds as well. Maybe someone else knows more, or is masochistic enough to look for longer than the 15 seconds that I did. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can look at my contributions all that you want. You won't find any "religious-based hatred" or "hatemongering". My posts in the thread in question are civil and represent the published views of reliable sources. harlan (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I see in your contribs is a conflict-prone editor. If you're not hatemongering (and I'm not saying you are), then someone alleging that you are hatemongering is at worst making an invalid criticism whose wikiquette/civility level is also less than ideal. Invalid and less-than-polite criticism doesn't rise to the level of personal attack described at WP:NPA, and so your bringing it here and calling it one appears to be POINTty. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bring it here initially. I removed the comment and it was reverted by AnonMoos with a vitriolic edit summary that asserted his right to make those sort of comments. All I'm asking is that the remark be removed and the editor blocked. harlan (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a comment alleging that you have rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases. That's not a friendly thing for anyone to say, but I look at WP:NPA#whatis and I don't see AnonMoos's comment reaching the level it describes. Your complaint is overblown. At most I'd remind AnonMoos to stay civil. If you insist on complaining about it to a noticeboard, try a Wikiquette alert instead of going around asking for blocks. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a long-term pattern of harrasment. It is far-fetched to claim that editors are repeating "Arab propaganda", "making the Jews look bad", or that they are "beating up on the Jews" when they quote or cite mainstream government officials, historians, sociologists, lawyers, journalists, and organizations such as David Ben Gurion, Benny Morris, Amitzur Ilan, Avraham Sela, Simha Flapan, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Gershon Shafir, Uri Ram, Ilan Pappe, Israel Shahak, Aharon Klieman, Zeev Sternhell, Baruch Kimmerling Hersh Lauterpacht, Jacob Robinson, Raphael Lemkin, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Lucien Wolf, Carol Fink, Oscar Janowsky, Ann Mosley Lesch, Stephen Krasner, Henry Steiner, Max Laserson. Nehemiah Robinson, Marc Vichniak, the Institute of Jewish Affairs, the American Jewish Congress, and the World Jewish Congress. Here he removes well-sourced material and labels it "beat-up-on-the-Jews material"[62]. I believe that behavior is an example of both WP:Battle and WP:TEDIOUS that violates WP:NPA. harlan (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of an attack in that reversion--I see a removal of some material based on an assertion (correct or otherwise) that it's irrelevant to the article topic (the edit summary claims the reverted material is about something that happened in 1937 while the article is about a 1947 event). I looked at the article talk page and it's clear that you're a persistent content dispute with several other editors (I don't know and don't care who else is on either side). I do believe AnonMoos's debating style could use improvement (the enlarged-font all-caps shouting in the talk page hurt my eyes) but your complaint here at ANI comes across as classic WP:SOUP. Aren't there some I/P discretionary sanctions that the article should be under? Maybe both of you should be topic-banned from it for a while. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

67.122.211.178, you don't consider "your rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases" directed towards an editor a personal attack ? That seems very odd to me. What exactly is the hatred being referred to I wonder ? This kind of behavior is not even close to being acceptable under the discretionary sanctions. AnonMoos, please give it a rest. There is enough of a shitstorm in the I-P topic area already without you making it worse. Frankly, editors should just be blocked on the spot for 24 hours for this kind of disruptive crap in talk page discussions and keep getting blocked over and over and over again until they get a clue. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Clarification: When I say "I don't see much of an attack in that reversion", I mean this reversion in Harlan's message that I was replying to, not the original one complained about). It's the type of thing one sees in heated talkpage discussions. I see a level of content disagreement on that talkpage that calls for some kind of DR, but the issues under dispute are the usual byzantine mess, and I don't like when someone in that kind of dispute tries to use NPA as a bludgeon. I look at WP:NPA#whatis and it seems to me that it's addressed at quite a bit worse attacks than what we're seeing these diffs (despite the open-ended stuff at the bottom saying any insult at all is an attack). Also, under WP:NPA#Recurring_attacks, initial remedies suggested include mediation, wikiquette alerts, etc. I do see recurring hostility from AnonMoos but also well-articulated underlying complaints (whether they're valid or not) directed at Harlan. And I'm (purposely) ignorant of I/P issues but I've been around enough WP:CPUSH in other areas to see that pattern in Harlan's editing. I'd suggest formally cautioning AnonMoos against more of that type of invective, and advising him/her (and also Harlan) to seek mediation or open an RFC about the content dispute. If the insults continue, then yeah, do some blocks, and tell the recipients that they're self-inflicted injuries. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough and as is often the case, my comment missed the point of the comment being made and addressed a completely different point not actually made by the person I addressed. Brilliant. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a final warning AnonMoos was given by an Admin after another incident: [63] So, 67.122.211.178 the insults have certainly continued. harlan (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Background: User:Harlan_wilkerson is always trying to insert his innovative personal legal theories (sometimes flagrantly historically revisionist) into many modern middle-eastern history articles. He brings in a cloud of alleged sources to his support his assertions, but when looked at in detail such "sources" never seem to support his more controversial assertions. The conversations frequently get snippy. In the past Harlan has tried to slur me several times as being a so-called "racist".

In the current discussion, he changed the word "caste" to mean something completely different from what it meant when I first introduced it into the discussion, in order to launch some kind of attack on Judaism. Harlan's idea of "civil" discussion is apparently that he is allowed to attack Judaism, but if I point out that he's attacking Judaism, then I'm personally attacking him. AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to conflate a well sourced discussion about Zionism with criticism of Judaism. Nobody has been attacking Judaism. harlan (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I would say that that part of the comment is definitely close to WP:NPA, and considering that Harlan only removed that part and left the rest of the comment, I see his edit as perfectly fine. AnonMoos's reversion of that edit and related edit summary were clearly out of line. Silverseren^C 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The comment was ill-advised but I'd put it in "wikiquette alert" territory at most. Creating NPA drama is a favorite tactic of disruptive editors, so shouldn't be taken seriously unless there's a recurring pattern (need a lot more diffs to show that) or the attack is quite severe. AnonMoos, the reversion was also ill-advised. Better to just let such stuff go and get on with editing. If AnonMoos and Harlan have a persistent dispute that they can't work out themselves, try mediation or RFC, not this tangential stuff. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If you don't mind me asking, who are you? You just started editing five days ago and yet you seem to know quite a bit about Wikipedia policy and Wikiquette alerts (of which I still disagree with you). Silverseren^C 02:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Check 67.122.211.0/24. There're a few other IPs in the range with a similar page makeup; could easily be an IP-exclusive editor that's on a dynamic IP. Doesn't seem like a sock at a glance. Shadowjams (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes. My address has been jumping around a lot lately because of ISP instability that I'm trying to get fixed. It usually stays stable for longer than this. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to these parts so pardon any etiquette mistakes, but I saw thisand don't like seeing a group of people disparaged. There looks to be a recurring pattern but you can judge for yourself. I'd just like the talk page to calm down so we could get back on track. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- is there a reason you can't tone down the vitriol? It's not helping the situation. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a new situation. Here is a final warning AnonMoos was given by an Admin after another incident: [64]

The current discussion started after an involved Admin applied the POV tag to the article and was reverted. I reapplied the tag and posted the issue at the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues page [65]

AnonMoos went into WP:Battle mode on the article talk page. He did not discuss the sources that I cited or any of his own, he simply launched a personal attack that hasn't really stopped since, e.g. "Harlan, this article isn't a legitimate field for your innovative personal abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculative legal theories -- or your really somewhat strange beliefs." [66] Here I pointed out that he had deliberately been generating editorial conflict across multiple articles and that he had admitted his arguments had not been based upon any published sources. [67] I mentioned that I've been citing and quoting standard university textbooks on International Law and Middle East Studies [68] Instead of discussing that content, AnonMoos continued to discuss me, did not mention any published sources to support his viewpoint, and suggested that I not edit any more 20th Century articles about the Middle East because my views aren't mainstream [69] AnonMoos has been making WP:Synth claims and citing an Encyclopaedia Britannica Palestine article. [70] I pointed out that my views on that passage can't be too far out of the mainstream, since I'm credited as a contributor to that portion of the Encyclopedia Britannica Palestine article (scroll down in the diff) [71] harlan (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TheiGuard's odd behavior

TheiGuard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user made a very explicit and controversial edit here. I gave an only warning with a brief explanation on his talk page. The user decided to attack me by leaving the same message on my talk page, the delete the warning on his page. I will notify this user of this discussion, and leave it to the administrators to decide. Keeping in mind that September 11th articles are subject to Sanctions.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You attacked me. I made an edit you didn't like so now your trying to punish me. I don't like several edits you make, but you don't see me posting messages to you. I think you should be blocked. TheiGuard (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:Fringe and downright insulting. But it's the former that concerns me the most. Editors are free to remove messages from their talk pages, but the warning to Jojhutton was completely unwarranted. If there's further disruption I think it should lead to a temporary block. Shadowjams (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although I think he deserves a permanent block for his unwarranted judgment. I'll keep a lookout on his account and if I notice him attacking any other users I'll report back. TheiGuard (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood. You, TheiGuard, made the problem edit; jojhutton's response was appropriate.

I'll add, from a brief review, TheiGuard has productively (from my brief review) (not my subject) edited professional wresting articles.

But there are other problematic edits in the same form: [72] [73] [74]. Shadowjams (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you provided as well as the one posted by Jojhutton reek of WP:POINT. TheiGuard, that's disruptive, and you can and will be blocked if you continue. Airplaneman ✈ 03:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He should be punished not me. TheiGuard (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He gave you a heads-up for edits that you made (as evidenced by the four diffs above) that were inappropriate. Please don't take that personally; he certainly did not mean to attack you, only notify you of the consequences of making those types of edits. If you keep making those kinds of edits, you will be blocked for disrupting. If you'd like, please explain how those edits were not disruption. Airplaneman ✈ 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Extreme and unrelenting personal attacks

Resolved

 – Warned, should probably be blocked if it recurs

Blackworm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on posting [75], and reposting [76] comments accusing editors of paedophilia, even after multiple warnings [77] [78]. Blocking his account may be the only way to stop this highly inappropriate activity. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I deny accusing any editors of pedophilia. This dispute has had a lot of reason for administrative eyes on it for quite some time, and I invite anyone to read the discussions here and here, and the arguments brought to the NPOV noticeboard here. Blackworm (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Insinuating that editors are supporters of paedophilia is equally as bad as directly stating it. I have removed the statements and warned the editor. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Many inappropriate CSD F2 nominations by Avicennasis

Avicennasis has been marking multiple inappropriate speedy nominations under WP:CSD#F2 for images on Commons that have non-empty description pages. I first came across this on Abu Ghraib-related images such as File:Abu Ghraib 53.jpg and File:Abu Ghraib 39.jpg where he nominated under F2 description pages with Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. I declined these and explained why on his talk page and he mentioned he's been doing this hundreds of times already. Since I'm about to go offline, can someone with a little more time review his deleted file-space edits and restore those file description pages inappropriately nominated as CSD F2? Thanks in advance. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. This is a fine example of F2 — it is a file description page for a file on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Anti-Laser Relisting

Resolved

 – No action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to take a look at the AfD of Anti-laser [79] to see if a consensus has been reached. User:JForget has relisted the AfD for further debate, but I feel a consensus had been reached prior to this. After the relisting another editor commented on the AfD bolstering what I feel was the consensus to keep. If an uninvolved admin could look this over to see if should be closed before the full cycle of the relist it would be appreciated.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to close it early: the extra week will probably make the eventual keep more secure. Also, you previously asked for a speedy keep, but it's clear that this wasn't a bad-faith nomination, which is the main reason for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At the time I had wondered if the nomination was related to the conversation "Anti-Lasar" at [80] where Y is a bit snarky. This combined with the flood of sources made me consider a speedy keep. Knowing Y better now he seems to be snarky in general and the comments are distinct from the issues raised, I just never went back to edit my original !vote language, although I should have. Thanks for taking a look, User:Chrisrus was having a wiki fit over the relist and I wanted to get another editor to look it over because of both my own concerns and a desire to cool him down before he acted out further.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Justa Punk

Resolved

 – Pages reverted and userpage semiprotected indef.

This IP has been editing Justa Punk's userpage after JP was blocked.[81] It's contributions also indicates it has been redirecting confirmed JP socks to the userpage. Can anything be done about it? Bejinhan talks 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pages reverted & semiprotected indef. Blocking the IP is probably moot at this point, but if this reoccurs, could be blocked as a Justa Punk sock. If any admins think the IP should be blocked at this point, please feel free. Skier Dude (talk 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A geolocation check reveals the IP's isp to be the State Library of Victoria. Bejinhan talks 06:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility of User:BlueRobe at RfC

This is shaping up to be Torchwood goes to ANI day. Can an admin please look into the incivility of this recent edit at RfC [82]? When combined with the behavior that initiated the RfC it seems to go too far over the line to let go.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never once advocated a block outside of blatant vandalism or suggestion of self-blocking for cool down, but I feel this user needs some time off wiki to get their head on straight.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the comments by User:BlueRobe really indicate that collaborative editing is not something the person is interested in (and he also has been asked directly). An indef seems warranted, and indeed, even prudent, given the egregious incivility he has continued to dish out through at least 4 forms of dispute resolution (from simple talk page pleas, to article RfCs, WQA, and RFC/USER). BigK HeX (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an indef block is necessarily warranted. I agree with Torchwoodwho, that for now, a cool-off block would be better. If the behavior persists after that, then we could look at longer-term or permanent blocks. I agree with you that the behavior doesn't show any signs of improving, but I think we should give him a chance. One thing I would note though: if BlueRobe is blocked, it might be a good idea to require that as a prerequisite for being unblocked, he must acknowledge that he has understood the reason for the block, and will explain how he plans to improve his conduct. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. -- I just realized that we might be saying the same thing ... I suppose the type of cool-down block I was suggesting would technically be "indefinite", since we don't know how long it will be until BlueRobe understands the reasons for the block, and details how he will resolve them. I guess I automatically interpreted "indefinite" as "permanent", which is not correct. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd guess that requiring him to basically apologize and admit wrongdoing would amount to an permanent block, given his level of hostility to the vague "leftist meatpuppet Cabal" that he seems to be "battling". I think an indef is prudent for a user who is harboring so much contempt for the Wikipedia process, so I'd certainly be able to endorse a long-term block coupled with a stipulation as you've described. I don't think I'd be comfortable interacting with him again for at least 4 months, though. So, allowing him to return in no less than 4 months and explain how he would approach the collaborative editing process would be fine with me. BigK HeX (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a minimum of 4 months is too long. He probably won't come back, and I don't want to lose a potential contributor to the project. I would suggest a week or two minimum, and allow him to edit again once he's met the stipulations I laid out above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you arseholes shower together, too? BlueRobe (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of weeks may certainly work to resolve the matter, but I'm skeptical (and, I feel, reasonably so). Given the non-productive nature of our disputes, I personally would not feel comfortable interacting with the user in 2 weeks. However, if he is willing to assure of us civility, then I'd gladly endorse the idea that we could forego any blocking, but I would want to request other sanctions of no less than 2 months in duration. Something like a topic ban from articles on political subjects and topics related to New Zealand, as well as a voluntary agreement to cease unproductive soapboxing on talk pages or accept a temporary block upon findings of soapboxing. Something like this would allow him to become more familiar with collaborative editing, while possibly letting him build up to the point of contributing productively in the areas that seem to have drawn his ire in the past [see: his comment, ""In every Wikipaedia page where I have deep knowledge on the subject I have seen petty politics undermining the integrity of Wikipaedia pages""]. BigK HeX (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

mitigating circumstances @jr, how civil indeed. this guy had been ridiculed at every edit util he finally lashes out, then you speak up for a shortened ban, bravo. i hope before you vote here, please take a minute to view his intelligent, civil, even friendly edits in the beginning. then notice how after a stream of insults, he breaks down and speaks his mind. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Provide a diff of even ONE insult that precedes his incivility please. Three or more diffs would be very helpful. I find it fairly hard to believe that complaints about this single editor are coming in from 6 largely unrelated articles by pure chance --- the common factor seems to be User:BlueRobe and he certainly seems to jump at every chance to reinforce that notion. BigK HeX (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in searching for "insults" can easily look through the conversations listed in the RFC/U and WQAs. The only "insults" were that he was asked to provide reliable sources and be civil, and that a !vote didn't turn out the way he wanted. I'd say that considering his tone and flagrant personal attacks, most editors involved did an exceptionally good job keeping their cool. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, your ENTIRE LIFE has been out on hold for 2 days so you can obsess over me in WIkipaedia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: get counseling. Seriously. SEEK HELP. BlueRobe (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)