Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive555

User:Onesius and punctuation-related edits

User:Onesius (contribs) has been making a number of punctuation- and spelling-related edits which are at odds with WP policy (WP:LQ, WP:ENGVAR, etc.). Several editors have tried to steer him towards policy on his User talk page, but to no avail. He recently left a less-than-civil comment on a User's page, which could be a simple mistake or could be something more. Any opinions on what, if anything, should be done in this situation? Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look and all of the articles that the user has "corrected" seem to be on American topics, where correcting punctuation to the American dialect would seem to be appropriate. But the comment on that user's page is way out of line, and that level of cold hostility was not warranted or required. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

So what's the point of site-wide standards if we're not going to use them? I can understand differences in spelling between US/British/Canadian/etc. articles, but punctuation is a basic element that should be consistently applied throughout the project (in my opinion). If there are to be differences, these should be specified in the style guide (I would disagree with doing this, though). Mindmatrix 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR came into play on this edit, at the very least. There may have been others, not sure. Would it be appropriate to rollback these edits, as there are many of them and they clearly go against the current style guidelines (WP:LQ)? Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so, so long as you note that the edits have been made in good faith and you reference WP:ENGVAR in your edit summary. WP:LQ is disputed, so I wouldn't rollback based on that though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Punctuation is site-wide - there is no difference in punctuation between UK/Irish English, American English etc. However (as a fan fiction writer) I can confirm that an awful lot of people use bad punctuation and justify it because they are from a different part of the English speaking world (this applies to UK English people as well as everyone else). Forms like "Goodbye", he said "I'm going". (comma/full stop outside speech marks) is always wrong unless I believe one is writing some kind of computer code, hence the editor's remarks about computer code.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all, First, I apologize if I offended anyone. Also, I thought I was having a one-on-one discussion with someone who had initiated the discussion. Nevertheless, the running postings (whatever the proper term), which I believe are on some sort of discussion board concerning punctuation, were pretty "direct" & I thought my tone was more subdued than many of those comments. Nothing I said hasn't been said, in substance, before me and in much more pointed terms. I have also seen references to being "mercilessly edited," which also implies the appropriateness of a certain tone. Sorry if I misunderstood. Second, I gather from the heading that this is not the place to continue a substantive discussion, so I won't. Third, it was my understanding there was a difference between "policies" & "guidelines" (although if someone could direct me to a link defining those, it would be helpful) and, as has been oft-stated by others, the Wikipedia "guidelines" on punctuation (i.e., "logic" punctuation) are not grammatically correct except perhaps in computer code-writing. English isn't "logical" in spelling either but somehow we all endeavor (I hope) to spell correctly. Prior to being a college English professor I was a magazine editor. My Wikipedia edits have all been in good faith and in an attempt to improve the writing. (I have also had the temerity to correct grammar errors, e.g., on the use of "that" vs. "which.") I hope that is OK with all of you. Fourth, what is this place (site, or whatever the correct term)? Thanks. Regards, --Onesius (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Saravanakumars adding unsourced opinions

Resolved

 – warning provided to Saravanakumars.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will tell me if there's a better place for this. User:Saravanakumars (and some IP editors) has been editing all the Tamil film director pages. All these pages have the format of a table with the year, the name of the film, and a column for comments. In the column comment he keeps adding "Hit", "Super Hit", "Flop" etc.[1] [2] are a few of about 20 examples. That these are opinions is shown here for example [3] , where he's altering what one of the IPs has said. He's been warned by me [4] and I've explained the problem [5] [6].

However, he doesn't believe what I say [7] "This is the format for cinema related articles. ... If you still not understand what I am doing, please wait for some time. ...you are the only man against me. How much do you know about tamil cinema ? I have worked in some films too. So please stop your undo in future." and has now started edit warring with myself and other editors who keep removing his edits [8][9][10] - reversion of User:Cst17[11][12][13] revert by User:Ronhjones .

Could someone with a louder voice explain WP:V WP:RS to him.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided Saravanakumars with a third level stern warning. Should he return again with this type of original research, uncited edit please let me or a fellow administrator know. Best wishes Virtual Steve --VS ^talk 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. I'll keep an eye on him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure - I will close this one off as resolved for now. Feel free to come directly to me if necessary.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Shades of Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing it myself. He was even-handed in categorising films from all directors from flop to blockbuster. It was only that it was clearly his own opinion that bothered me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel harrassed by user Makrand Joshi, kindly help

Resolved

 – Already dealt with at WP:WQA. Editor to be advised re: Forum Shopping

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dear Administrators, I am not a person who posts regularly. Yet when I try and edit a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iipm, then a user called Makrand Joshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makrandjoshi) reported me for being a sock puppet after just one editing of the Iipm page. The report was found to be false (for the moment). After that when I wrote on the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Blog_and_JAM), user Makrand Joshi tried to accuse me again of being a sock puppet.

I need help in handling user Makrand Joshi who is not using the right words with me. Please guide me on how to proceed and help me. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign Wifione (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with at WQA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistant Incivility

Could you please warn Poeticbent about his disruptive and uncivil behavior in the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia ? I have a detailed example with all the relevent diffs and links of him falsifying information here: [14]. When he got caught changing the info, he then decided to move it to the back of the article. The discussion with full context is here: [15] and abusive messages here: [16] and here [17]. This guy had been blocked before when writing on a similar topic: [18]. Ironically his user pages states he follows a 1RR policy, which is obviously false. I'm pulling back from further reverts with this guy for awhile. I'm not looking for a block, just a warning so that he settles down a bit. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Poeticbent has already been found to use wikipedia as a battleground. He is supposed to have a mentor to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice, but that is obviously not working. Ostap 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface

I have been the subject of an extreme personal attack from Pixelface which I do not think should be allowed to stand. This sort of thing bothers me, because it is not about a personal issue at all, but about Wikipedia policy rather than a contraversial subject matter such as politics or religion. I have politely asked Pixelface to edit out the ad hominen attacks out of his post, but received further abuse from him on his talk page. I feel I must take a stand on this issue, as a I know other editors have been subject to similar abuse.

I am proposing that Pixelface is blocked until such time as he undertakes to desist from ad hominen attacks on other editors. Although we have our disagreements about policy, I value his strong views. The personal attacks in our disucssions are little more than flamming, which should be stamped out with swift administrator intervention. I have ignored previous attacks, and stuck my neck out for Pixelface in the past, but this last attack oversteps the mark. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see strong language but I see nothing along the lines of a personal attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's strong, but I can't see a personal attack - the diff seems to be a firm judgement on your views on the subject, but it's on your views, not on you. The pair of you would do best in disengaging from each other for a few days. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There's something about "anyone with any intelligence whatsoever", which is a bit condescending but I've seen a lot worse. What I'd like to hear, in one sentence, is what this issue is about. Don't give us a megillah, give us a one sentence summary. A "Cliff(s)Notes version", as it were. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is not as serious as I thought, then then there is nothing else I can do, and nothing more to be said. Complaint withdrawn. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer the questions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sheesh...Wall of text. Hoo...Lemme just...sit for a bit...HalfShadow 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Montefiore Windmill

User:Gilabrand has repeatedly removed the name of Jaffa Gate Mill from the article. Even after I provided a specific reference for the name as requested. I'm not wishing to get into an edit war, but the alternative name should be in the lead per WP:LS and also in the infobox where there is a space provided for alternative names (see Gibbet Mill, Rye for an example of a mill with a number of names).

Can an admin look this over and restore some normality to the article please? Mjroots (talk) (forgot to sign originally :-/ )

User:No More Mr Nice Guy has also removed this sourced info. Does this article fall within the remit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles? Both these editors are mentioned in that case. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the article to WP:IPCOLL/Current Article Issues. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

COI: Spam from WAgency234

WAgency234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created spam at The Wannamaker Agency and also on userpage. Both ads have since been CSD'd. I reported the user initially to UAA and, as a result of review there, moved the report to COIN. COIN instructed me to "request an admin look into the account." I am here to make that request. Tckma (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The article and the user page created by this account have both been speedy deleted. They have no other contributions. I suggest you leave them a {{uw-coi}} notice on their Talk. If nothing more happens in the next couple of days, the report could be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sambokim (talk · contribs) COI, repeated copyvios, etc

Okay, I did some work on an article to attempt to bring it up to GA status awhile ago and it was an uphill battle against one user. The user in question works for the subject of the article and is involved in various aspects of the operation including english PR. He pretty much copy and pastes Press releases into the article and has a set of links he likes to push into the EL list that all promote the team (though most of them are currently being used as references). I've exchanged chat with him on various talk pages an email or two as well, and on his talk page. He's been warned multiple times not to copy and past Press releases into the articles but now that they're gearing up for the hockey season again, off we are. Back in January I had to remove the PR text multiple times trying to clean up the article because he would just put it back in over and over. Affected articles are: Anyang Halla and Asia League Ice Hockey. He makes lots of good contributions, but he has an obvious COI and can't control himself with the press releases and promotion. I was away for a bit and just got back to find out I yet again had to clean the copyvio and link spam out of the article [19], [20]. You can see the previous warnings on his talk.--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

and of course thisSamuel_H._Kim. I'm sure he's notable enough for an article, but he can't even resist turning that into a promotion.[21]--Crossmr (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Review requested of administrative actions

Resolved

 – Discussion was automatically archived after 24 hours without comment -- there was no vandalism involved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've recently become involved as an admin in a couple of disputes on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain. These have involved most of the regular editors there, but the flies in the ointment appear to be Hiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both of whom have been conducting campaigns for edits that do not appear to be supported by consensus. These content issues have been discussed, some at great length (see Talk:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and associated archive), to the point where in my judgement further contention is becoming disruptive.

As a result, when a complaint was made on my talkpage that Kurfürst was unilaterally changing content on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain while it was under discussion I blocked him for two weeks (following warnings from myself and other admins that further disruption would lead to sanctions). The relevant talk-page thread is here. Because I previously intervened to unblock another editor that had become frustrated with Kurfürst to the point of edit-warring, Kurfürst is now convinced that I'm supporting one version of content over another and giving a free ride to certain editors. The dispute revolves around the extent to which the RAF used a type of aircraft fuel; the only possible explanation for my actions is that, being British, I feel so strongly about 100 octane that I'm prepared to abuse the admin tools.

Hiens I have only warned to date about flogging dead horses, because he resurrected an apparently settled content dispute on Talk:Battle of Britain. However, he too seems to have reached the conclusion that I'm abusing the admin tools and preferring one set of editors (and one version of content) over another. On a procedural note, I have not edited either article or commented on the content itself.

In my view the regular editors on those articles have been dealing for some time now with some extremely persistent, stubborn, and opinionated users. There has been a detrimental effect on both the articles and other editors who've chosen to work there, to the point where some good editors have begun to react badly and others have dropped off the radar. I believe our established article-writers are our most valuable resource and must be protected, but dealing with these type of situations is never straightforward... so finally I come to the point of this long post :) I'm requesting an independent review of my actions, and if possible another set or two of eyes on the above articles and editors. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"Stop it EyeSerene , it won't do you any good Stop falsely accusing others of things you guilty of yourself All sorts of historians give all sorts of figures. Murray uses secondary sources You are a liar and you know it ; I have no issue no case I am done with you EyeSerene The community should deal with you now ; your defense is completely distorted and piece of crap up ala I can understand you're upset about losing the argument, but you are just going to have to be grown up about it and accept it "

Hey sorry Gentlemen I got carried away ! this is a true example and the exact phrases of User Dapi89 and his colleague EnigmaMcmxc , and he always find some other one colleagues to praise him – like User Jacurek - and say thank you Dapi89 I understand your frustration ! Simply it is amazing and pitifully this time the Wiki Admin justify this level of discussion by saying
" There has been a detrimental effect on both the articles and other editors who've chosen to work there, to the point where some good editors have begun to react badly and others have dropped off the radar " really …..
You are making a political maneuverability to free them ; people can disagree and moderator can interfere to ask them to get back to the subject or place his knowledge on a source or analysis .. But not this way Mr. EyeSerene where u deleted part of the discussion which have absolutely no bad words no insult , no attacking on other , no personnel attack ….
But you said - the majority against it J probably ratio of 5:3.
And it is “ extremely persistent, stubborn, and opinionated users. “ oh really ..

If another administrator frees you from the charges of concealing your identity and protecting, the cursing and personnel insult, then I am sure you will not be quited from one charge!
Simply the lack of knowledge skill and been incompetent to mastering a hot discussion Didn't ever came to your knowledge that - The results of Battle of Britain - Dowding quoted about one phrase from the Official documentation as a myth and it would be dangerous for the futre ... The outcome of the battle is a long controversial subject and the debate still going on till these days .. It is not a problem for users to trade POV and sources and also not a problem for Administrator to interfere and ask users to calm down, press them to provide sources or criticize the validity of some sources or analysis .... etc Something you didn't do it!!!! you simply remained in silence and only interfered to attack or punish !

There were long discussions with Dapi98 before on discussion page for Battle of Britain
it was simply deleted and some good Administrator answered Dapi89 - when he said all historian agreed this understanding and the Administrator in nice way tried to stop him ( by saying have you cited R.Overy or "I forgot his name"....) ; I wish you can restore this deleted discussion which demonstrate Dapi89 calling R. Ovary contradicted while now he is using his book as a source!
Please restore this discussion and see the Administrator ... he was totally different from you and I wish you will follow his style where as he said about the BoB  ; it is a national Myth and I wouldn’t touch that hot subject, he was fair and straight in his comments. I wonder why this discussion was maliciously deleted

--Hiens (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked at Talk:Battle of Britain, and I can only conclude that EyeSerene did what every admin should have done, and that Hiens is coming very close to being blocked as well. Discussions are good, but endless "I can"t hear you" arguments where consensus and WP:NPOV is attacked by stamina, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE should be stopped, and in some cases blocks and/or topic bans are the only method left to achieve this. Fram (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr - complainant is requested to can the fancy rhetoric and keep it simple.--Tznkai (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Surely this can be summarised without nine paragraphs and assorted funky formatting? I'm not seeing anything obviously actionable. ~ mazca ^talk 17:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no "malicious deletion" here -- all threads are archived after 24 hours without new comments. Marking resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Landless Farm

Resolved

 – Not exactly "landless" if you keep roaming on the same pasture. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Landlessfarm got blocked because of a promotional username and because the user createdUser:Landlessfarm/Landless Farm. The user made another account called User:Drala486 and continued it by creating the article Landless farm. Joe Chill (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bagged it and told it to make unblock requests at the original account's talk page. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Alansohn

Resolved

 – Take it to dispute resolution, people. This isn't the place. lifebaka++ 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This editor continues to indulge in personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith since his last Arbcom civiltyrestriction ended, repeatedly displaying incivility when others state their disagreement with his unorthodox views concerning use of quotes in footnotes. The latest incident occurs at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry. After I made one revert with a "See talk" content-focused explanation on the article's Talk page, he reacted with accusations of meatpuppetry. Moreover, he put down everyone in disagreement with him by using insulting terms "Rleve's team" and "surrogates". I am not one to become embroiled in wikidrama, and it is with regret that I bring this matter to the attention of other admins here. Alansohn's contribs are extensive and of considerable benefit to the project overall. But this misconduct does necessitate community attention, in light of his previous Arbcom sanctions for similar conduct. His history of accusing admins of bad faith and twisting words of others was the subject of Arbcom sanctions in June 2008 (ref: Alansohn Arbcom case) which imposed editing restrictions for one year, following this RFC. Since the restriction, a pattern of more of the same continues — he has been blocked 3x already in 2009 for making persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility, and personal attacks. As indicated by this latest manifestation of such continued unacceptable behavior, a community version of the editing restriction should now be imposed. To the best of my knowledge, I've had no previous interactions with him, except for this brief, pleasant exchange almost two years ago (6 November 2007). Nor have I been a party to the past Arbcom/RFC cases involving this editor or blocked him myself, it should be noted.  JGHowes  talk 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Since the arbitration imposed restriction has expired and the last block was in April I'm not entirely sure that we can or should block for this unwarranted attack. Maybe asking the arbitration committee to reimpose the restriction would be a better was of managing Alansohn's behaviour. ((disclosure - I see the user at lot at DRV and while their language can be a little intemperate, I have never considered them particularly troublesome.)) Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Do you have anything in the way of diffs for those admins who are too lazy to go hunting for them </me waves>? On the basis of the initial comment, pending such examples, my view is that the end of an ArbCom restriction is not permission to resume the conduct that lead to the sanction; the sanctionee is supposed to have adopted better practices during the parole/ban, etc. Usually ArbCom findings have some general points about editing in good faith, etc. and some examples of such violations in respect of the parties, so it can be therefore assumed that the editors effected are fully warned of the consequences of resumption of such behaviours. If there has been some return to bad habits, then perhaps there is a case for the application of severe sanctions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Since one of the four members of the discussion in question is User:Rlevse, a current admin and Arbitrator, and he does not appear to have commented on Alansohn's remarks, why are we speculating on what ArbCom would do if they were only aware of the situation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC) JGHowes, I believe this situation could be much better handled by talking to Alansohn (which I note was not attempted first) or through the use of dispute resolution. I suggest you try one (or both) of those. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I have not gotten involved in the edit war that User:Rlevse started and that User;JGHowes has jumped in on. My involvement has exclusively been on the article's talk page, which is exactly where it is supposed to take place. I have been diligently trying to understand why three admins, including a bureaucrat, would be involved in pushing an edit war based on an arbitrary style preference that is part of a Wikipedia design feature of the citation templates. Whatever the real issue may be here, no editor has discussed anything on my talk page, and Rlevse appears to prefer having his surrogates push his position. A separate ANI discussion regarding matpuppetry by User:Rlevse involving User:JGHowes active involvement, with evidence provided, appears below. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC) WP:MEATPUPPET violations / edit warring by User:Rlevse / User:JGHowes I first met User:Rlevse at the article George Thomas Coker in December 2007, where I attempted to reinsert sourced content he had deleted about a film Coker appeared in. As it turned out, Rlevse has a longstanding relationship with Coker and repeatedly edit warred to remove sourced, relevant content despite his clear conflict of interest in which the article's subject demanded that the content be removed. Above and beyond Rlevse's edit warring at the article, several editors jumped in to support Rlevse's biased position, many with a pattern of extensive relationships with Rlevse, most notably User:Sumoeagle179 (see here) and User:Dreadstar (see here). None of these editors had ever edited the article before and appeared to have no connection to the article other than a longstanding relationship with Rlevse. With much persistence in maintaining the integrity of this article and the project as a whole. The material about Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds is in the article and remains there today. To exact his revenge for daring to challenge him, Rlevse appears to have cynically manipulated Arbcom in his role as clerk to manufacture a case called "footnoted quotes" in which Arbcom refused to deal with the subject at hand and created a series of policies on "protecting" BLPs that remains a classic example of abuse of power. I saw a discussion a few days ago at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and checked out the article Thomas Henry Barry, which I made a few tweaks to. The discussion at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry revolved around an edit war that Rlevse started to remove quotes in footnotes, a practice he doesn't like. After a blind revert of these quotations by Rlevse (this diff), User:JGHowes -- who had never edited the article before -- jumped in with a blind revert of his own (here), followed by another blind revert by Rlevse to his same preferred version (this diff). User:AdjustShift has jumped in (here) with the helpful edit summary of "remove needless quotes". I have not gotten involved in Rlevse's persistent edit war that he has undertaken in conjunction with what appear to be meatpuppets. I have exclusively raised the issues at the article's talk page, trying to understand why three admins, including a bureaucrat, would needlessly create an edit war over a subject that Arbcom itself refused to address when Rlevse tried to raise it and which uses a built-in design feature of Wikipedia's citation templates. At the talk page, I have offered a very simple solution; ignore the quotes. No one will be forced to use them, no one will be forced not to. Over a 48-hour span, User:JGHowes made a total of 12 edits, eight of which were to the Barry article and the article for R.A.C. Smith and their associated talk pages. JGHowes appears to have no connection to either article other than Rlevse. JGHowes and Rlevse have a clear relationship, with Rlevse having the most edits of JGHowe's talk page, and JGHowe being in the top 20 of the more than 1,000 editors who have edited Rlevse's talkpage. This is not the first time that Rlevse has abused process. The pattern is for Rlevse to get into a conflict and then to bring in meatpuppets to push his position, while he can claim to be uninvolved. As a bureaucrat, we should be expecting the highest standards of practice and behavior, not a shameless use of meatpuppetry to get his way on what has to be one of the lamest and most needless edit wars in Wikipedia history. A brief block and a warning that future incidents may well result in loss of administrative privileges for him and his meatpuppets for continued abuse will likely prevent further such incidents by User:Rlevse. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Wow. Tan | 39 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC) OK, so who's right, Alansohn or User:JGHowes see above report about AlansohnElen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not looking for anyone to be right and this is the worst possible place to make this decision. I have tried to discuss this issue at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry and I have refused to get involved in the edit war that Rlevse / JGHowes have initiated. My suggestion there is to walk away from the article and allow each editor to edit as they see fit without escalating what would have to be one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars, one which I will be adding to WP:LAME. Until JGHowes raised the nuclear option of bringing this issue here to ANI and accompanying that with all sorts of threats, it appeared that the edit warring had slowed down and that this would end by all parties moving on and learning to respect each other's edits. There is no issue here other than one that Rlevse appears to be manufacturing and the best solution here and at the article is to do absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

JWatts1959

JWatts1959 (talk · contribs) is a nearly single-purpose account who has done very little other than alter Carrie Underwood discography so as to add misleading claims regarding her #1 singles. Specifically, the points of contention are "Don't Forget to Remember Me" and "I Told You So", both of which reached #1 on a secondary singles chart (i.e., Mediabase) but not the Billboard charts. I should also note that a.) no other discography on Wikipedia uses Mediabase, and b.) the Mediabase charts are not in any sort of archive, so they fail WP:V. This has been going on for quite some time now, and despite multiple level 1 and level 2 warnings, this user has made no attempt to stop, usually edit-warring with good-faith editor Caldorwards4 (talk · contribs). Caldorwards4, myself and other editors have tried to tell him that we only follow Billboard peaks for American artists, as including other charts would be indiscriminate, but nobody can seem to get through to this persistent user. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a puppet of Billboard. In fact, we don't want to give undue weight to another company. Unless Mediabase can be shown to be highly unreliable, a note that the song was #1 on the Mediabase chart would seem reasonable. In my city, it was found that the radio ratings were inaccurate because when they started to use meters instead of diaries, the audience size changed significantly. Perhaps all editors can try to rationally discuss the matter. I am willing to be an informal mediator, if asked. Another possibility is to use the Billboard data and note in the text that other sources, such as Mediabase, have shown certain songs to be as high as #1. Or are you seeking a block of JWatts1959?User F203 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeking a block, just mediation. As I said, the Mediabase charts are reliable but are not archived anywhere, and since their positions can't be independently verified, they should not be included — also, some other editors seem to agree that including non-Billboard American chart positions is overkill. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

While unlikely, it is possible that JWatts1959 is the former Congressman who accidently typed 1959 when creating a user name instead of 1957, his year of birth. While unlikely as Watts is a common name, I have read that politicians have been indefinitely blocked before. Some people may not want to give deference to politicians and may even want to block them, airlines routinely treat politicians better, even giving flights priority to land on time. User F203 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What would remotely make you think this was J.C. Watts? --Smashville^talk 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by LightningMan

Resolved

 – lifebaka blocked the lot of 'em for edit warring.

User:LightningMan has made several personal attacks against User:Sportslogo Editor LightningMan is verbal abusing me. LightningMan has called me "Are you a man of your word or just a pest?" "what are you, six?", "your laziness". "nd I'm not the only one who thinks as I do either. So? What are you, six?"

This issue is regarding [22] and for some reason, LightningMan continues to delete the table because he believes this will be too much work. He gives opinions as his reasoning and refuses to acknowledge my hardwork. Your advice or intervention would be appreciated.(Sportslogo (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

No comment on the possible attacks, but I've blocked both users for edit waring at American Basketball Association (2000–), with 20+ reverts each today. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience advocacy

[23]

An administrator really needs to go in there and clean house. There are three users in particular who have set-up shop and are basically known pseudoscience promoters on Wikipedia. I will not name names, but behavior such as this is unacceptable. Wholesale removal of so many entries is simply edit warring plain and simple.

I have no objections to people discussing individual entries and whether they fit the inclusion criteria. But there is absolutely ZERO discussion of this removal on the talkpage. It was simply done unilaterally.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Without accusations, I asked the most recent editor to remove 30K from the article to please use the talk page first, and reverted that content back in. I can't pretend that I fully understood each of the removed topics, but Lunar Effect, Polygraphs, and Iridology, three I read through, all were topics where I was either familiar with their status as pseudo-science (Lunar Effect, Iridology), or that they had significant citation thereof (Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, thus not evidence in court, but the summary went further into it than I knew.) Though my review was cursory, the editor removing didn't even make use of explanatory edit summaries, so I feel he can make the effort properly at the Talk Page. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems all over Wikipedia there are controversial edits being made without explanation every day. Not sure what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just keep on fixing them. ThuranX (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Consultant Pharmacist review is about twice as long as the other reviews in the article for no reason. I already discussed this on the talk page but I was ignored. QuackGuru (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I left that in because it shows a single critic talking about a flaw and it's problem. Someone who identifies a flaw usually will give short shrift to the fix, but that section, as he wrote it, seemed more balanced than the older version. ThuranX (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've mostly been ignoring that article because it gets too contentious, but my recent impression is that discussion has been fairly reasonable despite some moderate edit warring. User:ScienceApologist's only contribution to the talk page in the last few months was to announce this AN/I posting. Per WP:DR, some better initial venues for his concerns could include discussion on the article talk page, user talk pages, RS noticeboards, and so on. --Middle 8 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate Middle 8's avoidance of the article, when a drastic edit such as the one I outlined above happens and I am bound by certain sanctions not to do anything about it, the only recourse is to appeal to outside help. Where one appeals to outside help is a matter of opinion, mostly. Administrative help is most appreciated since this list is subject to discretionary sanctions due to previous arbcom decisions. Past history of unhelpful discussions and indications on the talkpage of very combative editors indicated to me that the appropriate course of action was to ask for an administrator to help. I thank ThuranX for looking in to the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

I am the editor who removed these sections. I clearly explained the reason for their removal on the talk page as follows: "Per request that insufficiently sourced entries remain on the talk page while sources are being found. Most of these have no source that terms them pseudoscience or the equivalent. If there is a source, it is inadequate or disputed." Additionally, I did not simply delete these entries but rather moved them onto the talk page for further work.

The standard of this article, clearly stated in the lead, is that it lists topics "characterized as pseudoscience by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers." When such characterizations are absent, the topics should not be included even if we are quite sure that they "are" pseudoscience; verifiability, not Truth, is in question. None of these sections - with one potential exception - remotely qualified; there was simply nothing whatsoever to show that they had been so characterized (even using a generous standard for equivalent characterizations). The only even slight exception had one citation to Popper; though I would normally consider this to be a good supporting citation, Popper had expressly been denied to be a sufficient reference for this purpose in a lengthy recent discussion of another topic. hgilbert (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no request on the talk page at all for a blanket removal of "insufficiently sourced entries" nor is there any discussion of what entails an "insufficiently sourced entry". Moreover, on the talkpage you just indicated that a notable skeptical organization, Quackwatch, is not a good source when the inclusion criteria seen in the lead of the article expressly indicates that notable skeptical organizations are used as sources. Removal of, for example, time cube from the list is especially ironic given that arbcom itself identified it as an obvious pseudoscience. No one is objecting to your insistence that we get better sources. What people are taking issue with is your unilateral removal of entries without even the hint of a discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

SA, I will respectfully suggest that taking a possible article conflict to a noticeboard is way premature. The issues you raise are content issues and, absent edit warring, using admin tools would be radically inappropriate. To my understanding, you are not banned from Talk pages, generally, you could have raised these issues there, and AGF would suggest that you expect to be able to resolve them there. Personally, I consider going to a noticeboard a step to be avoided in dispute resolution, absent emergencies, which content issues like this never are.

You have many possible steps to take, in any case, before coming here: article Talk page discussion, asking one of the active editors to look at the problem, which should certainly be done directly with an editor before complaining elsewhere about an editor's work!, asking a third party to mediate any disputes you can't resolve directly. Setting up a situation for "people" to disagree with an editor, based on your report here and no sustained experience with the article, I'd consider mildly disruptive at least, I wish that AN/I didn't function like that, but it does.

(AN/I should be 911 -- emergency services -- for admin action based on clear cause, which you didn't assert. Instead you asserted a content position, and I'd argue that by doing so in this way, you are violating the substance of your ban, which allows you to discuss and suggest on Talk, but not to push content, and soliciting response here, as you did, and as you argued above, is a form of content pushing with a possible result similar to meat puppetry. Don't worry, I'm not about to file an AE report! I believe you are a highly valuable contributor, but it's important you be very careful around pseudoscience or fringe science topics, you have a tendency to be a bit attached there.) --Abd (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally, Abd, I'd agree with you. But in this case we're looking at violations on an article that has a notorious history. Normally someone doesn't call 911 when an anonymous stranger knocks on their door. But there exist contexts where calling 911 because a stranger knocked on your door is perfectly reasonable (I'll leave you to imagine such scenarios). Similarly, we don't normally report a 25% blanking of an article to ANI, calling it a "content dispute". But when the article in question has been the subject of a half-dozen arbcom rulings, discretionary sanctions, three AfDs, a few topic bans, and at least two indefinite blocks, we call in the cops for even a minor disturbance. I also have my hands more-or-less tied at that particular article due to circumstances beyond my control. I'm not the one causing editorial disruption because I haven't edited the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hgilbert's list on the talk page [24] seems to be an indiscriminate copy-and-paste. I just looked at Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory which in the article has been described in an editorial by Gerardus 't Hooft, an editor-in-chief at Springer and Nobel laureate in physics, as fundamentally flawed. It's hard to find a more unambiguous or public labelling of a purported theory as pseudoscience. I am familiar with this article, a radical reworking of a deleted BLP. It shows that Hgilbert is making unjustified assertions and, by the sheer scale of his attempted deletes, is disrupting wikipedia. He has been reverted. Hopefully now he will take greater care in what he asserts and listen to others. WP:ANI was a reasonable place to post, since not all users have this article on their watchlist, even if they're familiar with or have contributed to the page. WP:FTN would have been an alternative place to post. Of course there are undoubtedly oddball editors on wikipedia prepared to denigrate 't Hooft and label this subject as an emerging science, a paradigm shift, etc, etc, ... Mathsci (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of AfD system by User:Bettia

Resolved

 – To DRV please. Black Kite 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can some please have a look at the actions of the above editor. "He" has recently closed two AfD's for a footballer without good reason. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your incivilities and frivolous nominations do not help the situation. Jeni ^(talk) 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

These "frivolous nominations" where what exactly? All my nominations were policy biased. --Vintagekits (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And all of Bettia's closures were policy based, as he has explained. GiantSnowman 15:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:DRV is where to go if you feel strongly that these articles should be deleted. I see you making frivolous nominations, though. Tan | 39 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked Vintagekits for 3RR violations. I have told him that if he promises to not continue inappropriate reversions that I will unblock. This is unrelated to the appropriateness of the AfD nomination and is purely a 3RR block. Chillum 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Another note I have unblocked Vintagekits based on a promise that he will not act disruptively in this matter. If he fails to keep this promise I have no objection to any admin reinstating the block. Chillum 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As I explained to Vintagekits, I closed that AfD as a Speedy Keep under clause 2.1 - "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured articles)". As the article had recently passed its Good Article nomination, I felt it qualified. As for me supposedly being 'non-neutral', I presume this stems from a totally unrelated difference of opinions which he has been having with myself and others (with him being quite uncivil at times, which one uninvolved editor commented on at his user talkpage). Bottom line is closing two bad AfD nominations then protecting them for 6 hours to prevent disruption is not what I would call an abuse of the system. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, actually you didnt explain it to me - I had to post twice on your talk page before you would even acknowledge me.

• "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations" - what a load of BS - the guy has never played a game of professional football in all his days and I outlined that in the nomination. It is certainly note a "featured article" - I written one almost singlehandedly (cough*shine halo*cough) - it had just passed a scathing GA review and there was no mention of notability.
• Your are a non neutral admin and should have closed it because you are biased. I would have thought that you would have remembered that biased admins from the FOOTY Project should stay the frick away from closing AfD's when they have been invovled disputes in that area. Or have you forgotten Davey O'Connor's review when another biased FOOTY Project member wrongly closed an AfD. Sure should remember it because you endorsed the deletion - thankfully the community stepped in to overturn it.
• I am not here to cause trouble for but God sake give me a level and fair playing field to play on.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's enough of that. USer has been repeatedly warned about this; I'm blocking. Tan | 39 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems a bit odd to me, even with Vintagekits' background. The originally nomination does not appear frivolous to me at all. Looking at a bit of the history, Bettia certainly shouldn't have been the one to do the closing either. Quantpole (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bettia's point is correct, even if I don't particularly agree with having articles about footballers who fail to meet WP:ATHLETE. However, if someone does not agree with the closure, he/she should use WP:DRV instead of opening up more and more duplicate AfD cases. --Angelo (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please let's not somehow manage to deflect this onto the admin again (I'd be beyond surprised if there were admins with whom VK doesn't have previous at this point). Vintagekits has been repeatedly requesting deletion of the bios of footballers in the lower English leagues recently due to disagreeing with the same happening to Irish players. Over and over again they've been dismissed due to the strong existing consensus over the threshold that's been established for footballer notability here and elsewhere. There is not a chance that the AfD being discussed here would have resulted in a delete, so who closed it is unimportant. Right now, a block is preventing even more editors' time being wasted as VK attempts to singlehandedly overturn a consensus which he's repeatedly blamed on "the FOOTY cabal", along with the usual levels of invective. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of the GA criteria, I don't see how this player passes WP:ATHLETE, or for that matter WP:N either, because all the references are either statistical, match reports, or very local news sources. There have been some WP:POINT nominations of minor footballers recently, and I speedy closed one myself, but this should've been left open. Black Kite 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have declined VK's block. Please be aware that they can't defend themself when they are blocked so be careful what you say. I am totally uninvolved with this, but VK does have civility issues at the moment. Hopefully, they will calm down sufficiently to have the block reduced so they can participate in this discussion. – B.hotep •talk• 15:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The main issue was that this was the wrong venue and the wrong way to go about it (claiming abuse, civility issues, 3RR violations, repeated postings despite warnings). While I commented above that I thought the AfD itself was frivolous (I do), this did not factor into the block. Tan | 39 15:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the block, and I've told them as much. Definitely the wrong venue here. Trouble is, it may end up being on his talk page now... :( – B.hotep •talk• 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that this was worth a block, especially of 72 hours. I've been tempted to block VK recently for some far worse comments he's made, especially in AfDs, but this was just frustration (even though yes, it was probably the wrong venue). Black Kite 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

His continued abuse on his talk page would say otherwise. I was pushing for a reduction, now I would say protect his talk page. – B.hotep •talk• 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did just suggest protecting his talk page on said talk page, however that has now been blanked. Jeni ^(talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I had removed his talkpage access for his block before I saw that. --Smashville^talk 16:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This would appear to be based on the assumption that any article that passes GA must have a notable subject. It would be nice if this were true, but to assert that it must be true, or is grounds for blocking, is facile optimism. VintageKits will not be improved by blocking him when he is right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He was not blocked for his views on this AfD. Whether or not he was right was irrelevant. He was blocked for being disruptive. As I stated in multiple areas, including above, he was blocked for persistently taking this to the wrong venue, making bad faith accusations, edit warring (including 3RR violations), and being incivil. Tan | 39 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I decided to go back and look at the timeline here...and I believe we've erred. However, what did he do between the unblock and the re-block that was disruptive? The original blocking admin unblocks at 14:08...5 minutes after telling him to go to ANI. His only contributions at ANI after his block were both in response to statements directed at him. I can't see what is blockable here and he is merely defending himself here. It's hardly disruptive. --Smashville^talk 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Tan blocked him for this - yes, he's swearing, but he's not actively telling anyone to fuck off, it's just frustration. Given VK's latest unblock request, I would be tempted to accept it. I would prefer Tan's input, but he hasn't edited for a few hours. Thoughts? Black Kite 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If Tan blocked him for that, then it should be removed immediately, as Chillum had already blocked him for it and then unblocked after discussion. Anything done prior to the unblock at 14:09 should not be taken into account here. We don't punish the same crime twice. --Smashville^talk 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct (I forgot that I am on BST, which is 1 hour away from UTC), and I will unblock. Black Kite 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning above seems sound.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why is Vintagekits still around? This is his eleventybillionth block. HalfShadow 19:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Because he's a productive editor that occasionally loses his temper. Actually, if you look at the block log since he came back from his indef, it's only a few blocks in over a year - the length of the log is because of lots of tweaking of the blocks. Black Kite 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:CIVIL is policy, and should be respected anyway, regardless of his contributions. As far as I can see from his block history, he still can't realize and fully accept our policies, so I wouldn't really agree about unblocking him but, instead, I would actually suggest to begin considering different solutions, tougher if necessary. Users who only manage to disrupt Wikipedia only because of their own points should not be allowed to repeat their mistakes forever and ever. --Angelo (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• And admin that abuse their powers to "win" arguments should be stripped of their privilages.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you're talking to me, just be aware that I've always respected Wikipedia policy, and all of my admin actions involve only semi-protection of heavily vandalized articles, deletion of recreated material and blatant copyright violations and a very few blocks against vandal-only accounts, not before notifying them with multiple warnings. And anyway you're not in the right position to judge my actions, given your account history and your approach with other users, including (and especially) admin users. In case you don't know, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I see no interest in collaborating and building consensus from your recent edits. --Angelo (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it would have been nice if I was consulted prior to this, and this unblock was extremely poor form and completely against consensus (unblock declined twice before). Black Kite, how many fucking times do I have to fucking state that he wasn't blocked for swearing - but for disrupting after being warned not to? This was not the venue for this, DRV is, and he was told to take it there. Instead, he came flying back into ANI screaming about BS (short for "bullshit", as we all know). Plain and simple, the disruption continued after he was told not to. I couldn't give a fuck less if he was swearing or not - so stop making strawman arguments about why I blocked him. Tan | 39 21:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the original blocking admin told him that ANI was a good place to go before unblocking him...and all he did after his unblock was respond to people who were responding to him...how was that disruptive? You can't tell someone not to come to ANI just because you don't like the topic they brought. --Smashville^talk 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Tan, but I can understand why he was frustrated by a ridiculous bit of Wikilawyering over the AfD. I have come close to blocking VK recently for an outbreak of incivility on AfDs, and will be keeping a very sharp eye on his conduct from now on, but I - and others - couldn't see how the block could stand; if he'd come straight back onto ANI and started NPAing everywhere then fair enough, but he was stating - in not the best terms, admittedly - his irritation with how he believed the AfD process was being circumvented, and I have to say I agree with him on that one. Black Kite 23:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this type of unblock is that it is often interpreted by the blocked person as a tacit endorsement of their behaviour. Chillum 22:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki2go

Editor is unresponsive to attempts to discuss edits. [25] [26], removing citation tags without explanation. [27] Your advice or intervention would be appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you need to calm down a bit and look here [28]. Took me all of two minutes to find, and I know nothing whatever about Klingon Opera Japanese symphony orchestras. I think those are most of the symphony orchestras that don't have articles - you would be better served by leaving them as redlinks (or even looking for the information yourself!!). Wiki2go appears to be a fairly new user, they have no previous comments on their talk page, and your immediate reaction is to accuse them of vandalism for taking out all your unnecessary citation tags.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So because you disagree with my edits, you think it ok for Wiki2go to not respond to repeated polite requests for dialogue? I'm also puzzled by your admonition to 'calm down'? What is it that let you to believe I am not calm? lol Also, by all means, if you can find citations to add to the article, I encourage you do so. I don't believe this is the right venue to engage in a content debate, however. That would be more appropriate on the article talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration with a user who is not talking to you, and I agree that Wiki2go could have helped the situation by saying why s/he took the templates off. However, my point was that if I could find citations in <30 seconds, you could have found same in less time than it took to add alll those citation templates, which would have avoided this whole thing. I have added the link to the Japanese resource to the article talkpage.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you didn't actually find citations in 30 seconds, because citations have to be to reliable sources. But again, this report was not intended to spark a content or sourcing debate, but simply to report the refusal of an editor to engage in discussion. Wikipedia works by consensus and if an editor is not willing to engage in discussion I don't see how they can be a productive member of this community. Dlabtot (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am hopeful that this has now resolved - dialogue has started on Wiki2go's talk page, and the article on symphony orchestras now has quite a few (reliable) sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

IP User 69.225.251.134 a.k.a. User:Lysdexia (banned)

Resolved

 – blocked 31 hours by Blueboy96

Banned user User:Lysdexia appears to be editing again under an IP. The IP user signs posts as "lysdexia" ([29] [30]) and engages in the same bizarre line of editing as User:Lysdexia (e.g., the black body affair), determined to rewrite articles in neo-Anglo-Saxon. Some examples of IP-lysdexia at work: [31] [32] [33]. User:LjL has warned IP-lysexia repeatedly at User talk:69.225.251.134, but the unconstructive edits continue. Strad (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know who Lysdexia was, but other than that, I confirm the above account: extremely weird edits (though short of blatant vandalism) and a refusal to come to anything close to reason on the talk page. --LjL (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is Autymn DC, well known from mathematics and physics forums. I thought she'd disappeared in 2006 ... but now she's back, even on twitter. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, some of those edits on Jabberwocky almost made sense. The channeling of e.e.cummings is worrying though.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Blueboy96 22:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Marc Dreier Page: Please unlock

Chase me ladies... locked this page in early june, 2009. please unlock as current events must be updated: his sentencing was in early june and his penthouse was sold. thanx much. Furtive admirer (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• You'll be looking for WP:RFPU. Stifle (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An extra set of eyes

Resolved

 – User, originally blocked 12h, is now indef-blocked with talk page fully protected. MuZemike 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

would be appreciated over here. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Too much info from a 13 year old

What do we do when too much info is posted by a 13 year old? See redacted. Edison (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say to blank his user page and then explain to him on his talk page why posting personal information is a bad idea per WP:CHILD. --javert (stargaze) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing that now. And contacting Oversight. → ROUX ₪ 01:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was originally created in the mainspace, but another editor subsequently moved it to Damian2dab's userspace. I think it could just be deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Julian, deletion is better than blanking. Couple that with roux's contacting oversight, and I believe that we're through here. --javert (stargaze) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for oversight HalfShadow 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If something like this happens in future, could you please take it straight to oversight and not to such a public place like this?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

that is now the second time you ec'd me saying what I was going to say. Get out of my brain! → ROUX ₪ 02:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to requesting oversight (which might take a while to get action, though quick enough in this case), an admin could speedy delete the page in question. Is that acceptable? Edison (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with oversight. When I contacted them once, for some reason the software sought to use my regular email, with my name attached, rather than the email account attached to my Wikipedia account. I have not used IRC, but I have also heard of posts to IRC revealing personal identity in the form of the identifying info in the email account. How does one force Wikipedia to use the anonymous email account associated with Wikipedia rather than the regular, identified email account? Edison (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses whatever email you have set in your preferences. It cannot magically switch from one to the other. However, what you probably did was click on the mailto link that creates a message in your usual client to be sent to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org. What you should do is use the Special:Emailuser/Oversight link. → ROUX ₪ 03:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have for the last few weeks been patrolling new user pages, and I'd say deletion the best. I leave them a note using a template - (User:Backslash Forwardslash/Userpageedited) - which explains things well enough. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I previewed my one message to oversight, it definitely had sought to ignore the email set in my Wikipedia preferences and use another which revealed my real world identity. That is why I hesitate to use the "contact oversight" function. Edison (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: no, if you are using the Special:Emailuser function it can and will only use the email located in your preferences. Period. You'll notice there are two links on the RFO page:

Request removal by email (for anyone).
(or simply compose an email to Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org ) Request removal using Wikipedia's email form.
(for Wikipedia users with email enabled in their preferences only)

The first one is a mailto: link. Clicking on this will open your default email program (or web-based email, if you have it setup to do so) and compose a message to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org using whatever email address you have set up in your email program.

The second link goes to Special:Emailuser, which will allow you to compose a message to the same place, using whatever email address you have setup in your Wikipedia preferences.

There is no way at all that Wikipedia can insert an email address that you do not have set up in your preferences when using the Special:Emailuser function. None whatsoever. It can only use the address it knows, and presuming you have set up your preferences to use the correct email address, there is no way it can know your other address. → ROUX ₪ 03:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man preventing anyone but established registered editors from participating in the featured article nomination process

Resolved

 – For now. No doubt we'll see them again. Black Kite 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man is preventing anyone but established registered users from participating in the review of an article that has been nominated for featured status. He also is preventing anyone but established registered users from editing that article. Finally, he is deleting valid comments ((1), (2)) made by users that he believes, without any proof, to be using proxies. Shouldn't the article's nomination be withdrawn until the semi-protection expires given that 95 percent of Wikipedia readers are now locked out of the process? Is there precedent for an article with documented inaccuracies to be promoted to featured status while 95 percent of Wikipedia readers are prevented from improving the article and commenting on its nomination? Seems to me that The Rambling Man, who was recently admonished by the arbitration committee for refusing to use proper dispute resolution procedures, is once again abusing his administrator tools. Please refer to this recently archived but unresolved ANI thread, too. Comments? 24.7.146.209 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are User:Chidel, an editor blocked for sockpuppetry and who continually uses open proxies to avoid the block. Indeed, it is most likely the IP address you are currently using is yet another open proxy. Blocked editors who continue to jump from IP to IP to continue to edit are disruptive. Indeed, your unblock request was denied by User:Jayron32 with the following: "...this account appears, quite clearly, to be a a secondary account which does not conform to the rules for such accounts..." - your very first edit was to AFD a tennis article. I have semi-protected the pages in question to prevent further disruption. It appears you have now moved to IP 70.253.90.46 to avoid even further scrutiny. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Chidel, Rambling Man did the right thing. There are no questions about it. Kingturtle (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone who can determine that the two IP's are open proxies should block them as such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And the community decided to delete that article. Where was the disruption by Chidel? 212.102.0.104 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph in List of ATP number 1 ranked players with the tag (in bold) that should be there (but is not being allowed by rogue administrator The Rambling Man because he cares more about getting this article to featured status than factual accuracy): "The method used to calculate a player's ranking points has changed several times. As of 2009, it is calculated by totalling the points from the four Grand Slam tournaments and eight mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments. It also includes points from the player's best four eligible ATP World Tour 500 series tournaments and their best two results from ATP World Tour 250 series, ATP Challenger Series, and Futures Series.clarify|subst:July 2009|reason=This is an overgeneralization that does not apply to players who were outside the top 30 in the last year-end rankings. Refer to the actual ATP rulebook, not a secondary, summary document like an incomplete FAQ. The ranking points of players who qualify for the year-end ATP World Tour Finals will additionally include points gained at that tournament." 24.54.202.242 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, every time you switch to another IP , you make dealing with you slightly easter. HalfShadow 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is your reason for existence, I guess. You did 53 reverts in 30 minutes spread over 6 pages. That's on average, 9 reverts per page at a rate of 18 reverts per page per hour. Bragging about it also is part of your modus operandi: "I'm fully capable of doing this all day. If you think you can 'wear me down' you don't know me. All your doing is adding to my edit list." Nice job! 89.108.146.125 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And giving yourself away appears to be the reason for yours. Ah well; Darwin was right... HalfShadow 22:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've just semi'd WP:AN3 for the same reason. Nice of them to give us more proxies to indef, though. Black Kite 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's making me look great. Not that I need help or anything, but still... HalfShadow 00:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive editor may be completely clueless about how to collaborate with people in writing an encyclopaedia, but doesn't xe actually have a valid point (even if only by accident)? The article content in question and the FAQ that supposedly supports it do not, after a very rapid comparison, appear to be saying the same things. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone else is willing to post the same information (assume it's verifiable), go ahead. My only problem is and was that he was posting it. I have absolutely no interest in the information at hand; simply with who was posting it. They were banned. That means we don't want to hear from them anymore. Hopping on to a random IP and continuing on like nothing happened just isn't on.HalfShadow 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the rule is that anything posted by banned editors is subject to removal on-sight. Regardless of an entry's alleged usefulness, banned editors cannot be allowed to undermine their ban - period. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy may be the best open proxy honeypot in history. If he keeps at it, we could end up blocking every open proxy on the internet in a few months! He makes it so easy to find them all... --Jayron32 02:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm uncertain as to whether I should be impressed by stupidity of this magnitude or run away from it screaming. HalfShadow 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol's talk page reformating

I'm not exactly sure if this is the right place. Tyciol (talk · contribs) has a habit of reformating talk pages to suit his preferred format even though he has been asked several times to stop it by multiple editors.[34][35][36][37][38][39] Despite all of this, he feels fully justified in his "cleanups". (User talk:TheFarix#Refactoring) He then when on to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Reformatting for a broader opinion only to have his position unanimously rejected. Even though his reformating has no consensus, he has continued to reformat talk pages.[40][41][42] --Farix (Talk) 02:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit tricky: on the one hand, he's not really harming anything, but on the other, he's not stopping, either. I mean he absolutely shouldn't be doing anything to user pages, but beyond that... HalfShadow 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a need for immediate admin action (block), but a user conduct RfC may be warranted. I came across Tyciol in mid-2008 when he was refactoring archives (diff, Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Do Not Edit). At the time, I had been working on {{talkarchivehist}}, which shows alterations – including Tyciol's edits – to an archive through diffs. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357

Being abusive and racist on the Talk:Pakistan page [43], constantly disruptive and continous POV in numerous articles, asking politely and warned on numerous occasions, still persistant, user's talk page full of warnings and complaints. Has now become racially abusive. Khokhar (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to raise this here myself as an escalation from WQA. The worst one I've seen so far is this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that comment was rather incivil, wasn't it? But I think all he needs is to do is to have a calm down. Wouldn't you agree?--The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)— The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note - this user is currently blocked for 24 hours and was not notified about this thread. I have notified them but of course they will not be able to respond for another 22 hours unless unblocked or a talk page section is transcluded here. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you have taken it to his talk page, sir or madam. You could always try to work things over with a good little chat.--The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)— The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I feel sorry for the College of New Jersey if the history course there is so bad that he thinks India is one unified racial group, nevermind Pakistan as well. User is a nationalist. User is bushing this nationalist POV and being disruptive and racist while doing so. The key bit about nationalism is that the user is going to be convinced he knows The Truth (tm) and everyone else is wrong, and is unlikely to change. My suggestion - a topic ban from India/Pakistan related articles and a complete ban on any further ad hominem attacks or racial comments. Violating this rule gets blocks of increasing length. Ironholds (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a ban from articles relating to India or Pakistan, in addition to civility parole. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support from me. Has he been notified of this thread in some way or shape? Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On his talk page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the ban. You blocked him before allowing him a chance to speak here?--The Prejudice (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)— The Prejudice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just noticed the relationship between this topic and WP:ANI#Nominate for WP:LAME? Ignore? Other?.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor has now been blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They reinstated the problematic edit noted in the thread linked by Kww above, so in the light of that, previous edit-warring blocks, and this thread, I thought our productive editors could probably do with a break. EyeSerene^talk 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do hope this user gets banned from India/pakistan articles and doesn't get away scot free in a week, the user clearly doesn't care about the offence he causes judging by some messages he left on user talk pages after the initial incident and being banned for 24 hours.Khokhar (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

K.Khokar, your comment sounds like a personal attack against this editor. You may benefit from learning WP:NPA.--Right Angle Fish 90 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) — Right Angle Fish 90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can we get a little inspection of the sock drawer? I'm missing a blue one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

socionic sources showing esoteric connections

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top

Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe

It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - this is blatant hermeticism, is cosmological, and states things that could be quoted from the kybalion

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html

Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses

C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices. Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics.

Note - this statement, even as an abstract is clear that socionics in relation to the theoretical model of the founder ausura augusta has an aptitude to esotericism. What is that esoterism like?

Source: http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro2.html

In 1980—1995 socionics existed as a "club of adherents" outside the official psychology. Groups of socionists appeared in different cities of the Soviet Union, but this was not enough to make socionics recognized by official psychologists. On the one hand, such isolation from psychologists positively influenced socionics: it developed without Marxist-Leninist stereotypes that overloaded Soviet psychological works of that time. On the other hand, such isolation created an illusion among many socionists that socionics were not a part of psychology, it rather were “a new science” with its own methods, subject etc. This was a dangerous trend: there was a real danger that socionics would turn into something esoteric, mystical.

Note - why was there a danger of socionics becoming something that was just esoteric or mystic?

rmcnew's view

Perhaps I should explain the situation here. The wikipedia page is overrun 99% by western proponents of socionics theory who do not personally use esoteric methods with their understanding of socionics (and are actually personally against those sort of applications); however, it is substantial that socionics, as it has been learned by these proponents 100% over the internet through Sergei Ganin's website socionics.com, who himself presented socionics as "something similar to MBTI without any emphasis on esoteric methods) is in fact connected in its original form currently and from the founders themselves with mystic and esoteric methods, including the usage of chakras, hermetic derived and similar philosophy, and current new age theories derived from people such as Consteneda.

I should note in reference that without including an esoteric section with a non-proponent section in the article, a large portion of the socionics world who have a legitimate use of socionics with esoteric and mystical methods would be without representation, and a large portion of the non-proponent socionic world, such as the rational skeptics, would be without presentation. Therefore, it is an act of neutrality to include such a section. For neutrality purposes and as a volunteer representative of these viewpoints, I defend these viewpoints, though I do not necessarily hold to them myself. I defend these viewpoints because I feel that they are underrepresented and repressed, and that acknowledgment of these viewpoints are a means of integrity, honesty, and respect towards the theory of socionics. I am highly disappointed that there are others who do not share this view and wish these viewpoints to disappear. I will state, however, that in the russian language there is a large majority of socionist whose applications of socionics are of a mystical and esoteric quality. Those who edit wikipedia are majorly of the empirical branch of socionics who wish to turn it into a legitimate science. It is my utter goal to represent all of these viewpoints in the article, but many of the editors do not want representation of these viewpoints at all in the article, and only uphold just one viewpoint.

I would like to also answer the charge that progress is being held up by my presence in the article. This charge is completely and utterly false. I don't understand why the other editors who want nothing to do with the socionics section that deals with esoteric and criticism of socionics just start editing the other parts of the article that deal with something else, and let those who are interested in helping to rewrite the portions written by me (esoteric and criticism sections) just help find sources and rewrite those portions aaccording to the sources. Those who are making this charge that I am holding up progress feel that if they can ban me from the article, that there would no longer be representation for the viewpoints I have been (to my best ability) neutrally describing and to a certain degree against my own personal usage of socionics theory, which is empirical and non-esoteric and non-mystical. I am basically the entire author of the esoteric article itself as well as the radical skepticism critic portion. I have asked for help numerous times from people such as niffweed, tcaulldig, and rudieboy to rewrite the article according to a win-win more neutral standard, but this help has not only been denied I find out that these same people are wanting to block any representatives of these viewpoints out of the article so they can (according to my perception) monopolize the wikipedia socionics article for one viewpoint in socionics only, when it is not the only view in socionics theory. I am seriously disappointed and find these actions to be non-neutral in light of the whole article.

I would like to say something else also. The esoteric and mystical viewpoints in socionics theory are heavily substantiated by verifiable sources. Those people who are complaining have been avoiding looking too deep at those sources (or even at all) and instead have resorted to passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks in order to avoid dealing with discussions of the issues neutrally with the hopes that the representation of the various viewpoints would be forced out and thus the information. I should note that wikipedia is not a place to monopolize for just one viewpoint, and I am not going to allow for that. Unfortunately I am also currently alone in that effort to represent these other viewpoints among some of the other editors. Some of the editors have also suggested shortening chapters 10 and 11 in the socionics article down to two sentences or less, but it seems to me like this is simply a coy to avoid dealing with the substantiation of the esoteric and mystic issue by those who are not partial to those applications, so I disagree with the suggestion unless under more reasonable terms (such as stating the same information shorter and with better quality). I also disagree with any suggestion that the total disappearance of sections 10 and 11 (removing them completely) warrants progress on a rewrite, which is typically the claim by those who have made the current complaint. I do agree that lack of cooperation (meaning refusal to help to find verifiable sources, unneutrally debunking verifiable sources or refusing to do any rewriting themselves personally using verifiable sources) by some who have been making the complaints have been effectively blocking progress to a win-win solution, because these people are for win-lose. They want their view and no others. I am for win-win solutions. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks made on Talk:Strawberry Swing

User:Das Ansehnlisch has made two personal attacks against User:JD554. The first can be found here. After the first remark, JD554 gave him a final warning for personal attacks [44], and I warned him on the article's talk page. However, he made another attack this morning here. I need an admin to take a look at this to decide whether to block or not, because I am not sure the final warning template being used as the first warning was warranted, given that the first attack was just a simple "screw you". However, the second attack was much worse than the first, and might warrant a blocking regardless. Taking a look at the user's talk page, it seems clear that he has a history of editing in bad faith. Fingerz 21:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts are <---thisaway. I can see some incivility on both sides - yes Das Ansehnlisch said "screw you", but sticking a level 4a single shot warning template on his talk page instead of trying to TALK to the guy also qualifies as incivility. Can't see anything here for admin action.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Those personal attacks were inappropriate and should be dealt with accordingly. However, JD554 could've been more helpful to that editor.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not condoning incivility, but an exchange along the lines of "I don't agree so screw you" "4a single shot cease or die warning" "Shut up, you're not helping, you suck" which started on 22 July and was over six hours before the third party referred it here is a bit stale, don't you think. If they had carried on hammer 'n' tongs then yes, it did need admin action, but when I looked the protagonists seemed to have separated and Das Ansehnlisch had gone elsewhere to create an article on a different song.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I gave Das Ansehnlisch his 4a warning was due to his previous incivility[45][46] and creation of attack pages (which led to him being blocked[47]). I would also like to ask Sky Attacker what more I am expected to do to help Dad Ansehnlish appart from the numerous times I've tried to explain Wikipedia's guidelines to him.[48][49][50] as well as the numerous attempts to help the various editors (inlcudind Das Ansehnlisch) at Talk:Strawberry Swing[51][52][53][54][55][56]. And Das Ansehnlish's contributions to the discussion (as well as the ones given in Fingerz initial statement) include these[57][58]. --JD554 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome New User

While in the midst of my search of recent contributions, I came across a new user, Youngmann (talk · contribs), going on a POV pushing/WP:OR spree across several law school articles. I've already engaged him, so I really can't do anything to stop him...he insists on adding [this edit] to TTT, this OR-ish edit to University Canada West and this lovely WP:OR-filled edit to Law school rankings in the United States. The conversation on my talk page isn't pretty...he doesn't really seem to want to get it. I'm not sure what "you go to Cooley" means, but I'm going on a limb and thinking it's some Canadian form of an insult...anyway...I've engaged him...I can't really do anything about it...he does appear to have surpassed 3RR on a few of these articles, but again...since I'm pretty involved in the dispute here, any action I take is going to be fairly uncouth. --Smashville^talk 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like "Cooley" is some form of ranking system: I referenced the Cooley ranking with different sources. No comment on the other aspects of this, but I'd not worry about being insulted just yet ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope they weren't refering to coolie. No, it looks like they meant www.cooley.edu/rankings. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.cooley.edu/ - Its a law school that is ranked in the 4th tier by the US NEWS, yet creates its own ranking that states it is the 12th best law school in the country, even ahead of Stanford! It also has a nearly open admission policy. When I said "you do go to Cooley" I was inferring he was a student of the school, and that's why he was deleting my referenced criticisms of their ranking system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My post on University Canada West is a list of criticisms that are referenced. It is a private for profit university that created its own wikipedia entry, of which was a clear advertisement for how great it was. I saw on the news that it is in fact going through alot of controversy in Victoria BC and I wanted to highlight that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT - I have gone in and fixed the University Canada West page to remove any apparent bias you think it may hold.

To be honest with you, I thought Wikipedia took better care of its new users, as not to sway them away (thus losing out on potential editors in the future in hopes of greater content.) My Wikipedia contributions are over. Let companies like the Eminata group (who are known to rip off students) advertise for free here, be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential Bomb Threat

Resolved

 – More silliness than ominous, I think.

Here. Can anyone in the UK contact the school? --Smashville^talk 21:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A bomb threat, really? From the same person who brought us this? I see no credible threat here, or even any threat at all. Why waste time on it? Friday (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry? I didn't know we had started ignoring suicide/bomb/violence threats around here... --Smashville^talk 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A Trusted Source search shows the IP is located in Wigan, England. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A bomb threat would involve an assertion that there is or will be a bomb at the school. I see nothing like that here. Friday (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, if you turn on the news tonight or tomorrow and learn a bomb was detonated at that school, you will be OK with the statement you just made? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Friday that there is no credible threat here. If someone feels compelled to contact the school, however, there is no harm in that either. Shereth 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Considering that the rest of the IPs edits involve changing the content to such as "It has been involved in several different Fair Trade scandals, consisting of an evil bookshop and various fund raising events. Most recently, four pupils visited Potato, Tanzania in East West Africa, as Byrchall has links with Wazalendo Cannibal High School." and the fact that schools in the UK are currently shut, I think this can safely be ignored, don't you? Black Kite 21:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They're still at it with the silliness. I've given them a Very Stern Warning. As for contacting the school - at 10:30pm on a Friday night when the schools are on holiday anyway? Unlikely.Tonywalton ^Talk 21:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently as a child I engaged in a great many arson threats. We had a song about the school burning down. Anyway, I blocked this IP for 31 hours. Friday (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• and since it's a dynamic IP, I semi'd the article for the night. Marked resolved. Black Kite 21:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior of My cat's breath smells like catfood

This editor, My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk · contribs), is lacking proper etiquette, using Wikipedia mainly as a platform for his childish amusements. His edits on various articles are questionable at the very least. New articles he created, such as this one and that one, are unconstructive and perhaps offensive to many who might view it. And his edit summaries are rather unacceptable considering he resorted to offensive language in a few edit summaries including usage of the “F-word” and phrases pertaining to a particular part of the male anatomy.

It is one thing to see a minor edit that isn’t correct, and fix it. But to see an edit like that, and make such a huge deal out of it like this editor did in such a brash way, I’m sure such behavior is absolutely unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for irrational editors to do whatever they wish on here. This nonsense should not be allowed here. I request that an administrator take a look at this editor’s list of contributions see what I’m talking about, and issue a warning to this editor for his intolerable behavior. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent contributions seem a bit worrying - see the edit summary here, this redirect, this edit summary, this article... it goes on - not directly vandaltastic, but disruptive and childish. I noticed you didn't inform him about the AN/I thread, and I've taken the liberty of doing so. Personally I'm in favour of a stern cut-the-crap warning and escalating blocks if he keeps it up after that, but we'll see what he says in reply to the ANI notification. Ironholds (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding anything productive in the user's recent edit history. While there's nothing that's over the line enough to warrant an immediate block, we shouldn't encourage people who appear to not be interested in writing an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Also note the practical joke on his page (he's mocked up a "You have new messages" alert that leads to the page Practical joke. Fooled me, so nice one! but it's going to piss the hell out of someone with less patience ......Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he's not the only one with that fake bar. That's an old joke that people did years ago (and some people still have them today). (X! · talk)  · @873  ·  19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only thinking it was unwise for an editor whose actions were likely to draw admin attention to his talkpage. I lol'd, but the admin aiming to deliver a final warning might not find it so funny.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy users with a skewed sense of humor (mine is so offbeat you wouldn't believe it), this guy is over the line. I believe a block is warranted, at least a short-term one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The lyrics on his User page are a copyright violation. I've asked him to remove them. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning. If he continues, he should be blocked. (X! · talk)  · @876  ·  20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Something here reminds me of behaviour from User:Tom Sayle in one of his earlier guises, specifically edits to female celebrities, projectspace interests, and rude edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the account indefinitely until further review. After scanning the user's edit history, it is clear the user is gaming the system, and is focused on one non-encyclopedic issue and coming at it from many angles. Kingturtle (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Life imitating art. [59] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved eyes at AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parys Sylver (2nd nomination)

I nominated this article for deletion for reasons of notability after seeing it pop up again on my watchlist following a prior deletion discussion. Over the years, I have noticed various IPs/accounts trying to insert mentions of this person's name into various articles and every couple of months or so and have removed them as I found them, so I can definitely be considered 'involved' here.

After a little digging following discussion at the AfD, I believe that I have discovered a pattern of sockpuppetry, bad-faith editing and BLP vios going back several years, linked to the 2005 drama and associated sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrystalCherry. I don't want to get into TL;DR territory here, so please take a look at my comment here for a summary.

Being quite familiar at the time (and having re-familiarized myself) with the person behind the CrystalCherry hoax, his writing style and methods of debate WRT to reliable sources and WP:V, my WP:DUCK sense is quacking here.

I appreciate that I'm close to this situation, so I'd appreciate input from some 'less close' eyes (and the opinions behind them) here. I realize that this is fairly complex, so if you need me to elaborate, just ask. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it to see where it goes, but so far there has been no "uninvolved" commentary on the article (basically some suspicious SPA/sock comments and you calling them out as such) and maybe one or two other votes. This one should definately run the full 5 days before acting on it, at least. But I will keep it watchlisted, and if a definative consensus arises from uninvolved commentors, I will certainly close it as needed. --Jayron32 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I realise that all this talk of sockpuppets/SPAs could sidetrack the AfD, so I'm not going to do anything WP:SPI-wise until the discussion closes. If any more single purpose accounts pop up with !keep votes, I'll tag them appropriately but I don't think that getting drawn further into yet another circular debate WRT the wider issues is going to be helpful at this juncture. If anyone is interested in looking at the behavioural evidence/deleted contribs of the accounts I highlighted, it should become clear that something is rotten in Denmark, so to speak... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

SPA deleter, possible sock?

Start Existing (talk · contribs)

Look at edit history. Very odd. Certainly a SPA. Certainly a newly created user.

What is not certain is his high level of experience for a new user, which commonly leads one to think about sockpuppetry. I wish he would just help me write the Ronald Kramer (business) article instead of wasting my time when I'm trying to write it. User F203 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. The first edits are reversions and apparently a lot of CSDs. MuZemike 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I can work with this SPA around. Complaint withdrawn. If you think there is a problem, let me know (should we report all possible socks or just the really annoying ones?) User F203 (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Cry baby cry
cry cry cry
Make your mother sigh
you're old enough to know better
So cry baby cry
Start Existing (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User F203, Perhaps you were a tad hasty on withdrawing that complaint. MuZemike 23:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He could retort with "Happiness is a warm gun, Mama" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

bang bang, shoot shoot. I just warned him. If he continues like this, he can be blocked. --Jayron32 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban threats at WT:TOKU

Resolved

 – Issue being discussed at WP:RFAR#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin

Ryulong and JPG-GR have stated that they will seek me topic banned from Power Rangers and tokusatsu articles should I put up another page in those categories for deletion for verification issues. As many of you know, there was previously an AN discussion about Ryulong warning him against his past "if you do it, I will seek that you get blocked" statements. Now, these two editors are stating things like "if you do it, we will seek that you get topic-banned". Ryulong is stating that he will do it through community discussion, while JPG-GR is apparently doing it due to the conduct probation on me, which I don't see how this applies. There is also currently a request for clarification here regarding it. I am not asking anyone to do anything about JPG-GR, but I am about Ryulong. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do however have to apologize for my tone in the late part of the discussion. Please forgive me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon has done absolutely nothing to contribute constructively in the topic area that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu covers. All he has done is request sourcing, and then send articles to AFD for which he personally cannot find any sources for. This was last evident in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo, where reliable sources were found, but he dismissed them anyway. He has most recently decided to search for reliable sources on the five remaining articles on individual episodes of Power Rangers and will send them to AFD because he will inevitably never find what he considers reliable sources for the pilot episode, as well as a few other major episodes to the series as a whole. JPG-GR (talk · contribs), an administrator who primarily edits in the topic area (or had), plainly stated that if Mythdon went through with his plan, he would begin a discussion to ban Mythdon from editing any and all pages that are within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu.

I know that I am only a few editors in the WikiProject who are tired of Mythdon's strict applications of policy and the constant drain on our resources to make every single page comply with his demands. I've wanted to have him banned from the topic area long before the arbitration case that made it fairly clear that he should not do as he is planning without input from other users. We gave him input, he simply does not like it. He is such a pain in the ass to editors who are involved in the WikiProject and who actually contribute. I've written up articles. JPG-GR has written up articles. Other editors have written up articles or worked on already existing articles. Mythdon has done none of this. All he does is randomly question when IP users add information to the article about things that happened in a recent episode of a TV show that Mythdon does not watch, yet he still undoes or reverts their edits. I know that if I had enough time, I could give diffs and whatnot, and I am sure that JPG-GR, once he is notified of this debacle, will provide enough information to further elaborate his and my case against Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did watch Power Rangers, and yes, JPG-GR already has been notified. See their talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this thread as a direct violation of your probation: 1) Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. 2) Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. 3) 6) Mythdon is strongly urged: (A) To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions; (B) To enhance his level of communication with editors.

This is not the first time I've seen you be disruptive in the past few days. As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project. Tan | 39 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Considering the project in question involves shows with people in rubber costumes beating the crap out of each other, I'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing...) HalfShadow 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This belongs over at RFAR. I can't read the case result to mean that Myth can't start AfDs or work on the project, but someone else might rightfully do so. The arbs can clarify and then myth can be topic banned or not topic banned. If the case is found to cover this behavior, then the topic ban should hold and myth should find some other area to edit. If the case is not found to hold, then these pretty bold threats should be retracted. Also, tan, I'm not sure "As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project." is a terribly productive comment for this discussion. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they clarify that AfD is not covered by the probation, then further threats would be even worse than threats now. provided that community discussion supports my AfD procedures. Until anything is clarified, I will not put another article in the subject area up for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Whether or not Mythdon can or will be topic banned is up to the community, not the arbitration committee. He is under arbitration restrictions, but a topic ban proposal should definitely not be forbidden from taking place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the enforcement of the probation, topic bans are an enforcement by administrators. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban can be proposed by a user and then confirmed by the community and enforced by the administrators.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. You should also know that administrators can, if they choose, topic ban me if I am inconsistent in terms of conduct at WikiProject Tokusatsu, but as far as I know, I am consistent in terms of conduct, but ArbCom will clarify whether the AfD thing is part of the probation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been well-aware of Mythdon's habitual disruption for some time now, even before the arbitration case. During the period when I was either editing anonymously or not editing at all, I occasionally checked WT:TOKU and found it consisted largely of highly-disruptive edits by Mythdon. His behavior has not improved one bit since the arbitration case. Further, I'm not sure if a topic-ban from pages under WP:TOKU will be sufficient to curb his disruption; after the arbitration case, he took his disruption to other pages, such as Common Era. There was a long discussion on his talk page about that fracas, where he proves that he is incapable of understanding the rudiments of WP:V and WP:CITE. One arbitrator, FayssalF, has censured Mythdon over his behavior well after the arbitration case was closed. You may view the discussion; I agree with FayssalF's statement that "Mythdon is not here to work collaboratively according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines and ArbCom's rulings". Mythdon doesn't just need topic-banned from pages under WP:TOKU; he needs to be restricted solely to contributing new content to Wikipedia. This means he should be banned from the entire Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces and banned from deleting content for any reason or advocating deletion of content on talk pages. jgpTC 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jgp, FayssalF did not say that. He said that was apparently the case. To restrict me from removing content for any reason is not anything anyone can support. You seem to be unaware of the consequences of not citing sources, or having articles that you can't reliably source. Just because I don't actually add content doesn't make me disruptive. I remove unsourced information that needs a source per WP:V and WP:RS. I am not habitually disrupting Wikipedia in any way. These AfD's needed to happen, whether or not the result would be in my favor, or other editors favor. I can assure you that I am here to help, not disrupt. My efforts are to motivate sourcing content, not motivate nonsense demands. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that 'the community' can topic ban people. But it is totally inappropriate for a wikiproject to topic ban a person simply because that person is afding their articles. We have to ensure that we aren't using the topic ban tool to enforce opinions about content. And frankly when I read the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin thread I don't see a 'community' topic ban. I see an ultimatum: "stop sending articles to AfD or we will topic ban you". Protonk (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now somebody's getting it. You phrased it well. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk - I understand why I probably should have used different words there, but really, what I said wasn't any different than straight-up blocking someone - "you are not competent to edit here" isn't meant as an insult so much as a statement of fact. For whatever reason, I feel that Mythdon does not have the proper skills - i.e., he is incompetent - to be a productive member of Wikipedia's collegiate and collaborative community. Some people use the term "incompetent" as a pejorative term; I meant it in its literal sense. Tan | 39 05:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're capable and willing to parse the multiple connotations of the word competent. That's why I didn't accuse you of engaging in a personal attack (you didn't) and I didn't demand that you rephrase the comment. But there are less adversarial ways to suggest that someone isn't getting the point or that they are being more of a bother than a help. "Competence", especially in the online world, is a word fraught with import and emotion--as you note, since competence is required accusing someone of incompetence disinvites them from the social world. That's critical and I don't think it is to be tossed around lightly. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: The AFDs are not the only issue. It is the fact that Mythdon has not shown in any way shape or form that he can contribute collaboratively with other members of the WikiProject. Mythdon has been shown to be inable to apply sourcing and verifiability policies to the extent that he sends articles to AFD when he personally cannot find anything that he personally believes is a reliable source. He does not contribute to any articles in the scope of the WikiProject, and does not improve the coverage of any articles in the scope of the WikiProject. Instead, he goes "This has no sources" or "This doesn't have enough sources" which to him means "This is not notable" or "This information is not verifiable" when there is more than enough on the internet and in the real world to prove him wrong.

And this sourcing shit goes beyond articles about people in rubber suits beating the crap out of each other. He was told off for his edits at Common Era and a whole bunch of other articles. This thread is wikilawyering to get his way, as he states towards the end of the discussion at WT:TOKU. I have not seen Mythdon contribute constructively anywhere on Wikipedia in more than a year of being up my ass (and not in the good way) on the articles I edit and on other articles I see him editing. There was no "community topic ban" produced yet. It was a statement that if he proceeded to edit the way he claimed he was going to, we would discuss the fact that he be topic banned from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU. His actions tonight in starting up this thread have abbreviated the need for this, because he went forward to wikilawyer his way out of getting topic banned by saying JPG-GR and I were acting improperly. I've yet to see a positive contribution come from him. And that is more than enough to get banned from any website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sure. But pretend you are me. Look at the TOKU section devoid of context (I know that we are supposed to contextualize these disputes, but bear with me). That conversation has three participants, you, myth and jpg (with some other minor comments from different users). Between the three of you all that gets exchanged is an intent to continue sending articles to AfD, a broad warning that sending said articles will result in a ban, and escalation of rhetoric on either side. I hesitate to call myth's actions wikilawyering because frankly, in the absence of a RFAR allowing a unilateral topic ban for myth, I would be ashamed of jpg's threats. First the sort of officious 'intent to seek a topic ban' statement: "If you attempt to do as you are threatening using your past-documented misinterpretations of policy, I will seek that you are topic banned from all matters Tokusatsu-related. If you are not willing to edit within Wikipedia policy, then perhaps you do not need to edit Wikipedia." This is followed up a veiled threat, "I'm not trying to persuade you. If you want to edit and follow policy, you will. If you don't, you won't. I'll let your actions, both in general and in relation to your edit restrictions, speak for themselves." Later, you and myth exchange words to the effect that you will seek to topic ban him and then make some vague assertion that his present actions will be proscribed under some future topic ban. This is the opposite of a community forum discussing the ban of a pernicious troublemaker. This is two people in a dispute arguing in an infrequently traveled part of the wiki. I don't mean to say that myth is right. I don't mean to say that he is helpful or that a topic ban, rightly constituted, would be illegitimate. I do mean to say that he shouldn't be considered topic banned now and he isn't wrong to seek some outside input on a process that he clearly has no input on. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon is following policies and guidelines and Ryulong is not following policies and guidelines e.g. i added a reference to the Power Rangers article to show that Haim Saban created Power Rangers per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research then Ryulong starts a discussion on my talk page saying "Do Power Rangers and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers really need references to show that the series was created by Haim Saban? Something like that is so freaking obvious that any statement with that fact in it does not need to be cited." and when i add a fact tag to the Kamen Rider Double article per WP:No original research, Ryulong again starts a discussion on my talk page saying "This is also common sense. Shinkenger is on at 7:30, which is followed by Decade at 8:00, both of which make up the Super Hero Time block. If Double will be airing at 8:00 too, then it will also be part of the Super Hero Time block". Mythdon is not the only user to disagree with Ryulong as me and Drag-5 disagree with Ryulong because he is not following the policies and guidelines. Powergate92Talk 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92, as usual, you don't really add anything to the discussion. Both of those items you bring up are examples of using common sense over requesting that every single sentence on Wikipedia be referenced. Bringing up two different instances of where you and I communicated is pointless and helps no one case.

Protonk, I can understand that the page is in no way frequented and it is simply a discussion between Mythdon, myself, and JPG-GR, but this is in all reality just a way for Mythdon to avoid being put under any other restrictions. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the discussion would be taking place in a low-traffic page such as WT:TOKU. Mythdon is by all means in his right to defend himself from being topic banned. However no discussion has taken place, and the arbitration committee does not need to place the restrictions on him. This is instead, as I've been saying, Mythdon wikilawyering his way out of getting banned by throwing aspersions on me for arguing against him. If the arbitration committee needs to place the topic ban, then fine. I just thought that given enough evidence, the community as a whole can see how his activities are deleterious to the topic area, and the project as a whole. If FayssalF saw this, I don't see why the rest of community cannot either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the arbcom thing, we should be clear. IF the arbcom restriction against myth means he must avoid only a narrow set of behaviors, then it cannot (as I see it) apply to sending articles to AfD. If the restriction blocks myth from being nettlesome to the project more generally, then his behavior may be subject to a topic ban at the discretion of someone like jpg. That's the RFAR question. If his past RFAR does not proscribe his current behavior, than you can still start a thread to topic ban him (I would prefer you start an RFC/U or take the discussion to a more active page), but it would be inappropriate for just two editors to act as though a topic ban was imminent. If the RFAR does apply, then the committee should clarify their case and say as much, rendering a community ban discussion moot. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The items i bring up are examples of you not following WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research as Mythdon puts articles up for AfD per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a few questions. I hope someone can answer them USING AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE.
i) Is it disrutive for someone to ask for a verifiable reliable source for, eg, "creator of mighty morphing power rangers"?
ii) Is it disruptive for someone to use the production company (and did they actually 'create' it, or just pay money for it? as a reference?
iii) Imagine it is disruptive: What happens? It goes to RFAR, or someone just says "that's it, you're topic banned" or what?
Thanks. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92's statements have nothing to do with the issue concerning Mythdon. Powergate92 is just as bad in interpreting sourcing policies as Mythdon. It is pointless to ask for references for things which exist elsewhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the rights/wrongs of Mythdon's attitude or behaviour. However I AM going to draw people's attention to the King Mondo article that's been mentioned. Unless I'm missing something there are ZERO reliable and verifiable secondary sources. Out of the 21 references, 18 are to the TV show - a primary source, 1 to a comic - a primary source, 1 to IMDB - a user submitted resource and not reliable and 1 linking to an interview with an artist that doesn't even appear to mention the character in question. There are NO reliable secondary sources at all. Could someone tell me how the hell this article was not deleted at it's recent AFD? I see a bunch of keep votes which don't address the reliable sources question AT ALL and a non-admin closure. I'm very tempted to DRV this as a blatantly incorrect AFD. Exxolon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I think topic bans are very poor solutions for people who are not violating the rules, no matter how much they might annoy people by asking for citations for things that are obvious to others. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • DRV filed, all participants in original AFD plus the wikiproject notified. Exxolon (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Toku wikipedians, Whatever is happening here for the King Mondo article, is definitely applicable "ad nauseam" to every character under the Tokusatu project. I would suggest that you redirect your collective energies to reaching a consensus of what would constitute a valid referencing standard for all the individual articles that fall under project Toku. There must surely be an article that could be determined the standard by which all other articles will be measured. Don't perpetuate drama!! --76.66.199.118 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell does any of this have to directly do with the King Mondo AFD and now DRV? This is a discussion started by Mythdon in defense of a topic ban discussion that has not happened yet, and Protonk's saying that the topic ban should not happen due to there being other RFAR restrictions on Mythdon. RFC/U is a pointless step as it just serves to pick and choose at every bad or questionable thing a user has done. If someone needs to be topicbanned for being unable to contribute constructively, then that person should get topic banned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I should not be topic banned. I have helped the articles by removing unsourced information, but you dismiss my removals. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not being clear. I'm sorry. You can start a topic ban discussion. I would prefer you use a venue like RFC/U, but you don't have to. The fact that there was a past RFAR case against myth strengthens your topic ban case, not weakens it. What you can't do is say "we are going to have a topic ban discussion in the future, so consider yourself banned from starting AfDs on subject XYZ". All I am saying WRT the arb case is that if the arbs say "yes, we meant that myth can't act this way" then jpg can topic ban him unilaterally. I commented that myth seemed in the right to bring up this question because the discussion linked above looked a lot like a threat of a unilateral topic ban couched in terms of a community ban. I'll try and be crystal clear here. If you can get support for a topic ban from a broad cross section of wikipedians, then you can ban myth from a set of articles. It shouldn't be a discussion held within the confines of a single project because frankly (see the Gavin Collins debate and EnC 1/2) a wikiproject shouldn't have the power to unilaterally shoo away folks looking for sourcing/notability concerns. Is that clear as to my position? Protonk (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • lol episodes and characters
  • Very well then. There is nothing anywhere that said that the discussion was solely going to take place in the wikiproject. That's just where the discussion of it going to happen started (that and my statement at Mythdon's last clarification request). The issue isn't his sourcing and notability requests. The issue is that he has been shown to be unable to work constructively with other (active) users in the WikiProject. The arbcom appears to be listening to this at the moment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD list

Just to make all of you aware, here is a list of AfD's I've started on Power Rangers articles:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (result: keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (result: keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (result: delete)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (result: delete)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (result: delete)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (result: delete)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (result: keep)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (result: keep)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (result: keep/merge)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (result: redirect)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (result: delete)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (result: keep)
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (result: delete)
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (result: delete)
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (result: delete)
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (result: keep)

Hopefully, this will clarify that they're not disruptive, but just sometimes hard to agree with. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

<I've just found more AfD's of mine and will re-make the list by next week> —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The list above only lists most of the AfD's. It does not list all of them. I missed some. I'll be creating the new list in my sandbox. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the updated list with additional AfD's:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (Result; keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (Result; keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (Result; delete)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (Result; delete)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (Result; delete)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninja Quest (Result; redirect)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (Result; delete)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marah and Kapri (Result; delete)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (Result; keep)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (Result; keep/merge)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (Result; keep)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (Result; redirect)
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (Result; delete)
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (Result; keep)
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (Result; delete)
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (Result; delete)
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (Result; delete)
18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (Result; keep)

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Mythdon (talk · contribs) is sending fiction spinoff articles to AfD, and most of them get deleted. That's entirely in line with policy. Even the main Power Rangers article is weakly cited. Only two of the 45 footnotes are to reliable sources. This looks more like typical grumbling from fans when their fancruft articles are held to Wikipedia's general standards. --John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet Ryulong and JPG-GR are threatening to seek me topic-banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your edits are considered no problem, then you have nothing to worry about, do you? I don't see why you felt it was necessary to report Ryulong's and JPG's intention to get you topic banned. What administrator action are you seeking? Some kind of injunction?--Atlan (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though this discussion is going nowhere. But, as for your question, I am seeking administrative action that administrators see fit. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's really vague. Of course this discussion is going nowhere, because nothing actionable actually ocurred. If you don't have any kind of desired resolution this should lead to, this is just needless drama mongering.--Atlan (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And the issue isn't that he is sending pages to AFD. The issue is that he is sending pages to AFD because he cannot personally find sources for the articles for either major fictional characters who in their right can be considered notable because of his strict interpretations of sourcing and verifiability policies. He only goes out to delete whatever pages he can without bringing them to the attention of WP:TOKU so they can be improved before he sends them to AFD. In the last AFD he made, there were several reliable sources found by an uninvolved editor and he dismissed all of them. There is possibly going to be a discussion concerning topic banning Mythdon from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU because he cannot work constructively with other editors in the scope of the project, of which the AFDs are only a part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If I search for sources for an article, and if I cannot find any reliable sources, it would be pointless to consult my search to WikiProject Tokusatsu before taking the articles to AfD. All Wikipedia content has to be verifiable, or it cannot be included on Wikipedia. Everything has to be notable before it gets an article on Wikipedia. I am pretty sure now that when I create my next Power Rangers AfD, that you and JPG-GR will, as you both stated, seek me topic-banned. I am sure of this regardless of the result of the AfD. And, one question: Do you think my AfD list above is a good summary of my nominations? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a shit if it's a good summary of your nominations. You cannot work with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How can't I work with other users? Nominating pages for deletion in my ways? Removing unsourced information absent of discussion? How? You should know by now that saying things like "if you put theses pages up for deletion, I will seek that you get topic-banned" is uncalled for, further evidenced by the results of my AfD's. Please know this: The next time I look for sources, and if I don't find sources for an article, that article goes straight to AfD, without question. I'm even planning on nominating other pages for deletion if I can't find sources, within this subject area. I'm sorry, but sometimes, some articles just have to go. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has proven that you strictly interpret the verifiability and reliable source policies and cannot be trusted in determining things on your own. You absolutely should not nominate any pages in the topic area for deletion without consulting WP:TOKU, WP:TV, WP:JAPAN, etc. because it is extremely likely that where you cannot find reliable sources, other users will.

To other readers of this thread, this last statement of Mythdon's is exactly what I have been saying regarding Mythdon's inability to work with other users. He is acting as judge and jury, getting rid of whatever he can't prove.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I trust that my strict AfD's are beneficial to the project, and I also trust myself in my searches. It would be useless to go through a process that will just get nowhere. The village pump discussion I linked on WT:TOKU only proves that I am right, mostly. Sure, I didn't link to which articles, but it's still the same. And please let me say it again: I will nominate another article for deletion just as soon as sources aren't found, no questions asked, period. I will, at the risk that you'll try to get me topic-banned, do it, if I can't find reliable sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck don't you get about the fact that the arbitration committee has advised you to contact other people before sending articles to AFD?

Still, other people reading this, this is why users at WP:TOKU want Mythdon banned. Because he refuses to work with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because a WikiProject wants me topic-banned doesn't mean the community feels the same way. And, again, there will be nobody to stop me from sending another article to AfD if I can't find reliable sources. You're perfectly welcome to comment at the next AfD. You're just not welcome to say anything uncalled for. I've been saying it for months, approaching a year: Anything that doesn't have a citation should be removed, unless it is cited. I am, actually, not aiming to get every article in the subject area deleted, but a reasonable amount deleted, but for good reasons. I wouldn't be hurt to see you blocked for your comments almost two days ago. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

These statements should be proof that Mythdon cannot work with other users constructively and that he should be banned in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say will not change anything. End of story. Sorry that it has to come to this. No more replies necessary. I've come to my conclusions, just as you have come to yours. And one more thing, my intention is to help Wikipedia, not hurt it, even though you're not assuming my intentions. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It would be very helpful to see more references to reliable sources in Power Ranger articles. There are scholarly critiques of the show, such as "The Truth About the Power Rangers", ISBN 0914984675. That doesn't seem to have been referenced anywhere in Wikipedia. The proponents of Power Rangers articles may need to do more homework than is currently being done to avoid deletion. This really is an encyclopedia, and you have to do the research to back up your articles. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This description doesn't really look helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a review and a reliable source. Not all critics are fans. I thought neutrality involved negative views as well. We shouldn't ignore real critics in favor of "I saw it on the show, so that's my source." Now, for the larger picture, is Mythdon is sending articles to AFD to make some sort of point, that's a completely blockable offense. However, demanding higher sources isn't and shouldn't be a punishable offense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, it's hard to tell with him. I do know that he's sorta violating this, even though it's not a restriction.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, Ryulong, you're doing a lot of yelling, but all I see here is you trying to get rid of someone you personally dislike who is treading in an area you like to work in. The list of AFD results Mythdon is presenting is most compelling evidence that he's doing genuinely good work, which you just happen to dislike. Jtrainor (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the issue is here. Mythdon has not worked with the WikiProject but against it. There are possibilities that these articles could be improved, and that there are reliable sources out there, as the book John Nagle points out above, but Mythdon does not work with other users to improve them. Instead he just sends them to AFD. I'm not saying all of the articles he lists that ended up deleted should be on Wikipedia. I'm saying the method by which he goes about sending things to AFD without any outside input is what is a real pain in the ass. He's in his right to request sources, but he does not. He just goes to AFD. This is why I feel he's unhelpful, and this is what a handful of other users, including a few outside of the WikiProject and who have likely never touched an article with "Power Rangers" mentioned, are seeing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And this still isn't going anywhere much, except a few people who just happen to get it, but still, I am glad that the area this is turning is turning out to be okay. I don't see action being taken, and I'm sure plenty of you would consider it punitive rather than preventative now, because it happened two days ago, which even I would probably consider action useless now, for now. That doesn't make action lacking preventative use some time in the future. Jtrainor and Nagle, I hope you both manage to resolve this, whether or not you're administrators, or whether or not you're just regular users who happened to drop by; You two seem to get it, and don't see anything disruptive to it. If anyone's assuming bad faith towards me, I can tell you that you're wrong, and that I'm acting in good faith. Ryulong and JPG-GR (well, if you're reading this), stop the threats and just voice your opinions in my AfD's and get it over with instead of adding nonsense drama. However, honestly, I can't tell the whole community's opinion at the moment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty lame to say those who took your side in the discussion "get it", while all the others don't. The situation simply isn't as black and white as that. I guess it's that kind of attitude that got you on Ryulong's bad side.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sides but a matter of the views expressed. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving from here

Where do we go next? This thread has drawn lots of drama in, and me and Ryulong are still fighting over who's right, as of now.

I don't know, but I'm thinking that this drama that Ryulong and JPG-GR caused during the "Search soon to begin" is unhelpful, and just allowed me to believe that ANI was the only option, backed up by the fact that the AN "is this okay?" discussion warned Ryulong against his previous statements of "if you put this page up for deletion, I will seek that you get blocked". He's not doing that anymore, but he's now doing "if you put this page up for deletion, I will seek that you get topic-banned", but in this discussion, he appears to be using "lack of outside input" as a reason for these new statements that are no less disruptive than the preceding statements. So, where do we go from here? All I'm thinking is that further statements like these will allow me to file a new report next time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The basic complaint seems to be "I'm saying the method by which he goes about sending things to AFD without any outside input is what is a real pain in the ass. He's in his right to request sources, but he does not. He just goes to AFD." Sending an article to AfD, though, doesn't mean instant deletion. It begins a discussion. Proponents of the article have a voice. Articles can be fixed during an AfD and often are. What's happening, though, is that most, but not all, of the articles proposed for AfD actually get deleted. So the AfD nominations aren't futile or mere WP:POINT exercises. The real complaint seems to be that the editors who regularly vote on AfDs support Wikipedia's general standards for notability, which are higher than some in the fan community would like. This is a long-running discussion (see WP:FICT). A few years ago, Wikipedia standards were lower, but in recent years, there's been a gradual tightening up, now that the problem is no longer getting enough articles, but improving the ones we have. This is a good thing, but it does bother some people. I'd suggest the Power Rangers proponents focus on improving their sourcing. Then the AfDs which bother them will fail. --John Nagle (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When I look for sources, I don't find any, which is why I put these pages up for AfD. Could the lack of citations on the articles be a sign that there aren't reliable sources? I actually have watched Power Rangers before and enjoyed it, so I should be counted as once in the fan community, but I'm not a fan anymore, as far as I can tell, but I don't know. I don't think they can improve the sourcing, except for citing television episodes which would be primary sources, in fact the subject itself, which we should not use. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you [Mythdon] cannot be trusted to find or not find reliable sources and that you have been weaseling your way out of all of the restrictions and suggestions that have been placed on you by the arbitration committee. In your proposed campaign, you're going to be sending the article on the pilot episode to AFD. You're going to very likely use this search and then say that you can't find any reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's very likely that I'll not find reliable sources, and as a result, send it to AfD. If I don't find any reliable sources, there's no question that I'll put the page up for deletion. I feel that I can be trusted to look for reliable sources, beyond doubt. What do you mean by "proposed campaign"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you actively worked with editors in the topic area, they can find reliable sources where you cannot due to your arbcom-proven inability to do so on your own. Instead of listing the pages for deletion, write up a list of faults, and post it on WT:TOKU instead of asking if your improvements to a random article were okay. Say "This article says this, is that right? Is there something out there that we can say it is true?" instead of saying "Oh, I can't find anything other than fansites that talk about this article. Therefore, it should be deleted."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to ignore discussion and go with action. If you can't cite a sentence, it shall by all means be removed to enforce the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia as written in WP:V and WP:RS. Asking if my improvements to a random article being okay is not wrong. I think it is, if anything, encouraged by people. If I can't find reliable sources for the next article I search, then, if nothing otherwise happens, there'd be no question that another AfD will be in order. Listen carefully: The next AfD will be by the end of this year (2009). After all, action speaks louder than words. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not how this project works. You are supposed to work collaboratively with other users. Not choose to do everything on your own and fight it when others challenge you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is "prior discussion". I am not saying that discussion isn't a primary factor of this project, because I do acknowledge that. I do not say "do not discuss", but say "do not discuss beforehand". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I also don't say that discussion doesn't enhance future action. I do acknowledge that. It's just that it doesn't seem that I'm talking right. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon you should see this discussion. Powergate92Talk 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... let's see:

1. Ryulong adds content to Power Ranger articles
2. Mythdon deletes said content, and cites "no WP:RS
3. Bickering on talk page
4. ANI thread started
5. Community rolls eyes
6. WP:BOLD admin closes thread per "Nothing actionable"
7. Return to step 1

result? endless wiki-loop. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't that simple. Mythdon refuses to work with users in the topic area. He could bring up a list of articles that need work in his opinion, but after a Google search he just goes "no reliable sources" and goes to AFD. The arbcom case involving the two of us includes a finding that he is very strict with his readings of policies. This is what is harmful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, can we at least agree that the resolution cannot be found at ANI? I already stated this discussion is needless drama. We seem to be just going in circles here. Let's just end this. If Ryulong and JPG want to go ahead and initiate a topic ban discussion concerning Mythdon, I'd say let them. If Mythdon wants to go ahead and start Afd's, I'd say let him. Community input will decide the outcome in either scenario.--Atlan (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting on the arbitration committee to discuss Mythdon's 3rd request for clarification to see if they do something themselves before I take off the kid gloves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'll be waiting on them too in the meantime to see if AfD has anything to do with my probation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Myth, where you go from here is this: Ryu has every right to ask for you to be topic banned in a reasonably wide forum of diverse wikipedians (not, in my opinion, in a forum that only includes TOKU members), but he doesn't have the right to perpetually threaten a topic ban in order to get you to act a certain way. You should consider spending less time being the self-appointed shepard of power rangers related content--the issues isn't whether or not you are right but whether or not you can move toward a good solution working in concert. If you are looking to arbcom or AN/I to say "No, ryu can't ask for you to be topic banned", it won't happen. Period. Even if your behavior wasn't unobjectionable and even if you weren't under sanction, it wouldn't be the place for us at AN/I to say you can't be topic banned in the future. As it stands, there is no way we could make that promise. Protonk (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per Protonk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal

Resolved

 – Moot; based on ArbCom remedies and request for clar.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose the following restriction:

"Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from asking anyone to nominate an article within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu for deletion. Similarly, Mythdon is prohibited from making such a nomination himself. However, Mythdon is free to contribute on the talk pages as appropriate."

Any administrator can impose this restriction under the terms of conduct probation applicable: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Motion_2. The alternative, of course, is to impose it as a community restriction.

The manner in which he is working with other participants from WikiProject Tokusatsu is problematic. He is not learning from the findings of fact issued by ArbCom: ("Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines" and "Mythdon stance toward the articles" immediately after): his interpretation of the verifiability guidelines in this respect are overly strict and at times disruptive. His comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tokusatsu#Search_soon_to_begin show he has stated that he will be nominating a wide swath of articles for deletion if he can't find sources (which all other three users involved in that discussion have stated he cannot be trusted to do). Mythdon flatly refused to accept any of the suggestions or pointers offered to him in that discussion, and stated that "Requesting deletion at AfD is gaining consensus." Regrettably, I find no other way to properly prevent wikilawyering and this sort of disruption from happening - and most importantly, it forces Mythdon to work with others in the WikiProject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think something should be added similar to how TTN was restricted from asking other users to things for him in RFAR/E&C and E&C2, because he's been getting very buddy buddy with Powergate92 (talk · contribs) who shares Mythdon's strict interpretations of sourcing policies. I'm not sure what the exact restriction was.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment. Bear in mind that my concern is with Mythdon's conduct at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Me and Powergate92 are not "buddy buddy". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should I be restricted from nominating these articles for deletion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To prevent you from working un-collaboratively with other members of WikiProject Tokusatsu. I thought that after 24 May 2009, the confrontations between you and other members of WikiProject Tokusatsu would not continue to be a problem - sadly, as seen on WT:TOKU#Search_soon_to_begin, I was mistaken. Given this history, the question should be why is this proposal is so unrestrictive? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

These AfD's are in no way a problem. If you check the results, you'll see what I mean. The list is in the "update" section. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the mere results of your AfDs (50% deletions); I'm talking about your approach foremost. You were requested to have a full discussion with other members of TOKU; you took a fixed view by flatly declining and insisting you will AfD them based on your own resources and decision, no matter how many confrontations that led to within, or outside of, TOKU. By no means am I saying that having such a discussion will definitely (if at all) lead to a different result; for all you know, it may make no difference, or, it may make a difference that everyone benefits from. The fact of the matter is your approach doesn't allow for it. With your approach, something like arbitration would be a first resort than a last resort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what the Arbitration Committee and/or the community says about this proposal. All I can is that I hope it's declined, but we'll be waiting a bit more time. ArbCom has not said anything in the clarification request yet. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally neither gain or lose from this proposal, which is why I'm not fussed. But, I'm concerned you're not getting the point regarding why this proposal was made - and even if you are, you haven't been and don't seem to be doing anything to address the underlying issue. IMO, that is what matters. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And now FayssalF has commented at the request for clarification. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still roughly 43 articles related to Power Rangers, even after the recent deletions. That's a bit much. Sending some of the spinout articles to AfD improves Wikipedia. I would encourage the fans to contribute to Wikia's Power Rangers Wiki, with 2,775 articles all related to Power Rangers, and lower editorial standards. --John Nagle (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What is your opinion on this proposal? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for administrator intervention here. --John Nagle (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, Nagle, the issue is not the fact that Mythdon sends articles to AFD. The issue is that he has been, on one part, violating arbcom restrictions/orders/suggestions, and on the other part, his approach. I'm not going to argue that there aren't shitty articles about Power Rangers on Wikipedia that have no references on them currently. This absolutely does not mean that these articles should be punted off to the Power Rangers Wikia which is run by a community that goes to the whim of whatever the newest unfound rumors are coming out of people who have inside information with Disney because they work for ESPN and have access to things the normal editor of Wikipedia does not. The editors on Wikipedia do their best to keep all of the articles within policy, even with the upheavals in the fiction notability guidelines. Mythdon has outright proven and stated that he is not here to work constructively with the users of this project, in particular the users who consider themselves members of WP:TOKU. There are a half dozen active editors of the project at any one time, and Mythdon has yet to work with one other than Powergate92 who is just as restrictive in his policy interpretations (and also I have yet to see positive contributions from).

There are currently five articles on individual episodes, which Mythdon was threatening to send to AFD when he performed a Google search and most definitely would not have found anything he considers a reliable source, and about three-dozen articles on individual characters, some of which may or may not be notable for inclusion on their own, but that is something that can be determined on a case by case basis rather than throwing them to the AFD wolves outright (as I perceive there is a bias against articles on fictional subjects in the users who regularly contribute to AFDs). If Mythdon were to be given free reign (without the obviously clear clarification by FayssalF and Casliber), there would probably be no episode articles except for the lists (his "threat" included the pilot episode and a few puncuated articles that are major points throughout the original six season storyline) and certainly many less articles on the primary characters which have appeared in multiple incarnations of the media.

I wouldn't have a problem if Mythdon had not bothered me so god damn much early on in his career on Wikipedia and certainly if he did not become so intensely strict with his application and execution of policies. I've yet to see him contribute to Wikipedia (the only contribution was a creation of Allies in Power Rangers: Dino Thunder which I subsequently redirected to the main article because it was a direct copy of the content in the section). There is no net gain to the topic area or Wikipedia as a whole from Mythdon's contributions. All he does is garner drama and ill will. I am not the only editor to say this, I am merely the most vocal because of my constant communication with Mythdon because of the crossover in article interests and my initial position as the only administrator who actively edited the subject area.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, tl;dr on the last one. OK .. here's an idea. Ry/My - going back to the thread title: How about a "self-imposed" 30 day restriction. Ry, don't add any material unless you can also provide a ref. My, don't delete material - but rather try to find the refs, and actually add to the collective sum of human knowledge. Ya know, it occurs to me that you both care a great deal about this subject matter. If you two would stop pushing against each other, and actually work together and both push in the same direction - you could probably make the "Power Rangers" topics one of the best on the site. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This proposal has served its purpose. Effectively, it was a moot proposal; per the explicit instructions at the request for clarification, Mythdon may be blocked by an admin if he afd's articles, based on the remedies from the ArbCom case. Hopefully both editors, along with other members of the WikiProject can work collaboratively - WT:TOKU would be a better place to figure out how to go about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Checkuser needed to stop racist troll

Resolved

 – Handled. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Only minutes after Jews love Zyklon B (talk · contribs) was indefblocked for racially-tinged vandalism, Jews boiled to death (talk · contribs) showed up and was also blocked. Could any available checkuser block the underlying IP? Since this is blatantly obvious socking, I figured an SPI report wasn't necessary. Blueboy96 02:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Hamish Ross again. Re-blocked 149.254.0.0/16. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu

Resolved

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) removed a block set by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Griffinofwales (talk · contribs), for editwarring on User talk:Jimbo Wales. However, Rodhullandemu was involved in exactly the same behavior (in fact, the exact same edits) that Griffinofwales was blocked for. As a result, I have restored the block and removed the (both in terms of policy, and in technical terms) incorrect granting of IP block exemption to Griffenofwales. Prodego ^talk 05:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure there's much that can be done at this point, aside from beating the dead horse... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing here for 4,902,345,311 hours. Tan | 39 05:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question, why did he grant the IP block exemption rather than just removing the autoblock to begin with? It's been a long time since I've had an occasion to remove someone's autoblock - do we no longer have the ability to do that? --B (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because he didn't know how to do it, I assume. But that part of it really isn't the problem. Prodego ^talk 05:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew I remembered the name from somewhere. This isn't the first time Rodhullandemu's use of the block tool has been less than exemplary in a high profile case - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Block_review_of_User:Betacommand#Rodhullandemu. --B (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Attention : Sfan00_IMG / ShakespeareFan00

Resolved

 – Unless a current issue is defined, there's nothing to do here, so marking resolved. Black Kite 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed as re-posted from previous ANI archive and doesn't appear to be going anywhere

<blink> I am moving this out of the archive at J Milburn's insistence that it was the only way he would allow my comments to stand. I understand that this issue has been addressed by an admin already. </blink> Admin Tonywalton suggested that I post here. It seems strong admin action is needed, based on, e.g. A long^8 discussion of his [unreasonable bulk PRODding] the 3 topics starting here: [[60]]. past AN/I discussion of this user and its socks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#User:Sfan00_IMG the above are just the 1st 3 things I found. --Elvey (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Note to everyone – see this very very very very very very very very long thread on the subject as well. – iridescent 21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I just added the words "A long^8 discussion of his" above, before my link to the thread you re-posted. (It seems people assumed I had somehow linked to a diff that demonstrated bulk action. I expected people to follow the link both because I had put it at the top of my notice, and because no single diff could demonstrate bulk action.)--Elvey (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Comment I suggested Elvey post here rather than on AIV as a more appropriate noticeboard. I also pointed out to Elvey the very^8 long thread mentioned by Iridescent. Since that thread appears dormant perhaps a resolution might be thrashed out here. Apologies in advance if I'm not too assiduous in posting on this page as I'm currently enjoying the fun off-wiki game called "keeping my solicitor focussed because I'm trying to sell a house" Tonywalton Talk 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Refactored sub-issues I've refactored without deleting, per IAR, to keep the thread on topic; I do recall that there are general guidelines (IIRC) warning against inappropriate deleting of others' speech. I've moved discussions I deem not central to the issue here.--Elvey (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Elvey's views on appropriate action I'm sorry, what admin action do you feel is required here? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC) The previous AI/V resulted in a 6-month restriction, and yet it seems the behaviour has recurred, and others think the user has not learned. An admin who looks into this to verify that action needs to be taken and to take appropriate action will be in a good position to judge what sanctions are appropriate, so asking for (or providing) my view doesn't seem a valuable use of anyone's time unless I'm being tested, because I expect a closing admin would make his(or her) own judgment, and take action irrespective of what I suggested, and wouldn't care what the opening user thought. The closing admin would review the last sanction, etc., and take further action as he deemed appropriate, as well as action with respect to the sock issue. Besides, the threads I linked to provide others' suggestions as to what action is appropriate. What's needed now is action, not so much more words about the user's behavior, which has been discussed ad nauseum. --Elvey (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) "What's needed now is action"... Erm, OK, ties back to the original question... What action? J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Notification sub-issue Oh, and I jut saw this: I've also taken the liberty of letting ShakespeareFan know about this thread (via IRC). It is normally considered polite to let people know you are talking about them at the noticeboards. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC) here!!! I have long since done so. It would be polite for you to apologize for your hasty comment. That's not a particularly clear message; a link, at least, would be nice. I didn't notice it, and Sfan didn't notice it- my comment on IRC was his first notification. Can I ask if you have notified Sfan that you have decided to resurrect this thread from the archives? Again, I can't see any such notification.... J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC) See below. As I'm not asking for discussion or admin action, I felt no further notification was necessary. --Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Then why you restored the thread is beyond me. Regardless, a notification would have been polite, to say the least. J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Sock sub-issue (refactored from main discussion) There is NO indication on the current user page that this user is a sock of User:ShakespeareFan00, but the last AN/I says it is acknowledged. --Elvey (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Elvey - User:ShakespeareFan00 does indeed indicate that Sfan00_IMG is his sock, and bear in mind that IMG is his most active account.  GARDEN  21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I have never visited that page, but I assume you are right. However, what I said is/was true: There is NO indication on the current user page that this user is a sock of User:ShakespeareFan00. I think that's a problem. It should be immediately apparent that a sock is a sock. When I came across Sfan00_IMG, as as others do, what told me I was dealing with a sock of ShakespeareFan00? Nothing, 'till I did an AN/I search.--Elvey (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure why you think that's a problem. An awful lot of people run alternative accounts for various reasons, and many do not reveal the links. It is public knowledge these accounts are one and the same (just look at the naming- it's clear the IMG account is an account there for a purpose, rather than a "general" one) and I don't think the fact you don't like the method used to convey this information is really a legitimate complaint. Perhaps Sfan will add that note to his alternative userpage, perhaps not. That's his choice, I think there are more important things to worry about... J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I see now he's added it anyway. I assume that is this matter closed... J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC) It should be immediately apparent that a sock is a sock. It is now immediately apparent that the sock is a sock.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) More specifically, official policy states: "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages; templates such as {{[[Template:User Alternate Acct|User Alternate Acct]]}} may be used for this purpose." I wonder why you say you still aren't sure why I think there was a problem. (It goes on: "Use of multiple accounts to alter the apparent weight of an opinion is known as sock puppetry, and is not permitted. For example, multiple accounts may not be used to comment on proposals or requests, cast votes, or engage in edit warring. Policies apply to individuals, not accounts. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to both accounts. Blocked or banned users must not use sock puppets to circumvent a block") Policy recommendations should have been followed.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I just looked and see you're an admin, which means you're supposed to be aware of these policies, IIRC.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) The policy also says that people may remain anonymous if they wish. I repeat, Sfan was open about this- the fact he was not open in exactly the same way you would be is not of great importance. This is not a great concern; to me, it looks as if you are simply looking for reasons to complain. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Getting to the point I had a look at some of the complaints on his talkpage, and can't see any major problem - people don't like being nagged about things they've failed to do, but in most cases it looks like they hadn't completed sources or rationales. Not much we can do about that. So what we need to know is - can you point us, using diffs, to any further disruptive or problematic editing or tagging by Sfan00 since the thread mentioned above? Thanks. Black Kite 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC) As with Black Kite, I fail to see what all the fuss is about. I constantly discuss Sfan's tagging with him, reviewing his edits and taking over on images with which he is not comfortable handling. You're going to have to provide some specific diffs. J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC) There you go telling me what to do again. Maybe if you'd added "... if you want further administrator action to be taken." I don't think it's hard to figure out what the fuss was about: the long^8 discussion (which is both a fuss and an example of what the fuss is about), etc.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) My initial comment was in 2 parts: 1: I am moving this out of the archive at J Milburn's insistence that it was the only way he would allow my comments to stand. That is why I restored the thread. (So I have not evaluated Sfan00_IMG / ShakespeareFan00 's further edits, so no, I can't provide diffs.) 2: I understand that this issue has been addressed by an admin already. In other words, I'm not asking for further action or discussion. An admin has taken appropriate action already; I consider the matter closed, unless you want to reopen it. (I wonder if I'm a worse communicator than I think I am. I think my original comment was at least comprehensible. ISTM that either I'm a lousy communicator, or something fishy is going on, as a apparently keep being misunderstood. )--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) PS. FYI: I'm going to retire from en. after this is done. Details/rationale/discussion if any will be on my user page. I expect to be gone from now 'till Monday too.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Um, okay... but why you're announcing it here I have little clue.  GARDEN  21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Resolved

 – No admin action needed --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ck415 keeps on creating article on non-notable CEOs, founders, and heads of companies. I have been tagging them for prod and AFD and the user just keeps on going. Joe Chill (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At the top of this page it says, in bold, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Joe Chill, can you please provide diffs to show that you have attempted to discuss this matter with the user in question. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I did what you said and added a message to his talk page. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing a quick spot-check on those articles, a lot of them seem to be copyvios (though not copy-paste, they are very close) from the sources given. MuZemike 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notability, you may want to review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2009#Business people. It appears to me that a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and that's what these individuals are, are notable. The new articles definitely could use some references, but those will come. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But it was never added to the guideline. Just because it was accepted by a few people in a discussion doesn't make them notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the message didn't work. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is premature for this noticeboard. See how the AFD debates go, if the articles are kept that's the end of the matter, if they are deleted, and if he continues to post new ones then come back. But so far he hasn't done anything wrong and no admin action is needed. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the first several and they actually far from being non-notable. These CEOs of major companies (not surprisingly) have a lot of reliable source coverage. I, for one, applaud Ck415 for attempting to start these articles. (I did give a gentle nudge to start writing more in his own words though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the descriptions of these people and saw that they are almost exactly what they say on entries at www.equilar.com ? MuZemike 06:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reported all articles to copyright problems and have informed the user appropriately to inform here or on his talk page. MuZemike 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User continually removes speedy deletions even after 48 hour block

Resolved

A user by the name of User talk:AlexHale has continually removed speedys on articles that he created as is the case here.Need admin help.--keystoneridin! (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an invalid speedy on its face. I'm not overly inclined to block the user for removing it, even though technically it should have been removed by someone else. --B (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Invalid or not, if a user is continuing behaviour which garnered a block before, it shows an unwillingness to change and work with the community. In addition this looks like a bad faith nomination. Speedys are only for when the notability isn't apparent. 2 seconds of clicking would have clearly shown the singer is notable through his own article. All CDs by notable singers/bands are considered notable on wikipedia as far as I know.--Crossmr (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that all CDs by notable artists should have their own article, but that aside, if you believe the speedy was in bad faith, and thus just an attempt to goad AlexHale into removing it, we certainly shouldn't block him for it. (I don't believe it was in bad faith - I think the speedy was in good faith, just incorrect.) Either way, the effect is the same. If he removes a speedy from an article that should be speedied, we can deal with it - but we're not going to block just for the sake of blocking. --B (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone else has already pointed out on the AfD, the nomination doesn't make sense. If it was a good-faith nomination then Alex has acted improperly, if it wasn't a good faith nomination then Keystoneridin has acted improperly.--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would just like to point out that I did not attempt to "goad" anyone. The article contained little sourced information on the article. I used a boiler plate template because I was not sure. The template was then removed, so I took it to AFD. If anyone has any questions about my character in making this decision to ask for help or to nominate for deletion, please let me know. I would be happy to explain my case.keystoneridin! (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  You were asked to clarify your reason for deletion and you haven't done so. The current reason makes little sense. You have been told in the past to be more careful with your speedy tags, and it should have been very apparent that this tag was not appropriate for this article. It is not about a band, person, or any of the other things specifically covered by that template. You don't tag something with a random speedy because you're not sure if one is appropriate or if it should be speedied at all. A lack of sources is not sufficient grounds to speedy something in most cases.--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr is correct. Someone removing an blatantly and obviously incorrect speedy tag from their own article should be well be covered under IAR anyway. The rule not to remove tags is for those where deletion is in any way possible to happen, not for those where deletion is not allowed from the start. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

History of terrorism

I stumbled across this article whilst patrolling changes and reverted an unexplained removal of about 10kB of content, that did not appear to be agreed on the talkpage. I was subsequently reverted, and the user LSG280709 basically told me not to get involved in things I didn't know about. (To be fair, I've never read the article before so a lot of stuff has probably gone on that I do not know about).

Looking into it a bit more there has been an ongoing battle at this page for a long time, that has escalated over the last month with repeated removal of content and then reversions. It has not been helped by fractious edit summaries, claims of consensus when there doesn't appear to be any and so on. Of the last 100 edits, about half of them are reverting.

I wasn't sure whether to bring this to the edit warring page, or RFPP, but the dispute seems to have been going on for a long time and there are lots of conduct as well as content issues to look at. As well as the user mentioned above, the other parties I can tell are: User:Haberstr, User:Sherzo, User:Impala2009 and 92.239.38.135 (who was recently blocked for a week). Quantpole (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LSG280709 is a new user who has jumped straight into edit warring on that article and has removed several warnings from his talk page. My apologies, this was not true Theresa Knott | token threats 09:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked LSG280709 for 24 hours for recent egregious edit-warring to remove sourced content (well, some of it is sourced). I've also applied full-protection for a week, which can be extended as necessary. The article needs a fair amount of work and it's nature means it'll inevitably be something of a battleground, so although a few more blocks could probably be handed out they'd be after the fact and would prevent any talk-page discussion that might improve things. I'll keep it watchlisted anyhow, and more eyes would no doubt be useful ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was never a battleground before Haberstr starting pushing a POV, just check the edit history you'll see that when Haberstr isn't active on the page it doesn't have these problems. the LSG user is me btw i created to show that registered editors get different treatment to unregistered ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First I feel you have locked the wrong version of the page, the page is overlong and the definition section was removed a long time ago as the definition of terrorism article handles this complex issue well without the history of terrorism article trying to replicate it. If you look through the changes Haberstr actually deletes content that disagrees with his POV and reintroduces previously condensed material despite previous consensus [61]. If you read the vast about of topics started by Haberstr to push his particularly perspective i think this will become self evident to as it did to the other editors on the board. Sherzo (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You might like to read m:The wrong version Note, not in any way a comment on your polite request!  ;) The reason I reverted to that version was that it seemed to be the status quo version (as far as it was possible to tell), and LSG280709 had removed a fair amount of sourced material - essentially, I didn't feel their blatant edit-warring deserved a pay-off. However, if you can show a current consensus on the article talk-page that another version is better, I (or any admin) will happily change it around for you. As an admin I can't really start judging content, but if you believe Haberstr's editing needs examining, a request for comment might be a good way to get some outside eyes on things. EyeSerene^talk 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The last consensus was that the article needed to be condensed an objective Haberstr has proved an obstacle to as he has repeatedly reintroduced condensed material, such as the Contras. The material that haberstr has added is of a highly POV nature that has repeatedly failed to gain any consensus and represents Haberstr personal POV, he also deletes sourced content hiding it among other edits that doesn't match his perspective, particularly in the WW2 section. The dates of the tags he placed are also misleading nor has he justified them on the talkpage I would appreciate in the very least that the dates on the tags reflect when he actually placed them. I know it maybe a burden but i feel you can only get a fair reflect of this case by reading the extensive talk archive that has been generated since Haberstr stated pushing a POV on the page. The last argument i would offer for the other less problematic version is that the current version is very long and causes difficulty loading. I would ask at the very least that that the material that is deleted in version be restored. in close i feel i must state that the current version is a determent to wikipedia and its aim of being a reliable academic source. Sherzo (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On what evidence did you base the fact that Haberstr's agenda version was the "status quo"? if your taking that by the fact other editors reverted by reverts thats just because they are knee jerk reacts by editors who can't be bothered to read edit summaries talk pages or their own pages as in this example User talk:Impala2009 &diff=302642349&oldid=302642266 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – dispute resolution is thataway. No need for admin action, and it would be nice if this conversation did not devolve to a state where admin action DOES become necessary. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This user, DinDraithou, has been trouble all day today. Besides violating 3RR on Bourgeoisie despite a warning about that policy on his talk page earlier in the day, he has been abusive and uncooperative on discussion pages. On here and here, he has shown a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and spirit and furthermore, a lack of interest in learning about such things. He has demonstrated incivility through ad hominem attacks, mostly regarding social class, including accusations that editors, as bourgeoisie, were naturally biased and that most wikipedia editors are "irrelevant nobodies." He furthermore made unfounded claims of threats. He also declared that the article on Niall of the Nine Hostages "belongs" to the descendants of Niall, but only the aristocratic ones. This might be related to his suggestion that we "lock America out, lock the trash out" (in an edit summary on the Niall article).

Seeing that this user had never received the 5 pillars on his talk page, I requested of an admin buddy that he do so. (This admin was offline and still is I believe.) When DinDraithou described himself as "new to wikipedia" and asked for my help, I wrote a note summarizing what I saw to be the problem and citing the 5 pillars. He felt patronized and betrayed since I hadn't done as he asked ("I asked you to deal with the problem") and declared us as cyber-foes.

Although in some sense having good faith, this user seems to have no intention of contributing positively to wikipedia. Arxack (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've gotten upset by my early talk page style, but this complaint is vengeful and unfortunate. You should look over my actual contributions. Why did you appear in the discussion? DinDraithou (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What this user describes as his "early talk page style" has certainly tempered over the last hour, it was in full force at 6:59 Wikipedia Time, complete with an accusation of being a lower class POV-pusher, and the claim that I can't be trusted because I used the phrase "most editors." Arxack (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to bed kiddo, like you said you were gonna do, and we'll work it all out later. If you're as tired and sleepless as I am then that's why we're here. We don't know each other but it seems like it I guess. DinDraithou (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Arxack, the message you sent DinDraithou looks perfect in my opinion—had helpful links and was civilly written. If DinDraithou refuses to be receptive and learn from it, that is his own choice and it's beyond our powers to change him. Things seem to have calmed down a bit, but judging by this userpage he just created then he might intend to go on being a class-warrior, and if that sort of POV-pushing continues then he may have to be sanctioned. For now I will just reiterate the 3RR warning, as edit warring is a much clearer violation and easier thing to deal with than chronic POV-pushing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your analysis is fair. Neither the bourgeoisie nor Niall of the Nine Hostages are your areas of expertise. Thus another administrator or two will need to take care of this. As far as I can tell the complaint exists because user became very personally unhappy. He also became too personal with me. DinDraithou (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't need those articles to be in my area of expertise to understand Wikipedia policy, and consensus, and when you are violating those policies. The issue here is not the content of the article, it's the way you are editing and the way you are interacting with other users. (As for getting "too personal", you made it personal when you started accusing editors of being 'wrong' because of their supposed class backgrounds, which is wholly inappropriate.)

For now, I have warned DinDraithou; as for the article, I have restored the text that DinDraithou was edit-warring over, but this time with cleanup tags so that it is clear the wording may need to be changed or sources added (if it helps, people could also add a {{disputed-inline}} tag to each one). Hopefully that will settle things for now; further discussion about what to do with the language should be done at the article's talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what I accused users of when they gave evidence of it, it being entirely relevant. I think you're forgetting the subject of the article. In any case I haven't deserved a warning more than the user making the complaint and you need to be fair here. Give him or her one too and we'll be fine. DinDraithou (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't only a warning, it was an attempt to teach you more about Wikipedia policies and how to work with people, since you yourself admitted that you're new here. Arxack will be given warnings when he does something wrong; so far, he has not made a single revert to that article, I don't see what he should be "warned" for other than daring to disagree with you. I am being perfectly fair. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't done all your job requires. He admitted not knowing anything about Niall of the Nine Hostages besides what the Wikipedia article offered but he made edits anyway. Then he followed me to the Bourgeoisie talk page for unclear reasons. You'll note he admits to starting his career as a vandal. Look into how I started mine. Don't be a lazy admin. Thank you. DinDraithou (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "follow" you, I went to the Bourgeoisie page because the report linked to there. And, again, Wikipedia does not require people to be an expert in the subject to edit, or comment on, an article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not only lazy but tired or distracted and aren't reading well. I said he, not you, followed me to the Bourgeois(ie) talk page. This is ridiculous. You've acted too quickly and made me look bad in favour of an admitted (former) vandal. DinDraithou (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that you understand why you've been warned. This isn't about punishing us for the weight of our sins, it's about trying to encourage you to follow the wikipedia rules. The fact that I added sourced info to Niall without being an expert, that I followed your edits (as Rjanag once followed mine), and that I was once a vandal do not constitute any current issue. Your edit warring, refusal to provide sources for your claims, making responses on talk pages citing the presumed lower-classness of other editors rather than reliable sources, and your general incivility-- these things do violate wikipedia policy.

We're not looking for you go grovel or do jail time. We're just trying to explain the guidelines that govern how users of any social class edit any topic of wikipedia. It's not a big deal if you start out editing on the wrong foot-- most of us do, actually, and it's no shame whatsoever. Those of us who get past that do so because they learn from their mistakes. That's all we're asking of you here. Arxack (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But then you made this childish complaint when I was causing no actual damage. It appears you were feeling "butthurt", if we can pardon the expression. DinDraithou (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The admin noticeboard is not the venue for two people to carry on a debate on this nature. Please take up a thread at WP:WQA or some other more appropriate venue. There is nothing for admins to get involved with yet, and I want to keep it that way. My advice is to take a little time to cool off, stop antagonizing each other, and if necessary pursue dispute resolution. Either way, this conversation is not appropriate for this venue, and I am marking it resolved. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum after several edit conflicts. I am closeing this discussion to further editing. Please just take a cool off, or if needed, pursue dispute resolution. This is not what this noticeboard is for. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anon talk attack

See edit filter 7 -- we're getting a huge proxy attack of AnonTalk spam. Help with blocking IPs would be appreciated. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel like a doofus, but how would I go about helping? I can't see any of filter 7's details ("It is hidden from public view") and can't see of the IPs' disallowed edits. TNXMan 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you would need to make yourself an abuse filter editor to see that stuff -- if you do that, you'll see over 600 attempted AnonTalk edits. But they seem to have stopped, and Zzuzz and I have blocked all the IPs involved. Now I get to go back and check them all for proxies. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They just started back up again. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to help where I can. Should I leave a block template on the IP's talk page? TNXMan 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, they're zombies or proxies anyway. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is more of a general question, but should we block anons that did not make any inappropriate edits (because those were blocked by the edit filter) in the first place? I mean, what do we gain from doing this? I've just looked at a bunch of contributions from the IPs that were caught by Filter 7, and none of them seemed to have made any actual edits. So.. if the filter works as intended, why do we need to block anyone? --Conti|✉ 19:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, several of them are making repeated attempts to add AnonTalk spam, so blocking them stops further attempts. For another, at some point, the spammer is going to try to figure out a way around the edit filter (check the attempted edits, he/she is already doing that, albeit unsuccessfully), and we may as well deny him/her some of the zombie computers being used. Finally, all of the attempted edits make the abuse filter run slower. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If i can comment,as a /b/tard, Anontalk is known to do the following things to spam: Do a simple text spam or rely on Unicode characters http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_ed17&diff=256371105&oldid=256371079 from 2008. Anontalk people are known to have a botnet. The wars between 4chan and Anontalk are quite notable. They spam each other wich results in side lulz. --Mixwell^{☞TALK☜STALK!!!} 20:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I reported some known AnonTalk crap to the spam blacklist a while ago, but it's so backlogged that my report was archived without being read. Is there any magic formula I can invoke to get people to actually read my reports there, or should I just not bother? — Gavia immer (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The spam blacklist will not work, as the links are just text, not an actual link. Prodego ^talk 23:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that was bound to happen eventually. I would still like to know, though, whether to give up on the blacklist or not. I suppose I'll just see what happens the next time I report something. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing quick-fire spam-vandalism

There is a current spate of vandalism/spamming coming from multiple anons taking the form of inserting [Type "www.Anon" into your address field. Follow this by "Talk.com" and press Enter. Bookmark the resulting page. Done!]. sample Mr Stephen (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All currently have the edit summary rukewl. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary was Reverted multiple instances of vandalism. earlier, then changed to rukewl. Esowteric+Talk 12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the Anontalk spammer again. If someone less incompetent than me can modify filter 7 in the edit filter we can probably foil this latest method of obfuscating the URL we've blacklisted. ~ mazca ^talk 10:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dragons flight (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New pattern: [62] --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam bot: 195.50.135.218/217.114.3.220 (same as above)

User:195.50.135.218 is spamming multiple pages with blatant advertisement e.g. example. The pages being spammed seem completely random and less than a minute apart.

Oddly another IP User:217.114.3.220 has marked 195.50.135.218's user and talk pages for speedy deletion. On inspection that IP is also spamming in the same way.

Automated spam bots? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked those, there are more continuing to appear. This seems to be an odd spam bot operating on rotating open proxies, as far as I can discern. ~ mazca ^talk 10:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Many blocks and rollbacks later this seems to have just about stopped now. Keep an eye out. ~ mazca ^talk 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All of these IP addresses are transparent and/or open proxies. Google tells that very easily.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

and another ? User:69.30.227.98 Earlypsychosis (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEFCON alert level raised to level 1. Alexius08 (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Noted above: 195.50.135.218 + 217.114.3.220 + 69.30.227.98
• Not above: 124.128.62.162 + 124.81.55.242 + 60.51.154.82 + 79.148.249.246 + 91.121.73.10

In case anyone wants the info. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of those already got blocked an hour or so by myself, Bongwarrior, or various others. For anyone following this, I should re-emphasise Ryulong's advice above - quite a few of these IPs can be easily identified as open proxies by putting the IP into a Google search. If it's the case, it's worth blocking them for a longer period as an open proxy, rather than just 24-72hrs for spamming/vandalism. ~ mazca ^talk 11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

69.30.227.98, one of the spammers, spammed the user talk page of 221.194.139.248 where I'd just issued a warning, suggesting human intervention as well as automated edits. Also, at least one of the edits I undid was followed up by a repeat spamming of that article. Esowteric+Talk 11:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist twice for some reason. I'd suggest removing both and putting it on m:Spam blacklist.--Otterathome (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

These spamming IPs are all open proxies, most of them dynamic, which can be blocked for a few months on sight. The spam generally follows changes in the recent changes list, which is why it can look like it's following you around, so it's important to check each edit is reverted properly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Related users:

• Lisa124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Damotclese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[63][64]
• EvilOverlordKira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.104.143.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Otterathome (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Killed The Video Star

Resolved

Hi fellow admins. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Killed The Video Star has been withdrawn by the nominator because the article was expanded significantly after nomination but has a "delete"-!vote that was cast before the expansion. Could an uninvolved administrator assess the situation and decide whether it can be closed as withdrawn anyway? If possible, I'd like to nom it for DYK but for that it needs to be removed from AFD prior to the end of the 7 day period. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to recommend waiting to hear from ThuranX, who wanted to delete, as there was not a huge rush to get this closed and up on DYK, but I'm certainly not going to undo Jayron's close. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron.

@Bigtimepeace: I had similar thoughts but on the other hand, Thuran is an experienced editor and I am convinced they will not object Jayron's close since their delete-rationale was not fitting the article after the expansion anyway. But we will see. Regards SoWhy 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that Thuran expressed consent at Talk:Reality Killed The Video Star. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and Socionics

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

User:Rmcnew has been, over the course of the last month or two, making extensive edits to the page on socionics, continually including a section suggesting that socionics has an esoteric foundation and verifiable relations to chakras, hindu mysticism, alchemy, and other things. a couple of people have written papers hypothesizing about such connections, which would be appropriate for inclusion. yet rmcnew continues to insist unequivocally that the socionics page must include a section claiming verifiable ties, and the role of esotericism in forming the foundation for the theory. this page has been going on for months, was recently the subject of an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics|AfD] ](mostly precipitated by mcnew's insistent action) which concluded that the page needed restructuring and improvement in accordance with the existing verifiable sources on the topic. rmcnew's presence is effectively blocking this rewrite, and he has continually provided the same unreliable sources to back up his claim, which everyone involved in the discussion (about 3-4 people) except him would agree is essentially hopeless. good faith efforts to talk about the sources presented and identify those which need to be changed have produced some good discussion and have helped to identify other parts of the article that need to be cleaned up (but can't, because of the ongoing dispute), but mostly more of the same, including a lot of name calling (mostly from rmcnew).

i've had no idea what to do about this situation, and have continued to debunk his claims while essentially having given up any hope of ever resolving the situation. i think immediate admin intervention is warranted. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcnew is, in my mind, a vandal, period. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is against policy. Rmcnew is under the same obligation as anyone else to find consensus to support the changes he wants to make to the article. There may come a time that an administrator could warn him against reverting to a version of the article that does not have consensus. However I don't see any diffs in the above report, and the claim so far is that rmcnew's presence is effectively blocking this rewrite, which is a rather vague statement. At present, this is not definite enough to take any action on, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ask for diffs and ye shall receive: drawn out broad based edit warring by rmcnew, recreating the section on esoteric socionics several times, reverted variously by other users since the beginning of june. [65], [66], [67]. a quick overview of the talk page shows it absolutely cluttered with very unproductive and insistent argumentation, including name-calling and accusing others of editing in bad faith. rmcnew's most recent tactic is the suggestion that article abstracts about articles written in russian that nobody knows how to get a hold of discussing hypothesized correlations are sufficient evidence for the kinds of edits he's been making. the discussions there are very similar mcnew's comments below, which few people have tried to respond to. because of the ongoing edit war and an agreement to try to resolve it on the talk page, few changes have been made to the page by other users since july 14, at which point rmcnew made one last revert with the commentary of making his changes into the "final version;" fortunately nobody objected. i think there's easily enough to think of rmcnew as edit warring; whether that makes him an all-out vandal is an open question, but he could easily qualify in my opinion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that niffweed is twisting the truth. No one is really to blame for the edit war. The edit warring was resulting because of differing viewpoints on how socionics itself should be represented as a whole, and also because people (such as tcaudillig) were continually reediting parts of things that I had personally written to become out-of-context (since I am the only one who has been writing anything about the esoteric qualities of socionics) and also others deleting sections of the article out that had verifiable and substantiated sources that justified their existence. To be fair I have invited others to help edit the article in a way that we would all agree is neutral. Unfortunately, this has been a frustrating experience as many of the editors are still letting their feelings get in the way of doing any productive work and despite verifiable sources to the case are often more interested in "ignoring the exegetical context of the verifiable source evidence and instead using exegesis" and/or "unnecessary and unreasonable debunking (by eisegesis)" those sources that justify the positions of the esoteric article, than they are in actually doing any sort of cooperative rewrite. Now, when certain editors would finally be willing to put aside their personal feelings and beliefs on the matter and focus on actually doing a neutral rewrite that represents all differing sides (even those opposite to their own) the article rewrite would continue effectively. That is my suggestion and I hope others would see the reasonable nature of this request, and actually follow along with it. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I should also comment on niffweed's statement " rmcnew's most recent tactic is the suggestion that article abstracts about articles written in russian that nobody knows how to get a hold of discussing hypothesized correlations are sufficient evidence for the kinds of edits he's been making" should be addressed. The article abstracts in question are from a legitimate, verifiable, and official socionics journal that publishes socionic articles to the russian socionics world. In fact, they are from the school in Kiev that was founded by Alexander Bukalov, who knew the founder Ausura Augusta personally. The socionics school allows and encourages non-empirical (intentionally unscientific), mystic and esoteric views of socionics to be published officially in their journals in the russian speaking world. It is completely substantiated that the development of socionics has both an empirical viewpoint and a mystic one, and that there are separate schools that focus on either empirical methods or mystical ones. Most of their material is in russian, though they do have some english article abstracts of their articles that are translated. I have listed some of those below as well as a statement from Dmitri Lytov concerning the development of socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Section Restored

I restored that section - it is vadalism to delte it . You are welcome as Administrator to state your judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiens (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 July 2009

um, what? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Hiens restored the section below. [68] Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Users Fair Deal and SoWhy

Resolved

 – Reporter blocked already. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

These two users are personally attacking me by deleting everything I post which is eligible. SoWhy deleted my TrajectoryMetal page based on his biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Id33k (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wish the page met our criteria for inclusion but it looks like it doesn't. Alexa rank >100k and the article you wrote was a discourse on Turd Ferguson and McNuggets. Please don't link articles to the website for reviews either. Thanks -- Samir 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the o.p. has now posted an attack page, if someone who hasn't yet joined me in WP:FORMER wants to do the necessary. – iridescent 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this edit shows how much credibility should be given to this complaint. I've also taken a look at the deleted article, and endorse the speedy deletion. Id33k, please review our notability guidelines and what Wikipedia is not. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef, this friendly fellow clearly has no intention to contribute productively. ~ mazca ^talk 19:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, my first ANI attack post. Took me almost 10 months of adminship before someone started one. Although your case might have been a little stronger if you hadn't filled my talk page and userpage with obscenities. You know, people might think that arguments ad hominem are not very strong. As for the page, biased opinion? I never heard of that page before. You might want to try and make a case why this subject should be considered important or significant instead. Regards SoWhy 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Will Beback (Administrator)

(Moved from WP:AN)

I came across User:Will Beback on the Ridgecrest, California article. This user and others deleted allot of stuff in this article to get back at a user that they blocked. I wanted to add some of the stuff they deleted back and this user reverted it 4 times Potentially violating the three revert rule and then protected the article saying there been Vandalism , Witch there has not. This is what the article look like before they tore it up SEEN HERE. This what it look like now SEEN HERE. I just don’t think its fair for this Administrator to do what they been doing. I request that some of the info to be added back and the article not be protected. One more thing is this Administrator blocks users if they don’t like the IP address or user. I know frst hand.--71.105.39.114 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all you're not doing yourself any favors with comments like this which come off as rather uncivil. Nor is edit warring a good idea, which you are both doing. This does seem to be a content dispute and not a simple case of vandalism, and I think Will Beback was likely wrong to refer to it as the latter, though I could be convinced otherwise. It does seem rather inappropriate for Beback to have protected the article, since he is clearly working on the content rather than simply reverting "vandalism" (see the July 25th edits for example) and therefore too involved to lock out IP editors from the article. If 71.105.39.114, who again is clearly edit warring and needs to go to the article talk page and work it out there, has even a 5-10% legitimate point about some of the content than Beback's decision to protect the article has essentially given him an advantage in a content dispute.

I'd like to see what Will has to say here - I'll check and see if he's been informed - but probably the article should be unprotected, and then re-semi-protected by another admin if necessary, and all parties should go to the talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the history and Will Beback's edits look fine to me. It is 71.105.39.114 readding and then edit warring over things that isn't cool. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but the question is whether there is, to at least some degree, a legitimate dispute about content, which at least for me is hard to ascertain after looking through the disputed edits. If so then the edit warring is bad on both ends, and the semi-protection by Will was probably inappropriate since he is involved. Right now it looks a bit like that to me but I could be wrong, and regardless I'll wait to hear what Will says. I've informed him of this thread. However this shakes out it does not strike me as a major issue at all, and probably could have been avoided had both parties gone to the talk page sooner (Will ultimately did, whereas the IP editor started this thread instead). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can kinda see where Will was coming from though, with things being completely reverted over and over, I can see where he thought immediate protection was necessary. I don't think complete protection was necessary though. I also can see where he should have asked another admin since he was involved to lock the page down for him. But, I don't think it was a big deal that he locked the page down himself since there was vandalism edits going on. I don't think he should do it again though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take a less strident approach with User:71.105.39.114. If they establish a user account, I'd be happy to mediate in some way, if at all helpful. No need to scare away everybody who has a rough start, is there? Two cents... Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely. Re-reading my first comment I can see that came out harsher than I intended. And even if they do not start an account, if they have legitimate points/concerns about the article content than User:71.105.39.114 is obviously just as entitled to edit as anyone else. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New editors sometimes have a rough start in Wikipedia, for various reasons. I committed a copyright vio when I first started editing as an IP, but fortunately the responding admin patiently explained the policy and let it go at that. We should handle new editors with kid gloves at first. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bigtime, the IP did take a threatening tone, so your chastisement was timely. Cla86, I'm glad I had some interested people helping me at first. The best way to describe WP sometimes is morass. Although I am surprised at newly minted IP's who navigate so well into the treacherous waters of the various administrator notice boards! Let's try to get our -presumably- young IP friend to calm down a bit. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How is this an administrator issue anymore? Can we just resolve this and just let this happen in the appropriate venues, where it appears to be going anyways? --Jayron32 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I only started editing this page the other day, so I'm not familiar with the full history that the IP user is talking about. I protected the page due to the IP's use of a false edit summary, [69], and his blind reverts. The editor appears to have been edit warring over the past several months and to have ownership issues along with a chip on his shoulder about the past interactions. I've asked him on his most recent talk to discuss his edits. Except for downgrading the rating of the article, it appears he's never used the talk page. If he would discuss his edits with the other editors I'm sure this could be resolved more easily.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, too, this message in which he implies that he can't be blocked due to shifting IPs.[70]   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If the IP editor is referring to his or herself with the last diff then that's clearly no good, and the cited edit summary did seem to be misleading (although some stuff was removed). You seem to be admitting though that this was not vandalism, since you protected "due to the IP's use of a false edit summary," and as such I don't think it was appropriate for you to protect the article since you were not simply reverting a persistent vandal. I fully agree that discussion needs to happen on talk, but perhaps you can unprotect for now, and if the IP returns to revert I'm sure you can quickly find an admin to block for edit warring (you should not be the one to do it). If the IP editor starts talking on the talk page or just lets things stand as they are now then we're all good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article. Let's see what the editor does.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a charade. This editor (The one behind the IP) and his socks have approached exhausting my somewhat limited patience for silliness. While semi-protection might have been a premature tactic to combat further vandalism, such as deliberately adding false material[71], this editor (MasterUser:Michael93555 is well versed in Wikipolicy, has openly declared his desire to have me blocked [72] and cannot accept that they have been blocked for sockpuppetry) actually succeeded in having an innocent user blocked through deception (see here and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555/Archive)). This IP hopping user's intimacy and distortion of their own history as evidenced here plainly show malicious intent and a desire to manipulate everyone they come in contact with. If more evidence is needed I can provide it. Leave Will alone, he has acted within policy at every step of the way.Synchronism (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Ho is this User:Synchronism. How did this user get involved. I don’t even know them. I never talk or seen this user before. I never made a user name and I am not a block user.I think they think I'm someone else--71.105.181.222 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• This si the first I've heard of User:Michael93555, but now that I look it's quite clear that the IP user is him. The tone and word usage are very similar, as are the topics of interest. The IP is obviously familiar with Wikipedia. I think a range block may be needed.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think that that would be a good idea. But if you do the range block you would be blocking thousands of people and they wont be a able to edit. Do you think that I'm worth all of the clitoral damage. I know for a fact you all can't do a range block. But, I may be wrong. I hope you make a right choice. I don’t want to be responsible for this.--71.105.181.222 (talk)--209.44.123.5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I'll do my best to avoid any "clitoral damage".   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The preceding comments must be recorded for posterity after this discussion closes... Shereth 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • At the very least, that IP address has apparently been away from home too long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Now that is funny! I lol'd. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh, you're just being pussies about it. HalfShadow 22:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Better drive away from this one. In a Volvo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Between this and a reference farther up the page to a collection of proxies as a "honeypot", maybe a lot of editors here need to find something soft and warm for the weekend. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
                • I did just that last night, which is why I will most likely be working on penicillin-related articles for the next 7-10 days. Law _{type! snype?} 02:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• My Disclaimer

• I given good faith edits and with due care, but I accept no responsibility for the range block , either directly, indirectly, or implied. Any person or organization who is range blocked.. whatsoever, I tell them is not my fault.--71.105.181.222 (talk)--209.44.123.5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • If you guys need an uninvoled admin to institute a rangeblock, just compile a list of IPs somewhere, either as a subpage or email them to me if you want to avoid a BEANS issue. I'll set something up. And I will avoid any "clitoral damage". I'll be gentle, honey. It won't hurt a bit... --Jayron32 22:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It looks like a range block won't do because now he's using open proxies. user:209.44.123.3, user:76.208.180.222. He bragged in the past that he can't be blocked, so I guess he's putting it to the test.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's pleasing to know all proxy users seem to lack intelligence; they basically scream 'Hey stupid, I'm over here!' and then wonder how they got caught so fast. HalfShadow 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He was kind enough to leave a list of his recent IPs in this taunting message, [73], though they're fairly obvious.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I told you all that I can not be blocked. I think it’s a good idea to just to leave me alone and maybe you see that I'm not a big as a problem as you all are making me out to be. I'm a editor that wants be turned into a productive contributor, if I were "taken into hand" so to speak. That is, treated with some patience and a little kindness...--71.105.181.222 --209.44.123.1 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, enough "fun" from the anon, a range block should be immediately put in place. The user is obviously not here for anything good and with posts that start with "I told you all that I can not be blocked", there is nothing good that can come from it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think 209.44.123.1 is a seperate user from 71.105.39.114. 209.44.123.1 is located out of Laval, Quebec, Canada while 71.105.39.114 is located out of Victorville, California. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are open proxies all over the world.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it might be high time to start finding them and shutting them down. The ones this anon is using to start. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest re-semiprotecting the Ridgecrest, California article. Cardamon (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of the Verizon online ones I used.

• 71.99.102.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.127.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.123.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.135.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.98.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.95.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.83.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.92.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.83.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.82.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.81.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.82.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.82.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.89.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.122.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.81.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.122.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.121.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.85.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.126.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.94.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.132.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.80.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.81.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.134.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.140.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.88.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.128.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.122.204.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.99.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.106.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.141.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.113.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.137.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.87.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.84.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.7.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.109.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.95.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.109.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.120.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.141.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.94.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.92.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.86.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.129.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.88.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.125.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.103.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.80.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.117.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.120.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.97.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.102.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.122.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.99.111.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.122.204.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Doesn't it suck... that you guys can't block me. I have over 1,000,000 IP address all over the world. It will take 1 to 2 years to block all of them at the rate we are going here.--Chris Avery (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's not that much good coming out of Tampa, Florida anyway, is there? Not that we should believe what he says.... --Alvestrand (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he used any of those. Many haven't been used in years. I think he's just trying to get us to cause "clitoral damage".   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kookyunii needs to be reigned in

Kookyunii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user doesn't seem to be communicating and appears to be doing some damage. I spent some time cleaning out the article Konkuk University where probably 90% of the article doubling content added by this user was cut and paste copyvio..which no on else seemed to notice making it all the more difficult to remove as I couldn't just revert. There are numerous warnings piling up on their talk page. There also seem to be some communication problems.--Crossmr (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User notified about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've run across some of this user's edits, and can sympathize with Crossmr's experience... The edits are not simply wrong-- they could be easily reverted if they were-- but a mix of incorrect re-naming of subjects and article moves, combined with some good edits... In the editor's favor, after having been warned about the re-namings, this seems to have stopped. Dekkappai (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Even after my warning about copyvio he got another one about category work. now I don't usually do much with categories so I'm not sure what he's doing, but I noticed he made several category edits a couple hours after being warned again, I'm not sure if those were bad or good but from his edit summaries, they seemed related to what he was being warned about.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And we're getting ownership messages like this: [74].--Crossmr (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant only the odd re-naming (the only issue I had with the editor) seemed to have stopped after his warnings. Yes, that reversion and edit summary do look troubling also... Dekkappai (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at WP:BLP/N re Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Resolved

 – indef WP:NLT Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a spate of contentious editing at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and it seems to have spilled over into what might be deemed an impermissible legal threat at WP:BLP/N[75]. Maybe an admin should have a look?--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Block away. Clear legal threat. MuZemike 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow... um, that threat was awesomely misguided! Resolute 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this constitutes edit warring or a civility issue or something else...

Please forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong place; I'm not really sure what category it belongs in.

User:Gorillasapiens has been reverting legitimate, good-faith edits to Same-sex marriage in Maine. He admits on another user's talk page that English is not his first language; this is evident in the wording of some of his edits, some of which are overly verbose and confusing. I have tried to improve these sentences by making them more easily understood and concise, but he has reverted my edits and seems to think that I'm trying to change the meaning of what he wrote. Additionally, he has been adding material to this article from other articles (Same-sex marriage in New England and various same-sex marriage articles from other states); User:Knowledgekid87 removed this material because there was no need to duplicate it, but Gorrilasapiens added it back, and also reverted Knowledgekid87's legitimate edits without any explanation.

Anyway, if this is not the place to discuss this, please let me know (and please accept my apologies). Thanks. —BMRR (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like a potential combination of a few different things, so this would be an appropiate place to put it. Now, let's get some diffs so it can be easier to assess the situation.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples. External links that I added, with clear/concise/easily understood descriptions -- and Gorillasapiens' changes, which were unnecessarily wordy -- Those changes were reverted by another user who thought simpler was better -- but Gorillasapiens changed it back -- so I tried to come up with a compromise -- but Gorillasapiens didn't like that either. Then he made this edit in which he added duplicate information from another article and changed wording so that it seemed like a future date had already taken place -- I changed the part about the future date because his wording didn't make sense -- but he changed it back. So I changed it again because his way was confusing and inaccurate, but he changed it again with no explanation of why. Then he reverted Knowledgekid87's legitimate, good-faith edits here, here, and here -- without explanation. —BMRR (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This section of the user's talk page seems relevant to this discussion.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This user has been edit warring at United States Senate as well. —BMRR (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How does a member of the United States Senate find the time to be edit warring on Wikipedia? Is it his day off?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The US Senate takes off every weekend (and they basically get a month off after next week). -- Atama^chat 00:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone well it appears as if my edits were reverted, I went ahead and redid some of what I had done as the user User:Gorillasapiens was putting things not related to the article and alot of Could's in place. Only things that were reveryed was talk about Same Sex marriage in New England in the Same sex marriage in Maine topic (Made a see also: link insted of putting the info in the article) and this one possible POV statement about what could happen if such and such happens.Knowledgekid87 (talk)20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Review of my block

An editor has called into question my impartiality in blocking him. Any review of my actions would be appreciated. The blocked editor is Juniorxin (talk · contribs) who also edits under IP 76.73.154.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have blocked him several times for inserting material under copyright into Beluga (sturgeon), as well as the disruptive editing. Juniorxin was concerned that his block was improper since the editor who first detected the issues and came to me was a real life friend of mine and fellow marine mammal scientist. I looked back and didn't see anything shady in my actions but I would welcome further scrutiny. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive, incivil SPA. The mistake was that the block was so brief. --B (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a compromise possible to include a mention of the Beluga caviar meal between U.S. and Russian presidents? It seems interesting to me, although I admit I'm partial to that sort of trivia that provides illustrative examples of how a subject is significant to society, involved in a traditional cuisine and made part of social practice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature 2

See also:User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature (Incident Archive)

The roll back feature needs to be handled with care according to the policy. But it seems that User Aditya Kabir keep ignoring roll back policy by misusing this feature intentionally. His recent reverting action on this page ([76]) is indicating the violation of this policy. I left a message about this revert in article talk page ([77]), but he seemed ignore it. The user has again misused this feature by reverting this edit and made false accusation on user:Wbrz for vandalism and disruptive edit. Which is pretty much bad faith and personal attack. That edit made by user:Wbrz was not vandalism. According to Wikipedia:Rollback feature RBK should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism. But this is not happening here. --NAHID 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That first edit is distinctly dodgy. The editor had undid something the admin did, with the admin apparently in error, and an edit summary left to show where the error was. The admin used rollback to revert without edit summary. Prima facie, it doesn't look good.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have omitted to warn the editor about this AN/I. I have now done so.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:Aditya Kabir is not admin.--NAHID 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we discussing the difference between this version and this version of the article Greater India? Yep, there was rollback involved, which obviously is a faster way to fix articles. Was there any wrong doing involved? And, why exactly is this person who is following me around, at times with some zeal (like here, here, and here... though it's kind of continuing process), trying to make an issue out of an edit summary auto-generated by twinkle? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And, I propose that you guys strip me off my rollback status and block me for a significant amount of time, and also post hideous threats to my talk page. Do something, anything. I really need to get this borderline troll off my back. There is much more to do on Wikipedia than suffering from a vengeful stalker. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Aditya, I thought you agreed back here in May 2008 that you would use rollbackonly for “explicit vandalism/improper humor/edit test and suchlike. For the rest we have Twinkle, and even more appropriately, a simple undo.” Now you say you use rollback because it “is a faster way to fix articles.” —teb728 t c 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, dear. I am not saying that. If my suspicion of deliberate disruption was wrong. It was wrong. I never hoped to play god. You are most welcome to the lynching party. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

This user 96.50.99.29 (talk) keeps trying to engage me in an edit war in the article Surviving the Game and calling my edits vandalizm. I have already warned this person before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surviving_the_Game Dumaka (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're edit warring as well. I would note also that you do not own that article - Wikipedia articles are collaborative works, and refusing to let others work on them is considered highly disruptive. Comments like "This article is not to be touched." and "Stop touching my article!" are not acceptable. Work things out on the talk page with the IP editor. I don't see any need for administrative action at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

However, edit warring is a blockable action.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the edit warring is not currently underway, and nobody's broken 3RR. I've cleaned up the article some, but that's all that needs doing right now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

" This article appears to consist almost entirely of a plot summary. " -- so what is done, typically, to correct this? I mean other than nothing at all. JBsupreme (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

the best thing to do is to add real world information about the production and reception, including references to reviews of the workDGG (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Additionally, the plot summary can be pared down to a few paragraphs. The overarching basic storyline is fine, but a scene-by-scene recap of the entire movie is probably excessive. --Jayron32 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ladgy

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

User has been making frivolous and vexatious reports to WP:AIV, including Kww (talk · contribs), Charmed36 (talk · contribs), and TheWoogie (talk · contribs) with no warnings given whatsoever. I strongly suspect that this user is making such reports in retaliation to either reverts on watched articles or for talk page messages received. Can someone help out here, please? MuZemike 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If just trying to make them stop reveting the article for their is no need to and im not trying to block myself and it was not if grude or furiosity kk. And the solutuion that came to pass was 24 hr block and pg protcect thats all just to make them stop.Ladgy (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladgy has been edit-warring over a redirect on Broken-Hearted Girl for some time. It's one of those "rumored but unconfirmed" single articles that fails WP:NSONGS by a wide margin. There isn't any particular reason to even have the redirect, and, since Ladgy won't leave the redirect alone, I've taken it to AFD. At the very least, we'll get a consensus about what to do with it there.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladgy, AIV is not the purpose for that. AIV, quoting the page, is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. Settling content disputes or revert-warring are not the purposes of that page. You are supposed to engage in dispute resolution, which starts at the articles' talk pages involved, and then you work from there if said dispute is not resolved. While I'm at it, don't continue to forum-shop at other places if you don't get your way, such as requests for page protection (see [78]), let alone cite "vandalism" as a reason for protection when it clearly is not. Nobody owns articles here; we discuss actions taken – not write them off as vandalism. Now that the article has been nominated for deletion, I suggest you start discussing there. MuZemike 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation on the run. — Σxplicit 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar IP edits at Katy Perry related articles

This has been going on for months, and I've come to find a resolution to end it. These IP addresses all seem to begin with 201.209 (one is registered to CANTV Servicios Venezuela). They generally edit KP related articles, rarely doing helpful edits, but always leaving things to clean up and leaving many minor edits in a row (see Katy Perry discog history). Known relevant IPs: 201.209.224.71, 201.209.230.203, 201.209.250.7, and a brand new one 201.209.234.83. They seem to work progressively, one taking over after the other has had complaints on its talk page (with no reply), which along with the similarity between edits, makes me think it is the same person. As you can see I have left quite clear messages on a couple of the talk pages, of the IPs which were used for the most amount of time (as well as at the KP discog talk page). If you read those comments you will see a fair outline of the problems with their edits, blatently changing sourced material, removing vital parts of the tables, removing sourced and notable charts without requested discussion, removing sourced releases, altering table codes, etc. The IPs are also active on other articles mainly related to KP and altering charts, etc. There is never reply to talk page comment or edit summaries, so I don't know how to get the message across. Thought about taking this to RPP but am not really sure this could be considered recent vandalism or whatever. And I am also not sure what an Admin can do about this, especially if they keep popping up under different IPs. So what is the best course of action? Any help would be appreciated, I'm sick of coming to WP every day and having to revert the same old crap! At least I know what to expect though, hey? heh. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's much to do but revert. I've chased down this particular rat-hole before, and I'm convinced that it's one editor. It would be possible to semi-protect all Katy Perry albums, and it might have come to that. My advice is to simply follow up the warning steps, treating each edit as vandalism, and report to AIV when you hit final. He's not very smart, and doesn't know how to reset his modem, so the blocks slow him down a bit, and I've managed to get it up to a week that way. I've also had good luck with getting response at RFPP with a detailed report showing how it's a hopping IP with similar garbage edits time after time. CanTV is a major ISP in Caracas, so I don't think a range block is viable.—Kww(talk) 03:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can an editor re-direct his userpage and talk page to a Wikipedia article/talk page

User:Ray from texas has set up a re-direct away from his userpage pointing to a Thin Lizzy album. He also re-directed his talk page to go to the talk page of the album article as well. Seems to be "not quite right" to me. GripTheHusk (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the user authored that article in their user space and then moved it, with the redirects as an unintentional side effect. I've removed the talk page redirect, at least; other editors need to be able to contact that user without confusion. I haven't altered the userpage redirect, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Drag-5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked again for 3RR. Further reports should be made pursuant to the dispute resolution process. ANI is for serious matters that need immediate attention. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing this in a new section because the old one is just a back and forth between a handful of users and this needs more serious input that is not disrupted by the subject, necessarily. For the tl;dr crowd, skip down to the Cliffs notes.

Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He had previously move warred over the location of Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), moving it to an alternate title four times until the page was protected from being moved again. During that time, he made these incivil and disruptive comments [79] [80]. Following a discussion where it was shown he had no consensus, he began a requested move discussion on the talk page. This is resulting in him still having no consensus for his request.

Tonight is when the actual violation of WP:POINT began. He began a requested move discussion for the article Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in the past had been moved from Ninpuu Sentai Hurricanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when several articles were renamed to match official romanizations from the parent company. This is a violation of WP:POINT because "Hurricanger" was for the longest time the title used by the Latin alphabet-using online communities, so he is making a point by stating that one page has an official title as its name and the other one has one that he deems is not official because of the existence of an English translation (despite various users on the talk page bringing up evidence proving him wrong). He is also following his actions on a different website concerning the spelling of this particular item, but that does not necessarily have to be brought up in detail in this discussion unless anyone wants any specifics.

The Cliffs Notes

Drag-5 is violating WP:POINT by pointing out the disparities of the use of the more common romanized title (but not official English title) on one page and the official romanized title (but not the more common unofficial title) on another by requesting page moves. This coupled with his inability to work with other users constructively, civilly, and calmly ([81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]) should be more than enough for a block of some sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ryulong seems to be constantly attacking me and removing my comments and using foul methods to block what is an innocent following of wikipedia procedures.

ryulong seems to show a personal bias towards me characterised by repeated references to thing that exist in my personal life. he does not concentrate on the articles and the discussion of editing rather he makes comments towards myself.

I am feeling a very strong harrassment by this user and this is proof of it.

I have requested the moves on illustrated pages for sound logical reasons according to wikipedia guidelines and have produced evidence to back up my cases. I have made no comments that remotely support any theory that i may be trying to prove some point. my actions are focused on making wikipedia a more full and complete information source as they should be.

I was quite bold with my original mmove of said page. this is according to wikipedia policy. we are meant to be bold. when ryulong reverted my edit i perhaps should have not reverted it straight away, I cannot change what i did at that time, but since those reverted edits i have acted according to wikipedia policies completely. ryulong, however, seems to continually attack me and use personal information to try and block my discussions and he even has removed some of my comments on hte discussion page without my permission. Drag-5 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting way out of hand. He and I have been edit warring over the inclusion of the move request at Talk:Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger, because we both claim that we are violating different policies. He is accusing me of violating WP:TPNO and I still feel the request is a violation of WP:POINT. I would like something definitive to happen and I don't care if we both get blocked for edit warring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the both of you have managed to make bogeymen out of each other and you are both taking it far too seriously. Also, in my experience, the common names rule usually trumps the official name. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but google is confusing, as there are more results for the official name than there are for what he is claiming is the more common name. So it seems that the more common name is the one where the page is currently located.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the lead of CliffsNotes to be enlightening. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. I always thought they were "Cliff's Notes".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shazam! I had thought it was "CliffNotes" until just now. I expect they are called CliffNotes because that's a little easier to say than CliffsNotes. However, I never read Cliff(s)Notes in school. I tended to read the condensed versions, by John Moschita. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the specific nature of the personal attacks from Drag-5 likely say a lot more about Drag-5 than they do about anyone else. "TMI!" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The disruption on his part (edit war aside) is obvious, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong reported for 3RR

Just to let everyone know, Ryulong's been reported for 3RR violation here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

By a user who I'm a dispute with several hours after the edit war had ended after I compromised and allowed the move request to go on because Drag-5 was most certainly not going to give up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How to solve it?

I suggest an RfC over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu that would include all the recent naming disputes in that set of articles. An admin could be asked to close the RfC, with the expectation that blocks or move protection could be used to see that the verdict is followed, whatever it may be. After this RfC there could be a moratorium on new move proposals for any of the Tokusatsu articles for a period of time. I urge both parties to stop move warring, Ryulong to stop edit warring and Drag-5 to lay off the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. this would be the best course of action. I laid off the personal attacks almost immediately so i can assure you that is no longer an issue. I would be very happy for an admin to see over this. also I would be very happy to get some unbiased editors who know wikipedia policies and guidelines well.Drag-5 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already a consensus on both talk pages that the articles are fine as to where they are. There do not need to be any moves of any articles anywhere, mostly because any subsequent requests by Drag-5 would indeed be intentions to make a point, although not necessarily disruptive. There is already no consensus to set a precedent and rename everything in Category:Kamen Rider, which was Drag-5's initial intentions. The subsequent request at Talk:Hurricaneger was a reaction due to the results of one requested move and a mutual knowledge of his activities on another website (which I reference here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus on either page yet. consensus at the most basic level is an agreement. ther eis still no agreement oon either of these pages.Wikipedia:ConsensusDrag-5 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a supermajority/consensus not to move at Talk:Kamen Rider Decade. A consensus for what you don't want is still a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that a RfC would be good. Powergate92Talk 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Ryulong, Drag-5 and Powergate92 would have to agree to ask an uninvolved administrator to study all these discussions and see if there is consensus on the article names. (You'd all be prepared to accept the answer, whatever it was). If the admin thinks there was not enough discussion to resolve this, a further RfC or further move discussions would need to be set up. If so you'd all agree to support that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 is really an uninvolved party who just gets himself involved in everything. I brought the discussion here because I was waiting for someone to do something regarding Drag-5's WP:POINT violations, as I saw them. There is currently a supermajority against the move on one page, and I feel that the move on the other page is the WP:POINT issue as I state higher up at The Cliffs Notes (also there's very little input from other individuals on the second request).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to have read Wikipedia:Consensus as it states quite clearly, concensus is not in numbers. EdJohnston, I support an admin checking over the discussions. Drag-5 (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is against you. And if an uninvolved administrator has to look at the discussions, that is what their placments at WP:RM should be for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support an admin checking over the discussions. Powergate92Talk 03:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, Do you agree to abiding by an admins decision in this matter? Drag-5 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What decision will be made? There's a general agreement that you are wrong on one page and no discussion on another. An admin does not have to decide anything like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The decision will be if there is consensus for move or if there is consensus for no moveDrag-5 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Renewed disruption

So, Jafeluv (talk · contribs), an entirely uninvolved user, came by and closed the discussion as "no move". Drag-5 did not think this was right because of how he interprets WP:Consensus. I undid the edit, and began this thread on his talk page. He undid me again (currently the next edit is a comment by someone else in a different thread on the page). This is extremely disruptive behavior, especially with this renewed thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

i used the dictionary definition of consensus. also the wikipedia page says that consensus was not in numbers. we were not agreeing so there was no consensus. Drag-5 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Drag-5 continues to undo other's closes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Take 2 where he clearly exhibits his lack of knowledge as to how WP:Consensus works: [88] [89].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

personal attacks and libelous statements

Resolved

 – for now at least - complaining editor blocked for EW, no personal attacks found Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been subjected to numerous personal attacks and libelous statements on this page Talk:Ninpuu_Sentai_Hurricaneger I hope there is something that can be done as i am concerned about defemation of character. Drag-5 (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No such thing has happened. You clearly state (on another website) "hurricaneger ends in neger, which to me is offensive..." What has been said on that talk page is not a personal attack nor is it libelous. Stop trying to disrupt the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

it is libelous. it is labelled as a racist comment which Is completely untrue and is deffamation of character. and ryulong, please stop saying "Stop trying to disrupt the project." I am not disrupting anything, this is getting more than a little annoying. I am trying to improve wikipedia. Drag-5 (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Don't toss phrases like "defamation of character" or "libelous" around with abandon. they are terms of art which might be interpreted as a legal threat. I trust that you aren't trying to make a legal threat, but just be careful. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not tossing those terms about with abandon. I take this very seriously. The things that have been written about me on that page are indeed libelous. I want something to be done about it. Drag-5 (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok. Then I'll be serious. If you think that someone has libeled you on wikipedia, then stop discussion about it here and seek legal counsel. If you keep using the word 'libelous' in the fashion you are using it, you will be blocked for making legal threats. Protonk (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand, then i will stop using these words for the time being. I do not wish to exacerbate the situation, I do however wish for some action to be taken to prevent this kind of behaviour towards me. Drag-5 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I'm sure you are upset and want this to stop, I just want to allow us to discuss this productively. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the talk page and see no personal attacks or otherwise directed towards Drag-5. If you feel that there are specific comments I missed, a diff or two would help. TNXMan 13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for violating the three-revert rule at Talk:Kamen Rider Decade. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN

Resolved

 – Blocked for EW Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from a one week block he earned by edit warring and uploading a picture of Obama's birth certificate and spamming it in unnecessary articles as described on the noticeboard report Hopefully his block was meant to help him rethink his editing approach that had earned him five blocks in five weeks. Though he has not committed any policy violations, his initial edits since his return unfortunately do not look very promising. His first action was to delete all comments on his talk page, referring to the discussions there as "garbage" in his edit summary [90]. He can do whatever he wants with his talk page, but deleting comments is generally not best practice. He then proceeds to suggest a "compromise" regarding the use of a reference that all the regular editors to the article E1b1b agree is now obsolete. Before receiving feedback about his "compromise" he proceeds to implement it, and is even edit warring over his "compromise".[91], [92]. On the article Genetic history of Europe, he reverts without a single discussion on the talk page [93]. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this editor was engaging in a deliberate edit war on Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) when his edit summary for the revert reads "Read talk page I know Muntuwandi will revert this edit without concensus." Blocked 1 month for edit warring upon release of previous block for edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd user socking as IP, WP:SPI backlog

Resolved

 – Brzzap. Thanks, Tnxman307. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:SPI report here, requesting a rangeblock, but it seems that there's a backlog at SPI at the moment. In the interim could I request an IP block for this IP sock? It's targets are mostly talk pages, so protection won't help.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Brzzap. TNXMan 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw, man, just when it was getting interesting. I was going to take bets on when or if he would figure out how Jimbo's name is spelled. Oh, well, that's show biz. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this edit is very all your base. TNXMan 14:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's right, I am veritably dripping with envy. Or with something, anyway. The A/C is busted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock needs a drawer to put him in...

• The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm about ready to block him as an obvious disruptive sock of SOMEBODY, but it would be nice to have a drawer to place him in. Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already contacted Versageek and Dominic to help out because he was all up in my grille.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I caught that. I'm just looking for the go ahead to just block him as an obvious disruptive sock. I don't have someone to place him with, which would be helpful, but I'm not sure that is necessary here. Just asking for confirmations on my hunch. --Jayron32 03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dominic gave me the following other accounts:

• The_Great_20th_Century_Kettle_Boiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spiritual_Collector_Of_The_Moonlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Right_Angle_Fish_90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We can't find a sockmaster :/—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More names:

• Powerline And Knife Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IslamForEver1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BlackDemon666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OMGOMG2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Powerline And Knife Guy" suggests the MascotGuy or MascotGuy copycat, but as Dominic told me, "Oh, looking a bit farther back on this range, I see there are dozens of blocked accounts. It's a banned user of some sort."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was recently in a discussion with this user on my talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think we should block the lot. Is Dominic compiling a list of these somewhere? When I do block these, I'm going to credit him as the checkuser who confirms the abuse. Actually, it would be very helpful also if he could block the underlying IP/range as well. It would be helpful if he would comment here directly as well. Dominic? You out there? --Jayron32 04:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He's doing something somewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we all. Actually, I gotta get some sleep. I have a long drive tomorrow, and will be away from Wikipedia for a few days. Could another admin possibly pick this up and block these accounts? I really havta split, and do not have the time to follow through on this... Sorry! --Jayron32 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this user is a sockpuppet of either TAway (talk · contribs), DougsTech (talk · contribs) or Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk · contribs). Remember them? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be. I just blocked and tagged them as User:IslamForEver1 socks. Should we discover the main account, IslamForEver1 can be linked to them. Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser filed

I have filed a checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet to see if the user is a sockpuppet of either TAway (talk · contribs), DougsTech (talk · contribs) or Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk · contribs). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked Dominic and he's told me there's no crossover. All three users are not even on the same continent as the rest of the group.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, they're not related? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not unless they moved across oceans.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be using open proxies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would someone use open proxies in the same nation on the same ISP repeatedly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue, but it was just an idea (probably not a good one) that popped in my head when I read this. I have seen other socks/vandals jump across the globe on open proxies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think my suspicions are correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have no idea, I was just interjecting an idea. No more, no less :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Now what?

Now, where do we go from here? Are the checkusers still investigating? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Mrgreen520, creation of bogus/deceptive pages; indiscriminate and narrowly focused

The user Mrgreen520 (talk · contribs) has a history of creating bogus pages for record companies such as Sony BMG discography, Universal Motown Republic Group discography and Koch Entertainment discography. The user also created the Atlantic Records discography page successfully deleted by a nom. filed by user TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). The main problem with these lists is that they couldn't possibly be discriminate. The content gathered by the user on these pages is also bogus and deceptive because the listings appear to have no connection to the said companies, in fact, other unrelated companies and labels are indicated in brackets. I have begun by nominating what I believe is the worst culprit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony BMG discography. As user TenPoundHammer argues in the nom., these pages are "narrow, clumsy, rap-centric list that was maybe 5% complete and would've been browser-crashingly long if finished." Imperatore (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you need any administrative intervention here. If you're requesting assistance with something, could you please be more specific? lifebaka++ 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Imperatore and I are stuck as to what to do with this editor. It's not really vandalism per se, but his edits are very troubling and need a few more eyes on them. I've prodded the other two lists. What should be done with this editor, since none of his edits are useful? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If there areonly these few articles, and they are as bad as you say, we will soon be rid of them by deletion. We can deal with new ones in a similar way, DGG (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. But eventually, the source of the issue needs to be addressed. Tan | 39 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would've just emptied out 90% of the page, since that's close to the proportion that is completely bogus (listings that have no association to the purported companies). I would imagine then that I'd end up being accused of vandalism and my edits would be reversed by bots. Definitely we need to address the root of the issue. Imperatore (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Per DGG, if the articles are recreated after deletion there is some evidence that the editor is disruptive and can be dealt with in the standard manner (block, sock, drama, etc.). Another way would be to suggest moving them to titles such as "Atlantic Records Hip Hop/Gangsta Rap Discography". I note that the editor uses two formats; those by year only would perhaps be allowable under a more defined article header, those which are listed by artist really only duplicate the individuals article listing and can be dispensed with. How about discussing this with the editor? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair proposal if the actual listings weren't bogus. The listings themselves have in brackets labels which suggest a completely different label under another unrelated parent company. I don't even see how this is in good faith to be honest. Imperatore (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then nuke the articles and warn the editor against recreating - or creating similar articles with the same problems - and take them to AIV if it continues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure of a thread

Resolved

 – (Done and done.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved administrator or uninvolved experienced editor who has not yet commented please close the thread Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Circumcision with a resolution or summary, as I had suggested here. Thank you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We've got POV-pushing mohels now? Gevalt! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We've also got AN/I's main character A.K.A Baseball Bugs in this thread.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Baseball Bugs has been so active on this page that we should really rename AN/I "The Baseball Bugs And User Incidents Show"--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We can just create a new page, BN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We could just redirect this page to Bugs' talkpage ... or vice versa (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I closed it after seeing Coppertwig's note here and recommended that it be sent to COI/N archive 35 as soon as possible. — Athaenara ✉ 09:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Death threats by User:86.150.30.99, et al.

Resolved

 – User talk page semi'd indefinitely, various IP's blocked.

See this diff: [94]. I have blocked the IP for one day. Not sure exactly what else should be done about it, but I figured posting it here was a good start. --Chris (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a recurring event on the editor's page, from various IP's. The page was semi'd for awhile but the editor asked for it to be lifted. I suspect there's some sort of playing around going on there, but it's hard to tell, since the targeted editor is only editing sporadically anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

81.158.102.90 now blocked as well for block evasion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I just turned in 86.148.185.51 for the same thing. Should the page be semi'd again? Or, since the editor doesn't seem to care, should we care? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Would an admin please semi protect the user's page because it is unacceptable for a user to receive the nonsense posted there, and they might feel like they are giving in by asking an admin to do it. Why not protect it and leave a note that if the user would like it removed, please ask. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted a formal semi-protection request. Actually, it was semi'd before, and the user asked for it to be unprotected to see what would happen. The editor has not edited since July 22. I just don't think wikipedia should tolerate threats of violence, even if the specific user doesn't seem to care. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda late to the party, but I was the person who lifted the protection, per the user's request. FWIW, I agree with reinstating it - this is just ridiculous. TNXMan 13:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The admin only protected it for a week, and I've asked him to make it permanent, since the original threats go back at least 2 months. There's something weird going on with this account. It was created 3 1/2 years ago and only saw half a dozen edits in 2006 and 2007 before popping up again a few months ago. The user himself was indef'd and then unblocked, but has done no editing (at least under that name) since July 22. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The very moment it is unprotected I'll be back. He he! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.34.132 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently that's set for the 12th of Never. Be sure to check back, on or after that date. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll find a way around it. Most probably creating an account, making ten edits, and then leaving the message. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH 81.130.89.224 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the above back here, for documentation purposes. Blocked for 3 months. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody please block that IP, it's still editing after the fact. MuZemike 00:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Token block issued. It's a shared IP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tenant23

Resolved

 – A simple mistake, no admin assistance needed. JamieS93 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please counsel Tenant23 (talk · contribs) about what is vandalism and assuming someone is here to help. I had fixed some wording when they came along and reverted it without explanation, and quite rudely gave me a warning for vandalism. (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my bad, when I first read it I thought it was vandalism I'm sorry. I thought you were a vandal and I was wrong, apologies. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Tenant23 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate AfD closure on WP:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts‎

Resolved

 – Duplicates deletion review. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts‎ was closed after being discussed for around 3 days. There was no chance of it being snowable, so it wasn't a legitimate closure of the discussion. Now users are edit warring over its closure. Could somebody please step in? I am somewhat involved as I placed my opinion on the AfD. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's about zero chance that we're not going to have an article on this eventually ... but the AFD shouldn't have been closed. --B (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Whack!!! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother. I guess there's a deletion review going on. I didn't know until I went looking at the talk page of the closing admin. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The better question is the peculiarly schizoid defense of this stuff by wikipedia lawyers, given the general paranoia about images here. You can steal these images from this art gallery is OK even though it might harm that gallery's income, but you can't "excessively" display team logos even though such display can only benefit those teams? Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference. Wikipedia's mission is to promote free (public domain, creative commons, gfdl, etc) media. These images, Wikipedia argues, are public domain and claiming copyright doesn't change that. We do not honor false claims of copyright. For example, plenty of state or college digital libraries claim copyright on images that are obviously PD by age. We ignore their claims and upload them to our heart's content. Personally, I think Wikipedia is wrong in this particular case - even though under US law, these images would be PD, as a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, we are obligated to honor UK copyrights. But if Wikipedia prevails in court, then we aren't "stealing" any more than it is "stealing" to make a photocopy of a book by Mark Twain. --B (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I argued the last time this subject came up that the gallery did this to themselves by failing to prevent the public from just grabbing and downloading these things. This will be an interesting case, once it gets settled, probably sometime in Sarah Palin's second term as President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, GMaxwell makes a great point on Commons - allowing someone to lock original works of art in a vault and then claim copyright on any copies of them effectively keeps non-widely-produced works from ever falling into the public domain. If I obtain - legally or otherwise - a rare work of art or literature, under the museum's theory, I can make a copy of it, destroy the original, and now claim copyright over it. This is not a tenable copyright policy. The Copyright Clause US Constitution says that copyright must be for "limited times", meaning that there cannot be perpetual copyright in the US. Unfortunately, even though the Constitution trumps the Bern Convention, Eldred v. Ashcroft said that "effectively perpetual copyright" is not the same thing as perpetual copyright, so I doubt the court would find that the museum's locking up the originals constitutes perpetual copyright. IP laws are insanely out of whack. Drug patents are 25 years, which is why medicine is so expensive - drug companies only have 25 years to recoup millions of $ in research costs. But copyright lasts generations after everyone associated with it is long dead. Go figure. --B (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read the actual court decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, it's at Wikisource. The judge analyzed the situation under both US and UK copyright law and determined that under both sets of laws, the NPG's images are not copyrighted. Of course, the NPG disputes this, and a US court decision is not binding on UK courts, but it suggests a blueprint for future action in the UK if the NPG ever wants to take the risk. Thatcher 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite all that, wikipedia does not seem to have the ethical high ground here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you are faulting the NPG for failing to to effectively prevent the public from downloading the high-res images. They tried their best. As the Guardian reported: "The gallery is halfway through a £1m project to digitise its entire collection: over more than 60,000 images are already on its website. In March a new feature was added – giving a low-resolution version of the complete works , but allowing viewers to zoom in on sections of images in high resolution. In March, Coetzee found a way past this software, and captured 3,014 complete images in high resolution". One of the issues that gets glossed over here is the circumventing of protection for the high-res images. And the fact that the lower-res images are freely available and not "locked up" at all.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the NPG offered the entire collection in medium resolution (the same as the two high profile German photo sets on commons) and were turned down, and then someone used technical means to rip and stich high res versions. I think it's Fucking Baffling that a person taking and uploading photographs of toys they own will (eventually) get all kinds of RfC, blocks, community bans etc. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The NPG offered the images in a "Wikipedia-only" license. We do not accept content contributed under such a license and have not accepted it since 2005. And even if we were willing to accept such images, Wikipedia's contention is that they are not copyrighted anyway, so there is no incentive to voluntarily restrict ourselves to low-res use. --B (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That argument amounts to "wikilawyering". Wikipedia will delete uploaded images that do no harm, and will retain images that could do harm. It's hypocritical. Wikipedia has taken the ethical low road on this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

For anyone still following this here, I've filed one here regarding the nominator's treatment at the AfD of those who disagree with the proposal to delete the article. Wikidemon (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian

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

The user has been community banned and the issues resolved. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Peter Damian has once again started socking whilst blocked. He created Asockofcourse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to again attack FT2, despite being banned by the arbitration committee from interacting with him. Do we really need this guy in our team? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To add to this, he's started attacking FT2 on his own talk page whilst blocked [95]. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we need him on our team? Absolutely not. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, at all. iMatthew ^talk at 18:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to Peter using his talk page to violate the same ruling that led to his block I have altered the block so that he cannot edit his talk page. Regarding the sock puppets I suggest we reset and/or increase his block when he engages in sock puppetry. Chillum 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Asockofcourse (talk · contribs)

Just ensuring other eyes on this for transparency: This editor is an attack SPA, created as an obvious sock to go after FT2 (talk · contribs). See now-deleted talk page. I've blocked the editor without rights to edit the talk page (given the attack was on the talk page). After several whingey emails from this user, I've removed email privileges from the account. Whoever this is can present whatever beef they have with FT2 on a more appropriate forum from their legitimate account. 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see two sections above. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. I should have seen that. I've combined these two sections. I've removed email privs from Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too as some of the emails came from that account.. I think 5 emails complaining about unblocking the sock is enough. Toddst1 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Obviously has no intention with following the arbcom ruling, and is doing little other than cause drama. I move for a community ban, and one that will stick this time. Threatening to destroy the wiki is one thing - violating arbcom rulings, socking to violate them again and harassing/attacking contributors is another. Move for community ban, close the lid on this saga. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what type of community ban are you requesting? Brothejr (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume the type of ban where he is not allowed back. Chillum 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; a full one. He's banned, full stop - his accounts are blocked. Any socks are blocked. Any IP addresses or additional accounts linked to him after the ban passes are blocked.Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me. Using sockpuppets to attack a Wikipedian while blocked... this leaves me with very little confidence that this person will ever work with the community. Chillum 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. The editor has shown no interest in working with other editors. Time for something much stronger and permanent. Brothejr (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse a community ban as well. After the Arbitration Committee ruling, there is absolutely nowhere we can go from here. — madman bum and angel 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorse community ban. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. I don't understand why he wasn't permablocked after threatening to destroy Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Support: I don't see anyone moving to unblock him after this, so it sounds like a defacto ban to me anyhow. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He's currently only blocked for a month. He was previously indef'd but that was reduced to a month for some reason. So why is he not indef'd again? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, if there's consensus that this was the last straw I reckon he will be indefed with a link to the consensus for the block log. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. As I said in the previous thread on AN, I think that anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. I think it's interesting to note that in his unblock motion, one of the arbs noted that he had "no confidence Peter Damian will abide by any conditions of an unblock." Apparently that hasn't changed in the 8 months since then. I agree, enough is enough. Time to cut him loose. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 20:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Peter has never done anything to befriend me, and we have fought a lot. We are not on good terms or on neutral. I also asked for a block reduction previously and he went and socked. Yes, I must look incredibly stupid. However, I also believe that the length of the block pushed this inevitable fate. Peter feels like a scholar who is being ignored and he honestly wants to contribute. He also has major problems handling himself appropriately with FT2. I cannot, in clean conscience, endorse an indef block, even though it greatly pains me for him to act in this manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's called the "look what you made me do" game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban, with no chance whatsoever of it ever being lifted. We let him game us for far too long. Good riddance. → ROUX ₪ 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse permanent community ban. I'm not sure if he's conducting some kind of odd experiment, or if he's just finally snapped completely. Either way; he's behaving extremely disruptively and in blatant violation of both policy and the relevant arbcom rulings. This is all despite vast numbers of previous chances - it's really time we stopped tolerating him and moved on. The positive contributions he's made are vastly outweighed by the acres of drama he seems to intentionally create wherever he goes. ~ mazca ^talk 21:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Roux. I could not have said it better myself. →javért ^stargaze 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse any other user would have been banned already for his underhanded, destructive BS. This is just the icing on the cake. Bullzeye ^contribs 21:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse indef community ban, per Mazca. I believe Ryan said it well (above); despite second chances, nothing tells us that this guy is on our side. On top of socking around ArbCom enforcement, PD initially stated that he wanted to destroy Wikipedia. It was an off-wiki comment, yes, and he can't simply bring this site to ruins, but his actions repeatedly confirm his intentions. This should have been stamped out earlier, but now is as good as any time; continuous drama and endless disruption lends us nothing worthwhile. Seriously, it's about time to shut the lid on this problem. JamieS93 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I guess Law's indef should have been left alone. Lara 21:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Not only has he failed to meet us halfway, he's obviously not even on the same road; a wasp at the picnic. Rodhullandemu 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• I recommend Peter make his own encyclopedia worthy of his vast intellect and expertise - a place where he and his fellow experts are respected. He is clearly too good for Wikipedia and he is better off without us.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The community should not allow those who wish to destroy it to participate.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse He's wasted the community's time and patience with many points he's tried to make. Agree with the header, Enough is enough. iMatthew ^talk at 22:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Mr. Damian's behavior makes it impossible to extend him yet another chance to straighten up. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse full ban. Disruptive socking repeating the behavior that got him blocked through arbcom? C'mon. Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved administrator, I move for the ban to be enacted, the proposal seems to be snowballing and if their are no further objections, I or another administrator can put the ban into effect by blocking this user's account unless someone can find some evidence for a ban not to be put in place. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I see a clear consensus to ban this user. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I object. Let this run its course with no room for doubt. When this is done, it should be done.--Tznkai (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, I guess we should. Removing doubt would be a good benefit for the administrator who puts this future ban into effect. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Consensus at AN when I discussed the block seemed to be leaning for an indef and that was before any of the above happened. It is unlikely that anyone would agree with my statement above or oppose the ban. I am not saying this to close discussion, but more of how it looks from the perspective of the other side. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Full ban. He has been disruptive long enough. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 01:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse this should have happened a long time ago. Jeni ^(talk) 01:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Since he clearly cannot stay away from FT2. AniMate^draw 01:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. Should have been done before. Attempting (poorly) to destroy Wikipedia is, i'm afraid, not compatible with Wikipedia's purpose. Firestorm ^Talk 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus here is clear and I have enacted this ban. I don't think this is cutting anything short. Discussion can continue and in the unlikely event that consensus changes then we can act on that. Chillum 01:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't it seem like "consensus" should take more than 6 hours to develop? It would be very wise, in my opinion, if this discussion was allowed to continue without pre-emptive enaction. It should be obvious to everyone that not dotting the i's and crossing the t's in a situation like this is a recipe for wicked drama. Nathan ^T 01:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is allowed to continue. Chillum 01:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong objection. He doesn't seem to be completely editing in bad faith. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 01:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that he was already banned, and was allowed back with the simple proviso that he avoid heckling or harassing one person. Aside from his recent actions, he's said himself that he now considers the agreement that led to his unbanning null and void. After a one-month block failed to turn him away from self-destruction, he's created a sockpuppet to continue targeting that same user. A number of people, myself included, have suggested more appropriate forums and methods, if he feels there is any legitimate grievance to be aired, but still Peter persists in pursuing this by the most disruptive routes possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question I find it highly unlikely community consensus will change here, but Peter's block settings currently do not allow for talk page editing or email. I understand he's been abusing the features, but perhaps allowing him a chance to appeal the block is in order. If not, then explicit instructions on how to appeal the block through other channels should be left on his talk page (and yes, I realize he likely already knows exactly how to do this, but still...) AniMate^draw 02:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have told Peter the e-mail address he can use to appeal this ban. Chillum 02:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs?

I ask for some diffs, please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The diffs are available in the above thread - see also this ANI thread for the previous violation and this enforcement request. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kosova2008

User:Kosova2008 made personal attacks on myself:

"You are nobody, therefore don't try to act all ape shit. Frankly we're all getting sick of your povness and edits. If you wanna troll these parts of WP then I can play tit for tat. Buh Bye little boy. :)" diff

He has done so after reverting an edit I made, according to the discussion on the talk page and Wikipedia consensus, on the Kosovo article diff. Please take some action. Thanks, --Cinéma C 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. If behavior persists, please report them to AIV. TNXMan 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Academic Challenger blocked him for 24 hr, but I'll leave this not-marked-resolved yet because I suspect we'll be indef'ing him in 24+epsilon hours per [96] DMacks (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please delete a revision for me.

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

Resolved

 – Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

On this page [97] , my IP address is shown in the revision history because I accidentally forgot to log in before editing something and signing it.

For security reasons, I'd like to keep my IP anonymous. Could somebody please delete the revision history containing my IP address? Thanks. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not want to reveal your IP address, but why do you come here to inform it in detail to the public place? Unless you say it, we could never know. I'm not sure Oversighter would delete the revision that has nothing to do with primacy concerns or inappropriate BLP.--Caspian blue 03:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall exactly when this was changed, but Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy now states (in part): "This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses." That used to be handled quite differently, as Caspian alludes to. There is a bit of wiggle room, as not all cases of that sort are clear-cut. I'm not entirely sure about the practice, personally, but my understanding of current policy and practice suggests it's the thing to do.  Done – Luna Santin (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight can be a little more discrete (this might have been a minute or two faster, for me, but also attracts more attention). Just for future reference. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been oversighted for you. In the future, I suggest you simply contact oversight directly, to avoid bringing attention to it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we delete the thread since it is resolved.--Caspian blue 04:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, oversighting accidentally revealed IPs has been a relatively common use of the tool for a long time (although not all oversighters do it, or agree with it, and much of its past occurrence has been to help admins and long time users who were aware that it could be done for that reason). Nathan ^T 04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Advertising a mistake like this shows roughly the same level of judgment as how the editor got into this spot in the first place. If he had said nothing, it's unlikely anyone would have noticed. If you start wikipedia on your watch list, there is no chance of starting it in a "logged out" condition, since it will tell you you're logged out and won't show you your watch list! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My suggestion is to change the edit box background colour, mine is a peach colour and it is very obvious if editting while not logged in!. In your own monobook.css put something like:

    textarea {
        width: 100%;
	padding: .1em;
        background: #fff0d1;
    }

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 2009-08-03T10:03:41 (UTC)

Movie/anime vandal has struck again...

It seems that the vandal guy operating from Indonesia has been going around vandalizing various articles by inserting various misinformation for several months with vandalizing articles related to the following: MGM (and related articles), TMS Entertainment, CBS Television Distribution, Sony Pictures Television, related Disney articles, articles related to the Digimon franchise, etc.

Below are the IP address that the guy has vandalized from for the past 30 days alone (there may be more that I don't know of). The latest two in this list (shown in bold) did so in the last three days, were caught in action, and subsequently blocked:

• 125.165.94.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.20.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.148.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.158.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.180.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.49.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.48.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.48.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I don't think any action was done against this vandal the first time I posted this list. Now that he has struck again, what can be done now in the long term against this user? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This kinda sounds like MascotGuy, has a Checkuser confirmed/denied this? --Mr. Lefty (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's MascotGuy. The IPs are in Indonesia, and I know some users have already known of his modus operandi and have dealt with this vandal for about the past year and a half. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious first step would be to ask a checkuser about the efficacy of a potential rangeblock and how much collateral damage such a rangeblock would cause. I'm not sure how many IP addresses would have to be blocked here. Enigma^msg 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this vandal never had a username. He just uses the anonymous IPs. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientology edits

Resolved

 – indefinite block Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed on the situation with this, and these edits may be 'ok' technically, but there are two new editors, DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) and Scientologist Perspective (talk · contribs) busy turning Ron Hubbard into a philospher and apparently working together, see [98]. Whether this needs action or not I don't know, and I apologise if I'm wasting people's time or being unfair to newbies. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The latter was blocked under username policy, and I've left a comment here on the former name if anyone is interested. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

off topic musing

There is often a fine line between a philosopher and a salesman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC) They both try to sell you something, but one doesn't throw in a free kitchen knife set. HalfShadow 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Are you sure? Didn't Confucius say, "And if you buy my all-time best-selling book, Confucius Sez, you'll get Confucius: Sez Who? for half price! And as a free bonus, we'll throw in this personally-autographed set of electric chopsticks! Not available in stores! Limited time only! Call now! Operators are waiting!" To fill out this scenario, try to picture the distinguished-looking Confucius talking with the appropriate Asian accent, and delivered in the same manner as Billy Mays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Billy has been about as quiet as Confucius these days ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two appear to be the same editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's called a 'sense of humor'. Say it with me: Sennnnz uvvvv hee-yuuuuu-merrrrrrr. And now we've learned something. Isn't that special?HalfShadow 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) for WP:TE and calling two different admins trolls. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm filing an SPI report for good measure. I was skeptical about doing this at first, given the quacking. But this unblock request makes it pretty obvious those two accounts are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When they help us out by admitting it, standard procedure is to reduce the indef block by a day. Maybe even two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The unblock requests are clearly not serious, hopefully we will find out who this is. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, after [99] and [100], Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scientologist Perspective has been merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. – Luna Santin (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

IIPM

Hi. i am editing a page on wikipedia called IIPM. i have a dispute with an editor about the factuality of the article and its relevance. as much as i have read up, whenever there is a dispute, one should try and resolve the dipute on teh talk pages and then if nothing is done, try the dispute resolution forum.

therefore i put up a 'third party' tag on the page and also a tag that said the factuality of the article was disputed. i find that some editors [101] [102] [103] are continiously removing the tag saying that i cannot put the tag. i do not understand why are they doing this. if they are right, please tell me and i'll not put the 'disputed' note tag and the 'third party' tag. if i can, please advise them to be supporting in resolving the disputed facts. thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think their main point is that you haven't made it clear what exactly it is that you are disputing. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an editor of the article, I see conflict of interest here. The article has long history of edit warring against any material that speaks against the IIPM. In this particular case, a WP:RS is being disputed by raising points not backed up by any Wikipedia guideline. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer looking over the discussion now, it seems that Wifione's complaint is that he doesn't believe the sources "JAM" and "Careers360" are reliable, and everyone else is saying they are reliable but (at least in the case of the latter) not doing a particularly stellar job at laying out why or responding to Wifione's objections or referring to any specific part of WP:RS (which, looking at it now, really seems to me to be surprisingly vague). I think the sources probably are okay, and maybe it's true that Wifione has a COI or maybe not, but could the issue be resolved by asking about the two sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and hopefully getting some consensus there about whether they're acceptable? Propaniac (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzac56

Resolved

 – User blocked to steer their attention to the issue Nja²⁴⁷ 12:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We're having persistent trouble with this user at List of Freemasons. He keeps removing the same name from the list, due to his personal opinion that the said person was not a Freemason. However, the individual's masonic membership is a well-documented fact, for which multiple external references are provided. He received a final warning from another editor earlier, but I have just had to revert him yet again. We'd be grateful if he could be warned/blocked. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 08:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a 31 hour block in the hope of getting his attention as he doesn't appear to be reading his talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Can one of you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MachoPsycho since it was relisted twice and there is a concensus now? 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, deleted. Tan | 39 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol's redirects

A couple of weeks ago I had confronted Tyciol (talk · contribs) about his redirects in which he took any red link he found on a page and redirected it to the article (as far as I can tell). This resulted in the names of real people ending up at articles that may or may not have anything to do with them. I advised him that this activity was not really helpful. Tonight, I just managed to find another such redirect and gave him another heads up. I've gone back a month through his edits, finding redirects made of common Japanese given names and surnames to the same locations as the articles for the combinations of these names. I've tagged as much as I could with {{db-r3}} as there is no way that people looking up these names will have any use in finding these articles (a redirect for the composer of a particular film was redirected to that film), and it also hinders new users or any user from making an actual article on the individual. This has made up my last 200 edits. I think some more indepth clean up will be needed, and I just want to make whoever is going through CAT:CSD doesn't think I'm crazy for tagging these pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've just cleaned up a load more, some of the redirects are ludicrous and more problematically he has recreated pages deleted for no notability as redirects. There are still more to do, which I'll look at later. Black Kite 10:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Deleted. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• 214 further redirects deleted so far, but I'm only back to 16 July on his contribs. Another problem is that he creates pairs of redirects for Western-style names, which are completely pointless and often misleading (i.e. for the person "Fred Bill Smith", he creates "Fred Bill" and "Bill Smith"). Anyone who wants to carry on is welcome :) Otherwise I'll finish them later. Black Kite 16:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Edit: I've just looked at the rest of his contribs - there are thousands more of these. This is going to be a huge cleanup operation, and I'm wondering if just rolling back all of his recent edits and deleting the redirects might be less time-consuming ... more eyes welcome. Black Kite 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean rollback as in undo? I think we can agree that Tyciol is generally a good contributor and rolling back his good edits would not be helping anyone. Unfortunately Toolserver is down now, but when it goes back up perhaps we could use Escaladix's tool to check out every redirect he's created and then delete the ones that need to be deleted. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Undo would be good but may not be possible. Problems that need to be fixed are to

• Delete all the redirects that are incorrect, misleading, problematic, or plain useless
• roll back all the edits where he's added said redirects to disambiguation pages
• roll back all the edits where he's done the same to article hatnotes
• roll back to their original state all the redirects that he's changed to useless dab pages, because his spurious redirects conflicted with something else (i.e. [104])
• roll back the circular redirects that he's created.

• Now clearly some of his last 7,000 articlespace edits - stretching back a year - have been useful, but the vast majority of them are involved in redirect creation, and the majority of those are in one of the above categories. The problem is that going so far back, of ones that haven't been reverted by other editors (quite a lot have), many articles will have been edited since, making undo problematic.

• Note: you don't need a tool to look for his redirects, just do a articlespace-only contrib search - you get pages like this. Black Kite 21:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol had commented here, but it was overly confusing and flooded this thread with 5k worth of text. I've notified him to reformat his responses in a simple coherent manner.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion is a matter of opinion. I don't think this is 'flooding' nor incoherent. The replies were all properly indented and addressing various comments made by people here. I did not submit any more replies than there were comments. If you feel it would be better to simply merge these all into a single post: do it yourself. I think it's better spread apart because it's more easily legible. Unfortunately sometimes discussions need to be lengthly. I have been abruptly confronted with various accusations and need to address each individually. By removing my reply you are impeding my ability to do this: please restore them, rearrange them if you like as to however you think is legible.

If you have some suggestions on how to summarize the points or how to remove any repeated statements: go ahead and tell me. I am simply not aware of how to make that any shorter. I realize you created this ANI but as I've replied to your talk, I feel since you're targeting me that I deserve an opportunity to defend myself against this. Clearly I need to speak more than others when nobody is speaking on my behalf and I arrive after people have already made many consecutive comments. Tyciol (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Day 2

I've gone back over a year in Tyciol's edits and have been tagging as many bad redirects as I can. And while I've been telling him how it's wrong, he's gone and made the redirect Kamen Ryuki (to Kamen Rider Ryuki), which is clearly an implausible typo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I never implied it was a typo: it's a plausible omission or abbreviation. This is seriously ridiculous, I'm almost convinced you're using a bot to tag all these or something, how exactly are you able to properly check whether or not these are valid redirects at a rate of 10 per minute? You have simply copied and pasted the same exact thing on most of this, I see no individual attention and simply a mass attack against any edit which is a redirect. I, however, won't be guilty of generalizing: the edits at Bruckheimer, Yuuji & Yoji Matsuda were good. Everything else is clearly blatent deletionism without checking up on things. Lubdan is an excellent example. This is the name given to the Leprechaun (of the movies) in his new comic book series. What on earth was wrong with redirecting that to him?

Now, fair is fair, I contest all but mentioned: but how can I quickly go and add a 'holdon' tag to every single thing when you're rapid-firing like this? By the time I get to finding everything you and the others have secretly tagged it will probably already be deleted and I'll have no information left with which to make a case. I clearly need some representation here, as I'm obviously not as familiar with the mechanisms of dispute resolution as you are. Tyciol (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting a hold on tag to the 300+ pages I edited is not going to be worth anyone's time. All of my tags this round were to singular names that are common given or surnames, your portmanteaus that make no sense, and the "Kamen Ryuki" (which is an extremely implausible typo or omission).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly be a lengthy endeavour. I'm not even sure I can get there in time, already dozens are being wiped out by User:Bettia and who knows who else? You are clearly abusing WP:CSD#R3, these are clearly NOT implausible typos or misnomers. How on earth is that equivalent to disputing the use of redirecting a single name (whether you think it's common or not... how many notable people are called 'Lubdan' exactly? Let's check. Oh look, on all of Wikipedia it only shows up once: on the article I directed it to. So clearly: this illustrates you are misusing it. It may take a while to find a moderator who will do something about this, but this needs to be accounted for. All I can think to do now is list all the articles you've had deleted (as suredly they will be, because the mods have good faith in your tags and may be too busy to check them all to see if they really are typos) and then track who has deleted them, and then speak to them about reconsidering this mass execution of information. Tyciol (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have told you that your redirects are not helpful. I am telling you that your redirects are not helpful. Please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that many of these redirects actually hamper the Wikipedia process, but I kept "Kamen Ryuki". A google search showed that it is used as shorthand for the show & the character at least sometimes, and it doesn't seem likely to divert attention from other articles that use the term. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern John, but telling someone something is not helpful without contradicting their reasons for why it is helpful or presenting reasons for why the alternative (deleting in this case) proposed is more helpful, is not very convincing. I am interested in your ideas and opinions, not your vote. Tyciol (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• It does seem that some of the redirects are at least not totally illegitimate on their face. For instance, redirects from character names to entries on List of Characters in X seem to, at the very least, merit RfD. I tried to keep those when going through the CSDs earlier, but I see at least one (Takeshi Asakura) that was deleted. I'm a bit worried that we may have deleted valid redirects in our haste. ÷seresin 11:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This has been my worry all along, just the tip of the iceberg, as I'm saying. If someone wants to flood somewhere then RfD not SpeeDel would be the place. Especially considering the sole-propelant and various mislabeling going on with RfD tags used. Tyciol (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good redirects can always be recreated. The sheer volume of bad or unhelpful redirects (such as living people to fictional characters, living people to media projects they worked with, common given names and surnames to singular instances of the name being used) were problematic. Takeshi Asakura should very likely be recreated (and several other redirects be made for the other fictional characters that page is related to), but surely Asakura should not be a redirect to that page, nor should the name of the actor of the character (if the article on the actor had not yet been created) be redirected to this singular role he played.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, in theory a good article can always be recreated as well: so does it make sense to mark for speedy deletion without reviewing it first, any article created by someone who has made other edits you disagree with? I'm afraid your 'sheer volume' argument does not hold any water. This is like a scorched earth campaign, and it's utterly ridiculous. Wikipedia has no deadline, or some other phrase, may be appicable here.
      Your comment about Asakura is completely misleading to the readers here, and you are heavily mistaken in your implication. I may not have a perfect memory for all my contributions, but Asakura stands out in my mind. I know this because I did not redirect Asakura to that page: it's a disambiguation page, and Takeshi Asakura is listed there. Why on earth would I redirect such a notable name that people have already made observations over the years for (in particular, Yoh, who I know from Shaman King). Many actors only play a single role: we build information as I gather it. A redirect is not a declaration that someone has only ever played one role (or that they ever would). It's simply showing that the name means something, and that we can build on that. As such: that could be built by REDIRECT>DISAMBIG as per WP:RFD: " Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia". I am also encouraging this! Furthermore, these reasons you list are unusual and not agreed upon. Before using them to engage in mass deletion efforts why not introduce this reasoning to WP:RFD#DELETE. Try to get it accepted into policy, at that point you would have more support from others in enacting these changes. Tyciol (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Let me rephrase myself then. Useful redirects can be recreated. The sheer volume of the useless ones need not be recreated. Fictional characters are fine. Real people, given names, surnames, and the circular redirects are useless, and should all be deleted by this time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes: they can be recreated. But they shouldn't be deleted in the first place! Recreating the redirects you recklessly led others to delete does not excuse the destruction, especially when in half the cases they were ones that needed to be brought to both yours and others' attention in the first place. I resent the continued use of 'useless' pertaining to these redirects. It is inappropriate to say that because their uselessness has NOT been established. To assume by default that a redirect is useless is bad faith, and it is beyond that, unfair when you don't even search for a potential use for it. Not being able to see a use does not mean something is useless, nor does denying uses. If fictional characters were fine you wouldn't have marked them to begin with: but you did, because you were not investigating. This is why if someone is going to tell someone to stop doing something, it should be you, to stop that, not me to stop something I think is valuable which I've seen little evidence you're listening to the explanations for. Circular redirects will not be circular if the link is removed from the page it was listed on: that's what should be deleted, not the redirect. There was no evidence those were GOOD red links. I directed them because I thought they were bad, it's a preliminary step to removing a useless red link from a page. Not all red links are useful, nor are they necessarily used properly. If you want to debate the merit of red links on pages then do so on the page in question it is listed please. Redirecting real names and surnames are useful. You clearly have not been absorbing the multitudes of surname disambiguation pages which lie behind the scenes. You are clearly not interested in this as you are only picking on the ones I make, while leaving common surnames disambigs alone. Disambigs clearly do have a purpose, and picking off the easy pages is not an open way to make your statement against name pages. It's a proper use for disambiguation. Tyciol (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As I've said on Tyciol's talk page, if there's a section for a character in "List of ... characters" then that's usually not a problem, but he's been creating redirects for any names that are even mentioned in articles (people's parents, children and random other names that appears in the text). In one case I found a redirect to a murderer's article for the victim's ex-husband who was mentioned peripherally in the text. That's really not a good idea. Then there's redirecting surnames to one article when there's more than one person of that name. And circular redirects creating from random parts of text. The biggest problem though is not the redirects, but the messing about with dabs and hatnotes to wedge in these implausible redirects. That's messy, pointless and confusing. Black Kite 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sometimes people share the same names and confusion happens: this is why I make efforts to fully research people's names as much as possible so that the full name is there and will be confused with as few people as possible. Unfortunately you can't always avoid that (and people can have trouble with that on Google and stuff too). Anyway, as these names are mentioned in the press in association with the criminal cases you have mentioned, they are considered somewhat notable to the case. They wouldn't be in the article if they weren't. If you believe they are not notable then please: just delete them from the article, or fact-tag it or something. If it's notable to list in the article, it's notable to redirect to. If the names have other signifance or if they are shared by other notable persons or people from notable events, then it can be disambiguated. I think calling my additions and cleaning of disambiguation pages and insertion of relevant hat notes 'messing around' is insulting and presumptuous. This generalizing should really cease so we can civilly discuss each isssue where each can be held accountable for their reasoning pertaining to the term. Tyciol (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Because something is mentioned in an article it's notable? No - no, its not, and if it's an article about a contentious subject, such as a criminal case, we really don't want to be creating unnecessary redirects. And you may think I'm being insulting, but utterly misleading hatnotes like this one on an article about a racehorse, directing people to the article Elton John (without mentioning Elton's name), via a double redirect, on a name by which Elton has never been known and utterly pointless dab page additions like this are, respectively, misleading and pointless. I actually had to look at the "Sir Hercules" one for a long time to work out what on earth it was for. Black Kite 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • There are differing degrees of notability. Something being mentioned on an article means it is notable enough to redirect to the article about. That's the whole purpose of wiki links in an encyclopedia, to direct people to information in the wiki pertaining to any word they might type into it. Conversely: being listed in an article does not mean something is notable enough to deserve its own article. It takes more notability to deserve an article title than the amount of notability it takes to deserve a redirect. Clearly the priorities of notability are being mixed up here: minor articles (small redirect pages) to information about people with information written about them on the page where the link leads to are being removed. Conversely, major articles (red links) are being proposed, with a link leading nowhere, where people can find no additional information about them. That's the total reverse of how things should be.
          I am thankful that you have actually given me examples to work with, because I can address them. First off, Elton John is knighted. He IS a sir. As for calling him Elton Hercules, what's wrong with that? Listing 'John' is irrelevant. I list in the hat only what is relevant to the disambiguation. He added the name 'Hercules' to his stage name for a reason, it may get overlooked in common reference but that doesn't mean he's never been called 'Elton Hercules' as you imply (you can't say Elton Hercules John without it) and by extension, does not indicate he's never been called Sir Elton Hercules. Someone can omit part of a title, if someone missed the John, one might mistakenly assume Hercules (his stage's middle name) was his last name, and think he is called 'Sir Hercules'. That's why that disambiguation was notable.
          As for your objection to listening David Charles Cunningham Watson under David Charles: what's the problem? The reason given is 'personal name'? Just because someone is known most by initials doesn't mean that their being called by their first and second names is unlikely. When there is a box for surname and a box for the given and other (middle) names, they are listed together, so he could even be called David Charles Cunningham. If there were someone else by the name that would be fine, but I'm adding the actual names of incredibly famous men to either disambiguation pages, or as a hat note on a relatively unnotable horse, so what exactly is the problem here? How does that inhibit Wikipedia? Rather, it helps stem potential confusing, and for those who wouldn't have been confused do to their greater knowledge of famous figures, they will at least notice interesting links. But that's a secondary benefit: I sincerely do believe this prevents potential misunderstanding. I have a very good imagination for misunderstandings, and I don't like how this is attacked as 'bad' or whatever just because others can't envision them. Tyciol (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reading through the morass) Tyciol: I don't think that your argument is solid enough or evidence-based. The idea is not to have a redirect to any possible permutation or combination of partial names. From a disambiguation point of view, it is simply neither how we handle nor encourage names to be added to lists, and from my POV it is simply confusing. We have a search engine that can be used to find combinations of more obscure words. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the person would know that such a name is completely unknown. Here [105] is a Google search - no hits at all. Also, people with Western names are practically never known by first name + a middle name. People with knighthoods are almost never known as "Sir" + surname - Please stop re-creating these, it's getting disruptive. Black Kite 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone on the planet likely to refer to Elton John as "Sir Hercules"...or to mistake him for a racehorse?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite all of this, Tyciol has recreated Sir John, Sir McCartney, Sir Paul, Elton Hercules and also created Ishii Leslie, Tsunehiko Kamijo, and Asakura Takeshi (the last is the only one that is feasibly useful).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've deleted the first four again, and left him a warning. Black Kite 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again. He must have created another 50 since you warned him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And more, e.g.: [106]. Surely this needs a block to stop the disruption. Quantpole (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This takes the biscuit [107]. Dab page People named Kristian include:

   * Danish politician Kristian Jensen
   * Danish novelist Kristian Ditlev Jensen (redlink so doesn't need dab)
   * Singer Kristian Rex (did the introduction to Smart Guy) !!!You got it - link goes to redirect above ^^^
   * Strachkvas
   * Some people listed underChristian (name)

Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have listed Kristian and Katie Howard (dab for two fictional characters that we don't have articles on, no mention of Catherine Howard who is the only Katie Howard that we do have an article on.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've fixed those two dab pages. We have two people with the surname Kristian, and the other one is plausible for Kate Howard, even if the others are NN. For future reference, please note that G8 is the CSD for redirects to non-existent targets; the CSD criteria for unlikely redirects is R3. Black Kite 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better outcome. I thought of Kathryn Howard, but by the time I figured Wikipedia spells her Catherine, you had added her anyway. I'll bear in mind if I ever need to tag another dab page.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Spanishboy2006

Resolved

Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Spanishboy2006 is threatening me, stalking me, insulting me:

"You are being closely watched. [...] You are being watched, every change, move or reversion you will make which most of the time is violated will be reported. [...] Nice try, Cinema C, лажљивац.(google translator says so)" diff

(лажљивац means liar or shammer in Serbian [108])

User is already blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring on Kosovo related articles and received his warning to stop breaking Wikipedia rules. He seems to have not learned anything, so I advise the administrators to consider further action. --Cinéma C 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I prevented him from editing his talk page for the duration of the block. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

National Federation of Republican Assemblies

I'd like to request administrator intervention with a dispute on the above page. The article in question was the subject of an ongoing dispute between a number of editors and an IP editor which spans the article talk page as well as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 National Federation of Republican Assemblies and now my talk page.

The wording that the IP editor continues to insert fails NPOV and is a BLP issue in my opinion, and the alternative wording agreed by the other other parties at the mediation cabal is the text I am reverting to. I don't see any real desire for discussion on the part of the IP editor since, the wording they wish to insert has remained consistent throughout the dispute.

It would be good to get some assistance before either party violates 3RR. --Deadly∀ssassin 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP edit isn't appropriate, but, if good sources exist, some criticism of the organisation would be appropriate to include, which may include a more neutrally-written mention of the problems the IP points out. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a frustrating situation to be in for several reasons. 1. DA is arguing that I have no desire for discussion because my suggested edit has remained consistent throughout the dispute. This is false. I have provided alternate suggestions for resolution and invited others to suggest alternatives, but DA has resolutely ignored these and drawn a false conclusion about my intentions based on a false premise about my conduct. 2. Instead of suggesting an alternative, DA continues to revert my edits without discussion. This violates Wikipedia rules. I have made reasonable efforts to follow Wikipedia rules. DA ignores those attempts and refuses to discuss the substantive issue.

However, I commend him for taking the issue to this board. Perhaps at some point we can actually get a fair hearing on the substantive issue. What I have seen so far is the Wikipedia version of the heckler's veto -- i.e., to summarize, I know of somebody who doesn't like the edit, therefore I must revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, your proposed changes violate NPOV and BLP. The discussion happened last year as far as I'm concerned and the wording that's there is the result of that. I will continue to ignore your attempts to make the discussion about me, or accusations that I'm either ignoring "the substantive issue", or "violating Wikipedia rules". Some admin intervention at this point would be appreciated. --Deadly∀ssassin 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking the content dispute to the article content noticeboard or maybe an RfC to get broader input. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Need a quick, short IP block

Resolved

Dewan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't taken well to his block. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357 details last nights antics. Now, he discovered the library next to his school, and is using 209.212.23.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to repeat his edits. Could someone hardblock the IP for about an hour?—Kww(talk) 21:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fisticuffs by three editors at Talk:Shell account

• Hm2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shell account (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All three of these editors have been, for no better of a term, slinging mud at each other non-stop for the past two days at least regarding three external links at the Shell account article. It doesn't seem like any user involved here wish to pursue dispute resolution. I have tried to initiate an RFC on the matter and warned everyone to lay off the attacks, edit-warring, and incivility, but I have failed. Can somebody please separate these three before we have to resort to tanks and planes? MuZemike 00:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike may have overlooked a few things here, so I will clarify. This issue has been on going for about 2 months. I have been trying to pursue a DR, but Tothwolf will not accept my proposal, and refuses to propose his own. Yworo has only made 1 comment on the article talk page and has little relevance here. Tothwolf has been disruptive throughout, and shown little sign of working towards a resolution. I hope this clarifies the situation a little. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just a quick clarification so someone doesn't have to dig through the contribs quite as much...User:Yworo has not been active on Shell account but left a personal attack directed at me on the article's talk page today. They've been wikistalking me after a disagreement over some images on Linux and several related articles. Issues with User:Hm2k and disruption on Shell account have been going on since June 17 and involve a lot more editors than myself. I finally said something on July 1st [109] after seeing User:Hm2k's edit warring over Shell account on my watchlist. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I also feel I should point out this little gem of a refactored talk page comment on User talk:Hm2k. [110] Removing one ':' in an attempt to make it look like the warning was directed at me instead of Hm2k... --Tothwolf (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the page be temporarily protected in order to prevent continuous arguing? -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 01:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. However I suspect arguments would only resume once the protection is removed. I would propose to work towards a resolution but as you can see Tothwolf only seems to have interest in discrediting other users and is impossible to reason with. Your suggestions for a resolution are welcomed. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there would really be much point in protecting the article because there isn't any active edit warring going on. Looking at the edit history, it's clear other editors have largely stopped trying to make any edits since User:Hm2k seems to edit war with everybody. I've tried to contain it to the article's talk page (I believe I was successful in that endeavour until User:Yworo came along and made a personal attack on that talk page). I've personally done very little editing to the article since it was apparent to me that any changes I could possibly make User:Hm2k would undo or try to start an edit war over. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to post this to WP:WQA, but seeing as how it's been escalated to ANI, I'll throw my two cents in. I think what we're looking at here is escalating tensions between Tothwolf and Yworo. Tothwolf contacted me on IRC a few days ago (I responded to his "!admin" ping) because he felt that Yworo was stalking his edits and harassing him by making edits to pages which he had watchlisted. I went through both user's edits, and found some minor evidence of edit warring on Yworo's part, but he had stopped after being warned by Betacommand; his edits past that point didn't indicate anything that required admin action. I noted to Tothwolf that chances were that both users had many of the same pages watchlisted.

A couple of days later, Tothwolf contacted me again, this time over an edit that Yworo had made (more specifically, the edit summary), and cited that he saw it as a personal attack. He also sent me a list of diff links to back up his stalking claims (which I prefer not to post without Tothwolf's permission). I left a warning on Yworo's talk page about the personal attack claim; Yworo responded back citing this post -- essentially, "he started it". At this point, I suggested that Tothwolf try to patch things up with Yworo, and I responded with this, trying to get the two of them to make up. Yworo responded saying "I'd prefer he just leave me alone."

Finally, Tothwolf conacted me again today, again claiming stalking and personal attacks, citing this edit. I didn't see it as a personal attack, and at least one other admin I talked to on IRC didn't see it as an attack either, so again, I declined to take any action on it. After making it clear to Tothwolf that I wasn't going to do anything, it appears that he took matters into his own hands, and here we are. Personally, I think that Tothwolf is seeing stalking where there is none, but I'll leave it to others to decide. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

tothwolf has a history of claiming stalking and then forum/irc shopping until an admin will do something. he did the same thing to me about a month or two ago and had an admin threaten to ban me forever. i suggest tothwolf's interactions with other editors is scrutinized more heavily. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this discussion has started to centralise around Tothwolf. Rather than start ganging up on Tothwolf, can we focus on a resolution? I've no idea why I'm even mentioned here, apart from to give Tothwolf a soapbox to try and discredit me further. I'd appreciate it if MuZemike would retract his claim against me and allow me to continue to focus on working towards a resolution on the article, rather than engaging in this disruptive discussion. --Hm2k (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone would deal with User:Hm2k's ongoing disruption. He does not want his actions on Shell account under scrutiny and continues to remove material documenting his disruption from the talk page. [111] He wanted me to write a neutral RFC but now that I've done so, he tries to remove that as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Case in point. If I'm being disruptive, will someone kindly deal with me so I can be excluded from this discussion otherwise, please retract your claim. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary issue, but probably more important: do we decide administrative matters on iRC? or use advice given at IRC as a basis for action? Is it correct to even discuss it here, since what is said there cannot be proven? DGG (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Only if the actions decided could stand on their own merits, without any further on-wiki discussion. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 01:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I think it might be prudent to bring up a bigger issue -- longstanding behavioral problems with Tothwolf. I took some time this morning to go through some of his contributions, and I've compiled a summary of a few encounters that he had with other users. The summary is here. There's other encounters that he has had, but I haven't had the time/energy to document them. However, the common patterns that I'm seeing here are incivility, gaming the system, and manipulation, and these encounters went mostly unchecked. This run-in with Yworo and Hm2k is just the latest episode. I believe it's time for that to stop, and I suggest that some sort of action be taken.

As an aside, one thing I found rather interesting was a couple of edits that he made which would seem to suggest that he has edited under another account ([112] [113]), but I can't figure out what other account that might be. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jet Blaster5000

talk to me 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 – all edits have been deleted or reverted, user is indef'd--Fabrictramp

Jet Blaster5000 (talk · contribs) This user is repeatedly creating hoax pages on elections. The number of votes is entirely made up as, the percentages don't even add up to 100 (50% + 57%) and everything on the page is pretty much fictional. Example United states presidential election in Iowa 1960 Iowa's population does not even exceed 4 million today. This user continues to vandalize after creating more blatant hoaxes like "United States Senate election in Texas, 2014", can someone take care of this? Triplestop x3 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Every last bit of this crap has been speedied by myself and other admins. I was going to indef him myself, but Friday beat me to it. Blueboy96 22:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He also has created a bunch of hoax pages in his user space, would someone delete those as well? Triplestop x3 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Altoids Man

Resolved

 – Users are now willing to civilly the content issue. Firestorm ^Talk 05:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please suggest an appropriate course of action about User:Altoids Man's behaviour? I'm talking about an ongoing episode at Mark Weisbrot (see Talk:Mark Weisbrot as well as User talk:Rd232 and User talk:JRSP). Note that Altoids seems occasionally to edit as User:71.106.93.112 and User:156.80.10.182 (in a "haven't logged in" way, not a sockpuppety way). He has at least recently opened an Editor Assistance Request on the content issue, diff, which is something, but still, his comments and attitude have been problematic. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor notified about this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion on the Weisbrot talk page speaks for itself. I have found Rd232 to be unreasonable, He/She has not offered a single compromise in the editing process, while I have provided voluminous justification for proposed changes. (including yes calling him a clown on one occasion). Having said that, I will continue to provide substantiation for my proposed changes on the talk page and I have requested assistance of other editors who are not possibly emotionally involved with defending the Weisbrot status quo. Other editors have said that RD232 can be reasonable, while I have seen little of that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and move forward. Thank you. --Altoids Man (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'd hoped for something closer to an apology, but I guess that'll do if Altoids is now willing to discuss content, and do it civilly. Thank you to those who commented on Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to restore the peace. Awickert (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Damaging Statements

Resolved

 – Frivolous complaint Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The user user:Jgp made some statements in this diff that are highly defaming and damaging to my character. please can somebody do something about this. Drag-5 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a legitimate argument from Jgp to me. COI is COI. You can't use your own personal spelling as justification. HalfShadow 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you are anonymous, how can comments here possibly damage your character? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not frivolous, the statement "He responded to this by claiming that no name a Japanese person comes up with should be used in English and that the name "Hurricaneger" is racist" is untrue, and actually brands me as a racist. also, I am not anonymous here since i use the same screenname on here and on my user page i make it clear what part of the web community I come from and represent Drag-5 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to be "reasonably identifiable". You're not, and a web alias cannot sustain a cause of action in real life, hence you cannot be defamed. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that in no way does that statement brand you as a racist. Your inability to parse a relatively-simple English sentence is nobody's responsibility but your own. Badger Drink (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm dyslexic. Drag-5 (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Resolved

 – All clear, nothing to see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Could do with an Admin user here, the page is full with reports that need taking care of, has already been backlogged for an hour and a half. Jeff M | Talk2Me | BNosey - 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It must have been cleared impressively quickly... looks empty to me. – ClockworkSoul 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Someone should restore the block on Bluemarine (talk · contribs) as he is quite confused that just because his block was lifted, he thinks so has his community ban, which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine. As the ban is still in place, he should only be editing his own talk page. Also a word on name calling would be appreciated. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting that Allstarecho recuse from further intervention in matters related to Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine. Matt Sanchez is not community banned but in limbo (which is why his account is unblocked). In May I attempted to normalize Bluemarine's editing status; Allstarecho's participation caused delays that prevented community consensus.[114] Allstarecho raised a red herring sockpuppetry concern about an account that has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of somebody else, and insisted upon unusual stipulations to Bluemarine's editing restriction, such as a stipulation about copyright even though Bluemarine has never violated copyright on this site, nor been blocked for it at any other WMF site. A few weeks afterward Allstarecho's extensive copyvios came to light and resulted in an indefinite block.[115] During the discussion about Allstarecho's conduct I refrained from mentioning his double standard about copyright, and Akhilleus unblocked without discussion.[116] A discussion about Bluemarine's status has been ongoing at my user talk for several days,[117] and has stalled because Allstarecho insists upon exactly the same stipulations as before. PastorTheo has attempted to mediate and I left a note for Akhilleus, but Akhilleus has not edited for a week and a half.[118] Allstarecho appears to be leveraging the ambiguous situation to prolong Bluemarine's limbo, then Allstarecho initiates a new noticeboard complaint whenever Bluemarine does edit in an attempt to get him reblocked.[119] I had delayed re-initiating a status clarification request on Bluemarine, in hopes that the complications with Allstarecho could be worked out amicably. This appears not to be possible; he keeps pushing the matter. So requesting impartial administrative review of both parties. Durova²⁸⁸ 01:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also relevant: Allstarecho was blocked by WJBscribe in June for edits to the Matt Sanchez biography.[120] Another thread started by Allstarecho about Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine in May.[121] Apologies for the less than ideal presentation here; this tends to catch me off guard during other endeavors. Will gladly answer questions as needed to clarify. Durova²⁸⁸ 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The contention that he is "unblocked but not unbanned" doesn't make much sense - if an admin is willing to unblock him, he isn't community banned. I think the unblock (and unban) is a horribly bad idea, though. --B (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the Arbcom discussion seems to have stalled (perhaps another shiney bauble caught their eye?) though as I read it the direction was towards affirming a cautious lifting of the ban per whatever editing restrictions the community deems appropriate. Would this be an appropriate time and venue to sort out what those restrictions should be? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2009 ([[UTC)
• Bluemarine's arbitration sanction has expired. So the logical thing is to clarify his status within the community. That was what PastorTheo and I were trying to work out with Allstarecho. Here's the sanction I proposed in May.

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.

Discussion on that proposal got sidetracked and stalled until the thread archived. Durova²⁸⁸ 02:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think allowing him on talk pages would be okay? That seems the normal course of action in cases of COI. Also, I think the last sentence can be shortened to: If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. Short and sweet. We're all subject to the no personal attack rule and harassment is an overly broad and oft abused kind of accusation. Best not to open a can of worms and to keep things as clear as possible. The other article mentioned previously was Scott Beauchamp controversy. I like specific restrictions as opposed to "broadly interpreted" which (like harassment accusations) can be open to interpretation. Gray areas leave things open for dispute and controversy. Are there other articles of concern? I trust Allstarecho will weigh in. Also, I would add a statement along the lines of "is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial and of emotional investment so as to avoid confrontation and gain experience editing Wikipedia." ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your shortening of the last sentence sounds fine. I'm on the fence about talk page participation; not sure what's best with that. I think there were a couple of other specific pages where he got into difficulty before, mostly before I became aware of the dispute. The basic idea is that here's a fellow with an Ivy League education who speaks four languages fluently and travels to Europe, Afghanistan, and Iraq frequently. If we could cordon things away from the old areas of dispute, he's got a lot to offer the encyclopedia. He's sat out his arbitration ban; best to give him a fair shot. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Durova, the WjBscribe block of me you raise above was in January 2008, not June of this year or any year. You conveniently left out that that block was also removed by WjBscribe as unwarranted. Aside from that, Sanchez is indeed under a community ban as it was never lifted by the community. He was unblocked because via stipulations by Arbcom that he can only upload files "for making the projects more accessible to handicap people". Even then, his community ban was still in effect. While Arbcom's ban has expired, his community ban has not nor has it been lifted by the community. IN fact, Arbcom members have stated that his community ban is separate from their ban and is still in effect. Therefore, he is still under community ban and should be blocked. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, here is what I proposed back in May (so saying I am stalling any attempts to resolve Matt's status is laughable at the least, ludicrous at the worst):

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.

As one can see, this is essentially the same as your proposal except adding in the uploading of files, which he has violated copyvio at Commons before. And yes, I know Commons isn't Wikipedia but since Matt seems to always get "confused" about these matters, it doesn't hurt to include the notice. Nothing unusual about that at all. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec'd) Was that? Apologies for any inaccuracy. You caught me by surprise with this thread, so I scrambled to reply. Would really like to get back to Photoshop asap. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom still appears to be considering the matter.[122] Are we seeking to supersede their effort? Either way, the user shouldn't edit until his status is resolved.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much indication they are moving toward a decision any time soon and what comments are there seem to indicate that the community should make a determination. I don't think anyone is trying to usurp Arbcom's role, just to help resolve the situation. As most everyone seems to agree that it's time the ban is lifted, the editing restrictions seem to be the main details that need to be worked out. I don't think continuing the current limbo is good for anyone concerned. Do you have an opinion on what editing restrictions would be appropriate? Or do you think we should anticipate something happening with the stalled Arbcom proceeding? When do you think that will happen? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The last vote came 24 hours ago, so it doens't seem entirely stalled. The ArbCom rarely moves quickly, and I don't see that there's any rush with this matter.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• My revised restriction would read: Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a ban from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages. He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Wikipedia collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator. I also think a mentor would be helpful if someone is willing to volunteer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova is his mentor. Additionally, "advised to avoid" makes this whole thing pointless. It should say flat out "is to avoid" not "advised to". Also given the vile personal attacks in the past by him where he has referred to people as fags, gay jihadists, gay terrorists, etc., the part about personal attacks should not be removed. And finally, it's pointless to even discuss the stipulations of his unban here until the current discussion at Arbcom has ended. I didn't even start this thread to discuss stipulations but to request that while he still under a community ban, that he be blocked.. or at the least, told firmly not to edit anywhere except his talk page until he has been notified specifically that his community ban is no more. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec, to Child of Midnight)That proposal looks fine. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally regarding Allstarecho's input (I repeat the request to him to recuse), I announced to the Committee my intention to resign from all mentorships in June. Am staying with Bluemarine only provisionally until his status is normalized and a new mentorship is underway. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will not recuse. It's obvious above by your misrepresentation of facts - even if they were done in haste - that someone else familiar with the issue should be allowed to weigh in as well, not just you. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Three things are obvious: that a hasty reply to a developing situation may be imperfect even when made in good faith, that you take a persistent interest in Bluemarine (with a decidedly slanted tone), and that you apply wildly different interpretations of the copyright policy regarding yourself and Bluemarine. I did all I could to prevent that from reflecting poorly on you at the admin boards, but by continuing to press the issue you force that to come to light. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I take "persistent interest" in anyone that is community banned but not abiding by it, while being aided and abetted by others. Also, I have not applied any "wildly" different interpretations of copyright policy. In fact, as I stated at the discussion on your talk page, I am already under the same restrictions and the difference between Sanchez and I is that I know when to stop. He continues to violate copyright by uploading copyvio images at Commons. I have not requested anything for him that I am not under myself or woudln't accept myself. The only reason you keep bringing up my own transgressions is to deflect the attention away from Sanchez and to cast me as someone to be ignored in this matter. And I hold no grudge for that, but I won't let you or anyone else make false accusations and present blurry facts in this dispute. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked. I have revised the editing restriction proposal per Allstar's comment. Are there other articles or topic areas that need to be included? Is it okay to let him edit the Matt Sanchez talk page? I'm not trying to rush things and I think we should leave the proposal up for a while to allow additional comments and to make sure it's agreeable and appropriate. I'm also okay with running whatever is agreed to by Arbcom to allay the concerns of anyone who thinks we are bypassing them? My understanding is that Durova would like to pass the torch of mentorship. She's served admirably in difficult circumstances and I think it's only fair to call for a new volunteer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me but again, I'd await the outcome of the current Arbcom discussion before actually putting this proposal before the community. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to, arbcom only gets involved where the community cant solve the problem. A community ban is void as soon as one admin is willing to unblock, because the ban, by definition, works like that. Well, he's unblcked. We've agreed on the editing restrictions to apply, we're done here. --M^ask? 08:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A community ban is set by the community. It can hardly be void by the whim of a single admin against community consensus, the community that set the ban in the first place. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A community ban has always, and I do mean since we coined the term, been simply a block that no other admin has been willing to undo. There have been, and I imagine will continue to be, cases where a normally defined consensus has emerged to ban a user, and single admins have overturned. This is not something to be done lightly, and should commence with only a well thought out plan for reform presented by the administrator who has chosen to look into Putin's eyes to see his soul. Durova is (seemingly, they may correct me if I'm wrong) taking on Matt's case. While I happen to be think that this is right, this brings you to the flip side of the coin. Matt's being vouched for here. If it turns out that this was the wrong course, it will reflect quite poorly on the judgment of the unblocking admin. People tend to remember acts like that where it turned out poorly.

I don't think it's that serious. It seems since there is no substantial consensus to block him, indeed that he wasn't IAR blocked after it came to light he could edit, that there is not in fact a community ban upon him. --M^ask? 05:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the ban has been lifted and that I could add information to the Matt Sanchez talk page. The "non-controversial" ban seems very vague as controversy is relative. I've added some information to my talk page none of which is controversial, it was on the definition of reporter versus blogging.

I've asked the editor Allstarecho to stop posting and taunting me on my own talk page. He hasn't complied, but I think this type of attention is exactly what he's looking for and unfortunately the editors on this board are giving it to him.

Wikipedia and its editors have categorically singled me out for abusive punishment. Every single issue gets overblown and it's very tiring. What makes it more complicated are the obviously biased editors whose labor is to defamate me through this article. The editor Allstarecho is one of those editors and his edits both at Wikipedia and Wikiquote are proof of this. If you were to ban All starecho from the Matt Sanchez--where he obviously has an agenda--the article could reach a semblance of stability and standard. Blue Marine (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Defamate"? That would sound like a legal threat, if it were an actual word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

While his comment here should be removed, since he is under a community ban and shouldn't be editing anywhere but at his own talk page, I'll leave it to reply... He says his understanding is that his ban has been lifted. I don't know how he came to that understanding as I've told him numerous times that it hasn't been lifted. His own mentor has told him not to edit anywhere except his own talk page until this issue was resolved. Surely someone as smart as Sanchez couldn't misunderstand when it's been plainly told to him, as seen in the diffs below. He also says I should be banned from the Matt Sanchez article but I'll challenge anyone to view the article's history and see when my last edit was to that article. Having said all of that, his latest round of personal attacks calling me a pervert and an idiot only offer further proof that he hasn't learned anything from his year long Arbcom ban or his current over-a-year-long community ban. He accuses me of "taunting" on his talk page. All I've done was reply to him explaining his community ban - [123], [124], [125], [126], [127] - and other procedural matters - [128]. No attacks, no sarcasm, no "taunting". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom seems to be directing the community to decide on the future course of action and any editing restrictions that may be needed. I see good consensus here for the proposed restrictions stated above. If any adjustments are needed please suggest them or if a more formal vote is needed please initiate one. Otherwise I think we can move forward with these restrictions and deal with any new issues as they arise. I would also like to suggest to Allstar that it would be helpful if you avoided Bluemarine's talk page as your interactions with him there haven't been constructive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP has suddenly shown up at the article and my talk page. As a result, I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine. FYI. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A clerk has declined the SPI request. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To give the full picture, only the Checkuser was declined - because of Sanchez's unclear status via the community ban - which I'll also note the clerk specifically stated, "Note that arbitrator comments at the pending clarification seem to indicate a community ban is still in effect, but the question remains unresolved." It wasn't declined because of proof in regards to the sockpuppetry. Further, from the actual closing admin, "The behaviour indicates the same person, and thus it is still a case of block evasion. As such, I have blocked the IP for 55 hours." - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said at the request for clarification page...

This user is not worth the trouble, in my view. Their past history is filled with disputes with all and sundry. The word "collegial" is not, in my view, in their vocabulary. Recommend putting or keeping a complete ban in place. Else we'll be here again soon enough ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

One of 2 things need to happen here:

The current discussion at Arbcom needs to be sped up and come to a conclusion - Or

The current discussion at Arbcom needs to be closed and an official community discussion opened on whether or not to remove the community ban and if so, implement any restrictions.

I note that User:AKMask has only further confused the issue by going to Sanchez's talk page today and telling him the community ban is no more and that he's free to edit within the proposed above restrictions. This should not have been done until the community ban is resolved either through Arbcom, or the community that placed the ban in the first place. So right here an now, let's decide what to do.. get the Arbcom case closed and move forward with community discussion or try and speed up the Arbcom case. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above represents a rough consensus of the community. If you believe this consensus is in error, i invite you to try to establish a consensus to ban the user. --M^ask? 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The user is already banned. The consensus among Arbcom admins supports that the user is banned, as does the consensus in the recent sockpuppet case. Added with the others throughout Wikipedia, I'd say it's premature for you to say a consensus exists to remove the community ban. An official Rfc should be opened on the matter, which is my attempt by starting this "Moving forward" subsection. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why waste more time on an RfC? So far Lar is the only one who supports leaving the ban in place. The rest of us, including you, have suggested trying the editing restrictions agreed to above. If he proves unable to work collaboratively and needs to be blocked for any inappropriate behavior or banned again, then we can do that. But interminable limbo doesn't seem useful. If you're determined to have an RfC or a poll of some sort then please initiate it so we can get it over with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, I believe that's what I said basically.. let's get this over with. So the Arbcom discussion needs to be ruled on or closed. As it was the community that banned him, it should be the community to unban him, not 4,5 of us discussing it here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Clerk note: - Please hold on before continuing this discussion. There are additional things that need to be worked out with the SPI case, and a Checkuser is still working with it. Thank you, NW (Talk) 03:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: - The blocked IP is  Unrelated to Matt Sanchez per Checkuser evidence. NW (Talk) 03:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the update. Now, moving forward.. he's still under community ban.. await Arbcom discussion finale or get the Arbcom discussion closed so the community can decide. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A majority of Arbcoms have weighed in that it's up to the community to determine editing restrictions. We've done so. Let's stop drawing this out and take it from here. Another editor has already put the restrictions to Bluemarine. I think this thread is resolved as the new restrictions have been implemented consistent with Arbcom's suggestions on the matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey and User:Daniel

Resolved

 – now referenced

YellowMonkey is adding numerous unsourced WP:BLP's to WP, and admin Daniel - through mistaken assumptions on YM's talk page, seems to be backing him up. If anyone here thinks unsourced BLP's are OK, then let's spell that out. If not, restore the redirect that YellowMonkey's sockpuppet undid to the articles Álvaro Crespi, Vittorio Algeri, and Rik van Slycke. It's late and I'm not getting into an edit war and would like an univolved admin to look this over. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be sourced to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are stubs with a valid source. I fail to see the BLP issue here. One liners that can be built into an article, why the edit war? Am I missing something? Keegan (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not partial to the term "sockpuppet" for an account that is clearly labeled as an alternate account, but to the matter at hand. It does appear that the "reference" wasn't added until after a minor 2RR edit conflict disagreement. While not exactly the MOS standard for reference format, hopefully it puts to bed any further disagreements. Tune in tomorrow, for another chapter of ... "As the wiki turns". — Ched :  ?  07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An exceptionally frivolous issue and one on the wrong noticeboard. It does not require administrative attention, and YellowMonkey has already explained why these articles were created. Before acting rashly, please discuss the issue. —Dark ^talk 07:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well CS made the assumption that I was unwilling to reference these articles. Definitely not -> Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. I've never been stingy with references. Like I said, I don't normally create short articles, and don't prefer placeholder mini-stubs, but I just put it there so that there isn't an orphaned pic that will get forgotten. I took a photo of all the cyclists and managers at the 2009 Tour Down Under YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight editing restriction violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Thanks to the Arbcom amendment, it has been demonstrated that this is not a violation of editing restrictions. Nothing to see here.Firestorm ^Talk 04:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting action or please advise on this editing restriction of one revert per week and a requirement of using the talk page. ChildofMidnight's the only editor reverting on the Paul Krugman BLP article without using the talk page. Recent reverts here and here. Thanks in advance. Scribner (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a thing call ignore all rules, but I'm not sure if it would help or not.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Without making any comment on the specific issue here, invoking IAR when it comes to ArbCom- or community-imposed sanctions is the single fastest way to ensure those sanctions become even more useless than they currently are. → ROUX ₪ 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman qualifies as Obama related? Just asking. I guess Kevin Bacon is Obama related as well? --Tom (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman is more related to Obama than Kevin Bacon given Krugman's political leanings. But I don't think that the ArbCom intended for the restriction to be on any modern liberal(never mind how ill-defined that term is) figure. It seems pretty clear that this isn't Obama related. And 2 reverts simply isn't that big a deal. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The first edit seems innocent enough, the second a touch more inflammatory. The interpretation of "Obama-related" to anything or anyone left-wing seems to be unfair to the original ruling, and frankly to ChildofMidnight who was never given such a warning. Should there be a problem with persistent edit-warring, and should community consensus exist for this, then a clarification from Arbcom would seem in order. But until then, two reverts are not a problem. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I thought the restrictions applied to all articles: They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Scribner (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a classic example of what's wrong with Wikipedia and why the civility guideline is broken.

• Here we have Scribner who is outraged that anyone dare revert his edit. So he immediately seeks out administrative intervention to win the content dispute and tries to have an editor blocked (or at least intimidated and hasseled) instead of communicating with them respectfully and politely. He's the one trying to change the article, so it's not really much to ask, but perhaps he's an only child and used to getting his way?

• And as far as abiding by the rules himself, he neglects to notify me of the ANI discussion and posts a harassing and uncivil message about how he "would have banned me a long time ago." All this because he didn't get his way and is unwilling to discuss collegially the best way to improve the Paul Krugman article. I don't think a ban is necessary, but perhaps a week or two off for him to reflect on what collegiality and cooperation mean would do him some good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

ChildofMidnight, judging from your past behavior I think your time on wiki could probably be measured in your number of contributions to political BLP articles.

Here's my response from your talk page that you deleted:

Krugman's ideology is already mentioned in the lead. Other than a continuation of your hellbent POV edits on political BLPs, I don't see the need for a second mention in Krugman's lead, particularly if it qualifies his practice of economics. Scribner (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, thanks to the other editors for the information. Scribner (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a given that CoM is a student of what I might call the Limbaugh School of Labeling, in which "Liberal" equates to "Communist". Hence the need to mention it frequently in a given article, for those who might miss it the first time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's rudeness

Thank you for posting that example of your improper behavior and failure to assume good faith. I'm sure a conscientious Admin will want to warn you against further incivility and on the need to be more collegial with your fellow editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That conscientious administrator should also read ChildofMidnight's comments here [129]. Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, you don't think trying to find administrative mechanisms to attack editors is an act of cowardice and intellectual weakness? That explains a lot. It seems obvious to me that the civil and collegial approach would be through respectful discourse. Maybe give it a try some time! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Conscientious administrators please also note [130]. Mathsci (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensible admins, please note Mathsci' this edit right after CoM's. Mathsci never edited the article before. And there have some WMC-Mathsci-CoM triangle incidents.--Caspian blue 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A compromise edit that solved an impasse and was explained on the talk page. Please stop drama-mongering as Georgewilliamherbert requested. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is making drama-mongering here? Mathsci, you've been warned by various admins 8 times in just one months for your harassment and personal attacks, so should be more careful. Thanks.--Caspian blue 06:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal" was used separately, not as an adjective to qualify "economist". Mathsci (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And Caspian's personal attack here Scribner (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's harassment and forum shopping to other place are recorded in the below thread. Thanks--Caspian blue 05:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a "blow thread"? Is that an accusation of drug use? Are editors on drugs? How do we put a stop to this? Just say no people! The drunks are bad enough. We don't need drugs. Remember what Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch had to say on the matter.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious typo fixed by a user who typically produces such clumsiness because he uses English as a foreign language. (well, he can speak at least more than two languages. :D)--Caspian blue 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured "blow thread" to contain some type of performance by you, Caspian. Scribner (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that important clarification. I've heard it said that "cocaine is a hell of a drug", so I'm relieved that you weren't referring to blow in that context. I still think we should all keep in mind the great wisdom espoused on the song Good Vibration by Marky Mark's brother "Donnie D":

Donnie D's on the back up

Drug free, so put the crack up

No need for speed

I'm the anti- D-R-U-G-G-I-E

My body is healthy

My rhymes make me wealthy

And the Funky Bunch helps me

To bring you a show with no intoxication

So come on and feel the vibration!

ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's harassment and forum shopping

Scribner (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

Scribner said he would permanently block CoM[131] which sounds like WP:Harassment and unfounded threats. This whole forum shopping is a result of the fact that he does not catch up with the latest news on the ArbCom's amended remedy.remedy

Sceptre/ChildofMidnight/Scjessey/Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations) 21 June 2009 (UTC) ↓ Sceptre/ChildofMidnight/Scjessey/Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Scribner is interested in the CoM's restriction and edits, the update should have been checked before making a smearing ANI file.--Caspian blue 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That matter should be end early since with the kind reminder, it is obvious that Scribner carelessly raised the ANI report to harass CoM after he threaten him. So all Scribner has to do is that he admits his mistake and apologize to CoM, but well.. he even attacked me and then continues the forum shopping to Talk:Jimmy Wales.[132] (not even User talk:Jimbo Wales). I think the user seems to have a serious WP:OWN issue given the user was blocked on the article in question just one month ago. Any neural admin should take a look at how poorly Scribner behaves.--Caspian blue 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF. There is no way that every administrator can be expected to be aware of every minutae of policy change or arbcom finding adjustment in precise real time.

That clarification is perfect justification to file the specific report away as "No violation of ammended restrictions", but there's no sign Scribner acted with malice rather than a reasonable and entirely understandable lack of knowledge.

CoM and CB - please calm down and stop dramatizing the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to calm down, but his continued forum shopping to Talk:Jimmy Wales and personal attacks are unbearable.--Caspian blue 05:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's obvious I filed this request in good faith. More guidance could have been offered to me as to where to file the report and or how to check for ArbCom amended remedies, etc. Scribner (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I'd banned you permanently long ago.", yes, that is your good faith comment if you insist so. As for the guidance, WP:AE or WT:ARBCOM, or arbitrators or ArbCom clerks are the venue that you're looking for.--Caspian blue 06:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned you against personal attacks last night, but your harassment continues. Wonder how long you'll get away with this type of behavior? Scribner (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your harassment, forum shopping and personal attacks have been noted just like your threat to CoM like the I'd banned you permanently long ago. Don't you think that at this time, you should say "I'm sorry for the all troubles that I've caused, I did not know the ArbCom rememdies have been change and I will promise not to falsely accuse anyone". You really need to familiar with WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT and please not violate them any more just like you do right now.--Caspian blue 13:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The "problem" appears to have been solved in the article itself by the transposition of two words, apparently to the satisfaction of both Scribner and ChildofMidnight. Please could an administrator archive this discussion? Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Scribner can be rude towards other editors. For example, after newcomer reverted him on Paul Krugman his first comment towards him was "This is a BLP, stop your disruptive reverts." [133] In my judgment there was absolutely nothing wrong with revert in question [134], while his reaction was a clear example of how not to greet a newcomer. -- Vision Thing -- 13:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat made at Talk:Gianmichael Salvato

Resolved

Today on Talk:Gianmichael Salvato, 98.235.25.88 (talk · contribs) stated the following: "...which have resulted in the Offices of H.E. Dharmacharya Gurudas Sunyatananda seeking legal counsel against Wikipedia and the individuals posting,...". It appears as if the user is on a static IP as they have made several edits to the page before. I did place a warning on their page, but Wikipedia:No legal threats says to report it. I just thought someone may want to know about it. Kjnelan (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's resolved. I blocked the user for issuing a legal threat and gave them the email address to contact if they are in fact taking legal action. Their multiple legal threat entries have also been deleted. Never handled one before, was my action good? Nja²⁴⁷ 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

COI issues with Queensland University

Resolved

Various editors have been ignoring my calls for a clean up and have reverted my attempts to tone down the article in order to make it more encyclopaedic rather than being an advertisement. Instead, information of a more "promotional" nature have been added. Need help with some sort of arbitration. Messages, and attempts to discuss the matter have been ignored. -Reconsider the static (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please take this to WP:COIN. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem editor

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hrs.

WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor w long history blocks, incivility, trolling reverts reliable sourced edits wo discussing on a Medical article, Fibromyalgia to promote a point of view and puts back in sources which are not RS for medical articles. The editor i think is not familiar w guideline WP:MEDRS so i explain them about it politely and say they can ask me questions User_talk:WebHamster#WP:MEDRS. Editor answers "Don't be so bloody patronising, I have no questions to ask you, I know the rules round here having been around a lot longer than you." and Editor reverts my edits again (fibromyalgia history) wo discussion with suspect Meatpuppet Dr. Anymouse, puppetmaster from many IP vandalism attacks in last month. RetroS1mone talk 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given him a 24 hour block. This user has been told many times not to abuse people here, and "Yet another anonymous fuckwit" is pretty abusive. This user has already had multiple personal attack warnings in the past so is well aware of our policies on the matter. This block is to prevent further abuse to our volunteers. Chillum 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Another ridiculous block from the ridiculous block meister. The comment "Yet another anonymous fuckwit" was made to the anonymous IP who posted this: "You have spent years blocking other people for no other reason than they may have offended you and now you are blocked. Do us all a favour and leave wikipedia alone."[135] So what we've descended to now is a system in which anonymous IPs are allowed the freedom to abuse anyone they choose, fully protected and sanctioned by the civility police. A sad indictment of a corrupt and failing system. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the block isn't rediculous at all, considering the personal attacks and incivility, such as excessive swearing. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And telling him to '...just sit in your cage for your block and be a good little hamster is helping things how, exactly, Polynomial? HalfShadow 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

he has been abusive for years. This is an example of how he treats an academic who studies at university .. "The chances are it'll still be there when you've left Uni and gone on to bigger and better things. meanwhile I suggest you concentrate on things that are far more important, like avoiding being a graduate working at the Spud-U-Like you despise so much. ---- WebHamster 15:42, 31 October 2007" [136]

How long have you been abusive Polynomial? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone in this thread can stop flinging abuse at each other for an hour or so and go find an article to improve?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if administrators stopped making ill-considered blocks, and sycophants stopped coming along to encourage them in their poor judgement, then this whole noticeboard could be shut down. Until then ... --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum's last 50 edits:[137]

Your last 50 edits Fabrictramp:[138]

My last 50 edits:[139]

See any difference? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not making my point clear enough. None of the mudslinging in this thread is productive in any way. Not yours, not Polynomial's, and not Webhamster's. Was Polynomial's edit summary ill-advised? Sure. But there are more productive ways to get your point across, such as saying "hey, I know it felt good to get your frustrations out in the edit summary, but it might have slipped your mind that everyone can see it and it certainly won't encourage Webhamster to be more civil." This gives Polynomial a graceful exit and doesn't throw more gasoline on the fire, just as Polynomial could have done with Webhamster, and Webhamster and the IP editor could have done with each other. If people would stop using the "well he started it!" excuse for fanning the flames, this whole noticeboard would quickly die out for lack of interest.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I hesitate to post here for fear Malleus will look at my last 50 edits and be even more horrified, I can't resist noting my opinion that people who descend on a blocked editor's talk page to gloat and cause trouble would, if I were GodKing, be blocked for twice as long as the owner of the talk page. I'm thinking in particular of Noloop, Polynomial123, and someone who's username I forget but which starts with Y (and his cavalcade of IP socks). Assuming no one is actually going to warn and block, they should at least be banned from WebHamster's talk page for the duration of the block. unless WebHamster is actually enjoying arguing with them, in which case, carry on I suppose.--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yiwentang. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, a wave of ennui swept over me and I couldn't bring myself to find the name again. That SPI looked blindingly obvious to me, by the way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! That terse comment, by the way, was intended more as a "an SPI is in hand" rather than "it's Yiwentang: how could you possibly not know that!!!1!" ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the baiting was completely uncalled-for. I've warned Polynomial123 and am quite prepared to block if it happens again. If we're to encourage civility, mutual respect, and a collegial editing environment, the rules must apply equally to all editors. EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And in a bizarre turn of events, Polynomial123 has been blocked as a sock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of User:Creatureking

Hi. I'd like to get some sort of administrator involvement regarding the disruptive editing of User:Creatureking. I've filed a WP:AIV claim, however it isn't entirely clear whether the user is guilty of vandalism as much as simply being disruptive. I maintain that persistent disruptiveness in light of warnings constitutes vandalism, however others obviously disagree.

Here's the story: User:Captaincold is apparently a fan of Space Ghost programs, and contentiously created a slew of new articles for extremely minor characters (ones that appear only on one or several episodes) from Space Ghost and a few other programs/movies. Here is a list of several: Tansuit, Thunder Cleese, Brak's Mom, Brak's Dad, Sisto, Creature King, Metallus, Council of Doom, Lokar, Alexander Knox (Batman). Other editors and I took these pages through ProD (declined) followed by AfD, in which all of them resulted in a Delete or Merge result. Captaincold began to revert the redirects stemming from these AfDs [140][141][142], recreate previously deleted material[143], and received a warning [144] for this behavior. All seemed to be going tolerably well up through July 24th, when Captaincold stopped editing Wikipedia. On July 25th, User:Creatureking's account was created, and the user began to exhibit identical behavior in editing identical subject matter, indicating that the user is a likely sock puppet. Relevant edits are here: Thundercleese[145], Brak's Dad[146], Creature King[147], Lokar[148], Tansit[149], Metallus[150], Blimp (Space Ghost)[151], and Sisto(edit reference deleted when article was re-deleted). I was responsible for all of the escalating warnings for this behavior with Creatureking[152][153][154].

How can we take steps to get Creatureking to acknowledge and abide by Wikipedia policies and consensus decisions? I was thinking a three-day block for vandalism would at the very least get their attention. —  X  S  G  04:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This issue went un-responded to. I've brought it out of the archive. I understand that it's a challenging issue to deal with, however the issue persists in the present. —  X  S  G  08:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a lengthy note at the User_talk:Creatureking page. Because he stopped using one account, and started another, it's not socking. If it continues, it may need a block. ThuranX (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Izzedine repeatedly adding Speedy tag

Resolved

 – editor blocked for 48 hours

Izzedine (talk · contribs) has now added SD tags 3 times to Syrian Social Nationalist Party, despite the request being declined twice today and one of the admins explaining in detail on his talk page. He has also been engaged in edit warring elsewhere - I've been involved in one of the articles so am not taking any action myself, but I'd like an uninvolved Admin to take a look and take any appropriate action. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I also have some concerns about this user. He has been edit warring on Antun Saadeh. I have twice posted messages on his talk page asking him to discuss the problems he has with the page. His only reaction was to delete my messages. - SimonP (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done 48 hours. I noticed this on the help desk, and in review - I believe the editor has had more than enough warning to justify a block. — Ched :  ?  13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine and Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Izzedine (talk · contribs), Syrian Social Nationalist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user insists that the article meets the speedy deletion criterion G10 despite being declined twice and has just re-tagged the article again after I have took some time and explained to him that he should not tag it again and that doing so will violate WP:FORUMSHOP. Thus I would like to request an uninvolved admin to review the situation and perform the necessary admin actions. Regards SoWhy 13:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Add to that the article Antun Saadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just left a note about this article that which obviously overlaid the time period of other edits. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See above — Ched :  ?  13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny how he opened a WP:WQA this morning over someone else saying "...raping and pillaging (an article)..." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

←Note: There was a previous block for Aug. 4 in his/her block log - a request for "unblock" was granted. It appears to me that the unblock was granted at 5:11 UTC, and that User:Izzedine returned to their disruptive editing at 12:15 UTC by replacing the CSD tag on the Syrian Social Nationalist Party after having been unblocked for their first offense. Hopefully my actions won't be considered as any infractions of WP:WHEEL. — Ched :  ?  13:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The previous block/unblock were unrelated to the problem here, i.e. the admin shopping and page blanking. He was unblocked because Closedmouth (talk · contribs) did not believe the block for a controversial move justified as far as I can see which is completely unrelated and does not mean he was allowed to behave in the aforementioned way. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do respect Closedmouth, and as such, I've left him a note, and link to this thread. Hopefully he'll agree that my actions were acceptable and warranted. — Ched :  ?  13:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

← User:Izzedine has responded to my block via email in a very polite and collaborative manner. As I saw no reason to block his abilities to edit his own talk page, he has now posted a request for review of his block. I throw this open to the community to decide on any course of action that should be taken, and will not raise any objections to any modifications that another administrator may see fit to make. — Ched :  ?  16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not comfortable with an unblock request that shows no understanding of the reason for the blocking. He restored the tags after the speedy had been deleted by two separate admins, even though the first had given him information on where to go if he disagreed with the decline. He says he will not pursue this matter, but will he continue to edit war? He says, "I also did not breach 3rr." When he was blocked for edit warring in May, he was notified (by standard template) that one need not technically violate the three-revert rule to be blocked. This would suggest to me that he may not have quite grasped the spirit of the rule. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined. TNXMan 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::His unblock request only mentions one editor, whereas there were two involved, and two articles, as well as breaching, 3RR at Ziggurat of Ur where he has been edit warring, and misrepresenting the situation at the Help desk. Although he was not blocked for his actions over Ziggurat of Ur I think any unblock needs to be considered in the context of all his edits in the last 24 hours or so. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User: CanOfWorms : Bulk use of "Citation needed" tags and incivility

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have come across a number of occasions when CanOfWorms (talk · contribs · logs) added "Citation needed" tags to pages on my Watchlist. Despite the fact that it seemed that there was no need to tag these pages in this way, I tried to add links as requested. I informed CanOfWorms that I had done this and noted that his sole activity seemed to be adding these tags and he responded rudely [155]. I have noted where he has done this on a number of other occasions: see, for example [156]. When constructive suggestions are added to his talk page, he either insults the user, or deletes the suggestions: [157]. It seems to me that he is not following the Wikipedia guidelines on citing but continues with his bulk tagging by a combination of high activity and incivility. Others have noted the same: [158]. I'm not really an expert on this, but his approach seems unconstructive and antagonistic to those trying to improve Wikipedia. Can anything be done to prevent this actvity? --Phil Holmes (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think telling another user to "get lost" is totally uncivil behaviour on Wikipedia. CanOfWorms needs to learn some manors and listen to other user's advice. Jolly Ω Janner 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified CanOfWorms of this section -- this should have been done at the start. Looking over the contribs, I see an editor who has been Wikignoming for a couple of years, but started on a binge of massive "citation needed" tagging a couple of months ago, and responds to complaints with brusque incivility. A bit of behavior mod is clearly needed. Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing his contributions, I reminded CanOfWorms of the necessity to maintain a positive, collaborative environment, and that he needs to address concerns. I think that's all that can be done for now. If the tagging continues without attempts at civil explanation, bring back here. Tan | 39 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He's not disrupted the encyclopedia, all he's done is give a handful of curt responses. I don't particularly like it, but even if it continues I don't think more than what you've done should be attempted. CanOfWorms sometimes puts tags in the wrong place or where they are unnecessary. The thing is, he's probably only going to get it wrong on articles with a decent number of references, which are usually maintained. So the mistakes can easily be rectified. Therefore, the only real problem is CanOfWorms slightly abbrasive attitude. It hasn't harmed anyone and if someone gets upset by being told to get lost, they're probably going to get very upset later on on wikipedia when they run into a genuinely rude editor. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with your opinions. While I am certainly not the civility police, WP:CIVIL is policy here, not a guideline. In particular, this policy requires editors to "participate in a respectful and considerate way," and also reminds them to "... not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I agree that nothing has been done so far that requires anything further than a gentle reminder. However, your stance that this attitude must be tolerated if necessary is, frankly, wrong. Tan | 39 23:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion. Please try to be dynamic in your use of policy, rigidly following does more harm than good. Telling someone to get lost is harmless, and CanOfWorms does no harm. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am very dynamic in my use - but the policy exists, and you seem to want to completely ignore it. Telling someone to "get lost" in response to concerns certainly is not harmless. It trashes the collaborative, collegial nature of the project. No one is talking about blocking anybody yet, but I reserve the right in all situations to close the door on editors who cannot abide by our policies. I suppose we can disagree here and it's really not a big deal; nothing yet has happened to invoke any further action. Tan | 39 23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely support Tan's assessment here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not taking sides in this perticular case, but I have no problem with editors who mainly add citation request tags and don't do much else. I know there is more than that here, i.e. civilty, very mild case here imho, but I do get annoyed when editors are like "dude, rather than add a fact tag, go find a citation and help out". The idea of "drive by tagging" without explaination, ect is not helpful or collegial(I hate that word around here) or whatever, I diagree with. Again, no offense directed at the others who have commented, just my one cent. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding tags in this way goes against Wikipedia policy. To summarise, it's as follows:

Citation required tags should be added:

2.1 When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged

2.2 When quoting someone

2.3 When adding material to the biography of a living person

2.4 When checking content added by others (You can also add sources for material you did not write. Adding citations is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia)

2.5 When uploading an image

2.6 Qualifying sources

In the case I cited, none of these apply. It may be a fact without a source, but there are millions of those on Wiki. The question is generally, is the fact likely to be challenged? Reviewing the tags this contributor has added, that's rarely the case, and it simply makes the entries harder to read. --Phil Holmes (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many editors take offence at maintenance tags being placed on "their" articles (as much as we are against it, its rare that an editor doesn't show some form of ownership towards an article). They believe their article is perfect, and if anyone disagrees with them then all hell breaks loose. This causes conflict between those who tag, and those who don't. Its inevitable in this, users get "grouchy" and end up snapping at other people. I'm not defending incivility, but its always a good idea to look at the bigger picture, and look into the possible reasons why a certian user has got to a point where they start snapping at other users. In this case, a simple warning should suffice, and that could have probably been delt with at WP:WQA. Jeni ^(talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No question the user in question is being kind of a jerk about it. But are the tags legitimate, or are they frivolous? The poster of this thread was lecturing the editor in question about the specific way he's doing the tags. If the tags are legitimate, the original posters' focus should be on resolving the citations, not on pedantry about whether they go before or after a period. If the tags are not legitimate, they should be reverted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW (and it probably isn't worth much now) it wasn't me who questioned where the tags should go - rather the number of them and the response by the individual to any comment. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that these tags are placed in good faith, and he's not trying to disrupt Wikipedia, because in some sections of these articles, a citation really is needed for verifiability. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I will wait and see if this user takes advice from others. Hopefully CanOfWorms will stop adding the tags to the leads of articles. My main problem with the user's incivility is that it indicates CanOfWorms is not going to listen to anything else anyone says. Hopefully CanOfWorms will change as a result of this incident and no more action is to be taken. Jolly Ω Janner 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I add quite a few tags while gnoming around (although i add more cites than tags overall), and see the adding of a cite needed tag as a challenge in itself. If a long-standing editor adds a tag, it means he considers it to be challengable, imo. A grouchy response to editors' comments is unfortunnate, but as others have said, the tags should be replaced with cites as needed, or removed. I see many articles aiming for GA status that need more citations, but the main editor cannot see where they are needed, as the claims are obvious to an expert - citation needed tags are a helpful contribution to the encylopedia. I expect most editors would be grouchy if people complained aobut their contributions, instead of seeing them as helpful. There is no need for an admin here (and this report seems to have pushed CanofWorms to retirement anyway).YobMod 12:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Its worth pointing out that the person who filed this dispute appears to have issues against tags in general, and isn't known for giving the most civil messages in this regard. [159][160] Jeni ^(talk) 13:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well! Well, as has been pointed out to me from time to time, any editor has the right to apply a "citation needed" tag to statements of fact that he questions. To call those tags "pointless" or whatever, is a matter of opinion. Rather than calling them "pointless", he should try to find citations that will nullify the need for the tag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue at all with adding tags based upon a review of whether they are needed. What I do have an issue with is bulk tagging where it would appear that either there has been no consideration of whether they are needed, or it would appear that they have been done by automatic means. User sfan has had his bulk tagging criticised here recently as it appeared to be done by a bot. He also has caused problems with the loss of source data with uploaded files. User CanOfWorms seemed to spend a great deal of time adding tags to facts that were not in dispute. I have added citations to facts tagged by CanOfWorms and informed him of that - he asked me "whether I wanted a medal".

So - tagging - absolutely fine with me. Bulk, semi-automated tagging of this sort - I have a problem with that. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

CanOfWorms added perfectly valid tags, it is irrelevant as to the quantity of tags added. Any unsourced content may be challenged and/or removed. He is challenging said content, as he is entitled to do so. Now you have pushed a perfectly good editor away from Wikipedia, and have asked another one that his edits are pointless. Do you really feel you are assuming good faith and staying perfectly within the confines of civility? I think not. Please read up on Wikipedia policies, it may help. Jeni ^(talk) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule that any unsourced content may be removed, no matter how positively worded, nonetheless requires judgement. Human editors are supposed to exhibit judgement. Otherwise we could have a bot adding a tag after every sentence in Wikipedia not followed by a reference, and deleting it a week later. We refused overwhelmingly to adopt the rule that even an entire article being unsourced, regardless of the length of time, was by itself a reason for deletion unless it was shown to be unsourceable. There are hundreds of thousands of truly questionable or outdated statements in Wikipedia that we really need to address. Judgement requires dealing with the most important problems first. Diverting energies to dealing with non-problems that are only technical violations is not cooperative editing. When carried too far, it becomes actually disruptive. DGG (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that disruptive tagging is possible, but looking at the contribs, Canoofworms mostly tagged very basic claims, such as when a town was founded. These are the "important problems first" things that need citing for town aricles, imo. It adds up to a lot, but none of the articles was disruptively tag-bombed (i didn't see more than 3 in any article), and the tags were not for bits of trivia or obvious common knowledge. (none of which means Phil Holmes shouldn't have gotten a more collaborative response, but a lot worse things get said here without comment) YobMod 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of you have missed the entire point of the thread - and what exactly happened here. An editor was concerned about the tagging. CanOfWorms told the editor to "get lost" in response. I didn't even warn him - I sent him a friendly reminder about communication. Read my comment, seriously. In response to this, the editor apparently retired. He was not threatened with a block, he was not threatened with any action whatsoever. I didn't even imply that his tagging was inappropriate. Jeni, I totally agree that he is entitled to challenge content. But accusing Phil Holmes of "pushing a perfectly good editor away" because he wanted an explanation of bulk tagging is disingenuous at best. If CanOfWorms wants to tell people to get lost, and then retire in a huff when asked not to do so, that's his prerogative. Then you go on to accuse Phil (and me? I suppose not) of not assuming good faith, and condescendingly tell him to read up on Wiki policies because it may help. I think that you may be engaging in the very action you are condemning here. The bottom line, for everyone, is that if an editor engages in a non-standard practice such as bulk citation tagging, they have a responsibility to address any concerns or at least put up a blanket statement on their talk page. "Get lost" isn't going to help anything. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The "get lost" is a minor issue and shouldn't have even been bought here, it could have adequately been addressed at WQA. Jeni ^(talk) 15:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As it wasn't just incivility but incivility mixed with an editing conflict, ANI was actually probably the better option. However, that hardly matters. I still think you're missing the forest for the trees here. I totally agree that "get lost" is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. The issue was the complete refusal to engage in any communication whatsoever in the face of peer concern. Please reconsider throwing around accusations of bad faith and telling people to read up on policies in this discussion; it does nothing but fan the flames that shouldn't have been lit in the first place. Torches and pitchforks, I'm seeing. Tan | 39 15:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent]Thanks, Tan. And again, FWIW, I had read the Wiki policy on citations and mentioned this above. My point throughout has been that the "citation required" tags should only be added to facts likely to be challenged. If this is not the case, then good faith should be assumed and the tag not added. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets put this one to bed. No egregious violations, and an editor who left. Happens. Rich Farmbrough, 19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Small Victory and original research

Small Victory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Though we have a content dispute on Genetic History of Europe, there is one specific issue that there is a consensus on. That is analyzing and interpreting charts in ways not done by the creators of the charts, constitutes original research. A thread was posted on the No original research noticeboard, in which at least 3 independent editors [161],[162],[163], [164], who have nothing to with the article, stated that analysis of a chart by a wikipedia editor constitutes original research as it is an unpublished syntheses of previously published material.

User:Small Victory has analyzed a chart with a novel conclusion not published in the article that published the chart. However despite the advice of other editors, he continues to edit war inserting his original research. [165], [166], [167]. This analysis of Charts is long standing issue that started on the now deleted article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, and has now spilled over into Genetic history of Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The dispute in that first noticeboard thread is still ongoing. It hasn't been established that I'm "analyzing and interpreting charts". In fact, I've provided a lot of evidence that I'm simply describing what they show. How to deal with citations of visual data is a complicated issue, and no consensus has yet been reached. Obviously, things aren't going as smoothly for you there as you had hoped, so you're forum shopping for an answer you like better. Very dishonorable. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The above shows what Muntuwandi is talking about. SV is the only person who believes he is not breaching OR with his analysis, and claims no consenus because of this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Without rehashing the discussion in the other place, those charts are unintelligible to anyone but an expert - to the lay person they look like artwork by Damian Hirst. Ergo, they cannot be used to support any argument by anybody without requiring interpretation from an expert. What is needed is the text of the scientific paper, where the expert says that the chart shows what the editor wishing to use it wants it to mean.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (and I have an A level in Pure Maths)

User:Jza84

A consensus was reached at Talk:Bradford#City_of_Bradford and implemented on 5 May 2009. This was subsequently reverted by Jza84 on 13 June 2009 without discussion. I mentioned this at User_talk:Jza84#Bradford as soon as I noticed, where I was promptly threatened with a block "if [I] assume bad faith again." Needless to say, I think this is a clear abuse of administrative powers. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Chrisieboy (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified Jza84. You should have done so yourself. DGG (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You just beat me to it. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I don't know how bad this situation is but if he is being threatened with a block for raising a question with a heavy emphasis on the will... "If you assume bad faith again, I will block you". Maybe I am missing something? --candle•wicke 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got a WIKISTALKER - HELP!

I appear to have gained a stalker in the form of User:Jeni. She has voted opposite to me in 38 seperate AfDs, each time criticising my actions as a nominatior (1, 2, 3, 4-38), has accused me of WP:ILIKEIT in non-deletion-related discussions ([168]) and has blankly disagreed with everything I say on article talk pages, even going as far to say that users who agree with me are sock puppets ([169], [170], [171]). She has also sent me warnings for sending people warning templates when she feels it to be "improper" ([172]) and other editors have noticed her actions ([173][174]). When confronted about her actions by this user, she replied that Wiki is a service that anyone can use, implying that the issue is a coincidence. ([175]). Now I know that sometimes disagreements happen on Wikipedia, and it's clear that she's not the only person who doesn't share my opinion, but this vast disagreement is getting out of control. It's no coincidence that she keeps cropping up on all of these seperate issues. A warning or more would be greatly appreciated. DJ 01:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you define stalking since I have the Big Brother article on my watchlist and I watch the AfD logs (and always have done). Meh, that's all I have to say on the subject really. I notice this user has started to canvas other users of this discussion before even telling me. Its a good thing I keep an eye on places like this or I'd probably never know about this! Jeni ^(talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't alerted the user (I was on my way to), yet she came to comment. That surely says it all? And she claims that its yet ANOTHER coincidence that she came across this. Hrm... DJ

You may wish to check a few topics above, I semi regularly comment here. Jeni ^(talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this is all a big coinscidence! And if you read WP:CANVASS, you'll notice that I've only alerted users who are involved with the issues related to the discussion and have therefore broken no rules. DJ 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not exactly seeing how User:MegaPedant (no offence to him/her) is involved, but hey. Jeni ^(talk) 01:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He/she was the other user who has noticed this pattern in your edits. DJ 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Anywhere in particular? Jeni ^(talk) 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The links are provided in my opening argument, which you clearly haven't read. DJ 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links are about the WP:SPAs, not Jeni. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No they are not. Ask MegaPedant and he will tell you so. DJ 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DJ, ANI is one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia for editors. And I suggest you read up on what being a "stalker" actually means; voting against you on multiple AFDs and therefore opposing your mission to rid WP of American Idol bios is far from stalking. Shappy ^talk 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So of all the 1000000s of Wikipedians, she just happened to be here? If you'd have cared to read my initial comment properly, you'd have noticed that there are seperate issues to the AFDs and that I am not the only user to notice this. DJ 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my reply, check various threads above, you'll find responses by me, it logically follows that I'm watching this space. I haven't seen anyone else "notice" anything. When you were forum shopping on here last time for the Big Bro AfD, you were bound to attract opinions. Jeni ^(talk) 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

False accusations of "forum shopping" - another one to add to the list... DJ 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that your situation doesn't qualify as wikistalking. Wikistalking is following around another user for deliberate disruptive purposes, and voting against your opinions isn't really disruptive, because she didn't make any personal attacks or harassment or something like that. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't poke each other more... DJ - I understand your concerns, but this appears to be normal behavior so far. Will review in more detail, but let's calm down here, ok? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to go and get some beauty sleep anyway :) I'll catch up on this when I get up. Jeni ^(talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I've come to be involved in this but as I am involved I'll use the opportunity to have my say. I resent being dragged into other people's arguments and having words put into my mouth and I wish to point out that I'm not a puppet but a free-thinking individual who has no argument with Jeni. I have no interest or involvement in any of the American Idol articles mentioned above and my comments on my talk page (and DJ's talk page) regarding a rapid increase in the number of editors working on the Big Brother 2009 (UK) article pre-date any knowledge that a related article (that had been proposed for deletion by DJ but that I had argued in favour of keeping) had been discussed here at ANI. May I suggest that everyone interested read the complete discussion on my talk page. Thank you. MegaPedant (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As an impartial observer just passing by it doesn't appear to be a stalker issue (in my opinion). --candle•wicke 20:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reynoboy

Resolved

 – all disruptive sockpuppets blocked indefinitely

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

A while back, I brought up this user's edits adding unverified and speculative information to Wikipedia articles that I edit. Despite the repeated warnings and two threads I've made (one of which was hijacked by Mythdon and nothing happened), this user continues to perform questionable edits adding speculative and unverified information to articles. He does not appear to be listening to anyone, he edits inconsistently, and does not seem to be editing constructively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. A disruptive sock. Details at the used's talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs' multiple incivilities at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Objection_to_this

Resolved

 – Warnings handed out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The incivilities:

• David Fuchs accused SlimVirgin of "bitching" in response to SlimVirgin's doubts about the usefulness of current ideas on the use of alt text. When SlimVirgin complained about this in quite mild terms, David Fuchs' response was "When you're involved, Slimmy, it's basically my stock response".
• Later David Fuchs wrote, "@Slim: If any "brilliant" writer is put off by having to describe an image or two to a disabled viewer, he or she is a lazy moron ... go crawl back to whatever hole you spend your wikidays in, please"
• David Fuchs did not apologise for or redact his remarks despite further complaints from Malleus Fatuorum, Ealdgyth and myself. Ealgdyth and I both objected to the "lazy morons" remark as we both disagreed with including alt text in FA criteria.
• I wrote to David Fuchs that I took his behaviour seriously and expected an apology for his "multiple incivilities". David Fuchs posted at my Talk page ".. I'll apologize when I feel the need, but it won't be because you expect me to "keep a civil tongue in my head ..." and then erased my message from his Talk page.

While David Fuchs's remark were well short of Oedipal epithets or suggestions that someone's brain was in their groin, they were also well short of the level of commonsense, diplomacy and level-headedness expected of admins. Some of his insulting comments were at the expense of named editors. Others were insulting descriptions of unnamed persons who behaved in a way or advocated a position with which he disagreed - we all know of at least one non-admin who was blocked recently for unflattering descriptions of unnamed persons based on their behaviour. If such behaviour leads to blocks for non-admins but no consequences for admins who act in the same way, the widespread suspicion that there's one law for admins and another for the rest will be inflamed - see the recent history of WT:RFA for examples of the consequences. --Philcha (talk)

While I do my darnedest not to use hurtful language, or at least language that will not help situations or people's scarred egos, I agree with David's point that claiming that adding alt text to images is too labor-intensive to be feasible is disingenuous, especially for FAs where alt text is fairly the least work to be done for getting an article promoted. I have no problem with legitimate questions about alt text actually being helpful, and have posed my own questions as to how POV such interpretations should be. I believe there is a difference between editors who claim they do not add alt text for such questions and what appeared to be SlimVirgin's original claim that alt text is another facet of a process-driven...process...that ultimately turns editors away from FAC. If they can't add alt text, then they certainly shouldn't be trying to get an FA. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I really don't see much point in responding to this. I admit I have a distinct inability to take anything Slim suggests with good faith, and I've recused myself from the discussion to avoid further heat that were caused by my actions. I didn't agree to Philcha's command to apologize. I don't see what the aim of this ANI report is, aside from the whole "ADMIN CABAL" discussions, which are rather dreary... Can you explain what admin attention is needed? And Moni, while I agree with your comments, I think that discussion is suited to WT:FAC and shouldn't be brought here. It's my behavior which is on trial, not the ALT issue :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of comments, just an objective analysis. The word "bitching" is describing actions and not persons. Saying it is a stock response isn't really an insult or anythng negative. The statement "he or she is a lazy moron" is part of an "if/then" clause, which has a hypothetical individual and cannot be claimed as a personal attack as there is no direct object. It is a rhetorical strawman, of course. As a "lazy moron", I am not offended by the possibility that I am associated with people who do not want to put alt text in FACs. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to explain yourself or clarify why you chose to use "lazy morons" but I did not understand that to mean anyone who objected to using alt text is a lazy moron. I understood that to mean whoever claimed it was too much work as a reason not to add it to articles is a lazy moron. Philcha is saying that Malleus, Ealdgyth, and he were offended by the lazy moron remark. I did not think they were agreeing that adding alt text was too much effort. They were not classifying themselves as lazy morons per your criteria. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Was that a response to me? "You'll have to explain yourself or clarify why you chose to use "lazy morons"" - I quoted the term. I didn't use the term... Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. That remark was for David. --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I was somewhat stunned by David's responses, especially that I should crawl back into my hole. The discussion about alt text was otherwise civil, and has been very constructive. I can't understand why there was a sudden need to launch personal attacks, and now apparently a defence of them, especially as I don't recall having interacted with David before. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that any admin action is warranted here. A more appropriate venue would be the WP:WQA. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regular editors are blocked for much less than this outburst on a regular basis, but administrators simply close ranks when the behaviour being criticised comes from one of their own. Rather an unedifying spectacle, although not entirely unexpected. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I find myself in the astonishing position of agreeing with Malleus. Admins must be held, if not to a higher standard, at the very least to the same standard as other editors. → ROUX ₪ 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't block anyone for this, Malleus. I don't care who they are. You've seen me lobby for people to be unblocked for more than this, so I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment is. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I lobbied for Peter Damian to be not banned for doing far, far worse than this. But yeah, no one listens to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't asked for him to be blocked, simply that the same treatment is handed out to both administrators and non-administrators. Sadly, in the current climate that means that he ought to be blocked. I didn't make the rules, and it's not my job to enforce them. That's your job. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is definitely uncivil behavior on the part of David Fuchs, these kinds of comments about other editors are unacceptable. I suggest that David refactor his comments to remove the rude remarks he made to SlimVirgin. If David continues making these kinds of remarks, then a block would definitely be warranted in order to prevent further uncivil, hostile behavior. Wikipedia administrators are expected to hold to a much higher standard of conduct than this. Dreadstar † 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is no administrative action required here. Please see WP:CIVIL. We don't block people for incivility until it rises to the level of personal attacks or harassment. I don't see anything here requiring a block. Please take this matter to WP:WQA if you require further help from uninvolved editors. Block shopping is unseemly, as is demanding apologies. I agree that the comments were rude, and it would be best for them to be refactored. WP:ANI is not the place to request refactoring. If you can't deal with the rude user directly, that's where WP:WQA can help. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Commenting anyway: this is ridiculous. How can an admin get away with this kind of behaviour without even a reprimand. I agree that blocking is not an option unless there is a risk that Fuchs will repeat the offense but he should definietly be told in bold letters that this is no way to adress fellow editors no matter what your history is with them. You were waaay out of line and no matter how much you disagree with someone this is never the way to express it. I think it would be more than a good idea for you to stand back and apologize for what you said - not so much to save your relationship with SlimVirgin which seems to be damaged beyond repair already, but more to save your own face - in this case as always it is the one being incivil who comes out looking bad, not the other part. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ironic e/c) This was way above rude, this was repeat, unjustified, unrepentant, unmodified, totally personalised and derogatory responses to good faith debate. From an admin no less. And yet, it gets archived and shoveled off to WQA, who can do what exaclty? Absolutely nothing that's what. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• I must agree with both Maunus and MickMacNee above. This sort of behaviour from almost any non-admin would result in at least a severe reprimand, and almost certainly a block. Hell, I got blocked for telling someone to 'stay the fuck away'... and yet an admin gets away with this? If nothing else, it gives me a chance to plug this proposal for desysopping abusive admins. However, since this is very clearly not resolved, I have unarchived the section. → ROUX ₪ 20:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I rarely (in fact, never) agree with Ottava and Malleus about anything, so I find, to my amusement, my total agreement with them here. David Fuchs repeatedly uses incivil language in practically any discussion where someone has the temerity to disagree with him. This goes on all the time, he needs to be reined in. An RfAr might be in order. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest moving this thread

I request that the drama making, whether unintentional or not, please be minimized. Nobody needs to be blocked. This thread should be moved to WP:WQA#Concern about David Fuchs to continue the discussion there. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA is widely regarded as useless because toothless - an editor who has behave offensively can ignore WP:WQA with impunity.

I also question your toning down the title of this discussion from "David Fuchs' multiple incivilities" to "Concern about David Fuchs". All the relevant comments at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Objection_to_this criticised David Fuchs' conduct, as did most of this on this page. David Fuchs also received at his Talk page criticisms from uninvolved editors SandyGeorgia and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Fuchs&diff=306067083&oldid=306062910] - the later fo which DavidFuchs reverted. The revert and David Fuchs' response at my Talk page showed that he does not care at all about his own conduct - which also makes referral to WP:WQA futile. --Philcha (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern about SlimVirgin

There is an appearance of head hunting on this thread. I am concerned that User:SlimVirgin and several friends or allies are trying to get an editor blocked for incivility, in violation of WP:CIVIL. These actions are themselves incivil. I request uninvolved administrators scrutinize this matter closely for possible violations of collusion, gaming the rules, and feuding. Thank you. I'm done (administrating) here. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)This was not helpful, so I am striking it.

That strikes me as a not very good idea which will only escalate something that should be put to bed. Meatpuppetry is hard to prove, and I think it's hard to deny that the complaints about David Fuchs' comments are at least semi-legitimate, particularly since they were made by several people, including before this even came to ANI. If you have something certain in mind in terms of an effort to gang up on David, it's better for you post evidence rather than insinuating and then hoping others pick up the thread. If you don't have evidence then the matter should be dropped. I have no dog in this mini-fight but I think AGF is still very much in effect for all parties concerned barring evidence to the contrary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The complaints were not frivolous. I agree. However, the time for any possible block has passed, because such a block would be short if any at all. I think David Fuchs has gotten the message here, and given a little time to reflect he'll probably improve his behavior. Continuing the discussion and repeatedly asking for a block is not at all helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite wrong about that, and I don't think you should try to shine the spotlight on me. People are simply objecting to your attempts to close a thread while editors are still commenting. It serves only to draw more attention to the debate, and is therefore counter-productive from your own perspective. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. Plus, in case you were referring to me, Jehochman: I have about as little time for anything SV has to say as I do for anything you have to say. Making veiled accusations of meatpuppetry and gaming while complaining that wanting an administrator sanctioned for the same behaviour that would get a newbie blocked is, to say the least, suffused with a bitter irony. Because here's the thing: a newbie would get blocked, but an admin who is supposed to know better doesn't. That is a problem. Of course, you're an admin... I leave it as an exercise for the reader how that sentence should be finished. → ROUX ₪ 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I was not referring to you specifically. I apply the same standards to all editors, newbie or admin. If other admins bite the noobs, take it up with them, or show me and I will. Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This board is for requesting administrative action. Once the time for possible administrative action have passed, there is no point in continuing a discussion. No block is possible at this time. This page is not to be used like the stocks to smear an editor's reputation or to harass and harangue them. You've got to stop block shopping. If you have concerns about civility, the proper forum is WP:WQA. I and another editor suggested that path, and I moved the thread there hoping others would try to have a productive conversation about solving the problem. It has become clear that the people asking for a block don't seem to want to resolve the dispute; they merely want to get an adversary blocked, perhaps to settle old scores. That behavior is an abuse of this board. Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt Slim is part of some cabalish action to block me. Others might, I dunno :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear! David, do you see all the trouble that came from a few rude remarks? Would you please pledge to up you standards going forward, no matter how you feel about the other editor. It would make my job much easier if you did. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

'Course I did, that's why I disengaged from the discussion. However, I don't believe in refactoring remarks after the fact (for better or worse, that's what I said on the wiki-record) and I don't give meaningless apologies on demand (the person who has justification in asking for an apology is Slim, and she is perfectly capable of messaging or emailing me and doesn't need a chorus to speak her mind.) For the record, I have gotten plenty of tut-tuts on my talk page, from drama-feeders who I disregarded to people whose advice I respect and heed. Roux, you could always follow my recall process if that floats your boat, but that would involve an RfC and somehow tying poor comments with a misuse of admin tools, and I'm sure there's plenty of other drama fires people could be stoking besides this one.) May we please put this one to bed? -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Christ, Jehochman, want to make some more stupid allegations? I have never to my knowledge even so much as talked with Fuchs. And WQA is worse than useless. Here's how WQA works:

"He done wrong."

"Ayup, he shore did."

"What we gonna do about it?"

"Ain't nothin' we can do about it."

...and that's it. WQA has no ability to actually do anything. But thank you for two things: 1) making it clear that any editor may make the comments the Fuchs did without any reprisal, and 2) quite neatly attempting to deflect the issue away from administrator abuse of the position--namely, doing things normal editors wouldn't be allowed to get away with in a month of sundays--quite probably because you have done exactly the same thing here with your vague and scurrilous accusations. Smearing other editors, indeed. Does the word hypocrisy mean much to you? → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Roux - please tone it down. This is an over the top and unreasonable response to Jehochman. Please don't increase drama or attack him for being concerned here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. He accused everyone here of meatpuppetry and colluding to try and get Fuchs blocked. And you're saying my response was unreasonable? He's getting away--exactly the same as Fuchs--with behaviour that would have a newbie disinvited from editing. It's depressing how many admins refuse to see this sort of thing as a problem. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop escalating the drama. He had a concern which (yes) assumed bad faith about some of us but which he presented neutrally and fairly and has walked away from as the situation is clarified. You're assuming bad faith about him and escalating into personal attacks. This is not ok. Please stop now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot present accusations of meatpuppetry and collusion 'fairly'. But yet again: the admin gets away with the accusations, but the person pointing them out gets smacked down. It is sad that you don't see a problem with that. → ROUX ₪ 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What he was afraid was happening isn't, and he wasn't rude or incivil in suggesting / asking about it; it's a failure of good faith, but in good editor practice he was polite about asking and hasn't abused anyone once it's clear he was wrong.

Pointing out that it was an assumption of bad faith, in a civil manner, and leaving it at that would have been the appropriate response and would not have further escalated. You've been teetering on the edge of NPA since you started to respond to him, however, and have done it multiple times. On a 1 to 10 scale, the provocation was a 3, and your response is a 6. If you respond disproportionately to the provocation, and particularly if you keep it up over and over again after being told that you're going too far, you become the problem.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of drama. This was not about you - you've made part of it about you, in a very negative way. Was this what you wanted? If not... Stop! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You have entirely missed the point. Jehochman made accusations that are de facto uncivil personal attacks when not substantiated. Were a new user to make them, a block or a severe wrist slapping would be in order., But when an admin does so.. ho hum, business as usual. → ROUX ₪ 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux, as I'd warned David prior to Jehochman's comment, I am equally one of the people Jehochman was pointing at with the initial comment above as you are. Again - In my opinion, it was an assumption or concern about bad faith. It was presented civilly. It was wrong - and he's accepted that and moved off it and not defended it unreasonably.

What he did, while wrong on that particular, was not abusive and did not justify the level of vehemence you're responding with. Please stop. You are making this a drama incident by escalating your own behavior here and it's moving into disruptive and personal attack on him territory. You can argue your points about David's initial behavior without stepping further across the line against Jehochman. Please don't blow up the drama in the discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It was, in fact, abusive. And by making those unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations--while ironically complaining about a 'smear campaign'--Jehochman made his behaviour an issue. → ROUX ₪ 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman - It really doesn't matter who notified whom, how, or where - there's a widespread agreement that the actions were uncivil and in violation of policy. David removed two comments from his talk page, one by me, both with snarky edit comments, and left the other editor who warned him a not entirely polite message on his talk page too.

I don't think this rises to blockable, but there's not just a little smoke here, there's fire. Attention is entirely appropriate (here, or on WQA - I have no particular preference). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in part. Some people want to tighten up civility. I want to clean up ANI. We could both get what we want by moving discussions like this one to WP:WQA. You can't really talk to somebody about their civility while your finger is on the block button. If a WP:WQA discussion fails to resolve the matter, the next step is WP:RFC. ANI is not part of dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA is useless. You should also be sanctioned for your unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry etc. You won't be, of course; admins get a free pass for the most part. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're describing an ideal, end point process and topic breakdown between here and WP:WQA. At this time, however, I think others have a concern that there was an attempt being made to sweep this under the rug or cover up the behavior.

I don't subscribe to that opinion personally, but I see several others talking about it. At some point, trying to move a conversation "to the right place" ends up being more disruptive to the community than just letting it do its thing where it is now. As I said, I'm ok with discussion either place, but I think with the pushback on the location leaving it be is probably lowest-drama for now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive and blocking Fuchs serves no purpose unless he were to continue his incivility which doesn't seem to be the case. Furthermore I don't know SlimVirgin, have never interacted with her to my recollection. I am simply someone interested in the general work environment here at wikipedia. And letting editors get away with that kind of behaviour without being told that it is out of line creates leads to a toxic work athmosphere for all editors here. It is simply not in order to talk like that to anybody on wikipedia and everyone should know that. Furthermore I believe that admins should be held to a higher standard regarding cility issues than other users, because they need to have the moral high ground to be able to deal well with problem editors. Therefore it is not productive that Fuchs' behaviour be defended or made out as a minor incident - we need all our administrators to understand and follow the codes of conduct that they are supposed to enforce. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am one of the administrators who has been more actively involved in the civility policy over the years, and enforcing it. I did warn David over it. A WQA or RFC might be appropriate - I believe that the message has been transmitted and received, however, and I suspect David will not do it again (soon, if at all - he is not known for abusive behavior in general, that I can remember). You're right to be concerned, admins should be setting a good example on these issues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Try reading his comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development and its Talk page for just a touch of the kind of abusive behavior he doesn't descend into. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion concerning David or SlimVirgin but I see no less than divisive attitudes here. Jehochman and Roux, you got contradictory arguments. Jehochman, you ask to end the drama and then start another (same timing - see signatures above). Roux, you kind of imply that administrators have to get a special treatment but then believe that an admin has to be blocked. I am shaking my head guys :) Anyway, can we please move on now? If there are no sanction then close the whole thread. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Fayssal. I believe that admins should not get special treatment, but frequently do. → ROUX ₪ 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read "...complaining that wanting an administrator sanctioned for the same behaviour that would get a newbie blocked is, to say the least" and then "[admin] should also be sanctioned" and got confused. Otherwise, yes... I agree with your assertion I am responding to now. Hoping this issue gets resolved, admins should set an example instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: the thread is the sanction. While there is no need to use administrative tools agains Fuchs this thread goes to show him that his behaviour was wrong and is not tolerated on wikipedia - such a display of collective disapproval might very well lead to the desired outcome: that he refrain from that kind of behaviour in the future. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The timestamps are confusing, FayssalF. They are the same because I updated the first comment when posting the second. There was actually a 14 minute difference. [176][177] In between those two edits I moved the thread to WP:WQA, hoping that matters would go in a more productive direction. The attempted move was reverted twice, showing my strategy to be a failure. There appeared to be some sort of collusion to get David Fuchs blocked, or at least smeared, rather a good faith attempt to resolve matters. That's what generated the second statement. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF, I did close the thread when it was clear that no sanction was possible. Several editors restarted it. That's what lead to this whole mess! Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And again with the unfounded accusations. Well fine, Jehochman, consider this your final warning--that any user may give--against making unfounded accusations against other editors. Do it again and I will seek an uninvolved admin to block you for repeated personal attacks. There has been no attempt to 'smear' Fuchs here; there has been an attempt--vain though it might be--to have admins held to the same standard of behaviour as other users. → ROUX ₪ 21:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"You can't really talk to somebody about their civility while your finger is on the block button" - appears to apply only to admins. I've seen non-admin users blocked for just one remark like the 3 that DavidFuchs wrote.

Jehochman, your attack on SlimVirgin, starting with the title of this sub-section, was totally unethical. SlimVirgin didn't start this discussion, I did.

As for your "I request uninvolved administrators scrutinize this matter closely for possible violations of collusion, gaming the rules, and feuding":

• Show us all the diffs that support your suspicion of collusion. Without them, mention of collusion is a smear. For exampe IIRC I have never posted on SlimVirgin's Talk page until notifying her as a courtesy that her name was mentioned in this referral to WP:ANI, and IIRC she has never posted to my Talk page. Even if I've forgotten some message in the distant past, we are not in regular communication. --Philcha (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• The diffs I provided, or of the current version of Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Objection_to_this if you want to assure yourself that nothing has been taken out of context, show a well-contested but amicable discussion of a proposal - until DavidFuchs started throwing insults around. The discussion returned to its previous amicable style after DavidFuchs's last post there at 14:19, 4 August 2009. Where's the evidence of gaming the rules?
• The same evidence rebuts your accusation of WP:DE against SlimVirgin, myself or whoever your intended target was - the discussion happily returned to its previous course and tone after David Fuchs departed.
• As for your using "feuding" as your description for an accusation of WP:DE against whomever, show us the diffs that demonstrate a history of conflict. In this incident the only evidence of feuding, i.e. persistent hostility, was DavidFuchs' remarks to SlimVirgin. --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy edit conflict! I think Maunus's point above (at 21:31) is probably the only positive thing to take away from this minor dustup, since clearly there is not going to be an administrative action and the discussion will likely just devolve into nonconstructive chatter. There is a wide perception (rightly or wrongly—I think rightly) that admins tend to get a pass on civility and similar issues when non-admin editors would often be sanctioned for the same kind of behavior. Admins should be concerned not only with actually meting out (or not meting out) fair blocks regardless of the status of the user in question, but also with the appearance that they are doing so. Leaving to the side David's comments—which were gratuitous and non-collegial at best—we should be wary of too quickly sweeping away complaints about admin behavior. As mentioned above there is clearly at least some "fire" here, and pretending there is only smoke reinforces the impression that we admins follow different standards for "regular" editors than we do for sysops who get to wear the fancy pants (side note: I propose that from now on we refer to new admins as "putting on the fancy pants" rather than "getting the mop" - except I don't really propose that).

I also can't help but note an excruciatingly constant pattern in these kind of situations. So many of these threads could be avoided if the editor who spoke too sharply simply said, "my bad, I got too heated there and apologize." 95% of us would accept that and move the hell on, but it rarely seems to happen. I wish outbursts of incivility were followed far more often with contrition—not forced contrition (which is bogus - forcing an apology is absurd and not useful), but a genuine stepping back and acknowledgment that one got carried away, as we all can and do from time to time. I'm going to a bar now, and it better be more fun than this or I'm suing someone! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Drama level down, please

This kitten also requires a civility block. ~ mazca talk 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Kitten placed in block. Er, box. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This can be discussed in a civil manner, respecting each other. Please elevate the discussion and WP:AGF about all of the participants. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, your "There appeared to be some sort of collusion to get DavidFuchs blocked, or at least smeared, rather a good faith attempt to resolve matters" (21:39, 4 August 2009) and your earlier "You've got to stop block shopping" directed at an unspecified target (21:07, 4 August 2009) are also unsupported by the evidence. I reported this incident to WP:ANI after first trying to get DavidFuchs to apologise for his remarks. He refused, in terms that suggested he felt quite free to throw such remarks around whenever he felt like it. DavidFuchs started the fire and then poured petrol on it.

Under all the other stuff, the major issue is whether at least equal standards of conduct are enforced on admins as on non-admins. --Philcha (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not. Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Etc. → ROUX ₪ 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have left more civility warnings than anyone else engaged in the discussion. I warned David Fuchs prior to the ANI thread developing much past initial notification. In the scale of uncivil behavior, his was low-grade warnable, and unfortunate as administrators need to be setting good examples, but not multiple-warnings-or-blockable.

I encourage people to review Wikipedia:Civility warnings, my essay on this topic. I take this seriously. Please AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I await an explanation as to how unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of collusion and meatpuppetry can possibly be made in good faith. → ROUX ₪ 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies can be offered, but should never be demanded under threat of sanction. Next time you see one user behaving badly to another, you could follow the steps outlined at User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness. Jehochman ^Talk 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You owe me a new irony meter. Or is making unsubstantiated allegations of serious wrongdoing somehow not rude? Feh, forget it, nobody will do anything about your behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 22:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And after User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness's "Request the user take corrective action or change their behavior. "Could you please refactor that remark," ..."]] has proved ineffective, what happens next? Oh yes, if the culprit is not an admin, he / she often gets blocked. --Philcha (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Georgewilliamherbert. This discussion is like a hydra: been reading for ten minutes without getting a handle on the underlying dispute. So without specific comment on anybody's conduct, perhaps this would be a step forward, generally speaking? Respectfully submitted, Durova²⁹² 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, let's sweep it under the carpet. The "underlying issue" is as plain as the nose on your face. Just look at David's behaviour both at the FAC discussion and subsequently and tell me that a non-administrator would not now be blocked for similar behaviour. It's not rocket science. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not understanding the underlying issue is different from sweeping anything under the rug. Life is short, and there isn't much to be gained by spending more time at a tangled and bitter discussion. It could help future discussions if people got more in the habit of providing diffs. Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. Durova²⁹² 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A non-administrator would not, right now, be blocked for similar behavior. They might have gotten the equivalent of a second level civility warning for the edit comments removing prior warnings on their talk page, but no more.

As I stated above - please see Wikipedia:Civility warnings. I do this more than most, probably more than anyone else here. David Fuchs got as much warning from me for a first offense (series of edits, but one incident) (that I'm aware of) as anyone would. Drama here is distracting and confusing the situation, but I am taking this seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are either joking or hopelessly out of touch with the reality on the ground. I suggest the latter. Resign your admin bit and see what the world looks like to the rest of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, Malleus. Admins can do as they please, and the peons are merely left to whine about it. Feudalism is alive and well. I'm just glad they don't actually employ droit de seigneur. Unless and until adminship can be removed by the community when admins abuse their position, this inequality will continue. And guess who makes up much of the most vocal opposition to desysopping. → ROUX ₪ 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed.

Roux, is this what you meant by droit de seigneur? (Apologies to the ex-admin from whom I pinched this) --Philcha (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh jolly. Another thread about a specific incident which may warrant attention that has devolved into "civility standards aren't applied evenly" bitching. Message received loud and clear, Malleus and Roux. There is no need to keep banging the drum. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for so neatly encapsulating the entire problem by referring to it as 'bitching'. It would also be a good idea for you to note that complaint only became a serious focus here after multiple admins kept.. oh what was it... oh yeah, applying completely different standards to admins. → ROUX ₪ 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I figured the thread needed brevity and clarity. Solve the problem at hand. Resolve the dispute which is at the core of the matter. Don't spend your time fighting endless internecine battles. If you turn a thread about a specific issue into a proxy about a general issue (especially one which is at the core of how the 'pedia sorts itself) don't be surprised when it becomes unproductive and nasty. Just like when a specific AfD turns into a proxy for the notability wars, the situation gets worse not better. So you can throw sarcasm at me all day but it won't change the basics. Complaining in this thread loudly about broad (albeit important) issues won't move anything forward. If it makes you feel better, great. But don't act like it solves any grand problem. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing else is solving this problem. What, exactly, are non-admin users to do when admins routinely ignore misbehaviour amongst their own while regularly punishing non-admins for the exact same behaviour? You guys have all the power, and should we make the mistake of stepping an inch over the line--block! We have absolutely no way to redress the situation short of RFAR, which doesn't work except in the most extreme of cases. All this nonsense is precisely why admins should be routinely desysopped to make you lot remember what it's like to have absolutely zero ability to do anything about abuse around here. → ROUX ₪ 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"You lot". Classy. Well, keep on keeping on then. Let me know when you've solved this problem through discussion about it on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying 'you lot'. All admins. Whatever. You're ignoring the point.. but then, you're an admin, so you would, wouldn't you? The mocking, of course, is unbecoming of an admin.. but the idea that you're supposed to set some sort of example is, apparently foreign. It's amazing, I don't even have to say much really. You folks prove my point far better than I ever could. → ROUX ₪ 23:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm human, just like you are. I'm mocking this thread because I feel it is worthy of derision. If I knew that you could declare that behavior 'unbecoming of an admin' and then get upset about it, I might not have mocked it. The point stands. All that fighting this battle will do is leave you hoarse. If you want to push for substantive admin recall procedures, I'll support you, as I have in the past. But I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for this course of action you're on. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... could someone direct me to where WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL exclude making sweeping comments about all admins? I can't seem to find that part.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins are frequently given a free pass on behaviour that would get a newbie blocked or severely reprimanded. See above for two examples; Fuchs' comments and Jehochman's ridiculous accusations. → ROUX ₪ 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuchs got an editor warning, then an administrator warning from me, well before anyone here was complaining that much about it. There was no free pass. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman's allegations? Nada. You're still missing the point here, GWH, but it seems futile to try and explain it further than I already have. What is educational, however, is how very neatly this discussion is split. On the one side there are regular editors pointing out the disparity in treatment. On the other are solely admins, sweeping admin misbehaviour right under the rug. This growing divide between admins and regular editors needs to be stopped in its tracks. But whatever, I guess. Admins don't acknowledge there's any problem, so there clearly isn't one, so us silly little peons should shut up and behave like good little kids while the grownups do as they please. → ROUX ₪ 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No. There is something of a problem. David shouldn't say the things he said. What is missing is widespread agreement amongst admins that the problem has metastasized into either something meriting a desysoping or something indicative of wiki-wide rot. I don't know what to say. Should I go block David? Would that solve the problem? Short of buying a time machine and blocking him for those remarks prior to him making them, what shall I do? If there were a desysopping procedure, would you still be upset that admins might 'vote' against desysopping, causing the measure to fail? Should he be summarily desysopped? Protonk (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In an ideal world? Yes. Admins are elected to the post specifically because they are supposed to exemplify an ideal standard of behaviour and contribution to the project (whether onstage or backstage). I recognise that will never, ever happen, and I could probably be swayed by arguments that it shouldn't. But given the behvaiour would unquestionably have resulted in a block for a new editor, yes a block should have been applied. Admins are given wider latitude than newbies when in reality it should be narrower as they're supposed to know better. A block should have been issued immediately, as it would have been for a new editor. Oh well. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if this just died now. Actual enforcement actions, were someone to begin taking them, would have to start with those displaying stubborn bad faith to the point of incivility and disruption on ANI here. I would rather not to that, as it tends to be perceived as being an attempt to sweep things under the rug.

That said - there is a disparity here. We are letting critics get away with murder in the name of allowing fair and open discussion. The latter is important, but perhaps not this important.

Roux, are you prepared to be judged in a fair and unbiased manner, equally to my earlier judgement and warning to David Fuchs? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about you start with the bad faith accusations of meatpuppetry and collusion? Do something about an abusive admin and I'll pay attention to what you have to say to me. Until you do so, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I think you missed my point. You and Malleus are making sweeping statements indicting all admins, even ones who have never engaged in the behavior you are criticizing. If I said "everyone who isn't an admin is a vandal", you'd be rightly pissed off at me; perhaps you can imagine how an admin who doesn't do this feels when people are given a free pass to make swipes at them. And the thing that cheeses me off the most is that by constantly making these sweeping accusations about all admins and not providing a calm, rational argument with diffs, you are making it more difficult when there's a specific problem with an admin, because everyone will assume you're just looking to cry "admin abuse" again.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not miss your point. Many admins don't play their 'get out of jail free' cards because many admins--yourself included--are decent people. But you would get a free pass that regular editors simply do not. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Which goes to show that you missed my point again. It's not about whether I would get a free pass, because I'm just not going to engage in anything remotely close to blockable behavior. By making sweeping assertions that all admins give all other admins a free pass, you basically accusing me and the many other decent admins of giving other admins a free pass. If an admin creates three pages consisting of nothing but the word "poooooop", I'll block him/her just as fast as any other editor (in part because I rarely remember who is and isn't an admin, just like I rarely remember gender or age). If an editor is being uncivil, I'm almost never going to block, whether admin or not, mainly because blocks almost never improve civility issues.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well here's a simple test Fabrictramp. How many blocks of regular editors have you reversed when they're guilty of no worse behaviour than administrators whose bhaviour you have allowed to pass unremarked? The question is of course rhetorical, as administrators are strongly discouraged from being either honest or courageous in their actions, so the answer is of course "none". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to undermine your point, but I can think of at least two that I've unblocked in just such circumstances. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Only two? I can think of more than two bad blocks that happened this week. Is that it? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If nothing changes, shouldn't the drum continue to be beaten until things do change? Or should we just be good little kiddies and go away while all of the important people (Admins and the friends of ArbCom) get to play in their little fiefdoms? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This User:David_Fuchs admin has been rude, very rude. Telling someone to clawl back into their hole is very demeaning, he should be a man' apologise, and take it back. When admins do this type of thing and go unpunished it weakens their respect as a body. An admin should be held up as an example of the height that a wikipedian can aspire to.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't disagree with your assessment of Fuchs, but this notion that administrators are in some way role models, or chosen as role models, flies in the face of all common sense. Just take a look at any RfA. Most of the supporters will repeat some variation on "will not abuse the tools". Abusing other editors is nothing that anyone gets very excited about, as evidenced by the admins closing ranks here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not real big on this closing ranks conspiracy. Admins don't get chosen for their role model atributes and RFA is a bit broken , but once they are admins, a little more responsibility is there and role model wikipedian is something for them to aspire to as it is for all of us. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

A warning about his behaviour has been left on User_talk:David_Fuchs page by the admin Georgewilliamherbert and respect to George for that, this time Fuchs says he will leave it there. A warning is good for him, I do still feel that he made the comments in public and he should be a man and apologise in public. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

It might help if David choses to apologize, but I have found in years of leaving civility and personal attacks warnings that insisting on people leaving apologies becomes a form of harrassment and abuse itself, and rarely helps calm down a situation and avoid it from happening again. I won't push people to do so, as a result of experience. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you George. It is up to Fuchs how he moves forward with this now. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

You warned Fuchs and Jehochman but you threatened Roux. I'm no great fan of Roux, as I'm sure he'll confirm, but even I can see that you are being very from even-handed in your dealing here. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It was precisely what I expected, actually. Give some milquetoast 'warning' to someone making blatant accusations of some of the worst behaviour--in Wikipedia terms--possible, and threaten the person who took issue with those accusations. The rule is, of course, you can say what you want. Responding to it is not allowed. Oh well. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I supplied diffs on Roux' talk page for the specific edits he's being warned (final warning) for WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. If you would care to provide specific diffs for either of those two which demonstrate worse conduct I will reconsider, but I reviewed both of their contributions prior to their warnings and what I found wasn't as bad (Jehochman) or was as bad (Fuchs) but stopped much more quickly and has been acknowledged by Fuchs already, so it's not likely to continue.

As I said above, repeatedly, to Roux - he was acting in a manner that is almost the textbook definition of drama - taking a legitimate incident where others misbehaved and making it largely all about himself by the end. This is not behaviour we want to tolerate or encourage. Allowing him to run for a while before a final warning, in the interest of letting this be as open and free a discussion of Fuchs' initial actions as possible, led Roux to run off and commit serious abuse. That has to stop.

That an administrator started an incident does not give all anti-administrator critics free reign to launch personal attacks and disrupt in the ensuing discussion. Roux was handed 12 hours of rope and has fashioned himself quite a good noose with it. Stepping off the stool is up to him. I hope he does not. I have admins emailing me saying thanks for warning the other admins for their actions. I would appreciate it if the anti-admin critics would stop and think, reconsider whether Roux' actions today are something you think were defensible, or constructive.

I think I offered to nom you for adminship before, Malleus, and you said no. I would like to repeat the offer again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Very kind, and also very brave, but I would never agree to be an administrator unless wikipedia's system of governance was reformed, and administrators held properly accountable. Neither am I willing to offer myself up again for the ritual humiliation that is RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: I'm not going to "be a man" because of the will of the internets. I will deal with that privately. Asking for an apology onwiki is the equivalent of bringing two quarreling children together and prompting one, "Now what do you say?" There's no genuine sentiment involved, it's meaningless. As stated above I'm not going to refactor comments because that mangles threads and I feel is an ineffective whitewash; I got unreasonably angry, 'nuff said. I'm not trying to hide it. But we should really, really move on beyond the thread, which has turned into far greater drama than my actions have caused (and c'mon, that's just saddening.) There's got to be a better venue for discussing the larger issue of admin behavior than ANI. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't even seem to begin to understand what the problem is here. How many regular editors are indef blocked until they make one of these "meaningless" apologies? How come you're different? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Malleus here, you don't seem to understand David, this is not about the bigger issue of admin behaviour, this is about your behaviour. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Interesting conversation. The problem as I see it is this. Who would want to ban their friends? I'm sure most admins are pretty close and friendly and have been for quite a while. It's only human to go easy on a friend, even if you try not to. It happens in the real world too. We all know it's not fair and shouldn't happen, but it does. I don't think all the talking in the world will change that. It's a problem that won't be solved because, well, as I said, we are all human. Jack forbes (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not "friends" with a single Wikipedia editor, admin or otherwise. Tan | 39 01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Many WP:ARBCOM cases are filed by admins, and many of the cases are filed against admins. We tend not to warn and block each other - but the idea that we let each other get away with abuse is not supported by the history. And in this case, I left early and then later, repeated warnings for the two admins, so the tendency wasn't even true right now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"but the idea that we let each other get away with abuse is not supported by the history" - uh, really? What do you think this thread has been about, then? → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The behavior of David Fuchs, who made 4 personal attacks on SV much earlier and then stopped, and who I issued a warning re personal attacks prior to your commenting a second time on the thread here; and then the behavior of Jehochman, who briefly suspected there were malign conspiracies afoot and then backed off that statement; and then the behavior of you, who are still at it. David got my first warning [178] hours and hours and hours ago, within 15 minutes of my becoming aware of the thread and issue. Before Jehochman moved the thread briefly to WQA. The intervening many hours, and many personal attacks and abusive comments you left, seem to be demanding that I do what I had already done. Your insistence on this point is quite perplexing. I did it again [179] prior to warning you, just to make it clear, but I had done it once already (and David, properly within his talk page management rights, deleted it).

So you tell me, what were the last few hours about? Why did you insert yourself into the middle of it? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, let's try some turnabout. I find it amusing that this is being prosecuted by people who have long block logs for civility issues and both have failed RfAs where those issues were brought up. So is this anything more than "I got burned, I wanna make others pay"? If you, Roux, or you, Malleus, were admins, would you be siding with me? No, you would quickly say. Yet you are essentially saying that all admins are corrupt sycophants, so where does that distinction end? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find disgusting is that you feel safe in your administrator's cloak of invulnerability, still thowing out your unwarranted insults. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Some admins tend to think along the lines of "if a block is unnecessary, then it doesn't belong here". This is not true. There's no doubt that the language used by David Fuchs was neither professional, nor appropriate. (That is, the person who initiated the thread had a legitimate concern, and raised it appropriately.) Although a WQA would've been issued, it's usually more meaningful when it comes from another admin - and there's no necessity to republish it at WQA, or a need to move it back here either. In essence, the edit war between Jechochman and Roux was inappropriate and unnecessary. In this case, GWH did the needful when the move was being disputed.

• The "concern about SlimVirgin" does not seem to be supported by any evidence. Jehochman, you're right that apologies aren't compulsory - but even if you were unwilling to make one (which is up to you), at least you should have revoked or struck those comments. I would not find a problem if someone else did because you didn't. In any case, this "concern" predictably led to an escalation of drama; a lapse in judgement perhaps. However, Roux's conduct in particular was unreasonably inappropriate on more than one occasion during this discussion. A block should've ordinarily been issued; again, GWH was kind enough to stop short of that with a final warning, but the response to that [180] demonstrated little sign of change. Protonk (above) tried to calmly communicate the issue; again, I don't think the attempt was very successful.

• Overall, nearly all of the substantive issues in the thread could've been covered in a more respectful and less confrontational way. Whether admins or established users, the example being set in this discussion was generally appalling. I hope this is more of a one-off. In any case, this thread has outlived any possible usefulness it had - so, it is now closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.